Merged 2019-nCoV / Corona virus

Status
Not open for further replies.
Agree.

It makes it all rather difficult to know what the real impact is.

One interesting statistic is that the death rates from China show:

Wuhan 4.9%
Hubei 3.2%
All other provinces 0.16%

That would indicate greater severity closer to the outbreak, so we can hope that's the case and that virulence is falling.

The western cases will tell us a lot more, and with a sample of over 500 outside China we're getting to the stage where the numbers will be meaningful. Still just a little early.
 
For anyone interested in access to Johns Hopkins historical reporting of cases they have made a gitub depository. Git is a tracking program that shows changes made to a project. Normally used by programmers for source control but is quite useful in a number of circumstances. This is a good use. Cases are by numbers, date, and location

https://github.com/CSSEGISandData/COVID-19
 
The Atheist said:
Agree.

It makes it all rather difficult to know what the real impact is.

One interesting statistic is that the death rates from China show:

Wuhan 4.9%
Hubei 3.2%
All other provinces 0.16%

That would indicate greater severity closer to the outbreak, so we can hope that's the case and that virulence is falling.

The western cases will tell us a lot more, and with a sample of over 500 outside China we're getting to the stage where the numbers will be meaningful. Still just a little early.
Click to expand...

It does and will, but the data is also skewed by the delay in deaths. What I've read is that death tends to occur about 3 weeks after hospitalization for about 5% of those hospitalized. Since symptoms tend to occur 5 days after infection and people likely didn't seek help for days after that and most don't require hospitalization for several more days if that, the lower mortality rate outside of Wuhan may not be representative. Still somewhat encouraging.
 
Dr.Sid said:
I don't trust Chinese numbers a bit.
Click to expand...

With WHO there, I think they can't be too far off the mark. It might be their presence has led to the update and inclusions.

There's a bit of an explanation here:

The commission said that it had begun including cases diagnosed through new clinical methods.
Click to expand...

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020...hubei-reports-242-deaths-200213003453493.html

I'm guessing that means they've had a load of cases not counted now added in.

The number of deaths in the past 24 hours seems real, though. I mean dead is dead, unless there were a load like the doc who died, then wasn't dead, then was dead.

I'm picking it's more like some of the deaths hadn't been counted as due to Covid-19 that have now been attributed. Tomorrow's numbers will be bloody interesting. If it's another hit like that, get the cobwebs out of the shelter!

marting said:
It does and will, but the data is also skewed by the delay in deaths. What I've read is that death tends to occur about 3 weeks after hospitalization for about 5% of those hospitalized. Since symptoms tend to occur 5 days after infection and people likely didn't seek help for days after that and most don't require hospitalization for several more days if that, the lower mortality rate outside of Wuhan may not be representative. Still somewhat encouraging.
Click to expand...

3 weeks after hospitalisation sounds very long to me. Some of that could be down to inadequate care, especially in the early stages of the outbreak.

Amazing story, this, with many twists and turns still to come.
 
The Atheist said:
248 deaths and 15,000 new cases yesterday?

I'm hoping there's a problem in the numbers, because if they're right, things are grim indeed.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
Click to expand...

My understanding is that they decided to include cases “clinically diagnosed” which increased the numbers beyond what they would have been based on the prior criteria alone. That is: this is not really a new increase in the rate of infection over previous days.

Nija’d
 
Never mind. I withdraw what i intended to post here.
 
Last edited:
Giordano said:
My understanding is that they decided to include cases “clinically diagnosed” which increased the numbers beyond what they would have been based on the prior criteria alone. That is: this is not really a new increase in the rate of infection over previous days.
Click to expand...

Yep, all explained here: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-51482994

The actual number of deaths yesterday was 118, the highest number yet, but it's still a lower percentage, and clearly some of the earlier dates were higher, so still following the track it was on.
 
sphenisc said:
The rapid drop off in reported new cases was rather too good to be true. I suspect the new numbers are correct and there's just been a catching up with paperwork by overworked staff at all stages through the data accumulation.
Click to expand...
We might be seeing waves like on the cruise ship due to people being exposed to folks with no symptoms.

No symptoms, expose people, symptoms develop in first group, then there's a delay until the newly infected develop symptoms. They expose the next batch before they know they are contagious.... and so on.

Just an alternative hypothesis.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
We might be seeing waves like on the cruise ship due to people being exposed to folks with no symptoms.

No symptoms, expose people, symptoms develop in first group, then there's a delay until the newly infected develop symptoms. They expose the next batch before they know they are contagious.... and so on.

Just an alternative hypothesis.
Click to expand...

That might work on a small scale, but seems unlikely for things to run in lockstep over the whole of China or even Wuhan. At least without a widescale forcing. The current largely simultaneous return to work may provide such a pulsatile driver, if there's a corresponding increase in cases in 10-15 days then you may have a point.
 
The Atheist said:
248 deaths and 15,000 new cases yesterday?

I'm hoping there's a problem in the numbers, because if they're right, things are grim indeed.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
Click to expand...

World Health Organization situation reports, new report daily.

https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/situation-reports/

They say 2000+ new cases yesterday, with less than 100 new deaths, so unless your worldometer site had a big new batch of numbers that is one day more recent, things aren't that bad.

The "new cases outside of China" cases from yesterday's and today's reports both took a big jump, but they were both less than 100.

As others have noted, it seems pretty unlikely that Mongolia et. al. aren't getting significantly higher transmissions than are being reported, but I would think that WHO is about as close to "official" as there is.
 
Belz... said:
No, but since it's the only possibility he seems to be excited by, I have to wonder why.
Click to expand...

I think he's saying it because he thinks it's the most likely outcome. We can discuss that, but I don't see much point in psychoanalyzing each other.
 
The Atheist said:
Agree.

It makes it all rather difficult to know what the real impact is.

One interesting statistic is that the death rates from China show:

Wuhan 4.9%
Hubei 3.2%
All other provinces 0.16%

That would indicate greater severity closer to the outbreak, so we can hope that's the case and that virulence is falling.

The western cases will tell us a lot more, and with a sample of over 500 outside China we're getting to the stage where the numbers will be meaningful. Still just a little early.
Click to expand...

It takes time for people to die after getting the virus. Imagine a place with its first case of the virus. On day 1 the fatality rate will be zero, because that one person won't have died yet. It will take time for the fatality rate to catch up to the original epicenter. So I don't think that's quite as encouraging as it appears.
 
A new policy at my apartment building: all tenants have been given a card, and we need to carry it to get in the building. They check your temperature before letting you in as well. So I guess no guests allowed? They told me if I don't bring the card with me when I leave I may not be allowed back in, which is just crazy considering the security guards all know me personally.

They also gave out face masks to all occupants.
 
sphenisc said:
That might work on a small scale, but seems unlikely for things to run in lockstep over the whole of China or even Wuhan. At least without a widescale forcing. The current largely simultaneous return to work may provide such a pulsatile driver, if there's a corresponding increase in cases in 10-15 days then you may have a point.
Click to expand...

Good point.
 
Meanwhile, something very odd is going on here in South Australia...

The Health Minister is refusing to say how many people have been exposed, how many people are in hospital, and how many are in quarantine elsewhere.

Just watched the TV news and he said, "I don't have any of that information, I haven't requested any of that information" and "that information is irrelevant."

It just looked really, really, odd.
(Especially for the Health Minister.)
 
Sounds about right - other nations seem to be doing a worse job than China right now.

I just watched a video of Britain's quarantine flight being taken to Liverpool by bus. Helpers in full hazmat suits, and the bus driver with not even a mask.

And still only three cases in India...
 
The Atheist said:
248 deaths and 15,000 new cases yesterday?

I'm hoping there's a problem in the numbers, because if they're right, things are grim indeed.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
Click to expand...

Partly due to a change in reporting criteria.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-51482994
What is the new diagnosis method?

The province - which accounts for more than 80% of overall Chinese infections - now includes "clinically diagnosed cases" in the number of confirmed cases.

This means it includes those showing symptoms, and having a CT scan showing an infected lung, rather than relying only on the standard nucleic acid tests.

Of the 242 new deaths in Wuhan, 135 are such "clinically diagnosed" cases.

That means, even without the new definition, the number of deaths in Hubei on Wednesday was 107 - a new high for the province.

The province's 14,840 new infections include 13,332 clinically diagnosed cases.

Overall, the province now has 48,206 confirmed infections.
Click to expand...

Under old criteria would have been about 1,500 new cases and 107 deaths.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom