World Health Organisation Q & A

Thanks Jim, a very helpful guide, there is so much fake news about that appears genuine.

  If you or anyone else is interested the link below takes you to a article in one of our local papers in the UK. It's a practical description of the coronavirus situation by a virologist (never even knew that such a title existed) and gives some good insight into the world of viruses. It does give some hope as to how this pandemic will go.

Rgds,

Aitch.

https://www.stamfordmercury.co.uk/news/virologist-explains-what-we-know-and-dont-know-about-covid-19-9104276/

Thanks Aitch, that's a very thoughtful and well written article, and it's the first time I've seen a believable explanation of how long the virus might last.

Having done a check, I'm impressed that the author worked on both the swine flu epidemic and in Africa on Ebola, so she obviously knows what she is talking about.

Apart from hoping we survive it, we just have to hope that it doesn't come back each year in a different mutation like influenza does.

I've seen some shocking assertions on Fakebook.  The usual pattern is to start off with something plausible, such as, "This has been issued by the Director of Epidemiology at [enter world-renowned university of your choice!]......." and then goes on to claim all sorts of nonsense.  The worst I've seen so far are that "Covid-19 thrives on Ibuprofen" - it doesn't - and "gargle with Hydrogen Peroxide" - without advising people that it has to be a weak solution and shouldn't be done by anyone with a strong gag reflex as there's a danger you could swallow it, and it burns! 

Then there's the conspiracy theorists, who want to you believe that the Chinese developed a man-made virus to release on the world as a form of germ warfare.  That one's already been debunked by the world's CDCs (Centre for Disease Control and Protection) having sequenced the complete genome of the virus and confirmed that it is not man-made.

For people who like computer-based learning, the course I recommended on Monday is well-worth signing up for:

https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/covid19-novel-coronavirus?utm_campaign=fl_march_2020&utm_medium=futurelearn_organic_email&utm_source=newsletter_broadcast&utm_term=200311_ADH___COVID4&utm_content=course05_copy

For people who are visual learners, I'd recommend a new 6-part documentary on Netflix, "Pandemic".  It pre-dates Covid-19, but covers seasonal influenza, Ebola, H1N1 (known in India as Swine 'flu), SARS and MERS.  Particularly interesting to me is the surveillance and monitoring work undertaken by the CDCs.  The WHO co-ordinates input from the scientists working in the field.

Kind regards,

Hi Kim, some good topics there, if I do both the online courses and watch the series I reckon I will be able to get in the NHS!

Thanks,

Aitch

Some interesting numbers I read and chatted about, with people who are so called "in the know" (make of that claim what you wish!).

The numbers may not be accurate, but I think based on previous numbers from Imperial College and the government itself, they may be in the ball park.

For the hard of understanding: I must also stress I am not advocating this. I'm merely passing on the numbers which may or may not be correct.

So, the numbers.

At the start of this, before it even became "a thing", Imperial college said it left to let rip 500,000 people in the UK will likely die from it.

If you manage that number down using existing healthcare provisions it comes in at around 220,000. Most older, mostly already in ill-health. Many of whom have already been refused life-changing treatment due to cost.

The estimated cost of the measures presently in place in the UK is about £500,000,000,000. Or, half a trillion pound.

So, the value now placed on each of those "at-risk" lives is £2.3m. Per person.

The same government who is advocating this expenditure is the same one who routinely deny people the chance to live because the drugs which would cost c.£40k is deemed too expensive. This government recently got a huge majority. So, it follows that the majority agreed that the value of human life was sub £40k.

Speaking with some "health professionals" (a catch-all term which really means nothing) a view is that a period of isolation will achieve nothing but delay the inevitable. The only way to really beat this is A. Develop a vaccine (18months away), or B. Allow the healthy to become infected and so build up anti-bodies*, attempt to shield the at-risk by herd immunity and just accept a lot of people are going to die.

* Again, perhaps questionable, but the general view I'm reading is that Corona-virus2 (the correct name for the present virus) is mutating extremely slowly. So exposure will result in immunity for at least a few years.

As I say, I'm not advocating anything, or even saying the numbers above are correct, but it does raise some very difficult questions.

Hi WDG,

You're correct to caveat the statement, "Allow the healthy to become infected and so build up anti-bodies*".  This is the position the UK initially took (apparently "science-led"), until the WHO told them that there was no proof of herd immunity as Covid-19 is a novel corona virus and it was too early to rely on that assumption.  Corona viruses have been around since the 1960s and it seems the UK was content to rely on information about previous variants to deal with this novel mutation.  Time will tell.....

Kind regards, 

Kim

Hi Kimmy. 

Out of interest, does anyone know what the end game goal is for the isolation approach? I appreciate the aim in the short term is to reduce the number of people infected to levels that are manageable by the respective health services, but nothing about how it will managed in the mid to long term, only a vaccine, which everyone agrees is 1-2 years away, I think?

This is unchartered territory and the current suggestion is that restrictions could be in place for 12 weeks.  Based on the data available from Wuhan, scientists have estimated the basic rate of reproduction, known as R0, is between 2 and 3, i.e. for each person infected, they will pass it on to infect at least 2 and possibly 3 more people.  The purpose of 'lockdown' is to reduce and stabilise R0, i.e. for each person infected, they only infect 1 other person.   This buys time while the scientific community continue to interrogate the data. 

Now that China is out the other side of its "peak", they are looking at whether antibodies from people who have recovered from the disease can be used to reduce the impact and improve the recovery rate of those cases still actively infected (I wonder whether this will, ultimately, inform the development of a vaccine - it's a question I plan to ask the course leaders at London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine when we reconvene on Monday).  Another area they are looking at in China is reinfection rates, i.e. can people previously infected catch the disease again?  This will help to establish whether a level of "herd immunity" can be achieved (you may remember, a couple of weeks ago, the UK was criticized for making assumptions about herd immunity and subsequently amended their intervention strategy to concur with the rest of the world). 

Of course, data is being added all the time and variations in country populations and behaviours have to be taken into account before arriving at any conclusions.  I think I've mentioned before that coronaviruses have been around since the 1960s, but because this variant, SARS-CoV-2, which causes the disease Covid-19, is new (hence "novel") this is why we're currently seeing information only about how to report and manage symptoms.  The other question I plan to ask the course tutor is what informed the Spanish Government's assertion that this week and next week would be Spain's "peak" for infections.

At the moment, the best we can do to reduce transmission of this disease is to remain in lockdown.

Best wishes,

Kim