Where do people get these things from? What I don't get is its a new disease, so people are still trying to figure it out, so why are there so many people out there that think there are super-easy ways to resolve it?

www.smh.com.au/national/pull-the-other-one-drinking-hot-water-and-other-dangerous-myths-about-the-virus-20200324-p54dbj.html


If it were that easy to resolve, people wouldn't be dying and we wouldn't all be so stressed out about getting it.

"
Did you hear that Japanese scientists have found that a dry mouth will increase your chances of falling ill with coronavirus, so you should drink water every 15 minutes to wash pathogens into your stomach acid?

Or that it's confirmed by researchers at Stanford that the virus is not heat-resistant and that keeping things above 27 degrees neutralises the threat? Gargling with bleach is also apparently effective, if done cautiously."

"
None of this is true, of course. But I've seen it all circulating on social media. You've probably seen it too. And it's almost always shared by well-intentioned friends and relatives.

They used to be old wives's tales. Now they've been turbocharged into fake news. The reason this news travels - like a virus - is that people are inclined to believe what they hear from family and friends. But Uncle Jack never used to have a megaphone to yell about how garlic every morning would stop the virus.
"

What annoyed me was some stupid post on facebook suggesting that "we" survived all these earlier pandemics, and "we" will survive this one... yeah, tell that to the people that died in every single one of them.

Check this story out time.com/5808688/chloroquine-phosphate-coronavirus-death/

The guy took Trump's word on how to treat an infection that he didn't even have

Not a new disease. SARS was a result of a coronavirus and there are always a small number lurking around.

I'm taking it on faith that quinine works - it means I can drink gin and tonic for my health.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..
Not a new disease. SARS was a result of a coronavirus and there are always a small number lurking around.

Sure, they are the same type of virus, but the effect is different.

One thing that stands out to me is that SARS triggered a fever almost straight away. Covid19 seems to trigger a fever after 2 days at best and 10 days at worst, and in some people they seem to show no symptoms at all despite shedding the virus, i.e. they are cantagious.

This behaviour of SARS meant that it could be seen by temperature imaging at airports, so people could be isolated almost straight away.

Which one do you think you could detect with a thermal camera if Covid19 doesn't show a fever until later?

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..
I'm taking it on faith that quinine works - it means I can drink gin and tonic for my health.

Actually, I have to say, I hate Tonic water, but I have bought a few bottles anyway. Has it vanished from the shelves yet?

That's all placebo in my book.
i believe infection control is the key here.
I don't think a doctor gargles vinaigrette and shoves a blow dryer up his nose before seeing every patient.

For an effective natural treatment method, there's BETADINE? Cold Defense Nasal Spray, which helps stop colds early. The common cold treatment, which has antiviral effects, eliminates 99% of common cold and flu viruses, and it has been clinically proven to shorten the duration of a cold for up to two days.The best part? It's drug-free, steroid-free, preservative-free - safe and natural!

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..

Kamikuza said..
Not a new disease. SARS was a result of a coronavirus and there are always a small number lurking around.

Sure, they are the same type of virus, but the effect is different.

One thing that stands out to me is that SARS triggered a fever almost straight away. Covid19 seems to trigger a fever after 2 days at best and 10 days at worst, and in some people they seem to show no symptoms at all despite shedding the virus, i.e. they are cantagious.

This behaviour of SARS meant that it could be seen by temperature imaging at airports, so people could be isolated almost straight away.

Which one do you think you could detect with a thermal camera if Covid19 doesn't show a fever until later?

Literally the same symptoms -- respiratory distress etc. It's the flu, but more severe.

www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/coronavirus-vs-flu

You're asymptomatic... Until you're not. Fever still isn't a clear indictor of what you have, except that you have a fever.
www.who.int/ith/diseases/sars/en/

Flu, SARS, COVID19, the differences seem to be how contagious, how severe the symptoms are, the CFR to a lesser extent, and how the governments have reacted. (The flu? HTFU)

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

FormulaNova said..

Kamikuza said..
Not a new disease. SARS was a result of a coronavirus and there are always a small number lurking around.

Sure, they are the same type of virus, but the effect is different.

One thing that stands out to me is that SARS triggered a fever almost straight away. Covid19 seems to trigger a fever after 2 days at best and 10 days at worst, and in some people they seem to show no symptoms at all despite shedding the virus, i.e. they are cantagious.

This behaviour of SARS meant that it could be seen by temperature imaging at airports, so people could be isolated almost straight away.

Which one do you think you could detect with a thermal camera if Covid19 doesn't show a fever until later?

Literally the same symptoms -- respiratory distress etc. It's the flu, but more severe.

www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/coronavirus-vs-flu

You're asymptomatic... Until you're not. Fever still isn't a clear indictor of what you have, except that you have a fever.
www.who.int/ith/diseases/sars/en/

Flu, SARS, COVID19, the differences seem to be how contagious, how severe the symptoms are, the CFR to a lesser extent, and how the governments have reacted. (The flu? HTFU)

Kamikuza, just out of interest, what do you think the difference is between a virus that is contagious before the symptoms are shown (Covid19) and one where it is not(SARS)?

They are both viruses. How do you think you would treat an outbreak of each in very simple terms?

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..

Kamikuza said..

FormulaNova said..

Kamikuza said..
Not a new disease. SARS was a result of a coronavirus and there are always a small number lurking around.

Sure, they are the same type of virus, but the effect is different.

One thing that stands out to me is that SARS triggered a fever almost straight away. Covid19 seems to trigger a fever after 2 days at best and 10 days at worst, and in some people they seem to show no symptoms at all despite shedding the virus, i.e. they are cantagious.

This behaviour of SARS meant that it could be seen by temperature imaging at airports, so people could be isolated almost straight away.

Which one do you think you could detect with a thermal camera if Covid19 doesn't show a fever until later?

Literally the same symptoms -- respiratory distress etc. It's the flu, but more severe.

www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/coronavirus-vs-flu

You're asymptomatic... Until you're not. Fever still isn't a clear indictor of what you have, except that you have a fever.
www.who.int/ith/diseases/sars/en/

Flu, SARS, COVID19, the differences seem to be how contagious, how severe the symptoms are, the CFR to a lesser extent, and how the governments have reacted. (The flu? HTFU)

Kamikuza, just out of interest, what do you think the difference is between a virus that is contagious before the symptoms are shown (Covid19) and one where it is not(SARS)?

They are both viruses. How do you think you would treat an outbreak of each in very simple terms?

I don't think that's yet been proven to be the case: www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prepare/transmission.html

What, if I was dear leader of the world? I'd have insisted on research into a vaccine for Coronavirus in 2003, cos I'd be all prescient and **** too.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

FormulaNova said..

Kamikuza said..

FormulaNova said..

Kamikuza said..
Not a new disease. SARS was a result of a coronavirus and there are always a small number lurking around.

Sure, they are the same type of virus, but the effect is different.

One thing that stands out to me is that SARS triggered a fever almost straight away. Covid19 seems to trigger a fever after 2 days at best and 10 days at worst, and in some people they seem to show no symptoms at all despite shedding the virus, i.e. they are cantagious.

This behaviour of SARS meant that it could be seen by temperature imaging at airports, so people could be isolated almost straight away.

Which one do you think you could detect with a thermal camera if Covid19 doesn't show a fever until later?

Literally the same symptoms -- respiratory distress etc. It's the flu, but more severe.

www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/coronavirus-vs-flu

You're asymptomatic... Until you're not. Fever still isn't a clear indictor of what you have, except that you have a fever.
www.who.int/ith/diseases/sars/en/

Flu, SARS, COVID19, the differences seem to be how contagious, how severe the symptoms are, the CFR to a lesser extent, and how the governments have reacted. (The flu? HTFU)

Kamikuza, just out of interest, what do you think the difference is between a virus that is contagious before the symptoms are shown (Covid19) and one where it is not(SARS)?

They are both viruses. How do you think you would treat an outbreak of each in very simple terms?

I don't think that's yet been proven to be the case: www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prepare/transmission.html

What, if I was dear leader of the world? I'd have insisted on research into a vaccine for Coronavirus in 2003, cos I'd be all prescient and **** too.

That's not the question that I asked you though.

What do you think the differences in approach ought to be if one is contagious before being symptomatic? Please answer that.

We are still early on in understanding this disease. Would you wait until its 100% proven that its transmissable before symptoms, before you agreed that the way to fight it is different... way back when you could have fought it?

From the WHO www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/myth-busters

"
How effective are thermal scanners in detecting people infected with the new coronavirus?
Thermal scanners are effective in detecting people who have developed a fever (i.e. have a higher than normal body temperature) because of infection with the new coronavirus.

However, they cannot detect people who are infected but are not yet sick with fever. This is because it takes between 2 and 10 days before people who are infected become sick and develop a fever."

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

FormulaNova said..

Kamikuza said..

FormulaNova said..

Kamikuza said..
Not a new disease. SARS was a result of a coronavirus and there are always a small number lurking around.

Sure, they are the same type of virus, but the effect is different.

One thing that stands out to me is that SARS triggered a fever almost straight away. Covid19 seems to trigger a fever after 2 days at best and 10 days at worst, and in some people they seem to show no symptoms at all despite shedding the virus, i.e. they are cantagious.

This behaviour of SARS meant that it could be seen by temperature imaging at airports, so people could be isolated almost straight away.

Which one do you think you could detect with a thermal camera if Covid19 doesn't show a fever until later?

Literally the same symptoms -- respiratory distress etc. It's the flu, but more severe.

www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/coronavirus-vs-flu

You're asymptomatic... Until you're not. Fever still isn't a clear indictor of what you have, except that you have a fever.
www.who.int/ith/diseases/sars/en/

Flu, SARS, COVID19, the differences seem to be how contagious, how severe the symptoms are, the CFR to a lesser extent, and how the governments have reacted. (The flu? HTFU)

Kamikuza, just out of interest, what do you think the difference is between a virus that is contagious before the symptoms are shown (Covid19) and one where it is not(SARS)?

They are both viruses. How do you think you would treat an outbreak of each in very simple terms?

I don't think that's yet been proven to be the case: www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prepare/transmission.html

What, if I was dear leader of the world? I'd have insisted on research into a vaccine for Coronavirus in 2003, cos I'd be all prescient and **** too.

From your own link:

"
Can someone spread the virus without being sick?

People are thought to be most contagious when they are most symptomatic (the sickest).

Some spread might be possible before people show symptoms; there have been reports of this occurring with this new coronavirus, but this is not thought to be the main way the virus spreads.
"


Some uncertainty about 'the main way' but no rejection of the theory that it can and does get transmitted before symptoms.

Do you have a time machine where you can go back if it just happens that it does transmit between 2 and 10 days before being symptomatic?

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..
I'm taking it on faith that quinine works - it means I can drink gin and tonic for my health.

Just to be clear, Quinine is NOT the malaria drug that has had promising treatment results, that is Hydroxycloriquine. It is not being looked at as a preventative, just a treatment for critical cases.

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said..
Check this story out time.com/5808688/chloroquine-phosphate-coronavirus-death/

The guy took Trump's word on how to treat an infection that he didn't even have

I find the standard of reporting these days to be particularly appalling, as well as peoples inability to recognise junk reporting.

Trumps comments:

"If chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine works, or any of the other things that they're looking at that are not quite as far out ... your numbers are going to come down very rapidly."..... "And we're going to be able to make that drug available almost immediately, and that's where the FDA has been so great. They - they've gone through the approval process. It's been approved."

And these two muppets heard that, found some fish tank cleaner in the pantry with the "Cloriquine Phosphate" in it and decided it would be a great idea to take it.

Darwin award candidates.

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said.
From your own link:

"
Can someone spread the virus without being sick?

People are thought to be most contagious when they are most symptomatic (the sickest).

Some spread might be possible before people show symptoms; there have been reports of this occurring with this new coronavirus, but this is not thought to be the main way the virus spreads.
"


Some uncertainty about 'the main way' but no rejection of the theory that it can and does get transmitted before symptoms.

Do you have a time machine where you can go back if it just happens that it does transmit between 2 and 10 days before being symptomatic?

Glad you read it no rejection because the hypothesis has yet to be proven false, and could well be impossible to determine. That doesn't make it true; best to remain agnostic.

"might be possible"
A new study from China suggested that 13% of the cases were contracted when the subjects were asymptomatic. Can't find that single medical site that cited that source now though...but this one says 10% from n=450.
www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/covid-19-study-estimates-rate-of-silent-transmission

Any other scientific page couched that option in "may be", "could be", "it's possible that", "estimates suggest"-type language.

The only sources I see that state the "you can transmit when you're asymptomatic" without qualifications are the usual bastions of scientific integrity (#sarcasm) like The Guardian.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

FormulaNova said.
From your own link:

"
Can someone spread the virus without being sick?

People are thought to be most contagious when they are most symptomatic (the sickest).

Some spread might be possible before people show symptoms; there have been reports of this occurring with this new coronavirus, but this is not thought to be the main way the virus spreads.
"


Some uncertainty about 'the main way' but no rejection of the theory that it can and does get transmitted before symptoms.

Do you have a time machine where you can go back if it just happens that it does transmit between 2 and 10 days before being symptomatic?

Glad you read it no rejection because the hypothesis has yet to be proven false, and could well be impossible to determine. That doesn't make it true; best to remain agnostic.

"might be possible"
A new study from China suggested that 13% of the cases were contracted when the subjects were asymptomatic. Can't find that single medical site that cited that source now though...but this one says 10% from n=450.
www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/covid-19-study-estimates-rate-of-silent-transmission

Any other scientific page couched that option in "may be", "could be", "it's possible that", "estimates suggest"-type language.

The only sources I see that state the "you can transmit when you're asymptomatic" without qualifications are the usual bastions of scientific integrity (#sarcasm) like The Guardian.

... but back to my question. We can even state upfront that for the purpose of the discussion that we assume Covid19 is transmissable before symptoms are show.

How would you differ in the way you would combat its spread compared to SARS? It would be good to have this answer, as when we finally decide that it is (or isn't) transmissable before symptoms, we would know what we could or couldn't do.

or do you really really not want to answer that question? I am not sure if you don't understand what I am asking or you just don't want to answer for fear of something?

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..
... but back to my question. We can even state upfront that for the purpose of the discussion that we assume Covid19 is transmissable before symptoms are show.

How would you differ in the way you would combat its spread compared to SARS? It would be good to have this answer, as when we finally decide that it is (or isn't) transmissable before symptoms, we would know what we could or couldn't do.

or do you really really not want to answer that question? I am not sure if you don't understand what I am asking or you just don't want to answer for fear of something?

Mmmm no we can't. That's not what is being shown statistically in the real world.

Why would my answer make any difference to global governmental policy?

I see you really get into the fantasy of the "what if" scenarios, but I really don't care in this case. Facts are far more interesting here.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

FormulaNova said..
... but back to my question. We can even state upfront that for the purpose of the discussion that we assume Covid19 is transmissable before symptoms are show.

How would you differ in the way you would combat its spread compared to SARS? It would be good to have this answer, as when we finally decide that it is (or isn't) transmissable before symptoms, we would know what we could or couldn't do.

or do you really really not want to answer that question? I am not sure if you don't understand what I am asking or you just don't want to answer for fear of something?

Mmmm no we can't. That's not what is being shown statistically in the real world.

Why would my answer make any difference to global governmental policy?

I see you really get into the fantasy of the "what if" scenarios, but I really don't care in this case. Facts are far more interesting here.

Ahh, I see that you don't want to answer that question. I thought it was easy, but you are wriggling out of it so well you could have a future as a politician.

I was asking a hypothetical to illustrate that the approach for SARS will not work with this, and that its not a regularly flu. Your refusal to conced that its possible is worthy of a worm. Wriggling all sorts of ways, but not a straight answer.

I don't agree with your 'not shown statistically in the real world' comment either. You have weaseled around 'not proven' and now you are saying that it is not being shown statistically? I would argue that the answer is still unknown, but anectdotal evidence suggests that it is transmissable before being symptomatic.

If you were right, and it was the same as SARS, no problem. We just set up scanners for everyone, everyone walks through them everyday and we monitor their temperature. If they are normal temps, then we know they are good to go and mingle with everyone else.

Maybe this is what is wrong with Sco Mo's response? He refuses to consider what-ifs, which is pretty dumb when you are facing something the world hasn't faced before.

Myths and Facts.

FACT -
People are 95% more likely to get coronavirus if they say " my friend works in the medical field and said its just media hype don't worry or gargle metho or walk backwards and you wont get it. These type of comments put you in the high risk category OF CONTRACTING THE VIRUS......ummm.... according to my mate who works at a chemist


and this is









MYTH -

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..
Ahh, I see that you don't want to answer that question. I thought it was easy, but you are wriggling out of it so well you could have a future as a politician.

I was asking a hypothetical to illustrate that the approach for SARS will not work with this, and that its not a regularly flu. Your refusal to conced that its possible is worthy of a worm. Wriggling all sorts of ways, but not a straight answer.

I don't agree with your 'not shown statistically in the real world' comment either. You have weaseled around 'not proven' and now you are saying that it is not being shown statistically? I would argue that the answer is still unknown, but anectdotal evidence suggests that it is transmissable before being symptomatic.

If you were right, and it was the same as SARS, no problem. We just set up scanners for everyone, everyone walks through them everyday and we monitor their temperature. If they are normal temps, then we know they are good to go and mingle with everyone else.

Maybe this is what is wrong with Sco Mo's response? He refuses to consider what-ifs, which is pretty dumb when you are facing something the world hasn't faced before.

LOL

Dude, whatever. If you were asking a hypothetical, then any answer is equally hypothetical and no more or less valid than the imaginary premise. In other words, pointless.

You can disagree, but you're wrong. It's not weaseling, there's literally not enough data to make a solid conclusion which is why any respectable organization LIKE THE CDC is not making statements that AREN'T SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE. It isscientificallyok to be agnostic until the facts are in. At this stage, it's not what happens in the majority of cases but it sure is great click-bait for The Guardian when you drop that little qualifying fact.

I'm sure I didn't say "it was the same as SARS", I'm pretty sure I said that it's the same family of virus ie. coronavirus. SARS' full name is "SARS coronavirus" or SARS-CoV, after all, and the official name of this one is SARS-CoV-2.
Symptoms are similar, preventions are similar. Compare:
www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/7543#treatment-and-prevention
www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public
What's the point? COVID-19/SARS-2 doesn't always present with a fever and a fever isn't always a symptom of COVID-19. False positives and negatives, especially if you're trying to police the asymptomatic

I dunno, I've paid no attention to it. But if you entertain all the what-ifs, then you're going to go mad or make crappy decisions. And this isn't unique, the world has faced pandemics before. It just hasn't faced the social media click-bait frenzy before.

Select to expand quote

lotofwind said..
Myths and Facts.

FACT -
People are 95% more likely to get coronavirus if they say " my friend works in the medical field and said its just media hype don't worry or gargle metho or walk backwards and you wont get it. These type of comments put you in the high risk category OF CONTRACTING THE VIRUS......ummm.... according to my mate who works at a chemist


and this is









MYTH -

You're conflating utter nonsense with maintaining a respect for the facts in hand from reputable sources.

you are ignoring reputable sources and saying in other threads that less than 1000 people died yesterday from corona ??
Must be a Japanese conspiracy to try and get the Olympics back on lol

" No nothing to worrybout, Olympic game good, Olympic game safe, Olympic game stwong " lol

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..
Not a new disease. SARS was a result of a coronavirus and there are always a small number lurking around.

I guess this is where you say Covid19 is not a new disease, and then go on to talk about SARS completely independantly. Coincidental in-fact.

They are not the same thing, so I wonder why you brought them both up, and left me in suspense about Covid19 not being a new disease/virus and then didn't tell me which one it was the same as... oh well, I guess I will never know.

He gets his info from twitter so it must be right.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

FormulaNova said..
Ahh, I see that you don't want to answer that question. I thought it was easy, but you are wriggling out of it so well you could have a future as a politician.

I was asking a hypothetical to illustrate that the approach for SARS will not work with this, and that its not a regularly flu. Your refusal to conced that its possible is worthy of a worm. Wriggling all sorts of ways, but not a straight answer.

I don't agree with your 'not shown statistically in the real world' comment either. You have weaseled around 'not proven' and now you are saying that it is not being shown statistically? I would argue that the answer is still unknown, but anectdotal evidence suggests that it is transmissable before being symptomatic.

If you were right, and it was the same as SARS, no problem. We just set up scanners for everyone, everyone walks through them everyday and we monitor their temperature. If they are normal temps, then we know they are good to go and mingle with everyone else.

Maybe this is what is wrong with Sco Mo's response? He refuses to consider what-ifs, which is pretty dumb when you are facing something the world hasn't faced before.

LOL

Dude, whatever. If you were asking a hypothetical, then any answer is equally hypothetical and no more or less valid than the imaginary premise. In other words, pointless.

I don't think you understand how hypothetical questions are meant to work.

I will give you points though for steadfastly refusing to admit that a disease that doesn't show symptoms while it is contagious should be handled differently to one that shows symptoms immediately.

If I can't get through that logic-wall then I guess I really am wasting my time.

The hype from the mainstream media is all encompassing on this.

Reminds me of a time 19 and a bit years ago.

Fool me once....

^^^I don't think you have ever been fooled, have you??
moon landing, 9/11, round earth, chemtrails etc. None of the have fooled you yet

Internationally, malaria is responsible for approximately 1-3 million deaths per year. Of these deaths, the overwhelming majority are in children aged 5 years or younger, and 80-90% of the deaths each year are in rural sub-Saharan Africa. [7] Malaria is the world's fourth leading cause of death in children younger than age 5 years. why is nothing done about this??

Select to expand quote

hilly said..
Internationally, malaria is responsible for approximately 1-3 million deaths per year. Of these deaths, the overwhelming majority are in children aged 5 years or younger, and 80-90% of the deaths each year are in rural sub-Saharan Africa. [7] Malaria is the world's fourth leading cause of death in children younger than age 5 years. why is nothing done about this??

WHO estimates the annual deaths from Malaria are around 400,000 per year. Almost $3 billion dollars is spent on Malaria control annually.

Select to expand quote

lotofwind said..
you are ignoring reputable sources and saying in other threads that less than 1000 people died yesterday from corona ??
Must be a Japanese conspiracy to try and get the Olympics back on lol

" No nothing to worrybout, Olympic game good, Olympic game safe, Olympic game stwong " lol

Sigh.

Today is day 85 of 2020. There have been ~7,500 deathstotalfrom SARS-2.

That's less than a 100 people per day globally, on average.

www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-03/australia-education-results-maths-reading-science-getting-worse/11760880

I guess if you dropped out of school at 15 Lofty, it's no wonder your maths is pre-high school level lol