Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
After hearing President Biden has confirmed Covid isnt the danger it was . I began to wonder about third world countries without health care etc..why werent they wiped out when we in the UK and other countries losing so many to this virus... Isnt this strange..
After hearing President Biden has confirmed Covid isnt the danger it was . I began to wonder about third world countries without health care etc..why werent they wiped out when we in the UK and other countries losing so many to this virus... Isnt this strange..
Many of them were hit very hard by Covid. However, the weather may have played a part, since many of the poorer countries are closer to the equator, and in many of those countries, people spend most of their time outdoors, where transmission was much less than indoors.
After hearing President Biden has confirmed Covid isnt the danger it was . I began to wonder about third world countries without health care etc..why werent they wiped out when we in the UK and other countries losing so many to this virus... Isnt this strange..
Third-world countries have very young populations. People don't make it into old age. They die of many conditions before they reach old age. The virus has a predilection for predominantly old and diseased populations. Healthcare access can add years to one's life. If you don't have it you die relatively young.
People die young in poor countries, many have an average old age of 35. They also do not track deaths and illness like we do, they are in the middle of wars, have trouble with multiple other diseases, limited medical, and hunger issues.
One more thing to die from is really not a top priority for them.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
Third-world countries have very young populations. People don't make it into old age. They die of many conditions before they reach old age. The virus has a predilection for predominantly old and diseased populations. Healthcare access can add years to one's life. If you don't have it you die relatively young.
One has to be careful when comparing countries.
i believe there is research out of Africa(Ethiopia?) that those who have antibodies to parasites esp Malaria, dont get Covid or if they do its very mild. May extend to antibodies against any parasite. I dont know how far along the research is but Africa doesnt have the death rate of first world countries.
Google it.
i believe there is research out of Africa(Ethiopia?) that those who have antibodies to parasites esp Malaria, dont get Covid or if they do its very mild. May extend to antibodies against any parasite. I dont know how far along the research is but Africa doesnt have the death rate of first world countries.
Google it.
That's an old theory.
"In medicine, the hygiene hypothesis states that early childhood exposure to particular microorganisms (such as the gut flora and helminth parasites) protects against allergic diseases by contributing to the development of the immune system.[1][2] In particular, a lack of exposure is thought to lead to defects in the establishment of immune tolerance.[1] The time period for exposure begins in utero and ends at school age.[3]"
In relation to COVID, it may be operative we don't know. The implication would be that because of previous parasite exposures that one would be more immunotolerant and restraints on hypersensitivity that presumable would lead to reduced cytokine storm. That's an interesting theory but somewhat removed from the previous conception of explaining reduced "allergic" IgE hypersensitivity reactions. Expanding that theory to include other forms of hypersensitivity reactions would need more clinical observations and study.
The hygiene hypothesis is associated with the humoral antibody arm of the immune system. It allows for the explanation of immune tolerance against forming antibodies. Fewer antibodies would be formed and not more.
The explanation that Africans have more antibodies because of childhood exposure would rely on partial immunity rather than immune tolerance. The group proposing partial immunity would include exposures to other coronaviruses causing less severe symptoms.
Normally one has to make observations that are valid and find explanations and theories as to why that is the case. One needs to normalize disparities between population demographics in order to isolate variables.
African countries don't have an aging population and so there isn't any motivation as stated by the previous poster to study that aspect. First world countries can not replicate the conditions that exist in third world countries and so the knowledge gained has translational limitations.
Third-world countries have very young populations. People don't make it into old age. They die of many conditions before they reach old age. The virus has a predilection for predominantly old and diseased populations. Healthcare access can add years to one's life. If you don't have it you die relatively young.
One has to be careful when comparing countries.
Certainly true, but just as important-- if you look at the morbidity & mortality data for all the various countries, they all fall within +/- 2SD of the over-all mean, regardless of the way in which the epidemic was handled in terms of medical care, preventive measures, including masks, social distancing, business/event closures etc...ie-- just normal wandering of the data, not any real dif from country to country....
...The math that describes epidemics is the same as that describing the way pigments are deposited in an animal's coat...No two Zebras are exactly alike, but each has a stripe pattern almost like the next guy. That's how the peaks & valleys of the case rates in an epidemic go too.
It's also difficult to assess the true impact of the vaxes. The progressive improvement in morbidity/mortality numbers correlates strongly positively with the evolution of the viral strains so it's hard to tell how well the vax really worked...The "leaky" nature of this vax doesn't make the analysis easy.
Certainly true, but just as important-- if you look at the morbidity & mortality data for all the various countries, they all fall within +/- 2SD of the over-all mean, regardless of the way in which the epidemic was handled in terms of medical care, preventive measures, including masks, social distancing, business/event closures etc...ie-- just normal wandering of the data, not any real dif from country to country....
...The math that describes epidemics is the same as that describing the way pigments are deposited in an animal's coat...No two Zebras are exactly alike, but each has a stripe pattern almost like the next guy. That's how the peaks & valleys of the case rates in an epidemic go too.
It's also difficult to assess the true impact of the vaxes. The progressive improvement in morbidity/mortality numbers correlates strongly positively with the evolution of the viral strains so it's hard to tell how well the vax really worked...The "leaky" nature of this vax doesn't make the analysis easy.
The main thrust and reason for being for modern medicine is to avoid survival of the fittest philosophies implicit in the OP. I think it is erroneous to conclude that everything we did had no impact in comparison to other countries who did nothing. Darwinian evolution states that the strong survive and therefore nothing needs to be done. Africans are strong because they are exposed to malaria and other very deadly agents and so we are weak because of the many people that died here is what I am hearing. The reality is that Africans have suffered with death at young ages AND if you survive then you are strong. It's a selective population. That might be absolutely true but modern medicine is dedicated to the weak and it isn't to take us back to the days of outhouses without running water and accept all exposures to every environmental challenge out there.
The goal is to learn what works or doesn't work. The first thing to do is to come up with valid observations and not simply make assumptions based on invalid observations. Saying that mask mandates don't work is different than saying masks don't work. Epidemiological models are based on prevalence which has many factors and infectivity which also has many variables and the population at large which is also multifaceted. One can not just take one country and compare it to another country. You can't even compare parts of one country with another without carefully studying the demographics.
I don't have the answers but we have start making valid observations and asking the right questions.
Simply put, the disease is not deadly enough to "wipe out" an entire population. It only reduces life expectancy by 1-2 years at worst when averaged over the population. In countries with lower life expectancy to begin with, the effect is even smaller.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
