Impact of climate and public health interventions on the COVID-19 pandemic: A prospective cohort study
….Epidemic growth of COVID-19 was not associated with latitude and temperature, but may be associated weakly with relative or absolute humidity.
journal Canadian Med Asso.
turn on that humidifier
The dried virus on smooth surfaces retained its viability for over 5 days at temperatures of 22–25°C and relative humidity of 40–50%, that is, typical air-conditioned environments. However, virus viability was rapidly lost (>3 log10) at higher temperatures and higher relative humidity (e.g., 38°C, and relative humidity of >95%).
The Effects of Temperature and Relative Humidity on the Viability of the SARS Coronavirus
Advances in Virology
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/av/2011/734690/
It may also explain why some Asian countries in tropical area (such as Malaysia, Indonesia or Thailand) with high temperature and high relative humidity environment did not have major community outbreaks of SARS.
Display MoreTHH, I reference an article detailing response to a past pandemic and you conclude that I can't understand differences between pandemics! I am well aware of the differences thank you. There were reasons to be concerned about Hong Kong flu. It hit very fast and hard, faster than Covid-19. For instance from Wiki,
In Berlin, the excessive number of deaths led to corpses being stored in subway tunnels, and in West Germany, garbage collectors had to bury the dead due to insufficient undertakers. In total, East and West Germany registered 60,000 estimated deaths. In some areas of France, half the workforce was bedridden, and manufacturing suffered large disruptions due to absenteeism. The British postal and train services were also severely disrupted.[7]
The outbreak in Hong Kong, where population density was greater than 6,000 people per square kilometre, reached maximum intensity in two weeks; it lasted six months in total from July to December 1968.
In contrast, Covid-19 is a relative slow burn. It takes a long time for people to get sick, and a longer time to die. This means a larger window of opportunity for potential treatment. It should mean less panic. But no. Our treatment protocols - at least in the west - are woefully inadequate, a failure of our technocratic, media proselytized, corporate elite, before which so many fearful souls continue to bow and give offerings in the hopes of a future deliverance from plaque and pestilence.
Roughly 0.9 percent of the population dies every year in the US. Should a civilized, so called enlightened country be shut down and cowering in their houses if that number should increase to, say, 1.1 percent? Ridiculous!
There should be only very restricted, targeted lockdowns - particularly senior care centres - as well as common sense restrictions to reduce the R0 value.
In some circumstances entire city lockdowns are warranted, such as city lockdowns performed hundreds of years ago in response to the plague (which could kill one third of the people it infected). But countrywide or statewide decrees to lockdown in houses for something like covid-19? Again, ridiculous!
Mark,
Maybe we’re not as “enligntened” as you think
Curcumin has known anti viral properties and will be added to Anti Bat. 
Display MoreTHH, I reference an article detailing response to a past pandemic and you conclude that I can't understand differences between pandemics! I am well aware of the differences thank you.
In contrast, Covid-19 is a relative slow burn. It takes a long time for people to get sick, and a longer time to die. This means a larger window of opportunity for potential treatment. It should mean less panic. But no. Our treatment protocols - at least in the west - are woefully inadequate, a failure of our technocratic, media proselytized, corporate elite, before which so many fearful souls continue to bow and give offerings in the hopes of a future deliverance from plaque and pestilence.
Roughly 0.9 percent of the population dies every year in the US. Should a civilized, so called enlightened country be shut down and cowering in their houses if that number should increase to, say, 1.1 percent? Ridiculous!
There should be only very restricted, targeted lockdowns - particularly senior care centres - as well as common sense restrictions to reduce the R0 value.
In some circumstances entire city lockdowns are warranted, such as city lockdowns performed hundreds of years ago in response to the plague (which could kill one third of the people it infected). But countrywide or statewide decrees to lockdown in houses for something like covid-19? Again, ridiculous!
I notice you don't address the vast numerical difference between these two diseases that I highlighted? Maybe I should then just say that you understand but are not taking into account the differences?
I'm not making these ethical judgements myself, because I don't think it is clear. I can see why letting at risk people (mostly but not all older) die at home, along with a few younger people, makes economic sense and from a utilitarian point of view minimises (perhaps) overall suffering and death long-term. Because economic disruption and unemployment cause death too. Locking people down at home causes illness and death.
I also see the difficulties of an ethical and decent democratic country adopting this policy and taking people with them. Sweden manages it, but they are a much less fractured society than the US and have much better social support systems to harness. So their health systems are not overwhelmed. They have more options.
This is a life and death matter whichever way you argue it, and therefore taking on board and answering to the consequences of your ideas is surely needed.
In this case, the consequences are those very high numbers, which you ignore in the post I quite above, even though I highlighted them.
You could argue they are wrong (but do not). You could argue that even though much larger they are Ok (but do not). The telling point here is your highlighting the 0.1% young not at risk mortality, instead of the 2% overall mortality.
Your point about the merits of targeted lockdowns is well taken. But the practicalities here don't work well. In the US 10% of the population seriously distrust the state, will fight to the death to preserve their right not to be locked down, another 10% know that any contact with official systems will lead to deportation because they are illegals. And 20% live in conditions that make tight lockdown impossible. (Maybe those numbers, plucked from a hat, are wrong, but I'm sure you take my point). In addition as other countries have shown locking down care homes properly is very difficult because of asymptomatic transmission and lack of testing. Look at Trump now being tested once per day. Could you do this for all care home staff and visitors?
Ignoring one set of consequences when faced with difficult decisions is not helpful.
Our treatment protocols - at least in the west - are woefully inadequate, a failure of our technocratic, media proselytized, corporate elite
Contentious, and not argued. I'd guess that you are not one of those treating COVID patients? I doubt US doctors in NY would agree with you that there was time to develop better protocols. It may seem clear to you that HCQ, for example, is a better treatment, but it was widely used in NY, probably in most cases non-optimally, and not clearly helpful there. It is arrogance to think that you know better than those making the tough decisions and also reading the vast preprint literature.
As an example of how armchair COVID treatment specialists don't get it right consider Tobacco.
There is much evidence that smokers do less well from COVID. There is one observational study that appears to show smokers doing better, but its comparison methodology is poor and has clear mechanisms that would generate that result due to the way samples are selected.
The statistical data on drug utility is highly uncertain - because without controlled randomised studies you get any number of biasses. With RCTs you need careful methodology, strict adherence to original outcome criteria (to avoid the "fake p value" effect), and a large enough sample size. That takes effort and time.
The "bat-spray" advocated here is inclusive - throw in any drug that might possibly help. 80% of constituents will in reality have no effect. Drug interactions and side effects are likely to cause trouble with so many active constituents, each affecting poorly a small percentage of takers. Overall you have a potion of uncertain effect, which might do more harm than good.
Guess what the ruling Swiss idiots will do next Monday. The vulnerable are allowed to freely move again...
I've heard that schools, shops, restaurants, museums and libraries can reopen in Switzerland tomorrow (Monday). If the vulnerable choose to risk going out to these places, it's their choice, as it should be. Or maybe you are referring to something else.
I've heard that schools, shops, restaurants, museums and libraries can reopen in Switzerland tomorrow (Monday). If the vulnerable choose to risk going out to these places, it's their choice, as it should be. Or maybe you are referring to something else.
Mark, in that case, how do you deal with the pressure on health systems from vulnerable people exercising choice? Just don't treat anyone vulnerable? How do you tell whether they were just unlucky, with leaky lockdown not their fault, or exercising choice to get infected?
Display MoreI notice you don't address the vast numerical difference between these two diseases that I highlighted? Maybe I should then just say that you understand but are not taking into account the differences?
I'm not making these ethical judgements myself, because I don't think it is clear. I can see why letting at risk people (mostly but not all older) die at home, along with a few younger people, makes economic sense and from a utilitarian point of view minimises (perhaps) overall suffering and death long-term. Because economic disruption and unemployment cause death too. Locking people down at home causes illness and death.
I also see the difficulties of an ethical and decent democratic country adopting this policy and taking people with them. Sweden manages it, but they are a much less fractured society than the US and have much better social support systems to harness. So their health systems are not overwhelmed. They have more options.
This is a life and death matter whichever way you argue it, and therefore taking on board and answering to the consequences of your ideas is surely needed.
In this case, the consequences are those very high numbers, which you ignore in the post I quite above, even though I highlighted them.
You could argue they are wrong (but do not). You could argue that even though much larger they are Ok (but do not). The telling point here is your highlighting the 0.1% young not at risk mortality, instead of the 2% overall mortality.
Your point about the merits of targeted lockdowns is well taken. But the practicalities here don't work well. In the US 10% of the population seriously distrust the state, will fight to the death to preserve their right not to be locked down, another 10% know that any contact with official systems will lead to deportation because they are illegals. And 20% live in conditions that make tight lockdown impossible. (Maybe those numbers, plucked from a hat, are wrong, but I'm sure you take my point). In addition as other countries have shown locking down care homes properly is very difficult because of asymptomatic transmission and lack of testing. Look at Trump now being tested once per day. Could you do this for all care home staff and visitors?
Ignoring one set of consequences when faced with difficult decisions is not helpful.
Our treatment protocols - at least in the west - are woefully inadequate, a failure of our technocratic, media proselytized, corporate elite
Contentious, and not argued. I'd guess that you are not one of those treating COVID patients? I doubt US doctors in NY would agree with you that there was time to develop better protocols. It may seem clear to you that HCQ, for example, is a better treatment, but it was widely used in NY, probably in most cases non-optimally, and not clearly helpful there. It is arrogance to think that you know better than those making the tough decisions and also reading the vast preprint literature.
You keep saying you understand that the cure can't be worse than the disease, but then go on to dwell only on the fatality numbers associated with the disease. Personally I think you only give lip service to those who have been, and will be devastated by the shut downs. All you really care about is dramatizing the death toll on one side of the equation. That sounds like politics to me. The same kind of politics being played out on a national level with the media.
If you really cared about all of those suffering through this, you would be a little more balanced in your arguments. Same goes for the media. Very apparent at this point, that with 30 million lost jobs in 2 months, and >100 million people in undeveloped countries slipping into poverty (which to many will be a death sentence), and so little being written about them, this is more about political agendas, than compassion.
Americans have caught onto that IMO, and that is why they are resisting legally with lawsuits, and increasingly taking to the streets.
You could argue they are wrong (but do not). You could argue that even though much larger they are Ok (but do not). The telling point here is your highlighting the 0.1% young not at risk mortality, instead of the 2% overall mortality.
I don't even mention your .1 percent young figure, let alone highlight it.
Your 2 percent overall mortality is just a wild guess and without context about what it means.
I myself guess that the yearly mortality rate in the US will rise from about .9 percent to 1.1 percent, this year and possibly the next.
Hopefully the mortality rise due to things like substance abuse due to stressors arising from lockdown will not contribute a significant addition to this.
It is arrogance to think that you know better than those making the tough decisions and also reading the vast preprint literature.
Dr. Zelenko seems to know better. That more doctors are not following his lead (which is also a more traditional, personal approach) reveals that the practise of medicine has become an institutionalized, top down, do-by-rote, one size fits all affair. Not a fan.
Dr. Zelenko seems to know better. That more doctors are not following his lead (which is also a more traditional, personal approach) reveals that the practise of medicine has become an institutionalized, top down, do-by-rote affair. Not a fan.
Old Dr. Zelenko took a beating from his colleagues, and some town members for his public advocacy of HCQ. Those brave enough to follow his lead after what he went through, probably decided to do so quietly.
Mark, in that case, how do you deal with the pressure on health systems from vulnerable people exercising choice? Just don't treat anyone vulnerable? How do you tell whether they were just unlucky, with leaky lockdown not their fault, or exercising choice to get infected?
Everyone should be treated, no need to find fault. The vulnerable generally don't want to be infected and will take precautions arising from their own common sense. If they have a death wish they likely won't even want to be hospitalized and treated.
If I was old, I would stock up with Dr. Richard's Remedies and go out while avoiding crowded places.
Want to avoid pressure on health systems? Be proactive and follow Dr Zelenko's lead to minimize hospitalization in the first place.
Want to avoid pressure on health systems? Be proactive and follow Dr Zelenko's lead to minimize hospitalization in the first place.
Once more: Most deaths in Switzerland are among people that were sent home with (to) week symptoms and certainly without giving them medicaments. Germany now wants to give them (the sent home...) at least Heparin.
Our western health systems are simply profit driven. There is no room for humanity. You will see kind of it if you get an independent doctor that treats you in the ICU...
I don't even mention your .1 percent young figure, let alone highlight it.
Your 2 percent overall mortality is just a wild guess and without context about what it means.
I myself guess that the yearly mortality rate in the US will rise from about .9 percent to 1.1 percent, this year and possibly the next.
Hopefully the mortality rise due to things like substance abuse due to stressors arising from lockdown will not contribute a significant addition to this.
Dr. Zelenko seems to know better. That more doctors are not following his lead (which is also a more traditional, personal approach) reveals that the practise of medicine has become an institutionalized, top down, do-by-rote, one size fits all affair. Not a fan.
Why does he seem to know better? He has said than from his catchment of very young patients, he has had very low fatalities. Except he did not mention the young age of his patients (that comes from analysis of his catchment area demographics). About what one would expect, no? I can't see what a more traditional personal approach has to developing better COVID treatment, although in many ways, and particularly in diagnosis and increasing patient confidence and wellbeing it has many benefits.
My 2 percent mortality is based on 0.7% infection mortality rate (well attested) with working health systems. To cope with large numbers of patients they would stay at home with no support, I'm multiplying by 3, but happy for you to adjust that - what do you suggest and I'll go along with it.
Your suggestion of 0.2% additional excess mortality is clearly wrong if the epidemic gets to most of the population. But in any case it is not the point: old people die at home and in care homes, well cared for, without stretching resources. Whereas COVID deaths need either to be deliberately left or use a lot more resources. Apples and pears.
You keep saying you understand that the cure can't be worse than the disease, but then go on to dwell only on the fatality numbers associated with the disease. Personally I think you only give lip service to those who have been, and will be devastated by the shut downs. All you really care about is dramatizing the death toll on one side of the equation. That sounds like politics to me. The same kind of politics being played out on a national level with the media.
If you really cared about all of those suffering through this, you would be a little more balanced in your arguments. Same goes for the media. Very apparent at this point, that with 30 million lost jobs in 2 months, and >100 million people in undeveloped countries slipping into poverty (which to many will be a death sentence), and so little being written about them, this is more about political agendas, than compassion.
I don't understand the cure can't be worse than the disease. I'm saying it is a difficult and personal - but also political - choice how you rate the two which needs honesty.
I'm quantifying one side, because we can do that fairly easily.
I'm happy for you similarly to quantify the other side. It is just that I don't know how to do it. Also, it is difficult because in the US you don't normally quantify number of deaths from poverty etc when making political decisions, so why start now?
Perhaps your view is that talking about deaths is unhelpful, and we should (both sides) keep a stiff upper lip, ignore death toll, use other criteria?
THH
Look at rates of recovery rather than daily new deaths to assess if any of the measures of quarantine or fever treatments are working?
Your suggestion of 0.2% additional excess mortality is clearly wrong if the epidemic gets to most of the population.
We can make no exact generalized predications. The overall mortality for e.g. Geneva ( a hot spot) is 0.52% of confirmed cases including anti body tests. But this can be totally different for third world regions inside New York, or other large US or Western cities. It also strongly depends on the population age Pyramid and other risk/benefit factors.
If you go to a hospital you hand over your live to a capitalist organization. They make the most money if they can send you to ICU even more when you will survive it after 30 days.
Doctors that do not give early mediation on COV-19 symptoms are, in my view, potential killers. At least the German ones will start now to help you with cheap medication.
COV-19 is not a medical problem. It's a problem of how today's medicine is organized.
Everyone should be treated, no need to find fault. The vulnerable generally don't want to be infected and will take precautions arising from their own common sense. If they have a death wish they likely won't even want to be hospitalized and treated.
If I was old, I would stock up with Dr. Richard's Remedies and go out while avoiding crowded places.
Want to avoid pressure on health systems? Be proactive and follow Dr Zelenko's lead to minimize hospitalization in the first place.
Zelenko: we must agree to disagree about whether his treatment does better than no treatment. It may do, but his evidence does not support anything.
Many of the vulnerable can't take precautions. In a care home, you rely on rigorous testing and precautions from all carers. In dense substandard housing you can't isolate from others, so unless they take precautions you are not safe.
Hospitalised and treated: many will not want that because they worry it will bankrupt them, and would gamble on getting through on their own. That makes a "let them stay at home and die" policy more sustainable in the US. Some of those who can't pay will risk death quietly at home.
Anyway taking precautions presumably happens anyway - and has not stopped epidemic and death spikes, so it seems it is not enough?
What you are advocating seems to be working with high but not impossibly high relative death rates in Sweden. But, they have a much better resourced and functioning social system, better housing standards, a more educated population, without a large impoverished and disadvantaged underclass.
You miss the point again 97% of all death are older than 65.
No, they are not. Don't you tire of being wrong? You do an amazing job at it. Do you ever look anything up before writing?
Old Dr. Zelenko took a beating from his colleagues, and some town members for his public advocacy of HCQ. Those brave enough to follow his lead after what he went through, probably decided to do so quietly.
Zelenko screwed the pooch. He gave HCQ to people who were most likely going to improve anyway. He used no randomization, no matching, and most egregiously, no placebo controls or multiarmed studies. His report is worth essentially nothing and maybe worse than that because it can mislead those who don't really understand how easily such studies can be entirely wrong in their conclusions because the methodology sucks.
Dr. Zelenko seems to know better. That more doctors are not following his lead (which is also a more traditional, personal approach) reveals that the practise of medicine has become an institutionalized, top down, do-by-rote, one size fits all affair. Not a fan.
Complete bullshit. If Zelenko had bothered to provide a worthwhile, well done study on the appropriate group of patients, he would not have been criticized. His report is a hallmark example of junk science and says nothing, either way, about the efficacy of HCQ.
