Wednesday, March 25, 2020

This REALLY Isn't The Flu

ABC news did a story about a doctor at George Washington University Hospital who has developed a way to show everyone what the Wuhan virus can do to your lungs. It's not the flu, and it's not pneumonia--he wants people to understand that. To me, this is a major reason why we need to be careful about going back to "normal," or adopting rash strategies like quarantining "old people" and letting the rest roam free. And what can I say about the article in the WSJ this morning that advocates: 

Expose First Responders to the Coronavirus
Young workers who have to quarantine could volunteer to build immunity.

The author, Michael Segal, is a neurologist, so I guess he's one of those "experts."

Well, back to the expert at George Washington U. Hospital--See how COVID-19 can damage a person's lungs in 3D virtual reality. I can't embed the video, but I found an image. As the doctor explains, "the blue part is the more normal lung, but anything you're seeing yellow is lung that's being destroyed by the virus":

WASHINGTON D.C. (WJLA) — A doctor at George Washington University Hospital wants everyone to know exactly how COVID-19 can damage your lungs.

Dr. Keith Mortman, Chief of Thoracic Surgery, created a virtual rendering of lungs from an actual patient being treated at the hospital. 
Mortman thinks the first-of-its-kind view inside the lungs of a patient with COVID-19 has a powerful message for the public. 
"This patient is a gentleman in his late 50s, who initially had a fever and a non-productive cough like many other people," Dr. Mortman explained. "Respiratory symptoms progressed quite rapidly, to the point where he did need to be intubated and put on the ventilator." 
A virtual reality, 360-degree rendering shows what the virus does to the human body. 
"So what you're seeing in the video, essentially the blue part is the more normal lung, but anything you're seeing yellow is lung that's being destroyed by the virus," Dr. Mortman said. 
"It's quite alarming to see, in all honesty, because unlike your garden variety pneumonia that might affect only one small part of the lung or unlike the common flu, what you're seeing in this video is really the widespread diffuse damage to the lung," Dr. Mortman added.

It's not the flu, it's not pneumonia, and "recovery" doesn't necessarily mean what you think it means. Do people who are exercised about "the economy" understand this? We need to be careful about getting back to "normal." At a minimum, give Trump some breathing space on this.

ADDENDUM: Will Chamberlain asks:

THE TRAP: Are Pelosi and Schumer dragging their feet to get President Trump to reopen the economy before we’re prepared?

Well, it's a legit question. I didn't watch that, but ...


  1. Agreed, it may not be the flu. But you do understand that if our current approach goes on much longer, you won't have an economy to fix, right?

    1. OK, I'll bite: How much longer till there's no economy?

    2. After a week of this, we're just about back at 2008 levels. I'll give it another ten days. Then the whole thing, even with that counterfeit $5 trillion, stolen from the unborn, blows to smithereens.

      I'd rather not take that chance.

    3. Fair enough. So, next question: When you say 2008 levels, what are you measuring?

      And I'm not trolling here. I know many people, small business people, who are hurting, and I do feel for them.

    4. Over and above the small business world, which is probably close to a catastrophe: the bond market is shot. Retail is probably worse then it was in 2008, commercial mortgage backed securities are in trouble, REITs are up against a wall, also because the mortgage market is dying.

      And what about the Fed Repo bailout, which happened before all this, when the government, it can't get enough of this, bailed out hedge funds for the second or third time.

      The problem, I feel, is that sectors of the financial world were in trouble before the virus came along. So, to add misery to misery, we weren't financially healthy to begin with.

      I'm not saying there's a right or wrong here. We face a grim, possibly unforgiving if we get it wrong, Hobson's Choice.

      I sure don't have the answer.

    5. Tx. I don't know about much of this, but my impression is that these financial troubles have been building for a long time, since repeal of Glass-Steagall.

  2. There will be no vaccine for this. Even if somebody made a vaccine for COVID-19 (they won't) it wont't work for COVID-22.

    We can intentionally spread poverty to hide from COVID-19 (and COVID-22 & COVID-25 ..). Or we can confront the reality of it with known-to-work chloroquine derivatives and by eliminating FDA regulations that prevent the timely production of new medications.

    It's a new world, people. Let's decide to live in it.

    1. The impression you get from many is that vaccines are an easy thing to do. By no means always.

      There's another option--you could die in this new world. That's what we're trying to figure out.

    2. Just read a story on Fox--Italian researchers say the virus doesn't appear to mutate quickly, so a vaccine could work for an extended period.

  3. I like this site and Mark is a wealth of information, experience, and knowledge, but ya beatin' a dead horse.

    Yes, it's not the flu, but has flu like symptoms including fever.

    This is SARS. This follows darn near exactly what happened in China in 2003 with the first SARS outbreak.

    Yep, probably began in November of 2002. China denied and lied and reported to WHO in Feb of 2003, long after this thing was spreading around the globe. It was new, aka "novel." Reports in Nov 2002 called it a "flu."

    China did open it's country to others to investigate and SARS was attributed then to bats.

    Sound familiar?

    However, I do not think even know China has opened up to international health investigators. Even worse, China has and still is using propaganda to deflect that this new one started there. Matter of fact, many a US Democrat propaganda media org, aka vast majority of international and US media, gladly promulgated the official Chinese Communist Party line.

    The US exposure to this was extremely minor. However, today, due to ... cough ... no I am not sick ... globalization and the ever entwining of our two countries (really, draining our manufacturing and technology along with making us subservient to Chinese concerns ... NBA and Hollywood for example) the US population is a heck a more at risk.

    It should be noted that a SARS outbreak happened in the Middle East in 2012-13.

    China's only lesson learned appears to not let world health folks in to investigate.

    The US lesson learned was to continue decimating our industry and further make us dependent upon China thusly making it us more susceptible to their crap arse "flu".

    1. TD, I think my latest post will interest you. It potentially addresses the concerns of many here, re shutting down the economy. If we can understand what's going on with COVID19--and particularly why what's going in the US is different than other countries--we might be able to tailor a strategy for the US with more specificity.

    2. Sigh. It's not you, but me. You are a heavy lifter like Sundance from
      CTH and John Solomon in regards to Obama and his treasonous admin hanger ons.

      We, the US, effed ourselves making us dependent upon and subveriant to China in which we had vast experience in their ways including SARS.



    3. Who got that money? I know I didn't.

  4. Oh, didn't we some folks dreaming we could be "China for a day"?

    1. Top of the news: study at Oxford contravenes Imperial College study. Imperial College's Neil Ferguson reduces death projection to 20,000 from 400,000. Models. GIGO.

    2. Yes--I linked to the Oxford study yesterday in a comment. It tracks the WSJ article that Cassander was talking about. It has, IMO, the same weaknesses.

      Question: Now that Imperial College has drastically revised their projections, do you believe their first study or their second? Will there be a third study when they lick their finger and hold it to the wind two or three weeks from now?

    3. Going back and forth among your various different but related posts gives this reader vertigo.

      Admittedly, the first Imperial College study contained a worst case scenario, which, of course, is what everyone ran with. The drop from 400,000 to 20,000 tells me they should have been more circumspect in their claims.

      There's too much of a difference between the two numbers. Makes one question their competence.

      I'll go with Niels Bohr: "It is very hard to predict, especially the future."

    4. "different but related posts"

      I'm not sure what you mean. I've been very consistent.

      In re Imperial College--and "experts" in general. As I said to Cassander yesterday, dueling creds is not an adequate approach to the opinions of experts. We need to examine their views critically to the best of our ability, because they're just as human as we are.

      It's easy to crticize when they're wrong in retrospect. However, there were grounds to criticize that study all along--I think it was widely known that the IC model was based on the premise of no preventive action whatsoever--a false premise. In fact, that was a premise designed to spur action, which it did. But it also spurred panic among at least a not inconsiderable portion of the general public. That wasn't so responsible. It also colored the public debate in an unhealthy way because it was seized upon for political purposes.

      By the same token, I don't regard either the WSJ op-ed or the Oxfored study--which is really not a study at all, more an hypothesis--as particularly responsible, either.

    5. Oh, yes. You've been consistent. I should have said comments.

  5. Titan, others have attributed this "future" quote to Yogi Berra and Casey Stengel.