Hi guys,
Please don't groan if I start another coronavirus thread, but some posters started to discuss about the "Cambodian exception", that is, the difference between coronavirus figures here and elsewhere in the world. The discussion was part of the general Coronavirus thread in the Rest of the World, so I'm moving it here because I hope more people will chime in.
One of the themes I found interesting in the discussion that was started there is the possible division of the coronavirus between 'developed' and 'developing countries'.

I accept that the official figures for the virus in Cambodia are rough at best, but as other posters have pointed out, if there was a huge discrepansy between official figures and the situation on the ground, we would know about it. The hospitals are not overflowing, and there are no reports of suspicious mass outbreaks of illness.

So, what is making a difference here, is it the climate ? The diet ? The lifestyle ? No mass transport and very little aircon spaces ? It's certainly not the social distancing or the general hygiene. Most Khmers live in close proximity and don't seem bothered about distancing from people they know. The best idea that I can come up with is the outdoor lifestyle, but that's a bit vague. So, what are your theories on this ? I almost wonder if all the Chinese coming and going (in Cambodia) from early on (Dec/Jan) could have had a positive vaccination effect on the local population, but that seems whacky, right? Well, what's your theory ?

Low number of tests = Low number of infections.

Personally I'm surprised that this issue isn't at the forefront of people's mind when discussing Covid-19. For me, it's such an anomaly it's difficult to believe, considering the hugely contageous nature of the virus.

It has spread so rapidly and so uncontrollably throughout populations that we're now at a stage where we can't ignore the fact that some countries appear to have been relitively untouched whilst others have seen such apocalyptic levels of cases.

I can't offer any answers. Perhaps there isn't one single answer. The only three things I can come up with is
1 - The climate.
2- The average age of the populations (most developing nations have a median age of under 22yo)
3 - The overall health of populations. There is far less obesity and as such, underlying health issues in developing nations than there is in developed ones.

I don't think any one of these individually is responsible, but when you factor in all three, perhaps that can account for it?

I have no idea. I don't think anyone does. But it is something that surely needs exploring. I wonder about it constantly. It baffles me.

WineOxley wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 8:26 pm Low number of tests = Low number of infections.

You don't need testing to know that there is an outbreak on the levels of Italy, Spain, the UK or the US right on your doorstep.

We're talking about the difference between several hundreds being infected and hundreds of thousands.

It can't simply be down to testing. Impossible.

A young, mask-wearing, generally non smoking, Cambodian individual that lives on a diet of many natural local foods, and also in an environment that promotes a strong immune system is likely to outlast an old pop with germ-free living and plastic food. That's just my opinion so please doctors and experts don't quote me in Lancet. OK.

rexwell wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 8:43 pm ... generally non smoking Cambodian individual ...

I actually gave up smoking 2 months ago when this all kicked off, after smoking for a good 30 years. Remarkably, I have found it quite easy. Only to read the other day that a French survey has said they now think smokers are less likely to get the disease, and if they do, are less likely to develop serious complications.

I''m now at a loss and doubting my own existence.

French Survey? You know how much French smoke?

xandreu wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 8:35 pm Personally I'm surprised that this issue isn't at the forefront of people's mind when discussing Covid-19. For me, it's such an anomaly it's difficult to believe, considering the hugely contageous nature of the virus.

It has spread so rapidly and so uncontrollably throughout populations that we're now at a stage where we can't ignore the fact that some countries appear to have been relitively untouched whilst others have seen such apocalyptic levels of cases.

I can't offer any answers. Perhaps there isn't one single answer. The only three things I can come up with is
1 - The climate.
2- The average age of the populations (most developing nations have a median age of under 22yo)
3 - The overall health of populations. There is far less obesity and as such, underlying health issues in developing nations than there is in developed ones.

I don't think any one of these individually is responsible, but when you factor in all three, perhaps that can account for it?

I have no idea. I don't think anyone does. But it is something that surely needs exploring. I wonder about it constantly. It baffles me.

4. around 25 years of civil war/hardship would've culled many weak ones. The survivors and their offspring would make a hardy population today.

There is something like you mentioned in your post Anchor Moy, possible a combination of all. I agree it must be right, because we hear nothing off illness and people dieing, it would be hard to cover I would think, also makes ones think with the Chinese flying in and out on a daily basis. I does at this time seem to be more quiet of the Chinese visitors, in Phnom Penh anyhow. But also you have the Priminister HE, today telling people to stay at home, he had mentioned that he had noticed the increase in traffic at the back end of the week. He has asked people to be aware and take care and precautions.
It seems so strange, firstly China it's self is over the worst of the problems,, even though the numbers may not add up. But America and Europe have got this so bad. Lots of case's and death's, lack of organisation and equipment, too late to react it is said. Who knows what was expected, it seems to be misscalculated, possible that other factors didn't help anyone's situation. Now also the virus had mutated twice. Everyone is relying on a vaccine to be quickly developed. One thing that I read about one of the vaccines is it uses an antimelarial drug in mild form, more so towards a common cold. Cambodia had used two of the antimelarial drugs in treatment, but not alone, because now there's a shortage of the drug.
Also now people, or country leaders, rightly so want to know what caused this outbreak for sure, also billing China got what they feel is right. The world will surely want answers and compassion's for the harm it as caused. But here China thinks that this is uncalled for.
Now I can put on my tin hat. Sat, Swine flu, Bird flu, now this virus, all have affected market's and world trade, China have the numbers and have recovered quick, leaving the world behind in the trade market. If you want an explanation I would go has far has germ warfare, being a virus, it would not be difficult to travel with a person and not be seen, I am not talking of the person being infected, the virus is microscopic, such small container would be addiqute. No war declared, I just find it odd that first world countries have got the worst.

My guess is that in some countries, accurate stats are not being kept.

Many developing Asian countries also have a much lower percentage of elderly people making up their population.

Is everybody dying in Cambodia actually being tested to see if they have the virus, or is it mainly recorded as heart attack, wind etc, on the death certificate, regardless of whether they had the virus or not ? ?

In the UK, around 1600 people die everyday on average, obviously more in the winter, less in the summer. Mainly old people & those with pre-existing medical conditions

90% of the people recorded as dying in the UK, who showed positive virus results, had pre-existing medical conditions

50% of the people recorded as dying in the UK, who showed positive virus results are over 80, only 10% are under 60.

I would say a large percentage of those dying in the UK are actually those who would be dying anyway. Their deaths are added to the virus death figures, simply because they had the virus, rather than if it was the virus that actually killed them

I don't know if this is similar in other western countries or not ?

There are only a small number of people actually getting the virus in the UK, and of those who actually get it, only around 15% or so need medical treatment. The vast majority are recovering quite quickly within a week or so.

Just my thought, and I haven't read any previous virus-related threads on here