COVID-19, Part 5 - the beat goes on.

[WrongVerb]

Coronavirus traces found in March 2019 sewage sample, Spanish study shows

Spanish virologists have found traces of the novel coronavirus in a sample of Barcelona waste water collected in March 2019, nine months before the COVID-19 disease was identified in China, the University of Barcelona said on Friday.

The discovery of virus genome presence so early in Spain, if confirmed, would imply the disease may have appeared much earlier than the scientific community thought.

The University of Barcelona team, who had been testing waste water since mid-April this year to identify potential new outbreaks, decided to also run tests on older samples.

They first found the virus was present in Barcelona on Jan. 15, 2020, 41 days before the first case was officially reported there.

Then they ran tests on samples taken between January 2018 and December 2019 and found the presence of the virus genome in one of them, collected on March 12, 2019.

“The levels of SARS-CoV-2 were low but were positive,” research leader Albert Bosch was quoted as saying by the university.

[WrongVerb]

Inside the body, the coronavirus is even more sinister than scientists had realized

The new coronavirus’ reputation for messing with scientists’ assumptions has taken a truly creepy turn.

Researchers exploring the interaction between the coronavirus and its hosts have discovered that when the SARS-CoV-2 virus infects a human cell, it sets off a ghoulish transformation. Obeying instructions from the virus, the newly infected cell sprouts multi-pronged tentacles studded with viral particles.

These disfigured zombie cells appear to be using those streaming filaments, or filopodia, to reach still-healthy neighboring cells. The protuberances appear to bore into the cells’ bodies and inject their viral venom directly into those cells’ genetic command centers — thus creating another zombie.

The authors of the new study, an international team led by researchers at UC San Francisco, say the coronavirus appears to be using these newly sprouted dendrites to boost its efficiency in capturing new cells and establishing infection in its human victims.

[kaldaniels]

Now that testing has relatively ramped up it seems the current of standard of care is to want 1, if not 2 negative tests on someone with COVID to go on to be a confirmed negative.

I know a couple people who were positive and have gone back and retested positive 1 and 2 times respectively. They are negative now.

Is that going to mess with positivity and overall numbers if those tested go back and retest positive. I’d say subsequent positives should be excluded - are they? I don’t know.

[WrongVerb]

Scientists just beginning to understand the many health problems caused by COVID-19

Besides the respiratory issues that leave patients gasping for breath, the virus that causes COVID-19 attacks many organ systems, in some cases causing catastrophic damage.

“We thought this was only a respiratory virus. Turns out, it goes after the pancreas. It goes after the heart. It goes after the liver, the brain, the kidney and other organs. We didn’t appreciate that in the beginning,” said Dr. Eric Topol, a cardiologist and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, California.

In addition to respiratory distress, patients with COVID-19 can experience blood clotting disorders that can lead to strokes, and extreme inflammation that attacks multiple organ systems. The virus can also cause neurological complications that range from headache, dizziness and loss of taste or smell to seizures and confusion.

And recovery can be slow, incomplete and costly, with a huge impact on quality of life.

With influenza, people with underlying heart conditions are also at higher risk of complications, Khan said. What is surprising about this virus is the extent of the complications occurring outside the lungs.

Khan believes there will be a huge healthcare expenditure and burden for individuals who have survived COVID-19.

[BernieCarbo]

Now that testing has relatively ramped up it seems the current of standard of care is to want 1, if not 2 negative tests on someone with COVID to go on to be a confirmed negative.

I know a couple people who were positive and have gone back and retested positive 1 and 2 times respectively. They are negative now.

Is that going to mess with positivity and overall numbers if those tested go back and retest positive. I’d say subsequent positives should be excluded - are they? I don’t know.

They are not excluded in Ohio. I'm not sure how many people receive multiple positives, but there have been some complaints that these multiple positives skew the numbers.

[757690]

They are not excluded in Ohio. I'm not sure how many people receive multiple positives, but there have been some complaints that these multiple positives skew the numbers.

I don't know how Ohio is doing it, but the state should include all test results in their overall numbers, broken down by total tests and total number of people taking the test, but should only use the total number of people taking the test to calculate the positivity rate. That rate should be the percentage of people who took the test who are positive. That is the only number that is helpful. A state can cheat the numbers using the total number of tests, by testing people they know are negative over and over again.

[*BaseClogger*]

I’ve seen a lot of pushback in this thread on the rising case counts in southern states because they have increased testing. In many northern states they have decreasing case counts. Is testing diminishing in those places, or is that fact not a clear indictment of the handling by the southern states?

[BernieCarbo]

I don't know how Ohio is doing it, but the state should include all test results in their overall numbers, broken down by total tests and total number of people taking the test, but should only use the total number of people taking the test to calculate the positivity rate. That rate should be the percentage of people who took the test who are positive. That is the only number that is helpful. A state can cheat the numbers using the total number of tests, by testing people they know are negative over and over again.

It is far more likely that there will be multiple positive tests on a person, because a lot of people need to have a negative test to be able to go back to work. They won't be tested over and over if they test negative.

[NachoMan]

Scientists just beginning to understand the many health problems caused by COVID-19

An ex-colleague of mine had a fatal heart attack a few weeks ago at age 40, and it was revealed he was positive for covid. I don't know of his underlying health conditions but he was probably 20-30 lbs overweight. I highly doubt that he would have died this young without the virus.

[mth123]

I’ve seen a lot of pushback in this thread on the rising case counts in southern states because they have increased testing. In many northern states they have decreasing case counts. Is testing diminishing in those places, or is that fact not a clear indictment of the handling by the southern states?

I kind of think its just the way the virus spreads. It gets to the big cities with more international travelers first, NY, LA, Chicago, Detroit, New Orleans (During Mardi Gras), Seattle, San Francisco. Like everything else, the rest of the country gets it later. This isn't a second wave, its the progression of the first wave IMO. Small Town America is next.

[BernieCarbo]

An ex-colleague of mine had a fatal heart attack a few weeks ago at age 40, and it was revealed he was positive for covid. I don't know of his underlying health conditions but he was probably 20-30 lbs overweight. I highly doubt that he would have died this young without the virus.

It isn’t that unlikely that he would have died. About 25,000 people die of heart disease under the age of 45 every year. And, being 30 pounds overweight is definitely a risk factor for that.

In fact, heart disease among the younger population has been steadily rising over the last decade. It probably has to do a lot with a sedentary lifestyle and poor dietary choices. Even people say stuff like, “ I could stand to lose 20 pounds, but I’m in good shape”. Well, 20 pounds is 80 sticks of butter floating around your body and through your bloodstream and surrounding your vital organs. Americans have to wake up to that and get off the couch.

[757690]

It isn’t that unlikely that he would have died. About 25,000 people die of heart disease under the age of 45 every year. And, being 30 pounds overweight is definitely a risk factor for that.

In fact, heart disease among the younger population has been steadily rising over the last decade. It probably has to do a lot with a sedentary lifestyle and poor dietary choices. Even people say stuff like, “ I could stand to lose 20 pounds, but I’m in good shape”. Well, 20 pounds is 80 sticks of butter floating around your body and through your bloodstream and surrounding your vital organs. Americans have to wake up to that and get off the couch.

Being overweight is definitely a risk factor, but if your numbers are correct, it still is highly unlikely that he would have died of a heart attack at his age, considering him being overweight.

There are around 85 million people in this country between the ages of 25-45. 71% of this country is considered overweight.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/obesity-overweight.htm

That's around 60 million people. If 2,500 of them die each year of a heart attack, that is around 4 one thousands of a percent. or 0.0004 of them, or one in every 2,400 people.

These numbers reveal it was highly unlikely that he would die at his age due to a heart attack.

[*BaseClogger*]

I kind of think its just the way the virus spreads. It gets to the big cities with more international travelers first, NY, LA, Chicago, Detroit, New Orleans (During Mardi Gras), Seattle, San Francisco. Like everything else, the rest of the country gets it later. This isn't a second wave, its the progression of the first wave IMO. Small Town America is next.

I’m generally open to this line of thought, but Atlanta/Houston/Dallas/Phoenix/Miami/Orlando are also major hubs of international travel.

I think you’re right those just aren’t the places that happened to get the early cases. Yet those other states saw declines during lockdown and are now the ones trending up. Are you saying the virus has run out of fuel, so to speak, in those areas of concentration early on?

[mth123]

I’m generally open to this line of thought, but Atlanta/Houston/Dallas/Phoenix/Miami/Orlando are also major hubs of international travel.

I think you’re right those just aren’t the places that happened to get the early cases. Yet those other states saw declines during lockdown and are now the ones trending up. Are you saying the virus has run out of fuel, so to speak, in those areas of concentration early on?

Not running out of fuel, but my guess is that places that were hit hard up front are probably being more vigilant now. Places that weren't hit so hard are acting like the virus never happened and I think a lot of places will eventually pay for that complacency.

[jup]

I’m generally open to this line of thought, but Atlanta/Houston/Dallas/Phoenix/Miami/Orlando are also major hubs of international travel.

I think you’re right those just aren’t the places that happened to get the early cases. Yet those other states saw declines during lockdown and are now the ones trending up. Are you saying the virus has run out of fuel, so to speak, in those areas of concentration early on?

In a place like NYC it is possible that transmission has been slowed by the number of infections.

If the 211K number of cases confirmed for the city is correct, and the estimate by the CDC that we have 10x the number of cases that are confirmed, that would say 2 million NYC residents would have been infected. With a population of around 8.5 million, that would be approx. 25%. Not herd immunology numbers yet, but given that not everyone is exposed to the same set of factors (commutes by subway, etc.) the most susceptible population (the ones that face those factors daily) would be exposed first and it would take longer for the virus to work its way into the least (the ones that are out in public spaces the least). In that sense, the ones moving through public spaces least, would now face a more "immunized" public space, and that would slow transmission rates.