Re: Advice for dealing with the virus, and a possible antiviral aid?
VITAMINS FOR THE IMMUNE SYSTEM One bit of advice I found was to take the vitamins that strengthen the immune system, such as megadoses of vitamin C. Vitamin A was also mentioned but as I understand it smokers and former smokers should not take that because it is known to cause lung cancer. Natural beta carotene from carrots is OK though, and carrot juice is a way to get a concentrated form of it. Another on the list is zinc, and that's all I've collected so far. I think D3 should probably also be added but I haven't read up on that for this purpose.
In the vast majority of cases, megadoses don't do much. As long as your body has enough of a vitamin it will do just fine, and adding more won't produce any significant benefit.
quote:1. Med Monatsschr Pharm. 2009 Feb;32(2):49-54; quiz 55-6.
[Vitamin C and immune function].
[Article in German]
Ströhle A(1), Hahn A.
The immune system is strongly influenced by the intake of nutrients. For a long time there has been a controversy whether vitamin C can contribute to the prevention and therapy of the common cold. Several cells of the immune system can indeed accumulate vitamin C and need the vitamin to perform their task, especially phagocytes and t-cells. Thus a vitamin C deficiency results in a reduced resistance against certain pathogens whilst a higher supply enhances several immune system parameters. With regard to the common cold different studies including meta-analyses underline that the prophylactic intake of vitamin C may slightly reduce the duration of the illness in healthy persons but does not affect its incidence and severity. Supplementation of vitamin C is most effective in cases of physical strain or insufficient intake of the vitamin. With regard to the therapy of the common cold the application of vitamin C alone is without clinical effects.
Re: More Information of How the Coronavirus Spreads
Virus ‘does not spread easily’ from surfaces or animals, revised CDC website states explains that the CDC has found that the primary mode of transmission of the novel cornoavirus is through respiration and not through contact with potentially virus laden surfaces such as mail or delivered packages. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) - Transmission is the CDC webpage.
Not speaking as an expert, but someone with a bit of experience in virology . . .
I share your misgivings about the lack of citations and references, but it does make a lot of sense with what we do know about the virus. The S protein on the surface of the virus binds to angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) found on alveolar cells deep in the lung, and that's how it gains a foothold. Virus on your hands and smeared on your face are not easily transported deep into your lungs. It can happen, but is much less likely than inhaling an airborne aerosol containing viral particles.
However, you are still justified in taking all the precautions you deem necessary. You will never know if you overdid it, but you may find out if you underdid it. Stay safe!!
Some analysts believe that the US will lose this next Cold War, dubbed Cold War II by Newsweek.
USSR lost the Cold War because their authoritarian government collapsed and had a nominally democratic government replace it. I don't see the US collapsing and reforming under communism.
If losing Cold War II means the Chinese public is richer than us, then let's hurry up and lose. 1.5 billion rich people ready to buy cheaper US goods??? YES PLEASE!!!
I strongly suspect that China will become more liberal over time as their people are exposed to the West. A country doesn't enrich itself by conquering its neighbors as in years past. Now it's economics and globalization. China has way, way more to lose in an armed conflict than they can win in peacetime.
But in recent history it is and has been far more likely that it is the US that is the initiator or armed conflicts.
The US only initiates armed conflicts when the US severely outclasses the other army and feels confident it won't loose many troops. They also don't initiate armed conflict with other nuclear powers. Neither of these applies to China.
Armed conflict between major nuclear powers is fought between proxy forces, and this has been the case since the Korean War. The Soviets fought the Afghan forces, and we happily supplied the Afghanis with weapons. China helped out N. Vietnam. We continue to help Ukraine with their struggles against Russia. If anything, there might be a proxy war over some land in the South China Sea at some point, but it won't see Chinese and US forces going head to head.
Re: More Information of How the Coronavirus Spreads
Does this mean that angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 is not found on exposed areas that might be touched or rubbed like skin, lips, eyes, etc., and so the virus cannot find purchase there?
People aren't developing mouth, lip, or skin sores, so I don't think these are vulnerable areas. Some very anecdotal evidence I have seen points to alveolar cells being the major reservoir. We have had individuals who test positive from a nasopharyngeal swab (push the swab back until it hits the sinuses) and negative from a nasal swab (swab just the nostril). Since the assay we are using is quantitative, that strongly points to a drop in viral particles just from the sinuses to the nostril. Again, this is based on a single individual so it isn't conclusive by any stretch of the imagination, but it is interesting. Currently, companies and the FDA are doing tests on saliva to see if it can be used in the same assay due to a quickly dwindling supply of nasopharyngeal swab kits.
At this moment there are 1,668,083 confirmed cases of covid19 and 100,040 deaths in the US. That gives a death rate of 5.99%!
Confirmed cases are going to be fewer than actual infections due to lack of testing and asymptomatic carriers. I think there are a few epidemiological studies going right now to determine the ratio between overtly symptomatic cases (i.e. confirmed cases) and asymptomatic cases.
Those numbers have been subject to a lot of discussion and challenge, particularly the case number, but are certainly not off by a factor greater than 2.
Actually, they could be off by more than a factor of 2.
quote:Meanwhile, the second study, from Australian researchers, looked at 217 people on a cruise bound for Antarctica. The ship set sail in mid-March, just after the World Health Organization declared the coronavirus a pandemic.
The first fever on board was reported eight days into the voyage. Over the following two weeks, eight people had to be evacuated from the ship because they fell ill.
But the CDC is reporting an asymptomatic rate of 35%, not 75%!
35% of what?
The article I gave you was for the people on a cruise ship. You will notice that about half the people on that ship tested positive.
"All of the 217 people who remained on board were tested for COVID-19. More than half (59 percent) tested positive, but just 19 percent of those patients had symptoms. The other 81 percent were symptom-free."
Doing the math, that's 128 positive tests. Of those that tested positive, 24 had symptoms and 104 did not have symptoms. That's about a 1 to 5 ratio for the population on that cruise ship.
This is a small sample and shouldn't be used to make specific predictions about the general population. However, I think it is safe to say that asymptomatic carriers will outnumber symptomatic carriers, and this should be reflected in the mortality and morbidity rates.
The only numbers I am able to tract down are 1.7million confirmed cases and 100,000 deaths giving >5%.
The vast majority of people dyeing from cover are very old, very sick, or very poor. So, I’m guessing that 217 passengers on a luxury cruise ship are not a representative sample of that demographic and not a good basis for estimating the overall covid mortality rate.
I agree. However, they may be a good model for determining the ratio between asymptomatic and symptomatic carriers.