I think my last posts might have been a bit too rash. Like I said, this debate is quite emotional driven, I’m far from immune to that….
@MedEwok (or others); I wanted to ask about the paper @Ibra shared about infection risk from dead bodies. Is that something new? Is it different from other corona viruses of the same family??
On another note, this paper, from China researchers, so believe it if you want, claims outdoor infection risk to be small:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.04.20053058v1
“We identified only a single outbreak in an outdoor environment, which involved two cases. Conclusions: All identified outbreaks of three or more cases occurred in an indoor environment, which confirms that sharing indoor space is a major SARS-CoV-2 infection risk.”
Peter wrote:
Why, is going to be a most interesting discovery, because normally kids spread everything that’s going.
The motivation given in Sweden for not closing daycare and primary schools:
Parents were given strict instructions to keep children home at the least sign of infection. Also, hygiene measures in daycare and schools, particularly washing of hands was intensified.
That this strategy worked can be seen by the effect on the norovirus (I made an earlier post about this). Children are a major driver of norovirus spread, still the seasonal norovirus outbreak ended abruptly.
Rwy20 wrote:
You cannot use blood donors as a representative cross-section of the population, because they will usually not donate blood if they had an illness in the last 4 (?) weeks, which they have to ascertain before being able to give blood. This mistake sounds almost too foolish to be made by a health professional, so I wonder if there was something in the study design that compensates for such effects, and which wasn’t mentioned?
Indeed but it is still valid as a data point if you take it from asymptomatic perspective. i.e. roughly 3% of the population that are sure they don’t have it, actually have had it or do have it.
Just got some powerful 25W ozone generating lamps from China. This is my new upgraded UV+ozone steriliser
The lamp needs to be on for only a minute or two to get a really high concentration inside the closed box.
Leave the contents inside for say an hour.
For best results (5x more oxone) you would feed in oxygen 
This is the lamp I am using. They are mostly out of stock nowadays, for obvious reasons. You have to get the “ozone” type, not the “non ozone” type which just makes UVC. I don’t know what the difference actually is, to achieve that. The “item location” shown as Brussels is, of course, fake, as is normal for chinese traders on Ebay.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Although it is debatable to what extent asymptomatic persons can spread the disease, it seems clear that such spread is unusual enough to have little effect.
AIUI, If somebody gets exposed and does not develop any symptoms, that means the virus gets eliminated before it can replicate a lot and affect many cells.
So an asymptomatic carrier who never develops symptoms should not have that many viruses to spread around.
An asymptomatic carrier who later develops symptoms might have a stage where enough virus gets produced to infect others to a significant degree, but not enough yet to show symptoms.
So it is plausible that children who never show symptoms are a lot less likely to spread the disease than others.
No idea if that is the case, though.
MedEwok wrote:
The lives saved by lockdown measures are impossible to measure directly, you would have to have two regions of similar health system capacity, with similar socioeconomic conditions and the same exposure to SARS2-COV. Then one of them would have to go into lockdown and the other wouldn’t.
Well, I would argue we have a lot of – accidental – ‘experiments’ which establish correlation between certain factors and the spread of the disease, while they do not meet the stringent standards of usual scientific work, in total they are pretty conclusive.
Examples are:
– high population density, public transport —> faster spread (NY, London, etc.)
– large initial cluster —> faster spread (lots of individual outbreaks)
– strong initial distance and personal hygiene —> slower spread
– early lock-down vs late (northern Italy vs rest)
– early quarantine and contact tracing vs. none (Korea, Singapore vs ROW)
and one going the other way
– more testing —> more confirmed cases
which indicates that the number of confirmed cases is pretty much useless.
Taken together with the fact that there is a clear mechanism through which distancing can reduce spread, the overall picture is pretty conclusive.
Which of these two hypotheses is more plausible:
?
Peter wrote:
Leave the contents inside for say an hour.
You have to be careful with organic materials, rubber etc. Ozone destroy organic material.
Cobalt wrote:
might have a stage where enough virus gets produced to infect others to a significant degree, but not enough yet to show symptoms.
There are other possible explanations, for example corono virus is apparently an enveloped virus. Which means they have some of the host material in there make up. i.e. virus from the back of your throat might have a different envelope that perhaps lung tissue. All with key RNA material that make it a unique virus. HIV is also like this. This can effect the transmission of a virus, as our immune system will react differently.
I am not suggestion this is the explanation, just that there is simply a lot we don’t know!
Cobalt wrote:
– high population density, public transport —> faster spread (NY, London, etc.)
Like Japan?
Cobalt wrote:
– early lock-down vs late (northern Italy vs rest)
Portugal locked down later than Spain, deaths and admissions are way lower.
Cobalt wrote:
– early quarantine and contact tracing vs. none (Korea, Singapore vs ROW)
Sweden has no quarantine measures for arrivals
There’s one thing I struggle to get my head round: the totally disparate outcomes in countries with similar strategies and the similar outcome in countries with very different strategies. IMHO these disparities point to one or more underlying factor(s) we so far either don’t know or ignore.
