RobertL18C wrote:
Complete layman, but I understand the ‘flu vaccine doesn’t necessarily prevent getting the ’flu, although the symptoms should be less severe, but is designed to create herd immunity.
The consequences of a real ’flu pandemic might make Cv-19 be a walk in the park.
Yes, you are correct on both accounts.
The flu vaccine doesn’t offer full protection because the Influenza virus mutates quickly and there are different stems, so each year a panel of virologists and epidemiologists guesstimates which subtypes are most likely to constitute the next seasonal Influenza, then the vaccine is produced accordingly (which takes at least half a year…something that makes me pessimistic about any SARS-CoV2 vaccine because the number of required doses is much higher for that).
Also, a “real flu pandemic”, as you say, would be much deadlier (compare the Spanish Flu of 1918-1920) indeed.
In a way, Covid-19 is our “trial pandemic” and exposed a lack of preparedness in almost all countries.
A flu kills about 50k people in the UK (and probably similar % in most countries) each year, but it does it over a few months and the hospitals are ready for it, and it happens every year, so it doesn’t make the news.
Vaccines look like they will take a bit of time.
I haven’t a clue why countries like France are getting a massive uptick in the number of positive cases of Covid 19 and I’m not sure anybody has the definitive answer. I really value the practical common sense posts of Medewok and Kwif. I tend to learn more from their answers to various hypotheses than I do from any amount of media reports.
However, and I might be naively believing something which has little or even too much basis in fact.
For a number of reasons I have been talking regularly with several oncologists and although Covid is not in their field of expertise, anecdotally they are reporting a similar finding.
That is there seems to be a correlation between the level of oxygen normally measured in a patient’s bloodstream at every test and the severity of the disease if the patient gets it.
The lower the oxygen levels in the blood the more severe the disease symptoms if it strikes.
As they say this is only anecdotal, as they put it , chat over the canteen table.
gallois wrote:
That is there seems to be a correlation between the level of oxygen normally measured in a patient’s bloodstream at every test and the severity of the disease if the patient gets it.
The lower the oxygen levels in the blood the more severe the disease symptoms if it strikes.
As they say this is only anecdotal, as they put it , chat over the canteen table.
Yea, there seems to be a correlation. This was reported before, as early as April IIRC. Oxygen saturation (SpO2), which is easily measurable, can be used as a “screening tool” for severe Covid-19, although one has to be very careful of drawing hasty conclusions, as there are many reasons for a reduced SpO2. Among them, smoking, COPD, Asthma, vascular diseases, pneumonia and as pilots well know, high altitude. The most common reason is an incorrectly placed sensor.
And, of course, a person with normal SpO2 can be highly infectious, as the saturation will only sink during the second phase of Covid-19, when it no longer replicates in the throat but instead in the lungs! Way earlier in this thread I posted an explanation of the “three stages of Covid-19”, and the swab/PCR test will only find it during the first phase, when the patients have rather minor symptoms (fever, headache, loss of smell/taste), while SpO2 will not be reduced until the second phase (viral pneumonia).
I do feel the population (at least in the UK, and, as ever, a part) do not appreciate just how infectious COVID is. I can only assume that most people have nothing to which to relate the disease to, because, when we catch other respiratory diseases, we never think how we were infected. It would be interesting to know with close exposure what the chances of catching the virus are – I know there have been a few studies including the resteraunt in Japan (was it). Patently it would seem the risk of infection is very high. Patently very small up blips will escalate rapidly, and it seems to me this follows any releaxation in our behaviour. It also seems to me as soon as groups come together again the trend we now see is unavoidable, whereas, when social distancing was first introduced in most countries, masks, groups limited etc the rate of spread can be substantially reduced. In other words it is a relatively fine balance and we do not yet have the knowledge to allow this balance to shift to far towards more freedom without an inveitable spike in cases. I think that is exactly what we are seeing in Europe and it is entirely down to complacency and the gradual relaxation of social distancing. I guess that seems obvious, but I guess public health agencies simply dont know exactly where the boundaries are, and again we are learning by trial and error. I also think that an issue is the parameters of the “experiment” are changing, which is not helpful. I refer to the change in the climate which in itself will bring people into closer proximity, so potentially a regime which was working reasonably well, may, without any other changes, become less effective in suppressing the spread. If your goal was to stop the spread of the virus, then once again in the UK I think the Government has gone too far too fast. It would have been fine in Spring, but not in Autumn when the eniviromental parameters are about to change quickly. I suspect if the relaxations we have seen in the last few weeks had not been encouraged, then we would have been in a far better position going into the winter, and maybe even those would have needed some tightening, but at least the up tick would have been much less.
We shall of course see, but the next couple of months will establish a trend, and we may need some dramatic action if the virus shows indication of spreading rapidly again, which I think is entirely possible.
@Medewok, again another excellent explanation but I don’t think the oncologists were saying that O2 is a cure or a screening test, only that if (and it is only an anecdotal if) a person usually has low levels of O2 in their bloodstream, whether that be below 90% or 80% ( it was just chats between colleagues so no definitive levels were mentioned) if they happened to get Covid 19, the lower it was the more severe the result was likely to be. It was something they had noted for their patients many of them in care homes.
As you say these people were also more likely to have other problems as well as cancer but what they were discussing was what seemed to be patients at the same stages of their cancer treatment , similar ages or at least over 60, as I understood them, and why some either recovered quickly after testing positive whilst others needed to go into intensive care and some of whom sadly died. AIUI it was just chat and no conclusions were drawn, probably as you say because there are far too many other reasons which could cause this discrepancy, if indeed there is one.
Doubtless wearing face masks will help maintain a healthy 02 level in the bloodstream.
Some people claim that the only way to handle the pandemic is by strict lockdowns. I don’t believe that as the figures don’t agree. Other factors are vastly more important. Looking at Europe, we find a very large difference in deaths/pop among the countries with lockdowns. Sweden, which did not lock down, is somewhere in the middle.
Statistics for different regions of Sweden reinforce my view. The Stockholm region has 100 Covid-19 deaths per 100.000 pop. The Scania (Malmö) region has 20. Scania is the 3rd largest metropolitan area in Sweden and part of the greater Copenhagen area, so we’re not talking about nordic wilderness.
The measures (or lack thereof, if you wish) were exactly the same in both regions. Also Sweden has not had any travel restrictions so no one from Stockholm has been prevented from traveling to Scania and spread the disease. (Although people were certainly encouraged not to travel.)
If you are familiar with the situation in Sweden, there are some obvious differences between the two regions:
- Sweden has a one week school break in February/March often called the “sports break”. It is common for families to travel that week. Different regions of Sweden has this break at different times to avoid overloading winter sports resorts. That school break in Stockholm coincided in time with the big outbreak in the Alps. The school break in Scania was earlier.
- The epidemic started earlier in Stockholm, so Scania had more time to prepare.
gallois wrote:
@Medewok, again another excellent explanation but I don’t think the oncologists were saying that O2 is a cure or a screening test, only that if (and it is only an anecdotal if) a person usually has low levels of O2 in their bloodstream, whether that be below 90% or 80% ( it was just chats between colleagues so no definitive levels were mentioned) if they happened to get Covid 19, the lower it was the more severe the result was likely to be. It was something they had noted for their patients many of them in care homes.
I would expect someone with a low “starting level” of O2 in the blood (say 90%) to have less reserves in case they contract Covid-19, compared to someone who usually has 97%.
In pilot terms, one of them has a 450 m runway while the other has 900 m. The one with the 450 m runway can usually land or take off just fine, but now they have a 10-15 kt tailwind (representing Covid-19)
flybymike wrote:
Doubtless wearing face masks will help maintain a healthy 02 level in the bloodstream
No, but they don’t reduce SpO2 either. It’s mainly a psychological barrier. O2 is much too small not to pass through any mask with ease.
