SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
A high-salt diet is not only bad for one's blood pressure, but also for the immune system. This is the conclusion of a current study under the leadership of the University Hospital Bonn. Mice fed a high-salt diet were found to suffer from much more severe bacterial infections. Human volunteers who consumed an additional six grams of salt per day also showed pronounced immune deficiencies. This amount corresponds to the salt content of two fast food meals. The results are published in the journal "Science Translational Medicine".
Five grams a day, no more: This is the maximum amount of salt that adults should consume according to the recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO). It corresponds approximately to one level teaspoon.
In reality, however, many Germans exceed this limit considerably: Figures from the Robert Koch Institute suggest that on average men consume ten, women more than eight grams a day.
This means that we reach for the salt shaker much more than is good for us. After all, sodium chloride, which is its chemical name, raises blood pressure and thereby increases the risk of heart attack or stroke.
But not only that: "We have now been able to prove for the first time that excessive salt intake also significantly weakens an important arm of the immune system," explains Prof. Dr. Christian Kurts from the Institute of Experimental Immunology at the University of Bonn.
Journal Reference
Katarzyna Jobin, Natascha E. Stumpf, Sebastian Schwab et al. A high-salt diet compromises antibacterial neutrophil responses through hormonal perturbation [$], Science Translational Medicine (DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aay3850)
(Score: 4, Informative) by pipedwho on Monday March 30 2020, @09:45PM
The public may have had 'bad' information due to inept and non-expert reporting. However, actually epidemiologists who study this stuff knew almost immediately:
1. They knew it was a coronavirus (details irrelevant except that it was more virulent and more severe than a usual cold or flue)
2. They knew what a coronavirus was and have long since spent huge amounts of effort modelling and testing contagion vectors (contact, airborne, etc)
Also, an epidemiologist deals at multiple levels of probability and statistical modelling (containing techniques when possible, and reduction once that is no longer possible). Different advice is given for different levels of containment. ie. There is no point in half measures if total containment is required (and possible), and there is no point into total 100% quarantine if that is not possible.
The spread of a virus is based on how easily and how fast it can be spread. The number of people that on average are infected by a single contagious vector can be called the 'gain'. When the 'gain' is below unity, the spread is continuously reducing and the virus 'dies off'. When the 'gain' is high, it spreads faster and wider exponentially until the number of susceptible hosts is close to exhausted.
Various techniques of isolation, distancing, detection/tracing, PPE, herd immunity, vaccination, and quarantining have a positive effect in reducing this 'gain'. We don't need to take the 'gain' to zero to eradicate the virus. And likewise, hovering around unity just slows the growth to a point where other more effective methods (eg. vaccination) or controls (eg. hospital capacity) can be prepared or brought into play.
With an epidemic, there are also the consequences of various actions taken, either individually (maximise the benefit for the self), or as a coordinated effort (maximise the benefit for the population as a whole). Too drastic and the measures may be ignored or lead to psychological problems, too little and the 'gain' is not sufficiently reduced. There is of course the 'financial' impact which in itself may not seem like a problem - except for potentially worse problems that it can lead to (wars, authoritarian takeover, famine, health care collapse, etc).
The epidemiologists at the WHO/CDC/etc already know this, the problem is that their political masters may not like what they have to say. Blaming China for 'bad' information is a red herring designed to distract from the real decisions that have been or are being made. Too many stupid people, on the one hand running around like headless chooks screaming that world will end if we don't go full martial lockdown, and on other "it's just a flu, business as usual". The reality is in between, and it is the job of the governments to listen to the experts in these areas, weigh up the repercussions, and implement a coordinated plan for their regions/countries.