Loud speaking, singing and shouting are also by nature spreading causes..no surprise by the spread in America .Very interesting articles on choir spreading based on voice type etc as linked by $20shoesTaken from the latest MIT newsletter
Why are some people with covid-19 are “superspreaders,” while others aren’t infectious at all.
The scale on which covid-19 patients have an ability to spread the disease is about as wide as it gets. Some single individuals who are infected seem to have a superhuman ability to spread the disease, and are responsible alone for big outbreaks in some communities. Others, meanwhile, barely present as infectious. Here’s what we know so far about why some people are more infectious than others.
- What is a superspreading event: There are only loose definitions for what qualifies as a superspreading event, but one paper from 2005 basically says a superspreading event is essentially a 1 in 100 sort of event—more infections result from this event than in 99% of all other situations that result in the spread of the virus.
- How are superspreading events caused: A myriad of factors can exacerbate transmission, including the lack of ventilation and people in close proximity. But one of the biggest factors has to do with the infected individuals themselves, and how much of the virus they are shedding, which can vary wildly even in the presence or absence of symptoms. Shedding is the release of newly replicated virus particles from the body, which for covid-19 is usually through coughing and sneezing.
- Can we find pinpoint who sheds the virus worse than others: Unfortunately no, we currently cannot anticipate who might be a superspreader and who won’t be. Pathogen scientist Jamie Lloyd-Smith of the University of California, Los Angeles tells Science that from what we’ve learned about covid-19 so far, “most people do not transmit [the virus].” A preprint study suggests that about 10% of infections are the cause for 80% of new cases. And while we’ve identified the superspreading individuals at the root of some outbreaks (such as a choir practice in Washington State that led to 53 infections), most transmissions don’t have a clear origin.
Easy travel north..ohh sorry our premier premier does not want you....:-(
Ken Frazier, CEO of pharmaceutical giant Merck, was interviewed recently by Professor Tsedal Neeley from Harvard Business School.“I think when people tell the public that there's going to be a vaccine by the end of 2020, they do a grave disservice to the public ... Let me just give you one data point. In the last quarter century, there have only been seven, truly new vaccines introduced globally at the clinical practice. Merck has four, the rest of the world has three.”
- Ken Frazier, CEO of Merck
Great report and summary.Ken Frazier, CEO of pharmaceutical giant Merck, was interviewed recently by Professor Tsedal Neeley from Harvard Business School.
Here is a summary of his interview with the following bullet points.
https://www.firstlinks.com.au/hard-dose-reality-check-vaccines
- Developing a vaccine takes time, a lot of time. The fastest vaccine ever brought to market was for the epidemic parotitis (‘mumps’). It took Merck four years to produce this vaccine.
- The most recent vaccine created for a large viral outbreak was for the Ebola virus, which took 5.5 years.
- In the past 25 years there have been only seven truly new vaccines introduced globally. By new, that means that they were effective against a pathogen for which there had previously been no vaccine. Merck has developed four of those seven and the rest of the world three. There has been an enormous amount of work done in the field of prevention. Despite all this work, the world has been trying to develop a vaccine for AIDS since the early 1980s, and so far, without success.
- Developing a vaccine requires vigorous scientific assessment. Vaccines must be safe, effective, and durable. No one knows if any of the 160 programmes will produce a vaccine that is effective. This vaccine must work on billions of people.
- Lots of vaccines in the past have stimulated the immune system (just like the Moderna trial vaccine) but ultimately did not confer protection.
- When politicians suggest there will be a vaccine available by the end of 2020, they are doing the public a “grave disservice”.
- We do not want to rush the vaccine before rigorous science is done. We do not have a good history of introducing a vaccine in the middle of a pandemic. The swine flu vaccine did more harm than good.
- While we are working hard on a vaccine, the best preventative measures to limit the spread and infection of COVID-19 are good hygiene, wearing a mask and social distancing.
- The bigger challenge to developing a vaccine is distributing it to where it is needed most. In a time of ultra-nationalism, countries want to take whatever is available and use it in their own population first rather than offering it to populations globally at greatest risk.
- Developing a vaccine for 7 billion people has never been done before. Delivering it to 7 billion people is an enormous logistical challenge, especially to those communities who cannot afford it.
- This is a global pandemic. Unless all of us are safe then none of us is safe.
- The mobility of the world’s society poses a real problem. The EU has barred Americans travelling to Europe for a reason. Americans are not doing the things required to suppress the epidemic. Americans value liberty. It has been a strong theme through US politics for 200 years, largely because the US has two big oceans protecting it. This virus does not care about liberties. If people exercise liberty at the personal expense of others, then we cannot control this pandemic.
- America is 4% of the world’s population and 25% of the world’s infections. That’s scary.
- We need politicians with enough integrity to tell the truth. This time next year we will still be experiencing what we are experiencing now. Be prepared for that.
More bad news unfortunately.
From the University of NSW Kirby Institute Study findings:
- on average catching Covid 19 will wipe 15 years off your life.
What a load of crap. Even the people who actually die have an average age of barely below the average life expectancy.
The vast majority of people who get it experience zero to mild symptoms and won't have more than a negligible reduction in life expectancy (very much comparable to catching a cold or flu). Very few people are experiencing noteworthy permanent damage, and even if they all dropped dead immediately it wouldn't be quick enough to give an average 15 year reduction across the board.
That figure is absurd scaremongering. Yet another blatant example that politics is guiding the science instead of science guiding anything.
I didn't summarise it properly. On average, of those who die, will shorten their life expectancy by 15 years.
I do think the sample is a bit small. Hopefully not as bad as that.
That bit that worries me even more is that 20% experience long term effects. 20%!
Okay, now you're literally one about a thousandth as wrong, but still very wrong.
As I said, the average age of deaths is barely below the average life expectancies of the countries they occur in (both in the early 80s for Australia for example). It might be a couple of years, but it's not 15. And yeah, there's a very big difference between what's experienced *by the people who die* and *all people infected, the vast majority of whom recover*.
If you don't quantify this, it is meaningless. Exactly what qualifies as a 'long term effect'? An unqualified value is only used when someone is being lazy, doesn't know what they're doing, or is trying to misrepresent the picture.
We have had one die in their 50s today.
Probably worth a read of the article and what the University of NSW has said. Reading a reporters version misses a lot of detail.
To state EVERYONE will need to be vaccinated, tells us that this is a lot more serious, than is being let on IMO.
Mask up and go back to work and bear the consequences, we have no other option
As a general rule I'm not even slightly into conspiracy theories.
In this case however, the notion that the public are not being told the full story about the virus seems very plausible when considering the response and that it's widespread among otherwise very different nations.
The other option would be simply blocking all movement, no exceptions, in and out of the two big cities until things are sorted there.
The other 60% of the Australian population can then resume life as normal and after a few months those in the closed off area will be fed up with it to the point they'll do whatever it takes to bring it to an end. That's when we do a proper lockdown in Sydney and Melbourne and eradicate it
That doesn't sort out the international situation but it sorts out the domestic one if it could be done.
That's only one person!!!
That's like saying that since a 5 year old died of a vaccine somewhere in the world, vaccines remove 75 years of life.
Yes Bas, there is a lot for them to work out with the virus, I guess eventually it will be sorted.That takes some picking apart Smurf.
So firstly this COVID is just 6 months old. There is no way anyone has an understanding of the full range of its possible effects. Clearly the various medical authorities are gathering more and more information across millions of affected people and attempting to identify the range of severities, short term effects. longer term effects, effects on people with other illnesses, and so forth.
I have no problem with scientists saying they are still learning. I'm concerned with research that is showing up longer term lingering effects as well as impacts on children.
As far as deliberately keeping people in the dark? It's hard enough for medical people to get a handle on what is happening. I wouldn't expect there to be unanimous agreement given different experiences, different testing , lots of egos and political expectations on top of everything.
And then we have the keyboard experts who make supremely confidently assertions.Nah.
That takes some picking apart Smurf.
So firstly this COVID is just 6 months old. There is no way anyone has an understanding of the full range of its possible effects.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?