One explanation I have heard to explain why RNases are so prevalent and hardy compared to DNases is that RNA was here first. Thus, to survive in an RNA soup, early forms of life needed to develop protective mechanisms. Also, deoxyribose is made from ribose, but not the other way around.

 

Re: the pathogen back of the current pandemic (i.e. SARS-CoV-2):

We know next to nothing so far. The only data we have is on the tiny, non-randomly selected subgroup of people that have actually been tested and/or died. Everyone wants to extrapolate that data but it’s simply not valid to do so.

But then the little we do know is --broadly-- consistent with other Corona viruses -- IPOF Via current observation - The principal (epidemiological) disparities (by comparison with other, especially virulent, Corona viruses [e.g. SARS-CoV-1]) being SARS-CoV-2's markedly decreased pathogenicity albeit (apparently) significantly enhanced incidence (the latter conclusion based upon assumed low-level early prevalence)...

All of which is to say that, at present, it seems the current pandemic represents a far greater challenge to the healthcare infrastructure than (directly) to the health of individuals -- hence the desirability of 'flattening the curve', as it were...

Until we identify the species of snake, the only prudent action is to prepare for the worst.

While I confess (and yet stand by) my life-long 'mantra' -- To wit: 'better to anticipate than to regret' -- It is, nonetheless, worthy of note that anticipating a krait only to discover a garter snake --while undeniably prudent-- is not without an (often) very high cost as well... -- To wit: I genuinely concur with your sentiment howbeit with acknowlegment of definite limits...

To be clear -- It is my opinion that, at present, the stringency of containment efforts/mandates is both appropriate and, candidly, doesn't go far enough! -- It is imperative that the healthcare infrastructure not be overwhelmed by a 'surge' owed to a highly contagious even if otherwise 'unimpressive' pathogen...

Most sincerely
HP

 

there's also the international space station .... I'm just say'n

And risk certian terminal ARS via a random, 'unfortuitously directed', solar CME!?!? -- Restricted to a choice between the two, I believe I'd take my chances as an um... 'worker' in a Wuhan brothel!

Tremulously
HP

 

https://www.kptv.com/watch-golden-r...cle_38b9d19f-0984-5bb7-9597-b81cf7b08256.html

Golden retriever delivers groceries to at-risk elderly neighbor every day during quarantine

 

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/antibody-testing-colorado-town-provide-forward/story?id=69856623&

"The goal of this is to show you can predictably get an entire county back to its new normal as quickly as possible by using testing," said Lou Reese, co-CEO of United Biomedical and its COVAXX subsidiary.

Reese stressed that, if successful, the testing program could be expanded, "starting at the hot-spot areas right now to solve this problem, stop the panic and get people to their lives and back to work."
...
The science behind the testing concept is not complicated. Every person who contracts the coronavirus will develop antibodies in their blood, usually within 10 days, even if the individual has such a mild case that there are no symptoms. Antibodies are proteins that help the body fight off an intruding virus -- but they’re also unmistakable forensic evidence of where the virus has been.

 

I'd take my chances as an um... 'worker' in a Wuhan brothel!

I was going suggest dalit latrine cleaner in Pakistan ... but you outdid me by a mile!... also, in that particular profession you've just mentioned the use of the term "service provider" is preferable to plain "worker"...

 

So I’m not sick enough to get tested. I have difficulty breathing but don’t require a respirator. Hence, the situation decrees that I don’t qualify for a test. So, I am told to wait at home until I require a respirator, then call 911. At that time, I will qualify for a test and palliative care.

What?

A few things of concern is that without testing everyone we can't know the accurate mortality rate. But then again, testing everyone can be problematic as well. Overrun test labs can start making mistakes in the monumental effort to keep up with the demand for results.

We don't know how many have it. We have a good idea of those cases that are severe enough to be tested for. Exactly what the right answer is - nobody really knows. But there are a lot of opinions out there. My wife and I have chosen to follow isolation rules locally. Why chance getting into a sleeping bag if a snake might already be in there. And as has been mentioned, not knowing what kind of snake - - - .

So my wish to everyone out there is for everyone to stay healthy. As for all the cures, magical or practical, most things are worth trying. Even hanging upside down (to drain the lungs). Yeah, somewhere I heard that one too. For now my wife and I both seem to be healthy and hopefully remain that way long enough for experts to develop a vaccine. But even vaccine's don't always protect.

And risk certian terminal ARS via a random, 'unfortuitously directed', solar CME!?!? -- Restricted to a choice between the two, I believe I'd take my chances as an um... 'worker' in a Wuhan brothel!

Tremulously
HP

Dude! You found work ? ? ?

 

https://spectator.us/understand-report-figures-covid-deaths/

 

A few things of concern is that without testing everyone we can't know the accurate mortality rate. But then again, testing everyone can be problematic as well. Overrun test labs can start making mistakes in the monumental effort to keep up with the demand for results.

Testing "everyone" can skew the calculated death rate lower too. As of this writing, there have been approximately 143,000 thousand "confirmed" cases. I don't know whether "confirmed" means just test-positive or clinically positive w/ or w/o a test. For a population of 350 million, that is 0.04%.

All clinical laboratory tests produce a certain percentage of false positives and false negatives regardless of workload. If that false positive rate is 0.1%, then a test of 100,000* random individuals would produce approximately 40 true positives and 100 false positives.* The predictive value of a positive test would 40/140 (29%). That is, only about 1 third of the people who tested positive actually have the disease. Such a result would lead to a lot of unnecessary cost and anxiety.

Even if the death rate were 5%, the apparent death rate would be only 2/140 = 1.4%,

*With a prevalence of 0.04%, 100,000 unselected people would have 40 with the disease and 99,960 without the disease. Assuming 100% sensitivity and 0.1% false positives, all 40 cases would be detected and 0.1% x 99,940 = 99.96 false positives.

 

According to this bleak article, the Wuhan virus is going to help "thin" the herd here in the U.S.

 

There are "Lies, damn lies, and statistics".
What really matters is that the sick is coming into the hospitals faster than they can handle.

 

UPDATE: oops, the earlier stuff which I deleted was an unintentional post.

Testing "everyone" can skew the calculated death rate lower too. As of this writing, there have been approximately 143,000 thousand "confirmed" cases. I don't know whether "confirmed" means just test-positive or clinically positive w/ or w/o a test. For a population of 350 million, that is 0.04%.

All clinical laboratory tests produce a certain percentage of false positives and false negatives regardless of workload. If that false positive rate is 0.1%, then a test of 100,000* random individuals would produce approximately 40 true positives and 100 false positives.* The predictive value of a positive test would 40/140 (29%). That is, only about 1 third of the people who tested positive actually have the disease. Such a result would lead to a lot of unnecessary cost and anxiety.

Even if the death rate were 5%, the apparent death rate would be only 2/140 = 1.4%,

*With a prevalence of 0.04%, 100,000 unselected people would have 40 with the disease and 99,960 without the disease. Assuming 100% sensitivity and 0.1% false positives, all 40 cases would be detected and 0.1% x 99,940 = 99.96 false positives.

Wait a second. Why are you multiplying the false positive factor by the population which DID NOT test positive? If it’s a FALSE positive rate of 0.1%, then the misidentified population is 0.04 people.

You can’t claim that any portion of the population that tested negative are included in the false positive population.

 

According to this bleak article, the Wuhan virus is going to help "thin" the herd here in the U.S.

I saw that. what a load of FUD. Somehow in three weeks have a population that's unable to do the same jobs they did before.

 

There are "Lies, damn lies, and statistics".
What really matters is that the sick is coming into the hospitals faster than they can handle.

Yup, so what to do? Then they define the sick and classify them. sick, sicker, sickest and dearly beloved we .... Only the sickest will qualify for admittance and the rest get turned away and told what amounts to come back when you are sicker.

Ron

 

Yup, so what to do? Then they define the sick and classify them. sick, sicker, sickest and dearly beloved we .... Only the sickest will qualify for admittance and the rest get turned away and told what amounts to come back when you are sicker.

Ron

Yes. It is called triage.
- assign degrees of urgency to (wounded or ill patients).
"victims were triaged by paramedics before being transported to hospitals"

 

Yup, so what to do? Then they define the sick and classify them. sick, sicker, sickest and dearly beloved we .... Only the sickest will qualify for admittance and the rest get turned away and told what amounts to come back when you are sicker.

Ron

Exactly my experience...

 

Testing "everyone" can skew the calculated death rate lower too.

That's absolutely true. But knowing how many people are truly infected CAN (and probably will) have an effect on how much more preparedness we should (need) to be.

All clinical laboratory tests produce a certain percentage of false positives and false negatives regardless of workload. If that false positive rate is 0.1%, then a test of 100,000* random individuals would produce approximately 40 true positives and 100 false positives.* The predictive value of a positive test would 40/140 (29%). That is, only about 1 third of the people who tested positive actually have the disease. Such a result would lead to a lot of unnecessary cost and anxiety.

I don't know that I entirely agree with that. IF 100 tests come back positive and less than 1% is an error - I don't see how you come up with this number. I'd welcome an explanation because for sure - I don't know everything. I only know what I know and am only able to reason out what I am able to reason out.

 

And I have sought professional care.

My wife has suggested that to me for years.

 

My wife has suggested that to me for years.

And you know that she is right but you don't want to admit it.

 

The ultimate question is why the US was so "behind the curve" on getting testing spooled up? That should not be addressed during an emergency, but I hope when this crisis is over, our government will get the answers and fix the root cause so it does't happen again.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/us-coronavirus-test/

(Moderator's note: A comment critical of a U.S. politician's statements has been removed.)