(image courtesy of pixabay.com and Ri_Ya)
Yesterday, I mentioned that the countries with the highest prevalence of blood type O might see some protection from the novel coronavirus. This study from China, published March 11 on Medrxiv, is the basis for this speculation. Peru has the second largest percentage of people in the world with this blood type (70%, with Chile at 86%). It also has a relatively stable, effective government. This contrasts with Brazil and Mexico, whose leaders are still downplaying the seriousness of this pandemic.
A report in the journal of the Americas Society/Council of the Americas published yesterday shows what is happening over the whole continent. The graph that counts gives us a picture of what is happening in Peru, and by contrast, Brazil. Peru has a shallowly increasing incidence of positive test results after the 100th case; Brazil has a steep curve, the worst in the continent. Colombia, Mexico, and Panama also show slow rises in cases. Cuba, with questionable data, has a similar, slow rise– I will discount their results because of the authoritarian dictatorship there. Chile seems to have had a middle-of-the-road curve.
Mexico appears to be doing relatively well, but I suspect that case finding is very poor there. Reports emerged this week of vacationers to Mexico returning to the US with infections (sorry, not sourced; you’ll have to Google it). Infrastructure is weak, and their leader AMLO (Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador) has been dismissive of the new virus’ impact. A national health emergency was declared on March 30, more than a month after their first case was reported on February 28. Nearly 50% of Mexicans live in poverty, and 82% disapproved of AMLO’s extensive travel within the country. On March 27, AMLO encouraged Mexicans to stay home, but the next day he started another journey, “which included a stop to meet—and shake hands—with the mother of U.S.-imprisoned drug cartel leader Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzman.”
Peru has been trying hard since its first case was announced March 6. A strict national quarantine and state of emergency was declared on March 15 and took effect on March 19, including a ban from the roads for private vehicles. The same day, 3 million poor families received payments of $100 each for two weeks of basic goods. President Vizcarra’s approval rating has soared 35% to 87%, and 95% support the lockdown. That very same day, the president announced that he had ordered 1.4 million test kits.
Details for all South and Central American countries are available in this report, so if this is something you are interested in, I encourage you to follow the link and look at what Chile has been up to. Whether the prevalence of type O blood in Chile and Peru will be protective remains to be seen; with many of its people having other types, there is plenty of room for damage. Fortunately for poor Peruvians, their government is trying hard.
Chile, with 86% of its people having type O blood, has done better than Brazil but not as well as the countries mentioned above. Thus, type O might be irrelevant to the larger picture– government response might be more important. What’s your blood type?
(image courtesy of pixabay.com and Ri_Ya)
Here’s a link directly to Das Coronavirus Update. It’s also available on YouTube, although I don’t recommend patronizing YouBube because of its morass of mis-information.
(image courtesy of pixabay.com and Ri_Ya)
Here’s the link to the story in NPR. It provides many details on the study and the Administration’s flawed attempt to cite it as a reason for the US developing its own test. The conclusion they drew is that the reasons why the study was retracted have not been revealed. According to the NPR:
Without access to the paper, nobody can assess the value of the work or determine whether it suffers from a scientific flaw. It’s also unknown if the paper was retracted for political reasons. That’s a possibility, though it was retracted well before U.S. officials started citing it in public in a way that disparaged the Chinese coronavirus test.
The study cited a 47% positivity rate in asymptomatic close contacts of ill patients. This number may well be accurate, although since the retraction, we cannot rely upon it. The revelation that asymptomatic people can carry and transmit the virus in a quarter to a third of cases puts this in perspective. The possibility is that many positive-tested patients are asymptomatic, and in this perspective, a 47% number is not so questionable.
The study may have been retracted for political reasons, namely the Chinese government’s attempts to cover up the fact that they have not included asymptomatic positive-testing people in their case counts. As of today, the Chinese will start to include such patients in their case counts. When they announced the coming change, they revealed that roughly 1,500 people were currently in quarantine for positive tests but lacking in symptoms (roughly a third of the total under isolation).
So it’s speculation, but I say that it’s possible that the retraction was not due to scientific inaccuracy, but for the way it made the Chinese government “look bad” or made them lose face. The Chinese are extremely sensitive, and they have an enveloping censorship that makes the true facts very hard to ascertain. The epidemic in China may have been much worse than they were willing to admit, and it may be continuing despite their best efforts.
(image courtesy of pixabay.com and Ri_Ya)
The details: the impeachment trial’s pre-ordained conclusion occurred on February 5, 2020. The first known patient with COVID-19 arrived in the US on January 15 and was hospitalized on January 19-20. Details of his case were published in the NEJM (New England Journal of Medicine) on January 31. Briefings for the *president on the threat of the new virus had already been held.
Himself was holding rallies and golfing thru-out the month of February and into March. He visited Mar-a-Lago repeatedly and met with officials from Brazil (after which multiple members of the Brazilian delegation turned out to be positive for the new virus). He was calling the virus a “Democratic hoax” all along. This is at the same time that he was getting regular briefings on the advance of the virus in the US.
After impeachment was over, he pivoted towards retaliating against those who dared to come forward and testify to his corrupt actions. He kicked Alexander Vindman off the NSC (National Security Council). He threw Vindman’s twin brother out (who had done nothing) at the same time.
George (“Mr. KellyAnne”) Conway pushed back on McConnell’s claims, according to IJR (Independent Journal Review):
Conway noted that the impeachment trial — which ended on Feb. 5 — was “over before it even started, thanks in large part to McConnell.”
Himself made his first tweet about COVID-19 on January 24, projected confidence, and made no mention of its spread to the US.
On February 29, the first US death from the new virus was reported. Himself had already banned travel from China on January 31 (after removing US nationals from the country) and reported new travel bans on the 29th. He boasted that the travel ban for China had been very effective.
All in all, multiple news outlets have contradicted the claim that impeachment was a distraction– or would have been for the average president. Clinton had made a good show of concentrating on actual business while he was being impeached. But Himself couldn’t concentrate on anything except the attack on his standing in government and its narcissistic threats to his self-image.
Long after impeachment was over, He held rallies, golfed, travelled, and raved about the new virus as a “Democratic hoax”. McConnell’s new claim is just an attempt to deflect blame for His tardy response towards the Democrat’s quixotic quest to remove the sociopathic, narcissistic solipsist who claims to be our leader.
(image courtesy of pixabay.com and Ri_Ya)
Blank Post: COVID Isolation Picture
(image courtesy of pixabay.com and Ri_Ya)
(image courtesy of pixabay.com and Ri_Ya)
(photo/image courtesy of pixabay.com and Ri_Ya)
The need is apparent for all people, not just those who are ill, to wear facemasks in public. The only question is where they will come from. I have seen news accounts of home-made masks being produced by, dare I say it, entrepreneurs. These would appear to be ideal for the general public rather than medical providers, since they don’t look standard and may not be particularly effective.
The original purpose of facemasks, as I see it, was to prevent a surgeon and his (in the old days, they were almost all male) assistants from contaminating the surgical incision and the patient’s insides with bacteria-laden spittle, beard hairs, and the like. They seem to have been highly effective as the surgical infection rate has been very low for many years. So why won’t they work for the general public?
The authorities may be fearful of people de-identifying themselves. Just a thought.
This (wearing masks) has been done in Asia for years already and doesn’t provoke any second glances in places like Hong Kong and Tokyo. They are doing it in Europe. It is time we started doing it too.
(Cat (Olive Oyl) looking in window. Wants to know when is dinnertime?)
A few questions I have after reading news reports on my iPhone ($30 a month, is it worth it to spend 4 hr a day reading the news?)…
First, what will happen to the newspapers? Advertising revenue has dried out, leaving those with subscription services like NYT as the only ones with any money coming in. Free newspapers are dead; no ventilators available to these once frequented hard copy sources. Local newspapers have been dying for years because of the shifts in revenue and aging out of those who like to read the paper with their morning coffee.
Second, where do some hospitals and those who own them come off telling employees that they can’t talk to reporters or make posts on Faceplant? Haven’t they heard of the First Amendment or are they just closet fascists? What is the difference between a capitalist and a closet fascist? Don’t they know that healthcare employees are much in demand right now, and if someone gets fired they can sue (someone has already)? Raising privacy issues is a non-starter– these people are not identifying or discussing individual patients. Their real objection is that they don’t want people to know that the medical system is under extreme stress and that personal protective equipment is in such short supply, there are none available for the general public.
I know you already have the answers to these questions. So do I, that is, I mean, these questions are rhetorical. Enough speculation, time to gather more data.
Conrad Theodore Seitz 