Coronavirus thread

[Caballoflaco]

I was doing some lite reading on the 1889-1890 pandemic and saw this image on wikipedia. Of note see la Quinine dancing in the front. (hydroxychloroquine is a synthetic form of quinine) History is a round circle indeed.

[Doc_Glock]

Here’s what looks like a great lay explanation of the virus’s history, mechanism, and probable outcome.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01315-7

Profile of a killer: the complex biology powering the coronavirus pandemic
Scientists are piecing together how SARS-CoV-2 operates, where it came from and what it might do next

For whatever reason, this article seemed to tie the science of the last 2 months together for me. FWIW.

That was an amazing article.

[Isaac]

Coworker1
4/5 likely exposure
4/10 symptoms started
4/15 swabbed
4/29 + antibodies

Coworker2
3/26 symptoms started
4/28 + antibodies

Coworker3
No known exposure
No symptoms
5/10 + antibodies

Coworker4
4/8 symptoms started
5/5 (-) antibodies

Most units converted back to clean.

[bravo7]

........a team of top-notch doctors from Massachusetts General Hospital and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center has some positive findings to report. While they can only speak for what’s happening in their hospitals, their new study finds that the vast majority of critically ill COVID-19 patients were able to make a full recovery after receiving the standard treatments for respiratory failure.


https://www.theladders.com/career-ad...5-11-20-norton

[Nephrology]

........a team of top-notch doctors from Massachusetts General Hospital and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center has some positive findings to report. While they can only speak for what’s happening in their hospitals, their new study finds that the vast majority of critically ill COVID-19 patients were able to make a full recovery after receiving the standard treatments for respiratory failure.


https://www.theladders.com/career-ad...5-11-20-norton

Those numbers are in line with ours (~15-20% mortality for ventilated patients). Numbers from China/Italy were closer to 50%. I suspect this has to do with a combination of a) patient demographics, b) relative demand for services (MA and my state haven't been crushed like NYC), c) improved confidence in/knowledge of how to manage these pts. It also probably doesn't hurt that both our university hospital and Mass General have internationally well reputed divisions of pulmonary/crit care medicine. We'll see how things shake out over time.

[Doc_Glock]

Those numbers are in line with ours (~15-20% mortality for ventilated patients). Numbers from China/Italy were closer to 50%. I suspect this has to do with a combination of a) patient demographics, b) relative demand for services (MA and my state haven't been crushed like NYC), c) improved confidence in/knowledge of how to manage these pts. It also probably doesn't hurt that both our university hospital and Mass General have internationally well reputed divisions of pulmonary/crit care medicine. We'll see how things shake out over time.

No one does critical care as well as the USA in my humble opinion. I don't actually think it is even close.

[peterb]

Short article on merging forecast models:

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-...0-deaths-by-ju

The team unveiled the first version four weeks ago, and ever since they've been adding in more forecasts and updating the projections on a weekly basis. The latest update — released Tuesday — incorporates eight models, including some oft-cited ones, such as those built by the Imperial College London, the University of Washington Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, Columbia University, and Northeastern University. (They also send each week's release to the CDC, which publishes a version with a slight time lag.)

The projections vary substantially — with the most pessimistic forecasting a total death toll of 120,000 by June 6, and the most optimistic forecasting 103,000 deaths by that date. But the models have been inching closer to each other. Over the last several weeks, the distance between the highest and lowest estimates has halved from a gap of 36,000 deaths two weeks ago, to a gap of 17,000 deaths in the most recent update released Tuesday.

[RoyGBiv]

Short article on merging forecast models:

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-...0-deaths-by-ju

The team unveiled the first version four weeks ago, and ever since they've been adding in more forecasts and updating the projections on a weekly basis. The latest update — released Tuesday — incorporates eight models, including some oft-cited ones, such as those built by the Imperial College London, the University of Washington Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, Columbia University, and Northeastern University. (They also send each week's release to the CDC, which publishes a version with a slight time lag.)

The projections vary substantially — with the most pessimistic forecasting a total death toll of 120,000 by June 6, and the most optimistic forecasting 103,000 deaths by that date. But the models have been inching closer to each other. Over the last several weeks, the distance between the highest and lowest estimates has halved from a gap of 36,000 deaths two weeks ago, to a gap of 17,000 deaths in the most recent update released Tuesday.

It's the Real Clear Politics of COVID modeling. Thanks for posting!

[JHC]

"The kids are alright" - The Who

"It turns out "she's more worried than she was about the kidney thing," said Rohrig, now a 20-year-old college student who lives with his parents in a New York City apartment."

The lad's reference to "the kidney thing" refers to HIS. Which he donated to save a stranger's life over his mom's objections at the time.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/13/us/co...ndjJ6DLVdEwyC8

[Wondering Beard]

Can we trust Covid modelling? More evidence from Sweden