I just tried myself searching for this article on their site using the keyphrase I suggested and couldn’t find it that way either. Here’s the link to the full article:
Thanks.
Certainly an interesting idea but, to be fair, it seems that much of the article also pointed to cultural (behavioral) factors, in addition to more robust testing, quarantine, isolation in these countries (not to mention contract tracing, not mentioned in the article).
As for the differences btw the flu and COVID-19…
- Differing level of infectiousness (do you really hear about influenza superspreaders?)
- Differing incubation period
- Transmission from the asymptomatic
- Long COVID
- Different risk factors for bad outcomes for influenza vs. COVID
- COVID perhaps affecting children more severely than does influenza
But this is not my area of expertise.
Agree. A while back I’d been searching around for articles about the possibility of innate community resistance, which I find an interesting postulate, and found several articles containing, in effect, “some have said”. This particular article was just one of them, and the first that I was able to resurrect per your request.
Also, I’ve never actually compared flu as a disease to covid-19 as a disease. They have profound medical differences. I have, however, frequently compared them on a societal impact level, because in that context flu seems to me to be the most easily understood analogy.
But they are completely different on a societal impact - starting on the impact on the health care system (also in the future) to likelihood of future lockdowns on a regular basis etc. And @paranoidgarliclover is correct that as you write your posts you often compare covid and flu which is just plain wrong
Prizes in West Virginia’s vaccination lotto:
- One prize of $1 million
- Two full four-year scholarships to any West Virginia institution (must be aged 12-25)
- Two custom trucks
- 25 weekend getaways to West Virginia state parks
- Five lifetime hunting and fishing licenses
- Five custom hunting rifles
- Five custom shotguns
Oh, aside from the posts over the last 1-2 days, I had actually not been following this thread, so I’m unaware if @DoctorChow has often compared influenza to COVID.
I would agree that trying to compare influenza to COVID, at least at this point, is not a good idea b/c they are simply not comparable (w/ my limited knowledge). It’s not even apples to oranges. It’s like apples to a hammer.
And, early in the pandemic, there seemed to be such an attempt in certain circles (not saying @DoctorChow belongs to any of those circles) to compare influenza and COVID that I think a lot of “unnecessary” damage was done on multiple levels… and thus the comparisons need to stop (unless to explain how different the two are) to minimize further damage and loss of life.
My understanding is that, on a population level, vaccinations are most effective when EVERYONE gets vaccinated, so whatever they need to do, I guess…
What Honkman doesn’t seem to grasp is the difference between comparing and equating two things. Early on certain people were equating flu and covid-19 in terms of being almost identical diseases, which was unfortunate. A comparison, on the other hand, simply points to things that are similar and those that are different. For example, flu is the only disease for which the entire general public is encouraged every year to be vaccinated against; covid may prove to be a second. That’s a comparison that has nothing to do with the nature of the diseases themselves. Both are killer diseases, and while the current versions of covid are far more deadly than flu, they may not be in the future. That again is a comparison, not an equation. Etc.
Categorical statements about the future of SARS-CoV-2 are just hot air. Maybe vaccine-resistant variants will evolve. Maybe they won’t, and global vaccination programs will cause it to fade away. Maybe we’ll need to get annual shots as for seasonal flu. Maybe we’ll have wide-spectrum vaccines that protect against all coronaviruses. At this point no one knows enough to make an authoritative prediction. Anyone who talks otherwise is not an authority.
If community resistance were a major factor in some countries avoiding widespread infection, new variants shouldn’t have made much of a difference. Seems more likely to me that mild climates and the consequent better ventilation in homes and workplaces made the difference at first, and that variants that can cause serious Covid infections with fewer virus particles reduced that advantage.
This is a very good comparison of covid and flu, including the pathological differences. I was going to bring up the 1918 flu, but decided against it. The article makes good reading. It’s short and to the point, with lots of references.
Perhaps, but that’s also speculation. Although Japan has seen an increase in cases and deaths recently, they’re currently still 128th among all countries in the world in terms of deaths per million (104/M). Vietnam is #203 with 80 deaths/million. By comparison, the US is now #18 with 1835 deaths per million. Deaths in Asian countries are still very, very low.
Better ventilation and a difference in climate may be partly responsible, but not necessarily in total. Other possibilities shouldn’t be ruled out pre-emptively. (This is like the question currently resurging, “How did the covid virus originate?”) I’d like to keep a completely open mind and at least consider all postulates.
That’s a pretty lousy paper with wrong facts and the last 3-4 paragraphs are just sad and show a missing basic understanding of how drugs and diagnostic works. No offense to the authors but just because you work as plastic surgeon or started med school two years ago makes you an expert in virology or Covid pandemic
Which facts do you think they got wrong?
Hey, give these guys a break, Honk. They may not be the virology, infectious disease, epidemiology, and vaccinology guru that you are (did I miss anything?), but they’re intelligent people expressing their considered opinions based on their own personal institutional backgrounds, research, and perspectives. They have some interesting information to share in the article. (Probably nothing you don’t already know, though, I suppose.)
“Which facts do you think they got wrong?”
I wish you weren’t so judgmental about others’ ideas and opinions. This is a discussion board for chrissake, Honk, not a refereed professional journal.
I think of it this way: We’re virtually sitting together around a coffee table having a brisk but civilized and respectful discussion. With good wine, of course. Why not just sit down with us and stop talking like everyone is a dummy except you.
That’s the problem. 1 of the authors is a med student, 1 author is… I don’t exactly what her profession is, but she’s not a med student or clinician, and the 3rd author is a plastic surgeon… which means he likely knows very little about infectious diseases.
The last 3-4 paragraphs sound a lot like BS gibberish (throwing out impressive-sounding terms that may not be particularly precise) and are actually pretty bad. Whether they are accurate or not, I can’t say. But it is poorly written and so overly broad to the point of being meaningless, IMO.
The point is, why is that a problem? You can take what they have to say and choose to ignore what you wish, based on the authors’ limited credentials.
What are your credentials in this field? What are mine? None, really. But should that prevent us from reading and commenting on articles written by semi-intelligent academics with tangential backgrounds who have spent time thinking about it?
I’ve been a referee for more than one professional journal, and frankly if I received this paper as a draft, I’d have a number of editorial and content comments.
Keep in mind that this was an opinion piece (an editorial) in a campus publication, not meant as a scientific submission.
Let’s move on.
I’m a physician w/ a volunteer academic appointment at the local medical school, and the residency program of that school in my field is routinely considered the top program on the west coast (and has been for decades). I also have two published articles in peer-reviewed journals.
While I am not an infectious disease specialist, my credentials in terms of general medical knowledge run circles around the first two authors and are at least equal to the third.
My qualifications are more than sufficient to say that this “editorial” is sh*t and that I am deeply embarrassed for all of the authors.
1 Like
Fair enough. I really don’t care to defend this particular article any further. My comments were more general in nature, regarding published remarks by almost anyone (DT excluded).
I’m not a medical expert. My PhD is in Aerospace Engineering, and I was a professor at two major universities, specializing in thermodynamics, gas dynamics, and combustion. I’ve also worked for a large contract research company that serves the US DoD.
At one point I did have to delve into microbiological phenomena, so that’s my only salient background. It’s amazing how much you can learn when you delve deeply into the literature, as a PhD working on a thesis would, about a narrow corner of a specialized field. For a fairly long period of time, I (and my peers) felt I was really quite expert in a particular subset of bacterial phenomena.
I’ve been following the social and medical aspects of The Great Pandemic of 2020 since the beginning, with considerable interest in all aspects, and have learned a lot. I have not, however, delved into the academic and government literature as I would have when working.
I’ve also got a lot out of this thread, especially posts with links to articles by Robert and Honkman, which have interesting content, whether or not I agree with them.
What is DT?
Does thermodynamics overlap w/ ventilation? My own impression is that ventilation and masking (even more than social distancing) is essential in this pandemic. I do plan to keep masking indoors (or in any crowded outdoor area) for at least a few wks after CA lifts its mandates b/c I assume any increase in infections will take wks to become apparent.
There was one fairly recent article where the authors used a theory of infection that was based on estimating the probability of a traffic accidents (so random collisions?). The authors concluded that masking could keep one safe indoors for several hrs, while social distancing (in absence of masking and good ventilation) was actually not so useful. Can’t remember where I read the article, though…
I do wonder if, as an engineer, you’d have some thoughts about ventilation.
I hate to utter his name, so I used DT for [donald trump].
Thermodynamics overlaps with almost everything, but some fields (like energy) more directly than others (ventilation). HVAC is an engineering branch all its own that is taught in some schools (including one university where I taught). Thermodynamics does play a significant role and is pre-requisite.
As a fluid dynamics specialist, I’ve had a great interest in ventilation and airflow, especially in confined spaces, in the context of virus spread, since the pandemic began. We’ve had quite the extensive discussion of that here on FTC going back to early last year, but mostly on another thread. The discussion included experimental observations, computational fluid dynamics (CFD), and synthesized data involving airborne releases in enclosed spaces.
I think it’s this one:
https://www.foodtalkcentral.com/t/can-restaurants-be-made-safe-during-the-pandemic/11550/196
By the way, I’m glad that you’ve joined this thread.
1 Like