DON'T PANIC.... well, maybe a little bit.

Possible treatment? Gilead says patients in their phase 3 trial of Remdesivir see rapid recoveries of symptoms.
The University of Chicago Medicine recruited 125 people with Covid-19 into Gilead’s two Phase 3 clinical trials. Of those people, 113 had severe disease. All the patients have been treated with daily infusions of remdesivir.

“The best news is that most of our patients have already been discharged, which is great. We’ve only had two patients perish,” said Kathleen Mullane, the University of Chicago infectious disease specialist overseeing the remdesivir studies for the hospital.

 
Possible treatment? Gilead says patients in their phase 3 trial of Remdesivir see rapid recoveries of symptoms.



Another Trump touted drug, with almost 50% of severe side effects, including multiple-organ dysfunction syndrome, septic shock, acute kidney injury, low blood pressure and liver damage.
 
Another Trump touted drug, with almost 50% of severe side effects, including multiple-organ dysfunction syndrome, septic shock, acute kidney injury, low blood pressure and liver damage.
Care to cite a source?
 
That was irony. When Trump strongly supported hydroxychloroquine, that was the most dangerous drug in the media, doubling down any beneficial effects and exacerbating bad effects.
When Trump loosely supports remdesivir, and he did, it is "good" and "promising" in the media, despite side effects that make hydroxychloroquine a benign pill comparing to remdesivir.

Here is a source:
https://www.biospace.com/article/da...e-of-remdesivir-for-covid-19-looks-promising/
 
I wouldn't jump on the cure bandwagon too soon. This not so scientific study was conducted and paid for by Gilead. Only thing out so far is a statement from the lead doctor who is being paid by Gilead. Nothing explaining the test or results in writing yet. Also, Gilead doesn't have the best reputation in their past. It was they who developed the treatment for Hep C and when it was released, offered it for US$84,000 a pop.
 
High temperature, strong sun (>30 C) and high relative humidity (>60%) destroy the virus quickly,
US National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center finds.

At the end of the day the praying method worked for Indonesia. We have all these conditions here.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/sunlight...ould-still-last-through-summer-200745675.html

Good news. Most major transmission events have had been in large, confined spaces such as mass rapid transit (Jakarta KRL is though to be one major spreader), and mass religious gatherings.

Still, while it reduces transmission, the R-effective number is still above 1 in Indonesia, as can be seen by growing case load. So we can't get complacent. On the other hand, mitigation efforts in Indonesia could be effective with relatively small changes. Such as avoiding air-conditioned public spaces, wearing masks for everyone, etc.
 
It also means that supermarkets, malls, offices should switch off their air condition cooling systems and open windows, where possible.
 
DHS " “Outdoor daytime environments are lower risk for transmission,” the briefing states. ..."

So can we please open the beaches? Trying to swim laps in my little backyard about 5 metres is tiresome and particularly as we don't have a pool. just grass.
 
DHS " “Outdoor daytime environments are lower risk for transmission,” the briefing states. ..."

So can we please open the beaches? Trying to swim laps in my little backyard about 5 metres is tiresome and particularly as we don't have a pool. just grass.
Me too mate ,I miss snorkeling at mengiat ,
 
Coincidentally that is also my nearest snorkeling spot but usually just for go for swim at Jimbaran as it's only 9 minutes from home.
 
Some scientists now say Covid-19 could have started spreading in September, and came from Southern China and not Wuhan...


According to the Newsweek article, Peter Forster said “it is possible the outbreak did not originate in Wuhan, as until January 17, almost all the isolates were type B. In Guangdong, a province about 500 miles from Wuhan, seven of the 11 isolates were type A.”. Since he used the words “it is possible”, he is not sure about the origin of the outbreak yet.

From the same article, “However, A was not the virus type found in most cases in Wuhan, the city in China where COVID-19 was first identified. Instead, most people there had type B. Researchers suggest there was a "founder event" for type B in Wuhan. Type C, the "daughter" of type B, is what was identified in early cases in Europe, as well as South Korea, Singapore and Hong Kong—but appears absent from mainland China.

So there are 3 types, C came after B, and B came after A. In other words, there cannot be C without B, and there cannot be B without A. Interestingly, most of the cases in the USA is A while most of the cases in Wuhan is B.

Research News direct from the University of Cambridge > https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news...nalysis-provides-snapshot-of-pandemic-origins
 
According to the Newsweek article, Peter Forster said “it is possible the outbreak did not originate in Wuhan, as until January 17, almost all the isolates were type B. In Guangdong, a province about 500 miles from Wuhan, seven of the 11 isolates were type A.”. Since he used the words “it is possible”, he is not sure about the origin of the outbreak yet.

From the same article, “However, A was not the virus type found in most cases in Wuhan, the city in China where COVID-19 was first identified. Instead, most people there had type B. Researchers suggest there was a "founder event" for type B in Wuhan. Type C, the "daughter" of type B, is what was identified in early cases in Europe, as well as South Korea, Singapore and Hong Kong—but appears absent from mainland China.

So there are 3 types, C came after B, and B came after A. In other words, there cannot be C without B, and there cannot be B without A. Interestingly, most of the cases in the USA is A while most of the cases in Wuhan is B.

Research News direct from the University of Cambridge > https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news...nalysis-provides-snapshot-of-pandemic-origins
Too many "experts" for me. Most are just guessing, using "modelling" statistics. Charlatans!!!
 
Doubtless our present hygiene focus using anti bacterials for frequent hand washing, spraying and wiping down of surfaces will stay for some while into the future while the Covid 19 lurks in the background. At the same time it is interesting to note that before the turn of the century the Japanese had become increasingly fastidious when it came to hygiene but with a downside.

In 2013 Tokyo Medical and Dental University professor emeritus Koichiro Fujita warned that Japanese were undermining the development of their natural immune systems with keppeki-sho," translated variously as fastidiousness, fussiness over cleanliness or phobia of dirt. Over several decades Fujita had made many study visits to rural Indonesia, where public sanitation practices were close to nonexistent. Yet, he says, children in Kalimantan grow up free from such common maladies in Japan as atopic dermatitis, asthma and pollen allergies.

Fujita observed that an obsession with killing germs had led to the loss of natural, good bacteria essential for good health. He noted that two Japanese obstetric hospitals suspect 50 to 60% of premature births or miscarriages may have been due to infections brought on by overwashing and with the loss of protective bacteria.

Fujita said it is important that people be in contact with nature of the greatest extent possible. ""A society where germs are all around us is not a dangerous one. Most of the germs around us have not changed for 10,000 years or more, and there's no need for us to overreact, letting themselves be made to dance to the tunes of the marketers of 'hygienic' and 'fastidiousness."

Until we have some means of control in relation to Covid 19 it makes sense to make an issue of safe hygiene practices. But from all the advertising across a huge swathe of products, hammering the notion of protection and cleanliness it seems probable that profit and sales increases will be misused to the point of overkill.
 
Doubtless our present hygiene focus using anti bacterials for frequent hand washing, spraying and wiping down of surfaces will stay for some while into the future while the Covid 19 lurks in the background. At the same time it is interesting to note that before the turn of the century the Japanese had become increasingly fastidious when it came to hygiene but with a downside.

In 2013 Tokyo Medical and Dental University professor emeritus Koichiro Fujita warned that Japanese were undermining the development of their natural immune systems with keppeki-sho," translated variously as fastidiousness, fussiness over cleanliness or phobia of dirt. Over several decades Fujita had made many study visits to rural Indonesia, where public sanitation practices were close to nonexistent. Yet, he says, children in Kalimantan grow up free from such common maladies in Japan as atopic dermatitis, asthma and pollen allergies.

Fujita observed that an obsession with killing germs had led to the loss of natural, good bacteria essential for good health. He noted that two Japanese obstetric hospitals suspect 50 to 60% of premature births or miscarriages may have been due to infections brought on by overwashing and with the loss of protective bacteria.

Fujita said it is important that people be in contact with nature of the greatest extent possible. ""A society where germs are all around us is not a dangerous one. Most of the germs around us have not changed for 10,000 years or more, and there's no need for us to overreact, letting themselves be made to dance to the tunes of the marketers of 'hygienic' and 'fastidiousness."

Until we have some means of control in relation to Covid 19 it makes sense to make an issue of safe hygiene practices. But from all the advertising across a huge swathe of products, hammering the notion of protection and cleanliness it seems probable that profit and sales increases will be misused to the point of overkill.
There is a scientific hypothesis about this very issue:
 
Interesting. Whichever side of the argument you come down on I have no doubt that a huge amount of marketing will continue to exploit health anxieties by flogging truckloads of dubious products of little benefit to the purchasers but of great benefit to the producers.

And I continue to be impressed by these massive spraying campaigns notwithstanding evidence of it being potentially injurious to eyes, skin and presumably to the fiscal coffers of the various agencies involved. Has anyone seen any costings of this kind of spraying program?
 
According to the Newsweek article, Peter Forster said “it is possible the outbreak did not originate in Wuhan, as until January 17, almost all the isolates were type B. In Guangdong, a province about 500 miles from Wuhan, seven of the 11 isolates were type A.”. Since he used the words “it is possible”, he is not sure about the origin of the outbreak yet.

From the same article, “However, A was not the virus type found in most cases in Wuhan, the city in China where COVID-19 was first identified. Instead, most people there had type B. Researchers suggest there was a "founder event" for type B in Wuhan. Type C, the "daughter" of type B, is what was identified in early cases in Europe, as well as South Korea, Singapore and Hong Kong—but appears absent from mainland China.

So there are 3 types, C came after B, and B came after A. In other words, there cannot be C without B, and there cannot be B without A. Interestingly, most of the cases in the USA is A while most of the cases in Wuhan is B.

Research News direct from the University of Cambridge > https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news...nalysis-provides-snapshot-of-pandemic-origins
I think its important to note that they are looking at only 160 cases out of the 100,000s of cases that occured at the beginning of the virus spread. In such a small sample size it can be very easy to over interpret this type of data and indeed it happened early on in the outbreak when a different article claimed there are 2 versions of the virus (one more dangerous than the other) this paper was overwhelmingly rejected by the majority of experts in the field.
I would take the interpretations of this short research article with caution and wait for a fuller picture to emerge when more genomes are included in the research.
Here is the short article if anyone is interested: https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/04/07/2004999117
 
A lot of childhood leukaemia is caused by children not being exposed to enough germs in their first year (combined with a genetic predisposition to it). So Indonesia is definitely a healthy place to bring up kids, at least from that perspective.
 

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Follow Us

Latest Expat Indo Articles

Latest Tweets by Expat Indo

Latest Activity

New posts Latest threads

Online Now

No members online now.

Newest Members

Forum Statistics

Threads
5,966
Messages
97,385
Members
3,035
Latest member
Les 819
Back
Top Bottom