SARS-like

SARS , like Wuflu, hit people over 60 very much harder.

 

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to SARS-like

  1. jb says:

    Reposting this link, as it seems appropriate here. Bloomberg is reporting that according to “a study by the country’s national health authority”:

    99% of Those Who Died From Virus Had Other Illness, Italy Says

    Being in my 60s and in good health, I would very much like to believe that the reason older people get hit harder is because they are generally less healthy, rather than because they are old. But of course wanting something to be true doesn’t make it so. (I’ll note though that the 51 year old in the article above had “a form of chronic leukaemia,” which I wouldn’t count as being all that healthy, despite the fact that he reportedly wasn’t on any medication).

    • Anonymous says:

      There is no such thing as a 60 year old in good health in an absolute sense. Neither 50 or 40 for that matter. 10 year olds have fatty streaks in their arteries.

      • jb says:

        Even if that’s true in some absolute sense, it’s not relevant here, because what is being claimed is that 99% of the people who died had previously been diagnosed with medical conditions. If you don’t have such a condition right now then you aren’t part of the study’s 99%.

        The Rome-based institute has examined medical records of about 18% of the country’s coronavirus fatalities, finding that just three victims, or 0.8% of the total, had no previous pathology. Almost half of the victims suffered from at least three prior illnesses and about a fourth had either one or two previous conditions.

        More than 75% had high blood pressure, about 35% had diabetes and a third suffered from heart disease.

      • gothamette says:

        Of course there are.

  2. Reads Too Much Science Fiction says:

    If there were a virus that accelerated the fundamental process of aging then it would kill mostly old people. Coronavirus severely impacts aerobic capacity. The reliable aging trajectory decline in aerobic capacity (even among athletes) seems to be a very tough longevity research problem, increasingly important for centenarians and supercentenarians. How much would a general factor of aging load on aerobic capacity? (i.e. is the aerobic capacity decline fundamental to the core process of aging.) Many who are recovering from Covid have very seriously impaired lung capacity, aerobic capacity. It is unclear how much if any they will eventually recover from that. Will we see a general increase in the rate of aging among this population? Will longevity researchers use the recently developed genomic tools for DNA/RNA expression age-biomarkers on recovered Covid patients in five or so years and find accelerated aging? (Probably not, but for now I don’t rule it out.)

    • rgressis says:

      My mom is 84, to turn 85 on April 4. She, amazingly, has no chronic health problems. She was also an opera singer, so I imagine she has excellent lung capacity for her age. Assuming I’m right about that last part, would that improve her chances of survival should she get c19?

      • gothamette says:

        I’ve had many relatives who lived past 90 with no health problems. I had an aunt who died at 104 and a half, and until the last three months she was in amazing shape. But age is real, and she did slow down a lot after 90. I mean, 90, come on.

        I don’t know whether there are any stats on how many old folks w/out comorbids died. I’m sure someone can figure it out. But I’m not that person. I’m happy your mom has no health problems but I’d keep her inside while C19 is going on.

      • Reads Too Much Science Fiction says:

        In my mind I see a declining aerobic capacity trajectory on the y and chronological age on the x, with little tiny vertical Gaussian distribution curves of all along the trajectory for any given age. An over-simplification, or course. (Gaussians usually are.) The big paper in this area seems to be, with 792 cites since 2005 (per Google Scholar), —

        Accelerated Longitudinal Decline of Aerobic Capacity in Healthy Older Adults
        Jerome L. Fleg (et al), 25 Jul 2005, in Circulation.

        “Conclusions— The longitudinal rate of decline in peak V̇o2 in healthy adults is not constant across the age span in healthy persons, as assumed by cross-sectional studies, but accelerates markedly with each successive age decade, especially in men, regardless of physical activity habits.”

        Open access, the DOI, https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.545459 ..
        Or the URL, https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circulationaha.105.545459 ..

        If you go to the G Scholar page you can click for the papers citing it if you really want to nerd out. And of course that’s where lots of qualifiers are added on to that basic conclusion. And not surprisingly you’ll find data and arguments suggesting things like that people with better aerobic capacity have less risk of cancer and heart disease.

        A problem I sometimes mull over is there is this phenomena of what seems to be the programmed aging trajectory of each species, and what are the useful ways of defining the terms and making the observations that yields, first the greatest predictive value (e.g. biomarkers), and then can that be converted into improving the quality (and length) of life in the extremely old. (And my not getting too decrepit for at least a few more years.)

        • rgressis says:

          Thanks lots for your detailed reply.

          I’ll do my best to keep my mom in, but unfortunately she’s drunk the Fox Kool-Aid and now sees ignoring best medical advice as a way of expressing her political opinions. As she’s in Ohio, and I’m in California, I can’t do much to stop her, other than calmly respond to her lunatic theories. Happily, Mike DeWine is somewhat taking the matter out of her hands.

  3. nankoweap says:

    Greg – why don’t we quarantine all at-risk folks (whether old or with underlying conditions) and let the rest of America go about their daily lives. I realize that even under those circumstances some few young, healthy people with die, but do we have to live under the view that if we save even one life, it’s worth it?

    Also, while this concept would steepen the curve, the hospitals wouldn’t be over-loaded and the duration would be much shorter, with less impact on our economy.

    • ASR says:

      I’ve been sounding the tocsin about the current pandemic for about six or eight weeks now.

      But I’m beginning to think that we need a much more moderate public health policy than that which our establishment is now imposing across this country and much of Europe. First, it’s unlikely these policies will eradicate this new virus. It will spring up again next Fall or early winter, just as virulent as now. Second, as so many have noted, these policies will wreak havoc on an economic system that is already near collapse*. Third, these policies are already wreaking havoc on the lives of a large segment of the population, which was already experiencing profound difficulties, e.g., single parents of school age children, whose only day care recourse was the public schools, which are now closed. The end result will likely be levels of civil disobedience and unrest that will eventually erupt into rioting on a scale not yet seen in this country. When public health restrictions are finally eased we may emerge from our sheltering in place to find a society, economy, and political system that is irreparably damaged. What will emerge in its place God alone knows. I suspect that whatever it may be, it will not be able to deal with a resurgence of the novel Corona virus. So beginning in the Fall of next year we may face the same epidemic we are now but without the resources to prevent the very thing we are currently trying to prevent.

      It might have been better – and it might still be better – to accept that the Corona virus is sooner or later going to burn its way through the population and adopt less strict social separation policies. As an adjunct, put in place ad hoc emergency treatment centers to prevent our current inadequate medical system from being overwhelmed. Be prepared to accept many deaths, realizing that the best you can do for these doomed souls is provide comfort and palliative care. Let life go on as before with some minimal common sense regulations discouraging direct contacts, isolating the clearly ill, and encouraging the wearing of masks and other preventive measures.

      However, our establishment and its political cadres have already panicked and over-reacted. I doubt they’re willing to admit this and backtrack on bad policies. After all, this would require that they admit they’ve made a mistake. I doubt they are willing to do this, particularly in an election year.

      Two reasons the shelves are empty: (1) panic buying and hoarding as a response to stringent public health measures, which will restrict access to necessities like food, sanitary supplies, and medications**; (2) partial breakdowns in national and local supply chains as a direct result of current public health policy, e.g., closing truck stops and service centers on interstate highways.
      ** Last night I noticed that OTC cold and flu medicines have been stripped from the shelves of local CVSs.

        • ASR says:

          I’m sorry for the double post, Professor Cochran. If you can delete the duplicate, I;d be grateful.

          Anyway, the optimal approach for dealing with this epidemic depends very much on data that we do not yet have. If the case fatality rate is as low as some suggest then modest public health efforts are in order, not ones that have the potential to create economic and social chaos. If case fatality rates are high, outside of east Asia, ignorance and complacency caused inexcusable delays in implementing public health measures early on, when the virus was still containable. I fear the horse may already have bolted the barn. The public health measures currently being implemented may no longer have the power to contain the epidemic and reduce deaths to an acceptable level. Unfortunately, on the other hand, they may compound the disaster of an epidemic with high case fatality rates, by adding high levels of social disorder to the mix.

          This pandemic struck when the global economic system was already teetering on the brink of collapse. As a result it transcends just being a public health issue. That additional factor needs to be kept in mind when dealing with the problem.

    • ASR says:

      I’ve been sounding the tocsin about the current pandemic for about six or eight weeks now.

      But I’m beginning to think that we need a much more moderate public health policy than that which our establishment is now imposing across this country and much of Europe. First, it’s unlikely these policies will eradicate this new virus. It will spring up again next Fall or early winter, just as virulent as now. Second, as so many have noted, these policies will wreak havoc on an economic system that is already near collapse*. Third, these policies are already wreaking havoc on the lives of a large segment of the population, which was already experiencing profound difficulties, e.g., single parents of school age children whose only day care recourse was the public schools, which are now closed. The end result will likely be levels of civil disobedience and unrest that will eventually erupt into rioting on a scale not yet seen in this country. When public health restrictions are finally eased we may emerge from our sheltering in place to find a society, economy, and political system that is irreparably altered. What hose alterations may be God alone knows. I suspect that whatever they may be, it will affect our ability to deal with a resurgence of the novel Corona virus. So beginning in the Fall of next year we may face the same epidemic we are now but without the resources to prevent the very thing we are currently trying to prevent.

      It might have been better – and it might still be better – to accept that the Corona virus is sooner or later going to burn its way through the population and adopt less strict social separation policies. As an adjunct, put in place ad hoc emergency treatment centers to prevent our current inadequate medical system from being overwhelmed. Be prepared to accept many deaths, realizing that the best you can do for these doomed souls is provide comfort and palliative care. Let life go on as before with some minimal common sense regulations discouraging direct contacts, isolating the clearly ill, and encouraging the wearing of masks and other preventive measures.

      However, our establishment and its political cadres have already panicked and over-reacted. I doubt they’re willing to admit this and backtrack on bad policies. After all, this would require that they admit they’ve made a mistake. I doubt they are willing to do this, particularly in an election year.

      Two reasons the shelves are empty: (1) panic buying and hoarding as a response to stringent public health measures, which will restrict access to necessities like food, sanitary supplies, and medications; (2) partial breakdowns in national and local supply chains as a direct result of current public health policy, e.g., closing truck stops and service centers on interstate highways.
      ** Last night I noticed that OTC cold and flu medicines have been stripped from the shelves of local CVSs.

    • ghazisiz says:

      This question has occurred to a lot of people–my wife was saying the same thing to me today. One problem is that we would have had to prepare for this ahead of time — having refuges for at-risk folks, to isolate them from their families, built before the crisis. Another problem is that the next pandemic crisis might hit everybody, not just a small group, and it would have been a waste of resources to have built the refuges. But you can bet that people out there are calculating probabilities and costs, and that we could well end up with contingency plans that resemble your proposal.

  4. hottakes says:

    “Sars Like” means fecal route, which is not discussed but Singapore did address this. Now Mr. Ewald speculated that respiratory infections would never redo the Spanish Flu because they inherently rely on mobility. So, deaths among elderly are more specifically in nursing homes or palliative care wards (50 percent of US deaths with 20 percent of deaths at one nursing home). So, there are two vectors with very different evolutionary pathways: fecal and respiratory. They get conflated with a generalized mortality rate. This is a massive mistake. OFC no one at CDC, JHU, etc. is addressing evolutionary pathways of the virus, so they make very scary hockey stick graphs of doom while nursing homes become morgues.

  5. epoch says:

    It also left far more damaged lungs among survivors. Like the Wuflu. Blood group AB was more vulnerable for SARS whereas O was less vulnerable. Similar with Wuflu.

    This is SARS.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s