Whatever the mortality rate of COVID 19, containment is VITAL

[pat_k]

All this debate about how deadly COVID 19 completely misses the point.

Even if the overall fatality rate is the same as, or less than, seasonal flu strains, every effort possible MUST to be made to CONTAIN IT -- to prevent it from becoming endemic (i.e., prevent it from circulating at a relatively high baseline level in a population EVERY year).

The endemic "seasonal" flu strains kill 300,000 to 500,000 annually.

If we could have contained these viruses when they first appeared, it would have saved many, many millions of lives over the decades.

The actions being taken aren't being taken out of "hysteria"... they are being taken to contain the disease and prevent it from becoming another endemic strain. This is true whenever a new viral strain that can kill appears.

Getting a little "hysterical" about doing everything possible to contain the disease is fully justified given that failure to contain it will result in the death of millions over time.

Even if the overall mortality rate is similar to seasonal flu, the consequences of allowing it to become endemic are horrific.

[Thomas Hurt]

1. Preaching to the choir, but the media and apathetic don't care.

The GoP wants this covered up and are willing to take the risk of letting people die as long as it doesn't turn into a catastrophe.

Its an election year.

[pat_k]

2. Yup. Heaven forbid efforts to contain cause short-term upset in the economy

Millions of lives are worth a little economic upset.

Glad to hear I'm "preaching to the choir" here.

I'm just so sick of comparisons to the "regular" flu that imply it's not a problem if the mortality rate is about the same (some of which I've seen here on DU). It is a NEW virus. It will kill people who would not otherwise die if it is not contained.

-----------
On a related note about the CDC testing debacle.

Deleted misinformation about CDC test being based on Randox tech.

[lostnfound]

9. Randox is privately owned. Owner bought golf course near Giants Causeway

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-30396261

The proposed golf course angered environmentalists.
Sounds like the kind of place that Trump would love.

[pat_k]

10. Deleted

Last edited Sat Mar 7, 2020, 04:57 AM - Edit history (1)

[lostnfound]

18. Good reason to be suspicious of every deal trump administration does.

This will arise later. And I notice that the day after other places are announcing that they’ve developed test kits, Randox is now claiming they have a test kit that can identify the dangerous strain of coronavirus from the less aggressive strain of coronavirus. I’m not sure that the news about two possible strains has been out that long, seemed also odd.

[pat_k]

19. Deleted

[pat_k]

20. Apologies.

I discovered the information about CDC test being based on Randox tech was wrong and deleted it from my post. Very embarrassed.

[Fiendish Thingy]

3. The opportunity for containment has Mostly passed- focus is now on mitigation

Focus is now on mitigation of the impact of the uncontrollable spread of the virus until a vaccine can be implemented, hence the move to cancel public events, close schools, etc.

[pat_k]

5. I guess I think of any effort...

... to prevent uncontrolled spread as "containment"...

You are right. The CDC testing cock up allowed it to circulate for weeks undetected. I just hope efforts finally underway have a positive effect in mitigating.

Also, until we have a better handle on the speed with which SARS-CoV-2 undergoes genetic change, we can't predict how effective a vaccine would even be. Annual vaccines don't do a good job of preventing H3N2 because it undergoes change at a higher speed than other strains (at least that's my understanding).

On edit.
On poking around a little, it sounds more complex than that. A bit from the CDC on why vaccines aren't as effective against H3N2 here.

[uponit7771]

14. +1, for Red Don its no test kits, no positive test means he's got everything handled. It's on purpos

[EndlessWire]

15. I agree. n/t

[greyl]

4. K n R. nt

[defacto7]

6. Excellent post. K&R

[Squinch]

7. Let's not buy into any nonsense that says we don't know the mortality rate.

The World Health Organization has told us it is 3.4%. That is what it is as of this time.

The only one disputing that is the moron in Washington.

The mortality rate of this year's seasonal flu was 0.1% https://www.livescience.com/new-coronavirus-compare-with-flu.html

THIS IS NOTHING LIKE THE FLU! DON'T GIVE AIR TO THAT TALKING POINT!

[pat_k]

8. Intent was not to "give air" -- it was to knock some air out by...

... pointing out the whole debate is irrelevant to the need for efforts to detect, trace, quarantine, cancel events, work from home, and do whatever else we can to contain it.

But, of course you are right. The estimate is what it is. I guess my point is that even if endemic COVID 19 caused no more deaths than the flu, we must do everything in our power to prevent those deaths. The number is certainly not as horrific as the number of deaths at a rate of 3.4%, but horrific nonetheless.

As far as DT being the only one disputing. Sadly, a lot of the reporting of the mortality rate I've seen comes with some sort of qualification that the rate is probably lower because mild cases go undetected. Every time I see this, it pisses me off -- to me the qualification carries the implication that a lower mortality rate would somehow be OK and require no action.

[Strelnikov_]

11. Agree. Containment equals Controlled Release (Spread)

Controlled Spread = Controlled access (Load) to limited medical resources.

A laissez-faire approach is a death trip for millions.

[bullwinkle428]

12. And can we also add - unlike Covid 19, there is a vaccine for seasonal flu, and most intelligent

people make the effort to get vaccinated, reducing their chances of actually getting sick, or at least reducing the severity if they do.

DISCLAIMER!! I realize there are very legitimate medical reasons that certain people cannot receive the flu vaccine, so that's why it's so essential that the rest of make the effort to do so.

[pat_k]

13. Absolutely!

When an effective vaccine exists, it's vital that people use it to protect themselves and others.

Tragically, Trump seems to think that we don't really need to worry about containing now to stop the virus from becoming another "seasonal flu" because we'll have a vaccine and everything will be hunky dory.

The problem with that is that vaccines vary widely in their effectiveness. If the SARS-CoV2 that causes COVID 19 is a virus that goes through fairly rapid genetic change, we won't be able to develop an very effective vaccine (just as we haven't been able to develop a very effective virus against the H3N2 strain of seasonal flu.)

We cannot count on the development of a vaccine to somehow save us.

[coti]

16. Don't viruses mutate all the time, though? nt

[pat_k]

17. Yes, but my understanding is that different strains....

... tend to mutate at different rates and in different ways that make it more or less difficult to create an effective vaccine.

The vaccines they create every year for seasonal flu strains influenza B and influenza A(H1N1) are generally pretty effective in reducing chances of contracting. The vaccines are a lot less effective against Influenza A(H3N2) because, as I understood it, that strain mutates more rapidly.

I looked around a little more and it sounds likes it's more complicated than that. It sounds like it also has to do with the type of changes. (Excerpt from CDC explanation below).

In any case, I don't think anyone can predict how effective a vaccine developed for COVID 19 would be until they know a lot more about it's "behavior" (for lack of a better word).

Doing all we can now to stop COVID 19 from becoming a new, widespread, seasonal illness is paramount. I don't think we can count on a vaccine to "save us" down the line.

From https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/vaccineeffect.htm

Growth in eggs is part of the production process for most seasonal flu vaccines. While all influenza viruses undergo changes when they are grown in eggs, changes in influenza A(H3N2) viruses tend to be more likely to result in antigenic changes compared with changes in other influenza viruses. These so-called “egg-adapted changes” are present in vaccine viruses recommended for use in vaccine production and may reduce their potential effectiveness against circulating influenza viruses. Other vaccine production technologies, e.g., cell-based vaccine production or recombinant flu vaccines, circumvent this shortcoming associated with the use of egg-based candidate vaccine viruses in egg-based production technology, but CDC also is using advanced molecular techniques to try to get around this short-coming.