Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 298 posts

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#241

Post by jcadam »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #137
tmaly wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like to see more details about those affected, age, immuno compromised or not, asthma or not. Its hard to really draw any comparison to flu or anything else as things stand right now.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-... is quite good, WHO.int have publications on it if you want a more trusted source (but this one seems good to me).

Hard to find numbers on asthma, specifically.

I have mild persistent asthma, for example, which for me means if I take a daily (low) dose of an inhaled corticosteroid, I can generally go about my business like a normal person and almost never need to use my rescue inhaler.

I've only seen stats for COVID-19 fatalities for people with "respiratory conditions." Which could be anything from mild asthma on up to stuff like emphysema and cystic fibrosis.

I know, insufficient data.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#242

Post by gamblor956 »

refurb wrote: post #196
chinathrow wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rates in China are dropping because they have some form of travel restrictions for 780m people. If those restrictions would be removed, the rates would go up immediately as seen before and now in other countries. Edit: source added https://inews.co.uk/news/world/china-coronavirus-covid-19-de...

Is there any reason to believe other countries won’t institute travel restrictions if they get a ton of cases? My point is that based on how many die from the flu each year, you’d have to see 130,000 deaths in China for the impact to be the same as the flu.

You can't compare absolute deaths between the flu and WCV.

The flu infects nearly 20% of the world's population each year. Estimates by the NIH are 10-20% annually in the US, and those numbers are probably similar in other countries. China has a billion people, so that means the flu infects probably 200 million people each year but only 130,000 die. The death rate is below 0.2%.

In contrast, only about 90,000 people have been infected with WCV so far. Thousands have died. The death rate is at 3.8%, or roughly 19-20x higher than the flu.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#243

Post by he0001 »

viggity wrote: post #177
fooey wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given there's no herd immunity, and the virulance of the strain, estimates are 40-70% of the population will contract the virus within a year 0.2% of 40% of the US Population is 260,000 deaths within a year[1] "it's just the flu" greatly underappreciates just how deadly influenza actually is If the mortality rate is more in the 2%+ range, we're looking at millions of deaths in the US alone. [1] https://www.wolframalp…

Influenza has a CFR of 0.1% COVID-19 has CFR of 2-3% (20-30x higher). Officially the CFR for COVID is ~3.3% but it is thought that is too high because there is thought to be many people who have it who are asymptomatic or have a mild reaction. FTR - 2% of 40% is 2.6 million. The R0 is the highest driving factor for how many people will end up getting it the first year (aka R-Naught, is how many people on average an i…

I think people forgets that if the ordinary flu would have caused this outbreak the counter measurements would probably be the same. But now it’s too late and too complex to stop it. Having two such viruses would probably very problematic and expensive. And which I believe many who compares this to the flu, forgets that we don’t know what this virus does and can cause. A person that had their lungs destroyed because, if true, the coronavirus still will have a miserable life than just dying. Assuming that the death rate is 1% there perhaps be 10% who will have major issues after an infection. That’s not dying but still bad enough.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#244

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

geggam wrote: post #158
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that case, it seems like an even weirder affect to take on - none of the nicotine, all of the bad breath and mouth cancer.

You absorb nicotine in the mouth. You dont get tar in your lungs. No smoking is good for you but then again the leading cause of death is birth so enjoy the time you have. If cigars are your thing smoke it up

In that case I guess you probably shouldn't be trying to keep score in regards to your vice.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#245

Post by mirekrusin »

morpheuskafka wrote: post #15
aazaa wrote: post #10

From the paper: > If the neuroinvasion of SARS-CoV-2 does take a part in the development of respiratory failure in COVID-19 patients, the precaution with masks will absolutely be the most effective measure to protect against the possible entry of the virus into the CNS. It may also be expected that the symptoms of the patients infected via facal-oral or conjunctival route will be lighter than those infected intranasa…

Yes, only a N95 or better mask would protect you from incoming, as opposed to outgoing, viruses, and these masks are both impractical for everyday wear and need to be conserved for public health users.

Protection from outgoing is the same as protection from incoming if you don’t look at it only from your own perspective, right?

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#246

Post by whatshisface »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #227
Symmetry wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that different sources are using different definitions of "effective" here. If a simple surgical mask cuts down transmission rates by 50% that isn't anywhere near good enough for health workers working with sick patients every day. But it might still make a significant improvement in your chances of getting infected and, combined with social distancing, might drop the R0 below 1. Hence why Chinese and Korean…

The problem is that a mask that isn't regularly replaced and handled very carefully actually increases your chances of catching the virus, via a mask->hand->face transmission.

Wait, how? If it's on the mask wouldn't it be on the face if the mask wasn't there? What process puts viruses on masks but not faces?

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#247

Post by [deleted] »

greenburger wrote: post #225
doublekill wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, there is a 2009 study which compares N95 mask efficiency with surgical masks, because they predict that during a pandemic N95 masks will be in shorter supply. (1) They don't find significantly more efficiency for N95 masks, but other studies do find N95 masks slightly better. (2) (1) https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/184819 (2) https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1750-2659... Do a s…

Even a simple homemade mask has some efficacy [1] though it significantly less. The primary author’s summary of wether they would be protective is “no” [2] [1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258525804_Testing_t... [2] https://twitter.com/chaiclate/status/1232972182667612162?s=2...

[deleted]

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#248

Post by Seenso »

aazaa wrote: post #10

From the paper: > If the neuroinvasion of SARS-CoV-2 does take a part in the development of respiratory failure in COVID-19 patients, the precaution with masks will absolutely be the most effective measure to protect against the possible entry of the virus into the CNS. It may also be expected that the symptoms of the patients infected via facal-oral or conjunctival route will be lighter than those infected intranasa…

> I should also point out that most people in the US face similar conditions to those in Wuhan. The extent of infection is not known, and therefore protective measures are not in place. We have been actively discouraged from "buying masks" and told that they are ineffective.

Not exactly. I'm hopeful that differences between the typical American lifestyle and the typical Chinese lifestyle will help make the epidemic less severe in the US.

Americans are more "spread out" than Chinese: we often drive personal cars instead of taking public transit; our homes are freestanding with more private space per person; our public spaces are often less crowded, etc. I think open offices are even more common in China. Hopefully that extra distance will help.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#249

Post by samatman »

geggam wrote: post #239
samatman wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN was founded in 2007, so per the Lindy Effect we should bet on it being around until 2033. I don't know what your over-under on self-driving cars being prevalent is, so I don't know if this supports your point or not.

Looking at the current infrastructure and the current investment in said infrastructure. I think it’s a safe bet to go out 30 years or more before self driving cars are the norm. In cities sure. Rural areas not happening. Add the fact people like to drive to Mexico Canada and Alaska I’d call it a non starter. Example. I have a place where the road on google maps and the place people drive vary because rural Arizona u…

A lot hinges on whether one considers level 4 or level 5 to be "self-driving".

I wouldn't want to own a car without a steering wheel, sometimes you have to do weird stuff like park on a specific patch of grass at a rural wedding and it's going to be easier to do that myself than try and convince a robot.

But a car that can a) handle 'most' driving for some value of 'most' and can b) safely hand over or come to a stop under basically all circumstances including a sleeping driver? That's actually a much simpler task and it's a very useful vehicle. I would want one of those even if I lived somewhere where road conditions were such that I had to steer it myself on a daily basis.

Like in Arizona, once you got to paved road you could enter an address in Phoenix and kick back in actual safety, without having to worry about taking over at a moment's notice. I think that's achievable in 10-20 years, and it could be less.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#250

Post by usrusr »

OJFord wrote: post #92
decebalus1 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not sure I would call them impractical for everyday wear. I wear N95 masks when commuting during active wildfires. Right on. For the past couple of years, because the Seattle summers have been hazy due to the wildfire smoke, I still have quite a large batch of N95 masks. I too used to wear them during my commute and the only problem I see is that if you're at risk (underlying respiratory/heart problems) you'll…

I was under the impression that there isn't (yet? But not even close to) a supply issue for the healthcare sector, but rather only at retail, due to a combination of increased demand and supply switching over to for-healthcare-only mode. This will be something that's routine, just following the plan, that exists to serve some combination of regulation, duty, and risk (burning important healthcare customer or governme…

Not yet, because outside of active infection hotspots healthcare workers don't yet use significantly more masks than usual.
Post reply on HN