15 thoughts on “Viral Load”

  1. Hvac for hospitals might need to be redesigned. The recirculated air needs to be incinerated and re-cooled before conditioning. The air changes/hour need to be increase.

    1. Ozone and UVC are just as effective, much less power intensive, and easier to retrofit.

  2. –What is the evidence against viral load having a big impact?

    The evidence of absence is the absence of further evidence. Yes, the effects observed were very big. Yes, they are all the result of natural experiments and we have been ethically precluded from doing randomized trials or other better studies, so the lack of those trials doesn’t mean much. But how likely is it we didn’t find more natural experiments where viral load would have differed in an observable way? Publication bias here could be a large effect.–

    Well 60 choir members is possible another example of viral load:
    “After 2½ hours, the singers parted ways at 9 p.m.

    Nearly three weeks later, 45 have been diagnosed with COVID-19 or ill with the symptoms, at least three have been hospitalized, and two are dead.”

    2 dead of out 60 is a significantly higher death rate than random average. Though if all were 70 to 80 years old, it would not be significantly higher odds.
    45 getting it of 60 people within 2 1/2 hours where no one is coughing. And singing would involve sharp intake of air, but not much air is expelled quickly, but a lot sound is involved.
    Or as Scott Adam wildly suggested, a super spreader could be those annoy loud talking guys.
    Or if inflected and making loud sounds, it could spread more.

    1. Signing involves a lot of deep breathing and projection. Its like channeled sneezing for 2 hours.

  3. There’s a lot we could’ve learned from SARS-CoV-1 that we *chose* not to.

  4. Unlike more stable diseases like smallpox and measles, developing herd immunity via variolation won’t be easy with a coronavirus due to its ability to rapidly mutate. The same issue that will undoubtedly complicate the search for an effective vaccine, which might not even be possible. The hope is that the more mutations the less infectious and morbid it might become. There is no evidence for that, yet, however. I’m beginning to suspect a more effective treatment might be in developing drugs that prevent the cytokine storm and thus avert the deadly pneumonia that develops.



    1. David, did you find it interesting that he said “We have to ask why smallpox was a unique event, and we never used this method for any other virus”?

      The way I recall history is that this was a common thing for plenty of other diseases as late as the first half of the 20th century. Certainly I recall reading books that mentioned kids being deliberately exposed to chickenbox, the measles, and so on.

      1. Maybe the author is too young to remember this or failed to broaden his research beyond smallpox. Yes you are correct about such practices existing prior to the development of effective vaccines. As I mentioned in a prior thread the medical establishment was against such practices because of the risk if complications. OTOH neither did they take an active role in contact tracing outbreaks or initiate lockdowns in any but the most serious outbreaks. Most times societal norms were left unchanged and as I recall, having lived through those days as a child, you were expected to come down with the typical childhood diseases of mumps, rubella (so called 3 day measles), chicken pox along with colds and flu. You got them at either church or school and treated them with bedrest, chicken noodle soup and a little TLC from mom.

  5. I think we need to make it simple.
    Everyone should try to get some noon time sunlight {vitamin D}
    if that not easy, take vitamin D supplements {low dose} if that not easy, eat eggs and drink D fortified milk {or other food like fish
    or other food which has vitamin D].
    In terms of topic, wear mask if in modest crowds, and don’t enter crowded areas.
    The important governmental policy is safeguard nursing home and if not in crowded spaces, the population at risk is largely 60 year or older- which are more 90% of all deaths from virus.
    Though getting seriously ill is as important {or more important] and that would be largely, 50 years or older.
    If 50 years old, not going in crowed indoor areas, are not deficient in vitamin D, and get the virus, you very unlikely to get seriously ill, and if get seriously ill, are very unlikely to die.
    And other important governmental policy, is getting out of this lockdown as fast as possible, and this starts partially getting out of lockdown and remaining partially for long time, + 1 week and repeat. And not looking at results of leaving the lockdown in first few days, instead looking it at +5 days. Or say in 8th day, one could make decision that whatever degree lockdown “release” one might reverse or change it. Leaving lockdown could take as much several weeks.
    I think interesting question is how and when we going to have a return to mass transit {planes, buses, trains] and should be looking at how modify them, in order to do this safely and quickly.

  6. Mosques in California are allowed to be open, but Christian churches cannot! It is all a hoax. No mask for me, thank you!

  7. –Experts and the public demurred, and elites got their way. Everywhere in the world, all at once, strong lockdown polices began, and containment became the official goal. But elites did not insist on any particular standard containment policy. Such as, for example, the packages of polices that seem to have worked initially in Wuhan or South Korea. Instead elites seemed satisfied to let the politicians and experts in each jurisdiction craft their own policy packages, as long as they seemed “strong”, involving much public sacrifice. And they allowed official public messages suggesting that relatively short durations would be sufficient.

    A few months later, those duration periods are expiring. And in the different jurisdictions, the diverse policies now sit next to quite diverse outcomes. In some places, infections are low or declining, while in others they are flat or increasing. The public is feeling the accumulated pain, and itching to break out. If these flat or increasing trends continue, containment will fail, and lockdown harms will soon exceed plausible future gains from preventing medical system overload.

    Elites are now loudly and consistently saying that this is not time to open; we must stay closed and try harder to contain. When confronted with the discouraging recent trends, elites respond with a blizzard of explanations for local failures, and point to a cacophony of prophets with plans and white papers declaring obvious solutions.

    But, and this is the key point, they mostly point to different explanations and solutions. . . .

    Winning at politics requires more than just prestige, good ideas, and passion. It also requires compromise, to produce sufficient unity. At this game, elites are now failing, while the public is not.

    Elites today are too arrogant and entitled to compromise with those they see as beneath them.

    Posted at 11:16 pm by Glenn Reynolds —

    Re: ROBIN HANSON: Why Openers Are Winning.
    If New York city simply doesn’t have any public transport {subways and buses] it seems they can bust out of lockdown and not have any consequences. But it seems crowded public transport might cause a problem. But doesn’t seen the “openers” have direct power over public transportation- or the elite could control this aspect. But elites are cowards, but people which operate public transport {a lot of them got sick} could just not show up, even if elites wanted them to.
    So, New York City might work out OK.
    Now I think school should be opened, but elites and unions control it. And without the daycare of schools, there will be less “openers” opening anything.
    So, when considering the elite are incompetent, it might better not to open up schools.

Comments are closed.