Reply
Respected Contributor
Posts: 4,338
Registered: ‎04-04-2015

@Lipstickdiva wrote:

Something with this article isn't clicking with me.  

 

Why are we ignorning nursing homes? Is that to help his theories?  

 

He lists the biggest super spreading events but then goes on to talk about what can happen in those scenarios and starts off with restaurants.  People were going to restaurants before everything was shut down yet that's not included as a super spreading event so why is that all of a sudden on the top of his list?  

 

I still think how cautious or afraid of this depends on where you live.  In Ohio, the reported data is not supporting the models. The percentage of the population of those who have tested positive for this in Ohio is .002%.  .05% of those who tested positive have died from it.  


Excellent point about nursing homes.

 

In addition to the damage NY did with their policies there - causing innocent nursing home victims to be exposed and then to die from the virus, it is interesting that NY is now "surprised" by the high percentage of hospitalizations for the virus from people who stayed home.  Could it possibly be that those living in high density buildings with shared space - laundry facilities, storage facilities, etc., - along with air systems that serviced the entire building - could have gotten the virus BECAUSE they were forced into staying home.

 

The "experts" continue to spout models that clearly don't apply to all situations - or in some cases - any situations.

Respected Contributor
Posts: 4,338
Registered: ‎04-04-2015

@Mindy D wrote:

@Isobel Archer wrote:

I'm still confused about how we managed to get through the Hong Kong flu that killed over 100,000 at a time when our population was less than 2/3 the size it is now (200 mil vs. 328 mil today).  We even had Woodstock in the middle of it.

 

We didn't shut down and stop other people from getting medical care.

 

You know we have more than 38,000 people dying of auto accidents per year - and over 4.4 million injured seriously enough to require medical attention - many will never fully recover.

 

So what does that have to do with this?  I'll tell you.  If we reduced the speed limit - and strictly enforced it - signficantly, we could reduce the number and seriousness of injuries and certainly reduce deaths.  We could limit speed on freeways to 30mph and in cities to 10 mph.  Oh you say, that is ridiculous - and certainly way too inconvenient.  What?  You don't care about human life?  You are selfishly wanting to get where you are going quickly? 

Oh wait - you are now going to tell me that this would essentially shut us down and no one would really benefit.

 

Hello.


@Isobel Archer @Hi. I had HK flu. I was the sickest I have ever been. I was 17 and I didn't even tell my parents how sick I had become. They knew I had the flu but I don't think they realized I was as ill as I was. Same went for my boyfriend. He was also ill. I don't think this flu was very contagious. I don't know the RO ratio for the HK flu, but I bet that when I check into it it will be lower than COVID-19.  Neither my parents or my boyfriends parents came down with this virus. Perhaps they had crossover immunity from a closely related flu they had earlier in their lives. My sibling and my BF's sibling did not get sick either. I was sick for over two weeks. One huge difference with HK flu was the short incubation period and the much lower cases of asymptomatic carriers. Once sick, I knew it. I couldn't move. I was home. Pretty sure mine had developed a pneumonia but I'm not sure. So, to answer your question, I think the way the HK flu spread influenced our ability to keep things open. People knew they were sick and stayed home. With COVID-29, people can be out spreading the virus.


Well if it wasn't "very contagious," it seems odd that 100,000 died from it.

Respected Contributor
Posts: 4,338
Registered: ‎04-04-2015

@pitdakota wrote:

@Isobel Archer wrote:

I'm still confused about how we managed to get through the Hong Kong flu that killed over 100,000 at a time when our population was less than 2/3 the size it is now (200 mil vs. 328 mil today).  We even had Woodstock in the middle of it.

 

We didn't shut down and stop other people from getting medical care.

 

You know we have more than 38,000 people dying of auto accidents per year - and over 4.4 million injured seriously enough to require medical attention - many will never fully recover.

 

So what does that have to do with this?  I'll tell you.  If we reduced the speed limit - and strictly enforced it - signficantly, we could reduce the number and seriousness of injuries and certainly reduce deaths.  We could limit speed on freeways to 30mph and in cities to 10 mph.  Oh you say, that is ridiculous - and certainly way too inconvenient.  What?  You don't care about human life?  You are selfishly wanting to get where you are going quickly? 

Oh wait - you are now going to tell me that this would essentially shut us down and no one would really benefit.

 

Hello.


________________________________________________________

 

@Isobel Archer, this is one of those things going around on Facebook, that is a great example of crazy stuff out there.

 

Really?    

 

Is anyone aware that the Hong Kong flu pandemic occurred 2 flu seasons in a row?  Something that many of these Facebook posts and those that are intent in trying to minimize the impact of covid-19  don't take the time to really understand facts about what they are parroting? 

 

So those 100,000 deaths occurred from Sept 1968 to  Jan-Feb 1970.  Over a period of 16 months.  The first case was identified in Sept 1968  with cases going on through the 1969-1970 winter season.Hong Kong flu were being transmitted out there in the population in the United States.  

 

And as is typical with pandemics, the largest number of deaths occurred during the 2nd wave of the pandemic during the months of Nov 1969-Jan. 1970.  

 

Woodstock took place in August of 1969 when there were no significant number of cases of influenza being actively transmitted since this is usually the way influenza acts.  There is usually very little influenza activity during the months of June, July, and August.   Cases start to pick up mid Sept, and then start really picking up in late Nov into Dec and  fade away by March of the following year.  We were in between 2 different flu seasons with H3N2 or Hong Kong flu getting ready to make a resurgence when Woodstock took place.  Geez, I can think of all kinds of big activities that take place in this country every year in August in between flu seasons.  

 

There are other biomedical reasons that epidemiologists would not have resorted trying to shut down the economy for the Hong Kong flu pandemic. 

 

First is that the Hong Kong flu was the influenza protype H3N2.  A previous pandemic of H2N2 had occurred in 1957.  Notice that the neuraminidase of  N2 is the same.  So it was thought the population would have a little protection if infected.  H3N2 in itself was a new influenza virus, but it had the same neuraminidase from the previous pandemic with people alive in 1968 that had contracted H2N2 and therefore some antibody activity geared toward the N2.  

 

We also had a vaccine for H3N2 in addition to IV antibiotics to treat the seondary bacterial pneumonia that is typical in complicated clinical cases of influenza.

 

So now compare to covid-19.  In just about 3 months we have over  82,000 deaths.  If we compare that to the H3N2 pandemic, we still have 13 months more to go to compare the number of those deaths.

 

When this was coming....we had no vaccine, we had no treatment, it is a completely a novel virus with no humans having any type of immunity.  

 

And comparing deaths related to motor vehicle accidents, heart attacks, cancer, drowning, accidental overdose just isn't comparable. Let alone trying to compare those deaths to those that occur to infectious diseases.

 

You might want to compare accidental deaths to each other to evaluate the biggest risk for various types of accidental deaths: motor vehicle, motorcycle, all terrain vehicles, drowning, electrocution, etc.  Or compare deaths due to chronic diseases to each other: heart disease, respiratory disease, diabetes, etc.

 

But it makes no sense to premise an argument on something in comparing deaths due to drowning to those of myocardial infarction.  Deaths related to Covid-19 are due to a disease that is contagious.  

 

 

 

 

 

 


As to numbers of deaths - we've already had confirmation that - first of all the vast majority of those who died from this current virus had serious underlying conditions.  Italy is reporting over 90% of deaths of the virus were those who were otherwise seriously ill.

 

Second, we have also had confirmation that we are counting virus deaths in persons who have never been tested for the virus - but who had other serious conditions and perhaps some symptoms similar to virus symptoms - so voila - virus is cause of death.

 

Additionally in 68/69, we had only 2/3 of our current population - so to be comparable, we'd need at least 150,000 deaths - but again since this is so different from the HK Flu - which killed people who were not otherwise seriously  ill of other causes, it's going to be very hard to every really compare.

 

Finally - as to auto deaths,  - they are preventable - almost completely - if we reduce speed.  But of course we are never going to do that.  So my point was - OMG if we have to shut down the country and bankrupt people to "save lives" - and do so until we are completely sure that the virus won't be a threat - why don't we care enough about "saving lives" to do that in other situations - where clearly we could. 

 

People who are drawing a salary or otherwise doing fine staying home would never ever agree to drive 10 miles an hour to "save someone's life."  Yet they are fine with causing people to lose everything they have worked for, exposing children to domestic violence, and putting us as a nation at serious risk in terms of future financial debt - which may involve reliance on China - who has clearly shown they are a threat not an ally.

 

This is a very serious situation and has repercussions far beyond the virus itself.

Honored Contributor
Posts: 12,212
Registered: ‎03-09-2010

Re: Evaluation of Risks

[ Edited ]

We cannot shelter in place forever.    

Still no stimulus money, no assistance from the state, the website is not set up...yet.  and we NO INTENTION on living on government money.

 

Our business is basically closed, except for the occasional order.  

We have been good savers or the years, always lived below our means, rarely vacation, no houskeeper, no lawn service people, etc, etc.  We carry no debt, but cannot stay closed forever.

 

Those of you that want to stay home for months to come, or that have a guaranteed income, good for you, enjoy your stay at home.

 

Many people want to work, need to work. Your life is no more important than mine or anyone else that wants to work.  America needs to get back to life, we CAN do two things at once.  Hot spots can be monitored and contained.


We helped flatten the curve, which was the ORIGINAL request.  

Honored Contributor
Posts: 13,913
Registered: ‎03-10-2010

Re: Evaluation of Risks

[ Edited ]

@bunnygirlbrem wrote:

 


@hckynut wrote:

@bunnygirlbrem wrote:

@hckynut 

Personally (to me at least), articles like this can REDUCE the fear.

 


@bunnygirlbrem 

 

Good, I am happy for you. Personally for me, I never had this fear. Concern? Yes, fear, No.

 

 

 

hckynut(john)


I just meant in general. I am personally not afraid, but I know people who are, and I think that well-thought-out, well-written, and intelligent articles such as this can reduce the fear in people who are afraid.


 

 

 

@bunnygirlbrem 

 

I would be more than happy to "agree to disagree" with you. 

 

 

 

hckynut(john)

hckynut(john)
Honored Contributor
Posts: 13,913
Registered: ‎03-10-2010

Re: Evaluation of Risks

[ Edited ]

 @Tessa Mendoza wrote:

 

The example of the nursing home employee who knew she had the virus, yet continued to show up for work at the nursing home and continued on with her shopping expeditions is just an example of what I fear will keep on happening no matter how many tests are given, even on a daily basis. 

 

There are a good number of people who have a somewwhat cavaliar attitude.  They want their life to continue as it was.  Let those who are vulnerable or afraid stay home.  Yes, why try to realize things are not the same and changes do have to be made for the greater good?  Oh, that's right.  No one counts but them.

 

I, unfortunately, don't have much confidence in the majority of people finding out they tested positive and then retreating to their homes for a 2-week quarantine.

 

I can still enjoy my life, not hide in my house and "thrive" without going to an inside sit down restaurant or salon for now.

 

 

 

 


@Tessa Mendoza 

 

Read Governor Cuomo stated that of 1,000 patients admitted to NY State hospitals, 66% were stay at home patients. 

 

About the "greater good" and the "no one counts but them" statement in your above? Seems like New York was 1 of the Epicenters of the wuhan virus, which means to me that particular theory is not very well proven to be factual.

 

Stay at home=66%/other=8%/homeless=2%, and there is more even lower percentages. From this study I conclude to "stay at home mode" is more risky.

 

So to people like me that plan on living whatever years I have left, it just might be less risky then me "unwillingly" following some arbitrary "rule", made by many someone's that are guessing and projecting their guess onto others.

 

Why? I can think of no reason other than many of them liking, even enjoying, being in a position to be able to, legally or illegally, do so. If someone tells me "they" are not their #1 concern?

 

 

 

hckynut(john)

hckynut(john)
Honored Contributor
Posts: 33,580
Registered: ‎03-10-2010

@pitdakota wrote:
_________________________________________________________

 

@Lipstickdiva, a super spreader is just a loose common term that describes an individual that is responsible for infecting a larger number of people than is expected for a particular infectious disease.   For example, there is a super spreader that wasa guy from the UK, that they traced 11 infections in 3 different countries directly back to him.  He was on business trips while infectious.  All 11 infections traced back directly to him.  The infection rate for this virus as they think now is 2.  So one person infects another 2 people, those 2 people each infect another 2, leading to a total of 7 people very quickly.   Not all 7 may have had any contact with the initial person at all.  A super spreader has direct contact with the individuals infected & is technically called the index patient or individual.

 

 What has been happening in nursing homes is that the virus is being brought in by several different people from the outside and passing it on to the residents.  Then another resident gets it and spreads it to another resident.  So that is not considered a super spreader, per se but is community transmission.   It is problematic because for a period of time, people are contagious without really even knowing anything is wrong with them. 

 

Nursing homes have multiple people working, nursing assistants, LPNs, cleaning staff, managers, social workers, dietary people, etc.  Those individuals bring the virus in, transmits it to someone else, maybe even another resident, then it spreads between residents before they know it.  

 

Many long term care facilities have cut down on recreational activities, no more bingo or community dining but it is still very difficult to keep the residents totally apart.  Plus they are in a confined space with the same ventilation system so the principle is the same as the air that is in a restaurant, or office space, etc.   The reason the  resturant situation is mentioned is because it is a certain instance in which they were able to directly trace the contact and map out the air pattern in the resturant that demonstrated how the people at the other tables became infected.  

 

 

 

 


@pitdakota, thank you very much for the explanation.  

Trusted Contributor
Posts: 1,309
Registered: ‎12-01-2012

I have been staying at home except for groceries since middle of March, scared to death to do even that.

 

Was very concerned that my youngest son, age 21, would bring it home to me.  Then his medical unit in the Army Reserve was called up and parted out to New York City, Boston, Connecticut, and Detroit.  We both thought he was bound to get sick, but they sent everyone home this week, after 100% tested negative.

 

My son told me that $660 million was spent on field hospital units, none of which was used. 

 

I was talking with my sister yesterday.  We were both very concerned.  Her 60 year old husband is store director for a Hy-Vee in Cedar Rapids, working hands-on overtime with 100+ employees. 

 

Just this week Hy-Vee employees were ordered to wear masks at work.  But for the past 2 months were not under order to do so, and did not. 

 

Not one single employee of that store has come down with coronavirus, inspite of being one county away from the Waterloo meat packing plant that was a hot spot, and thier county showing one of the highest coronavirus counts in Iowa, and in spite of not wearing masks.  (Iowa has never been on order to "stay home").

 

My sister commented to me, "I really don't understand what is going on...."

 

I know it's early in the ballgame to call it, but all just seems very strange to us the way it is playing out with people NOT getting the virus as we expected.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Honored Contributor
Posts: 12,212
Registered: ‎03-09-2010

@hckynut 

So to people like me that plan on living whatever years I have left, it just might be less risky then me "unwillingly" following some arbitrary "rule", made by many someone's that are guessing and projecting their guess onto others.  (your comments above)

 

 

My husband said something similar last night....He is 79...has worked all his life and is more than eager to get back to a more normal work life....and do what he wants to do with the days he has left.

He plans on working until he no longer is able.  He has been blessed with good health.

Honored Contributor
Posts: 33,580
Registered: ‎03-10-2010

@pitdakota wrote:

@Isobel Archer wrote:

I'm still confused about how we managed to get through the Hong Kong flu that killed over 100,000 at a time when our population was less than 2/3 the size it is now (200 mil vs. 328 mil today).  We even had Woodstock in the middle of it.

 

We didn't shut down and stop other people from getting medical care.

 

You know we have more than 38,000 people dying of auto accidents per year - and over 4.4 million injured seriously enough to require medical attention - many will never fully recover.

 

So what does that have to do with this?  I'll tell you.  If we reduced the speed limit - and strictly enforced it - signficantly, we could reduce the number and seriousness of injuries and certainly reduce deaths.  We could limit speed on freeways to 30mph and in cities to 10 mph.  Oh you say, that is ridiculous - and certainly way too inconvenient.  What?  You don't care about human life?  You are selfishly wanting to get where you are going quickly? 

Oh wait - you are now going to tell me that this would essentially shut us down and no one would really benefit.

 

Hello.


________________________________________________________

 

@Isobel Archer, this is one of those things going around on Facebook, that is a great example of crazy stuff out there.

 

Really?    

 

Is anyone aware that the Hong Kong flu pandemic occurred 2 flu seasons in a row?  Something that many of these Facebook posts and those that are intent in trying to minimize the impact of covid-19  don't take the time to really understand facts about what they are parroting? 

 

So those 100,000 deaths occurred from Sept 1968 to  Jan-Feb 1970.  Over a period of 16 months.  The first case was identified in Sept 1968  with cases going on through the 1969-1970 winter season.Hong Kong flu were being transmitted out there in the population in the United States.  

 

And as is typical with pandemics, the largest number of deaths occurred during the 2nd wave of the pandemic during the months of Nov 1969-Jan. 1970.  

 

Woodstock took place in August of 1969 when there were no significant number of cases of influenza being actively transmitted since this is usually the way influenza acts.  There is usually very little influenza activity during the months of June, July, and August.   Cases start to pick up mid Sept, and then start really picking up in late Nov into Dec and  fade away by March of the following year.  We were in between 2 different flu seasons with H3N2 or Hong Kong flu getting ready to make a resurgence when Woodstock took place.  Geez, I can think of all kinds of big activities that take place in this country every year in August in between flu seasons.  

 

There are other biomedical reasons that epidemiologists would not have resorted trying to shut down the economy for the Hong Kong flu pandemic. 

 

First is that the Hong Kong flu was the influenza protype H3N2.  A previous pandemic of H2N2 had occurred in 1957.  Notice that the neuraminidase of  N2 is the same.  So it was thought the population would have a little protection if infected.  H3N2 in itself was a new influenza virus, but it had the same neuraminidase from the previous pandemic with people alive in 1968 that had contracted H2N2 and therefore some antibody activity geared toward the N2.  

 

We also had a vaccine for H3N2 in addition to IV antibiotics to treat the seondary bacterial pneumonia that is typical in complicated clinical cases of influenza.

 

So now compare to covid-19.  In just about 3 months we have over  82,000 deaths.  If we compare that to the H3N2 pandemic, we still have 13 months more to go to compare the number of those deaths.

 

When this was coming....we had no vaccine, we had no treatment, it is a completely a novel virus with no humans having any type of immunity.  

 

And comparing deaths related to motor vehicle accidents, heart attacks, cancer, drowning, accidental overdose just isn't comparable. Let alone trying to compare those deaths to those that occur to infectious diseases.

 

You might want to compare accidental deaths to each other to evaluate the biggest risk for various types of accidental deaths: motor vehicle, motorcycle, all terrain vehicles, drowning, electrocution, etc.  Or compare deaths due to chronic diseases to each other: heart disease, respiratory disease, diabetes, etc.

 

But it makes no sense to premise an argument on something in comparing deaths due to drowning to those of myocardial infarction.  Deaths related to Covid-19 are due to a disease that is contagious.  

 

 

 

 

 

 


@pitdakota, again  thank you.  I have never understood the comparison between Covid-19 deaths and those from things such as cancer, diabetes, etc. because those things aren't contagious.  But I guess if one is trying to prove a point, this is what they do and unfortunately there are those who follow right along in agreement because that's what they want to believe.

 

To piggyback along with that, I was floored by the number of people who were sharing the Plandemic video that was on YouTube last week, in total agreement with it.  It amazes me that anyone would blindly believe what that woman was saying without any hard evidence, research, data, etc. to back up what she was putting out there.  Common sense just wouldn't let me do that. I may be off in what I am thinking because I'm not a medical person but some things are just common sense to me.

 

And while I'm at it, if I see one more social media post about EVERY death being listed as Covid-19 because of a kickback the hospital gets for it, I'm going to blow my stack.  I get death certificates across my desk on a very regular basis because of my job.  Not one of them has listed Covid-19 as a cause of death so no, not EVERY death is being listed as Covid-19.