New coronavirus in/from China

[UndercoverElephant]

If we let the virus out into the less "at risk of imminent death" population we are taking a huge risk by assuming that we know the longer term affects of it.

We don't. We don't know if immunity exists, whether it can lie dormant and re-emerge in an infected person, whether is causes birth defects, etc.

Big gamble imho.

I agree with this. On balance, letting the virus out is probably a good strategy. The problem is that it might not be, and there's a significant chance it could turn out to be catastrophic. There's far too many unknowns. Certainly there is a significant risk of long-term damage to lungs or other organs, and who knows what else.

[Vortex2]

"How does coronavirus kill? "

"Clinicians trace a ferocious rampage through the body, from brain to toes"

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/04 ... brain-toes

[Vortex2]

Brief but good overview of testing sensitivity & specificity

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ful ... 06.00180.x

[Mark]

All of which would lead to the majority of the population achieving immunity in around two months and, in doing so provide herd immunity protection for those who were locked down - thus allowing them to come back out into the world.

OK LJ, and in defence of Vortex....

How do you know this for sure ?
Where is the evidence/source to back up your claim ?

[vtsnowedin]

I agree with this. On balance, letting the virus out is probably a good strategy. The problem is that it might not be, and there's a significant chance it could turn out to be catastrophic. There's far too many unknowns. Certainly there is a significant risk of long-term damage to lungs or other organs, and who knows what else.

UC I think you need to define what you consider to be a "Catastrophic" outcome. 100,000 deaths or 200,000 or six million?
And will long term lockdowns reduce the number eventually infected or the amount of long term lung damage and other debilitating after effects?
Are you expecting an effective anti viral drug to come online if you can just hold off getting infected long enough? There was a bit of good news along that line the other day but nothing further as of yet.

[UndercoverElephant]

From:

"How does coronavirus kill? "

"Clinicians trace a ferocious rampage through the body, from brain to toes"

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/04 ... brain-toes

Despite the more than 1000 papers now spilling into journals and onto preprint servers every week, a clear picture is elusive, as the virus acts like no pathogen humanity has ever seen.

We should expect the unexpected from this virus. I think not enough attention has been paid to the fact that this virus has very literally got a new way of breaking into human cells. It possesses a completely new gene, which creates a completely new protein, and the shape of that new protein is a new "key" to the lock of the ACE2 receptor on human lung, kidney, heart and gut cells. While this is the same receptor that many other viruses use to get into human cells, the new key is far more efficient. (In the biological lingo, it has a "new solution" to the problem of how to turn a chain of RNA into a protein that actually does something).

That is very likely to be what makes it more infectious than SARS or MERS, the reason it can so effectively attack different parts of the body, and the reason it is behaving like no other pathogen.

[Little John]

All of which would lead to the majority of the population achieving immunity in around two months and, in doing so provide herd immunity protection for those who were locked down - thus allowing them to come back out into the world.

OK LJ, and in defence of Vortex....

How do you know this for sure ?
Where is the evidence/source to back up your claim ?

I don't and neither does anyone else. But, knowledge of past epidemics and of the epidemiology of this kind of influenza virus informs us that is likely the case. That is to say, that herd immunity will be achieved. As to whether that herd immunity will be long lasting - again, no one knows for sure. But, then, that is the case lock-down or not.The only difference being one strategy leaves the economy a smouldering ruin and the other does not.

[UndercoverElephant]

I agree with this. On balance, letting the virus out is probably a good strategy. The problem is that it might not be, and there's a significant chance it could turn out to be catastrophic. There's far too many unknowns. Certainly there is a significant risk of long-term damage to lungs or other organs, and who knows what else.

UC I think you need to define what you consider to be a "Catastrophic" outcome. 100,000 deaths or 200,000 or six million?

I wasn't talking about numbers of deaths directly. I was thinking more about long-term health problems. Making people more likely to die of something else, and reducing life expectancy.

And will long term lockdowns reduce the number eventually infected or the amount of long term lung damage and other debilitating after effects?
Are you expecting an effective anti viral drug to come online if you can just hold off getting infected long enough? There was a bit of good news along that line the other day but nothing further as of yet.

I am not expecting anything. I don't know what to expect. I have no idea whether there will ever be an effective treatment or vaccine. Nobody knows. That's the problem.

[Catweazle]

I am not expecting anything. I don't know what to expect. I have no idea whether there will ever be an effective treatment or vaccine. Nobody knows. That's the problem.

Precisely. It seems prudent to me to let the experts have a bit more time to work out what it actually does before spreading it more widely than it already is.

[Vortex2]

Just found a disturbing reddit sub, nominally intended to support people in the face of COVID-19

This pandemic, lockdown and economic effects are worrying a heck of a lot of people.

I saw a comment by Chinese medic suggesting that we should be prepared for PTSD cases after all this. I now realise why he said that.

https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19_support/

[fuzzy]

One problem of a virus that kills mainly the eldest is that is no way for evolution to eliminate it.

[Little John]

I am not expecting anything. I don't know what to expect. I have no idea whether there will ever be an effective treatment or vaccine. Nobody knows. That's the problem.

Precisely. It seems prudent to me to let the experts have a bit more time to work out what it actually does before spreading it more widely than it already is.

Do you think you can basically survive anything that might happen to the economy? Genuine question.

[vtsnowedin]

I am not expecting anything. I don't know what to expect. I have no idea whether there will ever be an effective treatment or vaccine. Nobody knows. That's the problem.

So you are willing to take the very well known consequences to the economy which are indeed catastrophic for fear ,and it is nothing but fear, that the pandemic will be worse if we don't take measures to trash the economy?

[Vortex2]

One problem of a virus that kills mainly the eldest is that is no way for evolution to eliminate it.

Once its endemic and everyone gets it in their teens and maybe a couple of times more later in life, people will build up some immunity and become old!

[vtsnowedin]

One problem of a virus that kills mainly the eldest is that is no way for evolution to eliminate it.

Once its endemic and everyone gets it in their teens and maybe a couple of times more later in life, people will build up some immunity and become old!

There would also be no reason or need for evolution to eliminate it.