17 ms·

Curious that the story doesn't mention he died of Covid – an infection that, you'd expect someone with his condition to be extremely keen to avoid, and who shou

Curious that the story doesn't mention he died of Covid – an infection that, you'd expect someone with his condition to be extremely keen to avoid, and who should have been able to, given reasonable precautions from his visitors.

zdragnar 3y ago
Many people are asymptomatic, and not only that, are exposed by others who are asymptomatic. Short of every single human interaction being preceded by a PCR test, the odds are that he eventually would have been exposed. It is easy to do an at-home nasal swab test when you are infected but before the viral load has gotten to the point of being highly contagious, at which point you think you are negative but really will soon become contagious. "Reasonable precautions" would have to be very rigorous, and I have to imagine it would be easy to cave and relax precautions as loneliness sets in.
- 0xAFFFF 3y ago
  Reasonable precautions here were likely to be proper masking from visitors and adequate air filtering in the room. Not something too hard to expect from people visiting a sick person.
  - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
    It's not like those "reasonable precautions" are guaranteed. I know a couple people who were absolutely terrified of getting Covid, such that they always masked with N95s and literally only would meet with people outside, 6 feet apart (probably the only time they were inside was with others at the grocery store, and when stores were enforcing masking) and they still got it.
    - foofie 3y ago
      > (...) and they still got it. I don't see the point of your comment. You're presenting an anecdotal case where someone who took some precautions which are known for not being 100% effective against airborne diseases ended up contracting an airborne disease. It makes as much sense as ranting about wearing seatbelts because you can put together an anecdotal case of someone who got hurt in a car accident in spite of wearing one. What's the point of that sort of argument, really?
      - zdragnar 3y ago
        The point is that even with reasonable precautions, it is (and was) possible for the man in the iron lung to be exposed to COVID. The actual precautions necessary to protect him from any exposure at all would have been significantly more stringent than what people tend to believe are reasonable, as GPs anecdote demonstrates.
        KerrAvon 3y ago
        The problem here is what people believe are reasonable and what is actually reasonable are pretty far apart. COVID will cripple you for the rest of your life if you're unlucky. Chance of that happening increases greatly with each infection. It is not the flu! It's not a cold! Certainly in any medical context, *everyone* should be wearing N95s (at minimum). This should in particular not be optional for anyone calling themselves a medical professional or working in a medical office. This should not be controversial; it's basic preventative care. For particularly sensitive people like this gentleman was, more substantial protection should be employed. Facemasks. Superior air recirculation.
    - mrob 3y ago
      >masked with N95s I see this as an example of confusion between population-level and individual protection. Widespread use of N95s is great at keeping the hospitals from overcrowding, but if somebody is serious about personally avoiding COVID, 95% percent filtration seems rather low (and there's leakage around the sides too.) If they were truly serious about avoiding COVID, they'd use an elastomeric half-face respirator at the minimum (which has the bonus feature of being more comfortable to wear).
      - TylerE 3y ago
        The N95 guarantees a minimum of 95% filtration at the worst possible particle size, which airborne virus particles are not. The 3M 9210s I’ve been wearing since 2021 have been independelty tested as having >99.5% filtration efficiency at the relevant particle size, and that’s with physical testing so stuff like ability of the make to seal is also being tested. Zero COVID infections here.
        t0bia_s 3y ago
        Potential Applications Include: Bagging, grinding, sanding, sawing, sweeping, woodworking and other dusty applications. source: https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/813534O/3m-aura-particulate-respirator-9210-and-9211-n95.pdf https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/813534O/3m-aura-particul... No words about viruses. Also, I recommend you to make IgG test for covid antibodies. Most likely you already have some.
        ceejayoz 3y ago
        How are you managing to read "Potential Applications Include" as "The following is an exhaustive list of all possible applications"?
        TylerE 3y ago
        They would never list healthcare on the general purpose version anyway, since there is a separate specific certification for that. The only difference is better fluid protection, which is irrelevant to the given threat model. They do indeed sell that. https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/p/d/v101143973/ https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/p/d/v101143973/ And whatta ya know... "This healthcare N95 particulate respirator and surgical mask has comfortable inner materials and helps provide respiratory protection against certain airborne biological particles. The individually packaged, flat-fold design allows for convenient storage prior to use. Fluid-resistant surgical masks help reduce your exposure to blood and body fluids. Cleared for sale by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)." Notice it's still "just" an N95.
  - TheBlight 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - TylerE 3y ago
      The science on this is not controversial. Masks work. Denying that only shows you have fallen for the soundbites and not read the actual studies. For one thing, most of the ones usually cited are testing, with loose controls, surgical style masks for the flu, which has both a different particle size and far lower infectivity than Covid.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
- cameldrv 3y ago
  You can get home tests that are similar to PCR. They are more expensive but the performance of the antigen tests since about 2022 is so bad that they’re almost useless.
  - jMyles 3y ago
    When you say, "so bad", you mean in terms of sensitivity? They seem to be sufficiently selective, but under-sensitive. So, not great for risk aversion.
    - cameldrv 3y ago
      Yes sensitivity. False positives are fairly rare.
      - jMyles 3y ago
        Yeah, seems so. So the tests are good as confirmatory devices. But yeah, it was extremely unserious when they were used to gatekeep public events, etc. The reasonable presumption has always been that transmission of respiratory pathogens will occur at public events (which is a strength: humans are quite good at quickly acquiring community immunity - it's one of the reasons our species is so incredibly robust against respiratory pathogens).
        cameldrv 3y ago
        That is a point of view. In terms of gatekeeping public events, requiring a negative test certainly is going to reduce the number of people who show up with covid, but with only antigen tests, you're reducing the risk maybe 50-60% or so. If you're going to require people to do something annoying, it would be a lot better if the risk reduction were more than that. When you say "humans are good at quickly acquiring community immunity", I don't really think we've done that with Covid. Covid is still over 2% of all deaths in the U.S., and it's causing way more disability and injury. We won't truly know what it's done to us for years.
Teever 3y ago
It sounds like you learned nothing from the pandemic. It is practically impossible to avoid catching covid in modern society. 'On a long enough timeline everyone's chance of survival drops to zero.'
- BjoernKW 3y ago
  > It is practically impossible to avoid catching covid in modern society. For the average human going about an ordinary and active life that statement is quite true. However, the person in question didn't lead an ordinary life. He was confined to a medical device and probably very rarely had in-person contact with random people. Besides, the people who met him personally all must have known about his condition. Under such circumstances avoiding COVID-19 is actually pretty easy: Have everyone in the room wear high-quality face masks. Even for the average person during the height of the pandemic, avoiding COVID-19 was still possible, but required significant effort (no lockdowns though, mind you): Basically, it meant wearing such a mask properly in public settings (and changing it at appropriate intervals) as well as frequent testing of everyone you were in touch with regularly.
  - whelp_24 3y ago
    Masks are not 100% effective. Indeed, at it's height the hope was only to slow the spread to manageable levels, the spread was inevitable.
    - BjoernKW 3y ago
      N95 / FFP2 masks are sufficiently effective (if worn correctly) to reduce the likelihood of getting infected to the extent they effectively prevent infection on a personal level. There's of course still a small chance of contracting COVID-19 in spite of wearing a mask, which is why for society at large masks only slowed down the spread at best. For the individual person by and large the probability for getting infected is negligible, though. This precisely what those - quite heated - arguments (and pertinent studies) regarding masks being not effective at all were about: Masks are highly effective on a personal level; for preventing community spread their usefulness is limited.
PaulKeeble 3y ago
[flagged]
- busterarm 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - zer00eyz 3y ago
    Ummm... The positive pressure keeps airborne contaminants away from the wearer. The germs off of the researcher in the lab as it were. I'm not sure how it would prevent contamination from getting on people outside the suit?
    - busterarm 3y ago
      I was offering a farcical suggestion to a farcical problem.
      - nerevarthelame 3y ago
        Seems like a real problem to me. On average around 1,200 people die from COVID in the US every week, including the guy in the article that started this conversation.
      - kelnos 3y ago
        It wasn't funny, then. At least make a farcical suggestion that would actually help, not make the problem (farcical or otherwise) worse. I do agree with the overall point that it's likely not really anyone's fault that Alexander eventually got COVID. Being perfect 100% of the time isn't feasible for anyone, even people in health-compromised situations.
  - foofie 3y ago
    > Maybe our medical professionals should be wearing PPPS[1] at all times, hmm? I'll bite your fallacy. Scabies are prevented by avoiding direct skin-on-skin contact. Wearing latex gloves is already effective, as is routinely changing clothing and bedding. Is any of this something you feel is outlandish for a health professional working on hospitals and retirement homes?
ics 3y ago
The Guardian article from May 2020 which others have linked (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/may/26/last-iron-lung-paul-alexander-polio-coronavirus https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/may/26/last-iron-lu...) has more information on his life than this BBC one and his thoughts on the present pandemic. Given that his death was recent, I too am curious as to whether there are any further details on his acquiring the illness but suspect there may be little to report on. If you read the Guardian article he is not apathetic at all but expresses a sense that it will likely be what finally gets him.
riffic 3y ago
he was also 78 and mostly immobile so that may have also played a role. Edit: the quote below (Palahniuk, fight club I believe,) is an actuarial reality.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
lr4444lr 3y ago
COVID made its way to Antarctica. I have no doubt 4 years later that it would find its way to Paul Alexander's home.
- ParetoOptimal 3y ago
  Your implication that covid is unavoidable is false. I've avoided getting it by being purposefully covid conscious.
  - unclad5968 3y ago
    You have no way of knowing that. Some people are asymptomatic.
    - CrazyStat 3y ago
      > You have no way of knowing that. You can get a antibody (blood) test that will test positive for COVID antibodies even if you were asymptomatic.
      - kube-system 3y ago
        You can. But that still doesn't tell you if you've had COVID. Antibodies wane overtime and you can also test positive for antibodies after having had a vaccine. So even if you have been taking antibody tests every couple of weeks year now, you could have contracted it before the tests were available (it was about a year before they were publicly available in much of the US), or after a vaccination.
        dev_tty01 3y ago
        Depends on the test. The right test can tell the difference between the set of vaccine antibodies and the set from an actual infection. Vaccine only creates antibodies that target the spike protein structure. I participated in a study and got updates every six months.
      - 3y ago
xanderlewis 3y ago
The reason might be simply that the cause of death isn’t widely confirmed yet, and BBC News (more so than most other news organisations) likes to err on the side of caution. They’re often late with details for this reason.
StarterPro 3y ago
That's the irony, survived from Polio for decades only to be brought down by Covid, which by all points was and is being handled poorly.
- spacebuffer 3y ago
  it is indeed iron-y...
- salad-tycoon 3y ago
  Any minor sniffles could have brought down a 78 yo with major comorbidities and who’s been immobile for a significant portion of his life. Heck any case of the sniffles can bring down many healthier 78 year olds. I’d suggest instead focusing on that this man managed to live a fulfilling and accomplished life in what I would be terrified of being in for even one day. Rest in peace sir. You are not a cultural war bargaining chip.

zdragnar 3y ago

Many people are asymptomatic, and not only that, are exposed by others who are asymptomatic. Short of every single human interaction being preceded by a PCR test, the odds are that he eventually would have been exposed. It is easy to do an at-home nasal swab test when you are infected but before the viral load has gotten to the point of being highly contagious, at which point you think you are negative but really will soon become contagious. "Reasonable precautions" would have to be very rigorous, and I have to imagine it would be easy to cave and relax precautions as loneliness sets in.

0xAFFFF 3y ago
Reasonable precautions here were likely to be proper masking from visitors and adequate air filtering in the room. Not something too hard to expect from people visiting a sick person.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  It's not like those "reasonable precautions" are guaranteed. I know a couple people who were absolutely terrified of getting Covid, such that they always masked with N95s and literally only would meet with people outside, 6 feet apart (probably the only time they were inside was with others at the grocery store, and when stores were enforcing masking) and they still got it.
  - foofie 3y ago
    > (...) and they still got it. I don't see the point of your comment. You're presenting an anecdotal case where someone who took some precautions which are known for not being 100% effective against airborne diseases ended up contracting an airborne disease. It makes as much sense as ranting about wearing seatbelts because you can put together an anecdotal case of someone who got hurt in a car accident in spite of wearing one. What's the point of that sort of argument, really?
    - zdragnar 3y ago
      The point is that even with reasonable precautions, it is (and was) possible for the man in the iron lung to be exposed to COVID. The actual precautions necessary to protect him from any exposure at all would have been significantly more stringent than what people tend to believe are reasonable, as GPs anecdote demonstrates.
      - KerrAvon 3y ago
        The problem here is what people believe are reasonable and what is actually reasonable are pretty far apart. COVID will cripple you for the rest of your life if you're unlucky. Chance of that happening increases greatly with each infection. It is not the flu! It's not a cold! Certainly in any medical context, *everyone* should be wearing N95s (at minimum). This should in particular not be optional for anyone calling themselves a medical professional or working in a medical office. This should not be controversial; it's basic preventative care. For particularly sensitive people like this gentleman was, more substantial protection should be employed. Facemasks. Superior air recirculation.
  - mrob 3y ago
    >masked with N95s I see this as an example of confusion between population-level and individual protection. Widespread use of N95s is great at keeping the hospitals from overcrowding, but if somebody is serious about personally avoiding COVID, 95% percent filtration seems rather low (and there's leakage around the sides too.) If they were truly serious about avoiding COVID, they'd use an elastomeric half-face respirator at the minimum (which has the bonus feature of being more comfortable to wear).
    - TylerE 3y ago
      The N95 guarantees a minimum of 95% filtration at the worst possible particle size, which airborne virus particles are not. The 3M 9210s I’ve been wearing since 2021 have been independelty tested as having >99.5% filtration efficiency at the relevant particle size, and that’s with physical testing so stuff like ability of the make to seal is also being tested. Zero COVID infections here.
      - t0bia_s 3y ago
        Potential Applications Include: Bagging, grinding, sanding, sawing, sweeping, woodworking and other dusty applications. source: https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/813534O/3m-aura-particulate-respirator-9210-and-9211-n95.pdf https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/813534O/3m-aura-particul... No words about viruses. Also, I recommend you to make IgG test for covid antibodies. Most likely you already have some.
        ceejayoz 3y ago
        How are you managing to read "Potential Applications Include" as "The following is an exhaustive list of all possible applications"?
        TylerE 3y ago
        They would never list healthcare on the general purpose version anyway, since there is a separate specific certification for that. The only difference is better fluid protection, which is irrelevant to the given threat model. They do indeed sell that. https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/p/d/v101143973/ https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/p/d/v101143973/ And whatta ya know... "This healthcare N95 particulate respirator and surgical mask has comfortable inner materials and helps provide respiratory protection against certain airborne biological particles. The individually packaged, flat-fold design allows for convenient storage prior to use. Fluid-resistant surgical masks help reduce your exposure to blood and body fluids. Cleared for sale by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)." Notice it's still "just" an N95.
- TheBlight 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - TylerE 3y ago
    The science on this is not controversial. Masks work. Denying that only shows you have fallen for the soundbites and not read the actual studies. For one thing, most of the ones usually cited are testing, with loose controls, surgical style masks for the flu, which has both a different particle size and far lower infectivity than Covid.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
cameldrv 3y ago
You can get home tests that are similar to PCR. They are more expensive but the performance of the antigen tests since about 2022 is so bad that they’re almost useless.
- jMyles 3y ago
  When you say, "so bad", you mean in terms of sensitivity? They seem to be sufficiently selective, but under-sensitive. So, not great for risk aversion.
  - cameldrv 3y ago
    Yes sensitivity. False positives are fairly rare.
    - jMyles 3y ago
      Yeah, seems so. So the tests are good as confirmatory devices. But yeah, it was extremely unserious when they were used to gatekeep public events, etc. The reasonable presumption has always been that transmission of respiratory pathogens will occur at public events (which is a strength: humans are quite good at quickly acquiring community immunity - it's one of the reasons our species is so incredibly robust against respiratory pathogens).
      - cameldrv 3y ago
        That is a point of view. In terms of gatekeeping public events, requiring a negative test certainly is going to reduce the number of people who show up with covid, but with only antigen tests, you're reducing the risk maybe 50-60% or so. If you're going to require people to do something annoying, it would be a lot better if the risk reduction were more than that. When you say "humans are good at quickly acquiring community immunity", I don't really think we've done that with Covid. Covid is still over 2% of all deaths in the U.S., and it's causing way more disability and injury. We won't truly know what it's done to us for years.

Teever 3y ago

It sounds like you learned nothing from the pandemic. It is practically impossible to avoid catching covid in modern society. 'On a long enough timeline everyone's chance of survival drops to zero.'

BjoernKW 3y ago
> It is practically impossible to avoid catching covid in modern society. For the average human going about an ordinary and active life that statement is quite true. However, the person in question didn't lead an ordinary life. He was confined to a medical device and probably very rarely had in-person contact with random people. Besides, the people who met him personally all must have known about his condition. Under such circumstances avoiding COVID-19 is actually pretty easy: Have everyone in the room wear high-quality face masks. Even for the average person during the height of the pandemic, avoiding COVID-19 was still possible, but required significant effort (no lockdowns though, mind you): Basically, it meant wearing such a mask properly in public settings (and changing it at appropriate intervals) as well as frequent testing of everyone you were in touch with regularly.
- whelp_24 3y ago
  Masks are not 100% effective. Indeed, at it's height the hope was only to slow the spread to manageable levels, the spread was inevitable.
  - BjoernKW 3y ago
    N95 / FFP2 masks are sufficiently effective (if worn correctly) to reduce the likelihood of getting infected to the extent they effectively prevent infection on a personal level. There's of course still a small chance of contracting COVID-19 in spite of wearing a mask, which is why for society at large masks only slowed down the spread at best. For the individual person by and large the probability for getting infected is negligible, though. This precisely what those - quite heated - arguments (and pertinent studies) regarding masks being not effective at all were about: Masks are highly effective on a personal level; for preventing community spread their usefulness is limited.

PaulKeeble 3y ago

[flagged]

busterarm 3y ago
[flagged]
- zer00eyz 3y ago
  Ummm... The positive pressure keeps airborne contaminants away from the wearer. The germs off of the researcher in the lab as it were. I'm not sure how it would prevent contamination from getting on people outside the suit?
  - busterarm 3y ago
    I was offering a farcical suggestion to a farcical problem.
    - nerevarthelame 3y ago
      Seems like a real problem to me. On average around 1,200 people die from COVID in the US every week, including the guy in the article that started this conversation.
    - kelnos 3y ago
      It wasn't funny, then. At least make a farcical suggestion that would actually help, not make the problem (farcical or otherwise) worse. I do agree with the overall point that it's likely not really anyone's fault that Alexander eventually got COVID. Being perfect 100% of the time isn't feasible for anyone, even people in health-compromised situations.
- foofie 3y ago
  > Maybe our medical professionals should be wearing PPPS[1] at all times, hmm? I'll bite your fallacy. Scabies are prevented by avoiding direct skin-on-skin contact. Wearing latex gloves is already effective, as is routinely changing clothing and bedding. Is any of this something you feel is outlandish for a health professional working on hospitals and retirement homes?

ics 3y ago

The Guardian article from May 2020 which others have linked (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/may/26/last-iron-lung-paul-alexander-polio-coronavirus https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/may/26/last-iron-lu...) has more information on his life than this BBC one and his thoughts on the present pandemic. Given that his death was recent, I too am curious as to whether there are any further details on his acquiring the illness but suspect there may be little to report on. If you read the Guardian article he is not apathetic at all but expresses a sense that it will likely be what finally gets him.

riffic 3y ago

he was also 78 and mostly immobile so that may have also played a role. Edit: the quote below (Palahniuk, fight club I believe,) is an actuarial reality.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

lr4444lr 3y ago

COVID made its way to Antarctica. I have no doubt 4 years later that it would find its way to Paul Alexander's home.

ParetoOptimal 3y ago
Your implication that covid is unavoidable is false. I've avoided getting it by being purposefully covid conscious.
- unclad5968 3y ago
  You have no way of knowing that. Some people are asymptomatic.
  - CrazyStat 3y ago
    > You have no way of knowing that. You can get a antibody (blood) test that will test positive for COVID antibodies even if you were asymptomatic.
    - kube-system 3y ago
      You can. But that still doesn't tell you if you've had COVID. Antibodies wane overtime and you can also test positive for antibodies after having had a vaccine. So even if you have been taking antibody tests every couple of weeks year now, you could have contracted it before the tests were available (it was about a year before they were publicly available in much of the US), or after a vaccination.
      - dev_tty01 3y ago
        Depends on the test. The right test can tell the difference between the set of vaccine antibodies and the set from an actual infection. Vaccine only creates antibodies that target the spike protein structure. I participated in a study and got updates every six months.
    - 3y ago

xanderlewis 3y ago

The reason might be simply that the cause of death isn’t widely confirmed yet, and BBC News (more so than most other news organisations) likes to err on the side of caution. They’re often late with details for this reason.

StarterPro 3y ago

That's the irony, survived from Polio for decades only to be brought down by Covid, which by all points was and is being handled poorly.

spacebuffer 3y ago
it is indeed iron-y...
salad-tycoon 3y ago
Any minor sniffles could have brought down a 78 yo with major comorbidities and who’s been immobile for a significant portion of his life. Heck any case of the sniffles can bring down many healthier 78 year olds. I’d suggest instead focusing on that this man managed to live a fulfilling and accomplished life in what I would be terrified of being in for even one day. Rest in peace sir. You are not a cultural war bargaining chip.