SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Clinical trials of remdesivir, an experimental drug to treat COVID-19, have begun at the University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC) in Omaha. More detail is provided in an article posted by the National Institutes of Health. The initial trial will involve 400 patients and will be conducted internationally but is beginning in Nebraska. There are currently 15 patients being monitored at UNMC, 13 of whom have tested positive for COVID-19. According to the daily update from UNMC, all of the 15 patients are now in the National Quarantine Unit, which has 20 beds. Previously, some of the patients had been in the Nebraska Biocontainment Unit, which is the largest facility of its kind in the country and had previously been used to treat ebola patients.
Note: The February 25 edition of the daily update mentioned the clinical trial, so there's a good possibility that additional updates will be posted in UNMC's daily update. The additional discussion may help explain why the trial is beginning in Nebraska even though there haven't been any cases that reported there -- all of the COVID-19 patients at UNMC were either sent there originally or were previously quarantined at Camp Ashland or were transported there from elsewhere.
Australia has activated its emergency response plan for global pandemics as the coronavirus spreads rapidly outside of China. The plan to deal with a large scale coronovirus outbreak is named "The COVID-19 plan". The plan notes that there are three levels of outbreak to consider, with a "high" outbreak being comparable to the extreme 1918 "Spanish flu" which infected one third of Australians and killed between 50 to 100 million people globally.
As the potential for the coronavirus to break out into a pandemic increases, people are flocking to stores for hand sanitizer with shelves in Australia and other countries out of stock of the items.
If you fail to plan, you plan to fail.
Original Submission #1 Original Submission #2 Original Submission #3
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday February 27 2020, @04:10PM (48 children)
Why the interest or concern about the Coronavirus? Hasn't the administration made it clear that the health of the stock market is more important than the health of citizens? And that the fake news is playing up the Coronavirus panic? And Coronavirus isn't really a concern, that we have maybe like really only ten actual cases. Finally, corporations (which are people too!) don't get the Coronavirus.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Thursday February 27 2020, @04:26PM (5 children)
Coronavirus made number go down, though.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 27 2020, @06:57PM (4 children)
US would activate out own response plan for global pandemics except for the fact that Trump fired all the people responsible for it.
Did Trump Fire the US Pandemic Response Team? Yep, he sure did! [snopes.com]
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Thursday February 27 2020, @07:20PM (3 children)
Not to worry, our military budget is bigger than ever, we'll just white phosphorus the sick
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday February 27 2020, @09:28PM (2 children)
President Xi, is that you?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2020, @09:40PM (1 child)
Netanyahu; it's the Israelis white-phosphoring the natives.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 28 2020, @03:04AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ayman2.jpg [wikipedia.org]
Careful, image is shocking and could make you think "anti-semitic" thoughts.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by slinches on Thursday February 27 2020, @04:40PM (24 children)
Would you rather the President came out in a full hazmat suit and told everyone to go full doomsday prep and lock themselves inside because their neighbors are a potential threat of infection?
While Coronavirus is a serious issue, the level of panic that has been spreading throughout the world and being fanned by media reports isn't warranted (or helpful, even if it was). The bigger risk right now is panicked overreactions like hoarding of resources, closure of public services and fear of anyone who appears sick. The way I see it, the leader of our country downplaying the severity somewhat while recognizing that there is a concern, requesting additional funding and appointing the VP to execute emergency planning are all the right thing to do to minimize the negative outcomes overall.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2020, @04:42PM
No, I want more time to grab supplies before everyone else does.
(Score: 5, Funny) by DannyB on Thursday February 27 2020, @04:56PM (3 children)
We can just build a wall to keep Coronavirus out. Call it a national emergency. Steal funds from children's school lunch programs to pay for it.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by slinches on Thursday February 27 2020, @05:12PM
Good point, Trump is really blowing it passing up on this opportunity to push his agenda. As Obama's Chief of Staff said "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2020, @08:26PM
Build the wall. Keep the Corona virus out of our domestic beer.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday February 27 2020, @09:32PM
Way ahead of you, man. He got that shit built, like, 5000 years ago. Even called it the "Great Wall of China" to fool those guys into paying for it.
Obama was a 3-dimensional chess player, Trump's a 4-dimensional chess player.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 4, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 27 2020, @06:55PM
You mean how he reacted to Ebola when Obama was President?
Yes, I'd prefer he NOT give us a sequel.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday February 27 2020, @07:14PM (11 children)
Our biggest risks right now comes from a for profit medical system that will make testing and treatment largely unaffordable to most people. There seems to be no attempt to make any of it freely available in the US.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 27 2020, @07:33PM (10 children)
Bernie Sanders IS the attempt.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by fustakrakich on Thursday February 27 2020, @07:43PM (9 children)
"Nobody likes him"!
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 27 2020, @07:54PM
MSNBC Poll Finds Support For Bernie Sanders Has Plummeted 2 Points Up [theonion.com]
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2020, @08:43PM (7 children)
You are really outing yourself as a shill or an incel sitting in an Alabama basement. You have to actively ignore the news to think Sanders isn't popular. He is the most popular candidate around by far, and that is pretty easy to tell even with the MSM's attempts to hide the fact.
So, are you a shill or just ignorant? Because an honest person would acknowledge reality and say they support Trump or Bloomberg because they reflect the grubby little light of greed that warms their heart.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday February 27 2020, @09:02PM
:-) Self-righteous indignation noted, mr. funnyman
Please, do try to keep up... [google.com]
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday February 27 2020, @09:38PM (4 children)
It is true Sanders is popular with Sanders supporters. The other half of the Democratic party fears and despises him/them. He fares less well with Independents and Republicans.
I like Bernie, but if he becomes the nominee Trump is going to slaughter him.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2020, @09:44PM
Like last time, when they picked Hillary so she could slaughter Trump?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday February 27 2020, @09:45PM (2 children)
if he becomes the nominee Trump is going to slaughter him.
Or maybe the non voters will step in. We'll see if they feel differently about him than the rest. I hope they remember to help elect a congress to back him up, or it's a wasted effort if they want to undo the last 50 years.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday February 27 2020, @10:16PM (1 child)
Baby Boomers are not going to vote for a candidate that praises Cuba and the Soviet Union. Millennials would, but so far the youth turnout is lower than 2016.
Also, Bernie is old and has already suffered a heart attack on the campaign trail. If he got the nomination and did something monumentally stupid like choosing Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as a running mate he'd be more than slaughtered. Those things always matter a lot to some voters.
You are also right on about his needing a Congress to back him up. He would certainly not have that, because every Republican and half the Democratic members would absolutely blockade anything and everything he'd want to do. He'd be a lame duck from Day 1.
I would like real national healthcare and a green new deal, but we'll never get it with Bernie. I honestly think we'll get to a carbon neutral civilization faster and more effectively with guys like Elon Musk doing it as a profit-making activity than we will through Bernie's socialist approach.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 28 2020, @07:20AM
I'm GenX. I don't care about the Democrat Party's direction, nor whether Sanders finds favor with some things in Cuba or the Soviet Union.
If I get to vote for common people politics under Sanders, I will vote for him. Otherwise I'll vote for Trump.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 28 2020, @07:22PM
Alabama doesn't have basements. They have root cellars. The incels are living in the root cellars with all the other fruits and nuts.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 28 2020, @01:30AM (1 child)
1) Trump was pretty incoherent during his briefing. He wasn't just stumbling over big scientific words. He was stumbling over reading basic policy details from the teleprompter. That suggests a degree of unfamiliarity with what he's discussing and raises questions about how carefully he's considered what the response should be.
2) Trump's wishy-washy comments about funding about whether Congress should approve 2.5 or 8.5 billion dollars is a problem. There hasn't been adequate consideration given to the appropriate federal response and the necessary funding to implement it. The implementation of many of the containment and mitigation strategies will need to happen at the state and local levels. They don't have enough money to carry out those measures on their own so federal assistance will be needed. Even Richard Shelby, who is loyal to Trump, has been harshly critical of the administration.
3) Trump's messaging is quite a bit different from what top scientists are saying. It's a big problem when Trump gives a speech about this and contradicts the experts. He needs to be reinforcing what the experts are saying, not contradicting them.
4) Pence is the wrong person to lead the coronavirus response. His failures in responding to HIV in Indiana should disqualify him. he put his personal philosophy and beliefs ahead of the guidance from experts. Pence got it wrong then. Trump praised how Pence handled the situation in Indiana, which is disingenuous. Pence cannot be trusted to make good decisions about responding to the virus. Trump should have delegated the responsibility to someone who has a background in science and has experience with the federal bureaucracy.
5) Why does the response team include Steve Mnuchin and Larry Kudlow? I question whether Mnuchin should be involved, but Kudlow should be disqualified just like Pence. Kudlow directly contracted statements coming from the CDC, almost certainly to influence the stock market at the expense of providing accurate and consistent information to the people. The presence of Mnuchin and Kudlow on the task force suggests that Trump is still more concerned about the economy than the actual impacts of the virus.
6) Trump should have immediately amended his budget request to Congress to remove the requested budget cuts to CDC. It is unthinkable that Trump is proposing to cut funding to CDC, including their infectious disease containment and mitigation programs, while in the midst of the coronavirus crisis. That's unacceptable.
7) Not directly related to the briefing, but it's very concerning that Pence wants to approve the messaging from any federal officials about the virus. I absolutely understand the need to ensure consistent messaging but there are ample reasons to distrust Pence. The administration has a history of contradicting scientists and demanding to control statements about other crises like Hurricane Dorian. The requirement that officials, apparently including those at CDC and NIH, get Pence's approval is extremely concerning because of the potential to order the scientists to provide inaccurate information, especially when there is a significant chance of it affecting the stock market.
8) Trump didn't outline an actual plan for responding to the coronavirus. He spent most of the time downplaying the threat, patting himself on the back, and saying "I told you so" about the travel restrictions. He was happy to list off a ranking of the most prepared countries for a pandemic. But there was little information about future plans when the virus starts spreading more in the US. This goes back to to the disorganization, mixed messaging, and general appearance that the administration is unprepared.
Trump needed to reassure people that they should trust the guidance of CDC and NIH. The experts have said it's a matter of time before there is community spreading of the virus. Trump should have affirmed this rather than casting uncertainty on the analysis from top scientists. Trump needed to make it clear that the administration wasn't going to lowball the request for funding. He needed to make it clear that there are well-defined plans in place for when the virus starts spreading more widely in the US. The briefing wasn't reassuring at all. In fact, it reinforced the idea that the administration really doesn't have a plan in place and hasn't given sufficient consideration to various levels of response depending on how the disease spreads in the US. Yes, Trump needs to reassure people about the situation. You do that by coherently providing the facts and making it clear that the administration is well-prepared for the range of situations that may arise.
(Score: 2) by Coward, Anonymous on Friday February 28 2020, @03:52PM
The US has not been testing for community spread [statnews.com], so it's wrong to say that it's not occurring. The diagnostic data to make an appropriate public health response (e.g. close schools, ban large meetings) do not exist in the US. The US should not be a straggler country when it comes to testing.
(Score: 3, Touché) by ilPapa on Friday February 28 2020, @03:39AM (3 children)
No, I would rather the President found someone infected with a bad case of the coronavirus and french-kissed them.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 28 2020, @07:31PM (2 children)
Trump is a germaphobe so I imagine the coronavirus is driving him crazyier.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 28 2020, @07:51PM (1 child)
Hope someone is coughing during a cabinet meeting.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 28 2020, @08:11PM
And coughing during his rallies.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2020, @04:43PM (12 children)
"It's just a flu, bro." -- Drumpf
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday February 27 2020, @06:11PM (11 children)
My national leaders tell me that the flu is far worse than Coronavirus. So why are we even talking about Coronavirus?
All those other stupid countries keep talking about coronavirus. Germany warns it is at the beginning of a coronavirus epidemic. Japan closing all schools nationally over it. Did Japan ever close all its schools over "the
flewflue bro"?The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2020, @07:16PM (2 children)
Because the media want to pump up the common cold to the bubonic plague for advertising eyeballs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2020, @07:18PM
ok coofer
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2020, @10:54PM
That, and it's the next attempt to torpedo the Trump economy in order to get Warren elected in November.
(Score: 3, Troll) by EETech1 on Friday February 28 2020, @01:06AM (7 children)
30,000,000 got the flu so far this year, and 30,000 died or 0.1 percent.
So far 7 percent of the people who have gotten COVID-19 have died.
So for the same 30,000,000 infected, you'll see over 2,000,000 deaths instead of 30,000!
It's currently 70 times more lethal!
Not to mention it takes up to two weeks to show symptoms, and it can last 10 days on a doorknob.
(Score: 2) by quietus on Friday February 28 2020, @08:24AM (6 children)
No. Your figures are completely bogus -- where did you get them?
For Europe, 40,000 people die every year from the flu. The fatality rate for corona according to WHO estimate lies around 2%. It varies between regions, in the range of 0.1% and 4%.
John Hopkins Institute offers a reliable monitor of the situation. The Lancet has a special section dedicated to all the known medical info about covid-19, and then ofcourse there's the WHO itself.
(Score: 2) by EETech1 on Friday February 28 2020, @08:46AM (2 children)
From:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-cases/#case-dayly-outchina [worldometers.info]
Currently Infected
44,211
Mild Condition
36,120
(82%)
Serious or Critical
8,091
(18%)
Cases with Outcome
39,495
Recovered/Discharged
36,636
(93%)
Deaths
2,859
(7%)
From:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-rate/ [worldometers.info]
How to calculate the mortality rate during an outbreak
The case fatality rate (CFR) represents the proportion of cases who eventually die from a disease.
Once an epidemic has ended, it is calculated with the formula: deaths / cases.
But while an epidemic is still ongoing, as it is the case with the current novel coronavirus outbreak, this formula is, at the very least, "naïve" and can be "misleading if, at the time of analysis, the outcome is unknown for a non negligible proportion of patients." [8]
(Methods for Estimating the Case Fatality Ratio for a Novel, Emerging Infectious Disease - Ghani et al, American Journal of Epidemiology).
In other words, current deaths belong to a total case figure of the past, not to the current case figure in which the outcome (recovery or death) of a proportion (the most recent cases) hasn't yet been determined.
The correct formula, therefore, would appear to be:
CFR = deaths at day.x / cases at day.x-{T}
(where T = average time period from case confirmation to death)
This would constitute a fair attempt to use values for cases and deaths belonging to the same group of patients.
One issue can be that of determining whether there is enough data to estimate T with any precision, but it is certainly not T = 0 (what is implicitly used when applying the formula current deaths / current cases to determine CFR during an ongoing outbreak).
Let's take, for example, the data at the end of February 8, 2020: 813 deaths (cumulative total) and 37,552 cases (cumulative total) worldwide.
If we use the formula (deaths / cases) we get:
813 / 37,552 = 2.2% CFR (flawed formula).
With a conservative estimate of T = 7 days as the average period from case confirmation to death, we would correct the above formula by using February 1 cumulative cases, which were 14,381, in the denominator:
Feb. 8 deaths / Feb. 1 cases = 813 / 14,381 = 5.7% CFR (correct formula, and estimating T=7).
T could be estimated by simply looking at the value of (current total deaths + current total recovered) and pair it with a case total in the past that has the same value. For the above formula, the matching dates would be January 26/27, providing an estimate for T of 12 to 13 days. This method of estimating T uses the same logic of the following method, and therefore will yield the same result.
An alternative method, which has the advantage of not having to estimate a variable, and that is mentioned in the American Journal of Epidemiology study cited previously as a simple method that nevertheless could work reasonably well if the hazards of death and recovery at any time t measured from admission to the hospital, conditional on an event occurring at time t, are proportional, would be to use the formula:
CFR = deaths / (deaths + recovered)
which, with the latest data available, would be equal to:
2,859 / (2,859 + 36,636) = 7% CFR (worldwide)
If we now exclude cases in mainland China, using current data on deaths and recovered cases, we get:
71 / (71 + 397) = 15.2% CFR (outside of mainland China)
The sample size above is extremely limited, but this discrepancy in mortality rates, if confirmed as the sample grows in size, could be explained with a higher case detection rate outside of China especially with respect to Wuhan, where priority had to be initially placed on severe and critical cases, given the ongoing emergency.
Unreported cases would have the effect of decreasing the denominator and inflating the CFR above its real value. For example, assuming 10,000 total unreported cases in Wuhan and adding them back to the formula, we would get a CFR of 5.8% (quite different from the CFR of 7% based strictly on confirmed cases).
.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by quietus on Friday February 28 2020, @09:30AM
No. CFR is number of deaths out of total number of infections, not out of number of recoveries. Total number of infections equals total number of recoveries (i.e. not infected anymore) + current number of infections. End result: about 2%.
Finally: why would worldometer be any more reliable than The Lancet, or John Hopkins, the Mayo Clinic, WHO, Nature or any other medical/ scientific publication/organisation?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday February 28 2020, @02:50PM
Careful, comrade!
The Ministry of Truth will not like this.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by EETech1 on Friday February 28 2020, @08:56AM (1 child)
For the flu:
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html [cdc.gov]
CDC estimates that the burden of illness during the 2018–2019 season included an estimated 35.5 million people getting sick with influenza, 16.5 million people going to a health care provider for their illness, 490,600 hospitalizations, and 34,200 deaths from influenza
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 28 2020, @07:47PM
Mortality seems to be in the range of the 1918-1919 Spanish Influenza pandemic.
(Score: 2) by EETech1 on Friday February 28 2020, @09:03AM
How long it can survive on a surface:
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/coronaviruses-how-long-can-they-survive-on-surfaces#How-long-do-coronaviruses-persist? [medicalnewstoday.com]
How long do coronaviruses persist?
The first section of the new paper focuses on how long coronaviruses can survive on inanimate surfaces, such as tables and door handles. The authors show that, depending on the material and the conditions, human coronaviruses can remain infectious from 2 hours to 9 days.
At temperatures of around 4°C or 39.2oF, certain versions of the coronavirus could remain viable for up to 28 days. At temperatures of 30–40°C (86–104°F), coronaviruses tended to persist for a shorter time.
At room temperature, a coronavirus responsible for the common cold (HCoV-229E) persisted significantly longer in 50% humidity than 30% humidity. Overall, the authors conclude:
“Human coronaviruses can remain infectious on inanimate surfaces at room temperature for up to 9 days. At a temperature of 30°C [86°F] or more, the duration of persistence is shorter. Veterinary coronaviruses have been shown to persist even longer for 28 d[ays].
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday February 27 2020, @04:44PM (1 child)
Yeah, but their upper managements and boards of directors do. That's why they're all freaked out: If a few million ordinary workers die or something, no big deal, but viruses don't care about money or social status.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday February 27 2020, @04:55PM
But some viruses are about morality. And about some people being lower or more dirty than everyone else.
Until, the mayor's daughter gets diagnosed and it must be quietly hushed up.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by cykros on Thursday February 27 2020, @06:06PM (1 child)
A Covid19 treatment is likely to land some very hefty revenue streams for the drug manufacturer that gets it through. Revenues sometimes lead to earnings, and once in awhile, the stock market cares about those (sometimes, just the revenue alone is enough, though after the WeWork fiasco, folks are really starting to want companies to, you know, actually make money once in awhile).
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday February 27 2020, @06:14PM
If only the companies could make money.
And pay their taxes.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.