23 minutes ago, HighBypass said:

Plenty of human trash that can be tested on

Um, yeah, sorry, not able to go with you on that one.

Human trials involve volunteers - since we're not in, you know, Auschwitz.

I have to say that some of the sentiments expressed in the course of this discussion - cull the herd of the weak and the sick, sacrifice the aged and the no-longer-economically-useful for society's greater good, and now this - make me wonder why there's so much celebrating of the "greatest generation" and fighting for our freedoms and such... given the persistent and vocal support for the values and policies of the side they fought against.

That's not how we do things here.

Yes, just one person. My apologies I managed to directly offend you, Stratocaster. I do subscribe to the "what if they're innocent?" argument. Except there are cases where there is NO DOUBT as to the guilt of the perpetrator...

Alan, I fully appreciate your reasoning and support the volunteering aspect.

I for one am not on about culling the herd, nor did I think you were referring to me.

However, in a roundabout way I was asking why Death Row still exists?

If I do something wrong, I will get punished, on a sliding scale of loss of rights.

If i do something REALLY wrong, then that's it, no more human rights for me. If, at that time, my biological makeup can be used to benefit the world then so be it...

I guess in this thread we are seeing a lot of hearts on sleeves and feelings & associated opinions being shown.

As has been said, this was one comment, by me, and not AVSIM and I shall no longer refer to serial killers and mass murderers etc. as trash.

Edited April 29, 20206 yr by HighBypass
finishing the sentence.

2 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

I will avoid making or replying to any political statements or references to government, even though government plays a huge role in this pandemic. 

I've been trying to walk the line of referring to actions and sometimes policies, but not the people behind the policies.  I agree it's not an easy line to walk.

3 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

Someone made a post about Covid-19 killing young adults and children.  Influenza kills young adults and children every year in the U.S. 

I believe that one of the main reasons Covid-19 has killed so many, more than Influenza, is because there's no vaccine for it. 

Well, yes, but there's also the fact that Covid-19 is much more aggressive than seasonal flu and has an impact on many more organ systems.  You can see that reflected in the much higher hospitalization rates for Covid-19.

The lack of a vaccine or treatment is the major problem.  At present we're dealing with a very aggressive, very contagious pathogen, and we have no way of addressing it.  Over time, there will be either treatments or vaccines or both.  The other night, there was an interview with Bill Gates where he suggested that we could succeed with no vaccine and a treatment-only model - that a treatment that was successful in reversing the virus in 95 percent of cases would bring the risk and the impact down to seasonal flu levels.  Treatments can be easier and faster to develop than vaccines (there's no HIV vaccine - it's managed through treatment) so that's a scenario worth considering.

Contagion plus lack of treatment is the issue.  You can contemplate opening things up, and there are well-thought-out plans for that (I'm thinking of Gov. Hogan's here in Maryland - analysis here).  But you also have to think about how those high-density areas interact with lower-density areas.  Interconnectedness is not our friend in the particular case.  You also have to watch quickly for new outbreaks and be ready to jump on them.  Germany isn't wrong to open things up but they have to keep a close eye (as they're doing) on how the virus responds.

There won't be continued total shutdown but we're still at the beginning of a long haul.

4 minutes ago, HighBypass said:

I for one am not on about culling the herd, nor did I think you were referring to me.

I wasn't - that was a more general statement, as you correctly noted.

4 minutes ago, HighBypass said:

I guess in this thread we are seeing a lot of hearts on sleeves and feelings & associated opinions being shown.

True, but we're also seeing statements of values, and our understanding of what is and isn't permissible and desirable in our society.  Things worth fighting for and things worth fighting against that kind of thing.

Kevin, I did not say that the flu was more dangerous than Coronavirus.  I said more people catch the flue than have contracted Coronavirus.  And the article pointed out the flue is transmitted the same way Cornavirus is.  24 million people a year catch the flu.  So why not force us all to wear masks during flu season?  And Coronavirus kills more people than the flu, but the flu does kill people. Up to 20,000 a year in bad years.  Are those lives less valuable than Coronavirus lives?

Reader, I did not say the flue was more dangerous than the Coronavirus.  I pointed out that many, many more people get the flu than get Coronavirus and that it is fatal to as many as 20,000 a year and that it is transmitted the same way.  So my question is why don't we force everyone to wear masks during flu season to cut down on flu epidemic every winter?

Noel

Sightseer, we all take risks every time we go out the front door.  You chance getting involved in a fatal automobile accident from a number of causes...speeding, texting driver, drunk driver,  mechanical malfunction.  You could get hit by car crossing the street.  You get hit by an object falling from a building.  A gas main might explode.  These are risks we take every day.  Even inside our homes there is a danger of fire from a faulty furnace or faulty electrical wiring.  Granted the chances are slim, but they are risks no-the-same.

I live just off the approach to Runway 17 at the Roswell Airport.  I used to land there frequently when I was still flying.  The AAL Dash-8s from Dallas use it a couple times a day.  My house could get hit if one of those aircraft suffered a malfunction of some type.

I do sympathize with you though.  My wife worked as a cashier at WalMart about 20 years or so ago.  She was coughing and sniffling all winter.  I told her to quit the job and in a couple weeks it all went away.

Noel 

24 minutes ago, birdguy said:

So why not force us all to wear masks during flu season?  And Coronavirus kills more people than the flu, but the flu does kill people. Up to 20,000 a year in bad years. 

Some have recommended that.

The issue with coronavirus is that it kills more people much faster.  U.S. coronavirus deaths have just crossed 60,000, after just a few weeks.  And that's not yet factoring in the excess death counts that may get added to the total.

Here's another hopeful note - encouraging results about remdesivir, a treatment that holds some promise - early results suggest it can produce improvements in severely ill people.  Another space worth watching.

I think comparisons to the flu and how we react to it vs COVID-19 are certainly valid, and indeed useful in some cases.  According to CDC estimates, for the last 9 years we've averaged around 37,000 deaths in the US alone from the flu, for a total of ~333,000 deaths in that period.  Influenza is caused by an actively recombinant constantly-mutating virus that continuously recycles through the world population.  Its cumulative effects over many, many years are too-often shrugged off as a cost of doing business.  But because it's a known threat, like stepping on a bee hive or walking in front of a car, we don't react emotionally to it, even in years like 2017-2018 when it silently killed ~61,000 people in the US alone.  If you die of flu are you any less dead than if you die of COVID-19?

The early word on SARS-COV-2 is that it does not tend towards RNA recombination like the influenza virus does, so odds of a very effective vaccine are encouraging.  Note the successes we've had with vaccines for measles, mumps, polio, etc--also viruses that do not tend to shuffle their genetic decks as regularly as "ordinary" flu, if there is a such thing.  And measles is possibly the most contagious pathogen known to man, with an R0 of 18, compared to ~2-3 for the Coronacrud.

And don't sell it short--the flu can be...indeed *has been* at least as dangerous as COVID-19.  The 1918 Spanish Flu killed 675,000 Americans out of a population of ~100 million...at the same death per capita rate that'd be 2.4 million dead today.

 

Here's a good factual rundown on the similarities and differences between novel coronavirus and seasonal flu.

And yes, seasonal flu can be deadly (and in the past has been very deadly).  The difference between novel coronavirus and recent seasonal flus is that coronavirus has a much more severe impact (as measured by hospitalization rates, and the percentage of those cases requiring ICU treatment) and much higher contagion.  Put those two together and you get the major current concern with coronavirus - the risk that it overwhelms the healthcare system.  You've got all those cases hitting in a 2-3 month period, and given the demand for hospital beds, the caseload threatened to outrun capacity.

A more aggressive seasonal flu could do the same thing at some point.

 

 

The Common Cold is a Coronavirus and the flu is not. What I would like to know but we don't have any way of knowing was when the Common Cold first crossed over to the human population how devastating was it at that time? and over time did it become mild as humans adapted to it?

2 hours ago, Matthew Kane said:

The Common Cold is a Coronavirus

Actually more than 200 different viruses are known to cause the symptoms of the common cold. It's estimated that 30-35% of all adult colds are caused by rhinoviruses, coronavirus is the cause of about 20% of colds and a few others, RSV, parainfluenza.  It's not in the viruses best interest to kill its host, so usually over time the virus might start off as being very virulent, and over time it might become less so. When a zoonotic disease like SARS-CoV-2 gets into the human population it has the potential to cause serious damage, but in its natural animal host lives pretty much in harmony without causing any pathology to the animal. Rabies is a good example, there are a number of mammal hosts for rabies in the United States, foxes, skunks, raccoons, bats and a couple of others. However there has only been one record of a human that has contacted rabies and survived without getting a preventative vaccine shot immediately. If a human contacts rabies it is a sure death sentence unless you receive the vaccine, and that is still no guarantee. 

Martin 

Edited April 30, 20206 yr by MartinRex007

Update

On the basis of as yet unpublished data, remdesivir "will be the standard of care" for patients with COVID-19, said Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

This is good news for a number of reasons, first remdesivir is a direct-acting antiviral that interferes with the virus polymerase which is required by the virus in order to replicate. Although this study looked at seriously ill COVID-19 patients, it should be able to be used when the first symptoms of COVID-19 appear. Because it slows/stops the ability for the virus to replicate in the body, this will give the immune system the time it needs to mount an effective response before the patient gets seriously ill.  If ICU numbers start to decrease with the use of this direct-acting antiviral that will be a critical care game changer.

Martin

Edited April 30, 20206 yr by MartinRex007

Remdesivir according to the article linked to on the previous page (Alan I think), is a broad-spectrum antiviral, so would I be correct in thinking it "might" also help if COVID019 mutates?

47 minutes ago, HighBypass said:

broad-spectrum antiviral

Broad spectrum in the sense that it works on blocking polymerase which a number of coronaviruses use for replication/transcription and can interfere with a number of steps that are involved with the life cycle of the virus. Therapeutics referred to as Direct-acting antiviral target a very specific viral molecule that is required for the virus to replicate, and might be required in a number of steps. Viruses are referred to as intra-cellular-obligate-parasites, a fancy term for saying they can't live long outside of a living cell and are dependent on the cellular machinery of the cell they are infecting in order to replicate. If you block something in that pathway in this case polymerase you stop the replication.  There are too many ways a virus can mutate, it really would depend on if the mutation occurred with the polymerase molecule and how robust that molecule is? 

Martin

Edited April 30, 20206 yr by MartinRex007