Merged 2019-nCoV / Corona virus

Status
Not open for further replies.
casebro said:
4,000 patients, 304 deaths in China.
100 patients, ZERO deaths in the rest of the world.

World panics. Really?
Click to expand...

You don't think that something with an apparent death rate of about 8% is worth worrying about? Should we wait until it spreads before trying to stop it? Not sure this needs saying as it seems obvious, but since it has started in China, the patients there have been infected with the disease for much longer than those outside, so there has been less time for the effects to show. The more recent cases are also probably receiving better medical attention.
 
cullennz said:
Slightly off topic but used to have a really cool free game on my old android called Plague.

You pick what country it starts in and then can morph it and change its affects.

Might have to download it again

Goal being to wipe the globe.
Click to expand...

My kid used to play that. She would gleefully announce how many millions of people she had wiped out :D.
 
Well, I'm sure of one thing at this stage - the economic impact of this is going to be far-reaching and will almost certainly trigger global recession.

The economic impart of SARS was $40 bn, and I'd estimate this infection is already ten times that, with lots more to come. Shares have been hammered worldwide and we're still in the very early stages of the outbreak.

Oil down, gold up and treasuries headed into recessionary numbers: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...s-headed-for-recession-zone?srnd=premium-asia

Meanwhile, some potential good news on the how to fight coronavirus front from Thailand: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...result-from-using-drug-mixture-on-coronavirus
 
Btw. Wikipedia has nice table:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2019–20_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak#Cases_statistics

It's better than graph on arcgis.com because the values are added based on fixed time schedule, so they can be better compared to earlier values.
Today they added 'Daily increase in confirmed', which is basically exponential coefficient in %. That lowered to 22%.
And they also added 'D/(D+R)' column, in other words, how many people died of those whose status is not likely to change anymore. That sits at insane 48%. It certainly might end up having worse mortality than SARS.
Any good news in treatment are certainly welcome.
 
novaphile said:
Meanwhile, in South Australia, the Health Department is now saying that all passengers from the couple's direct flight from China to Adelaide need to contact them immediately.

I just watched the evening news and they announced the airline, flight number, date and time etc.

You can see why I wasn't impressed with:

:(

The couple are now in quarantine at the Royal Adelaide hospital.
Click to expand...

We went through something similar with SARS, the airline doesn't have contact information for people on their flights.

I wouldn't worry too much. One, it's going to spread anyway. Two, social distancing (keep 3 feet away) and hand washing will keep most people safe, and three, most cases are going to be mild.
 
zooterkin said:
You don't think that something with an apparent death rate of about 8% is worth worrying about? Should we wait until it spreads before trying to stop it? Not sure this needs saying as it seems obvious, but since it has started in China, the patients there have been infected with the disease for much longer than those outside, so there has been less time for the effects to show. The more recent cases are also probably receiving better medical attention.
Click to expand...
It's not 8%, 4000 is the wrong denominator. I believe it is ~12,000 with that ~300 fatalities.

And the denominator is certainly much higher. There's no way China has an accurate count of milder cases. We wouldn't either if this many cases were in the US. Even using official numbers that 2.4% not 8%.

We have little to no evidence young otherwise healthy people are dying. Smokers, the elderly, and people with other immune deficiencies are at greatest risk.
 
From the Bloomberg link above:
Uber Technologies Inc. suspended 240 accounts in Mexico to contain the spread of coronavirus after the users rode with two drivers who came into contact with a possible infected patient, the company said on its Mexican Twitter account. To date, no confirmed cases of the virus have been reported in Mexico.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

This won't last long. Pretty soon millions will be contacts of contacts of contacts.
 
Dr.Sid said:
Btw. Wikipedia has nice table:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2019–20_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak#Cases_statistics

It's better than graph on arcgis.com because the values are added based on fixed time schedule, so they can be better compared to earlier values.
Today they added 'Daily increase in confirmed', which is basically exponential coefficient in %. That lowered to 22%.
And they also added 'D/(D+R)' column, in other words, how many people died of those whose status is not likely to change anymore. That sits at insane 48%. It certainly might end up having worse mortality than SARS.Any good news in treatment are certainly welcome.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

You don't know what you are talking about. Unless you are also saying any pathogen that kills a total of more than ~800 is worse than SARS.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
:rolleyes:

You don't know what you are talking about. Unless you are also saying any pathogen that kills a total of more than ~800 is worse than SARS.
Click to expand...

You don't know what you are talking about. :rolleyes:

I'm talking about mortality. SARS had mortality of 9.6%. That is number of deaths / number of confirmed cases.
Wuhan virus is it least as deadly, as showed initial study on first 99 cases two days back, of which 11 died, 31 was released, and 57 were still hospitalized.
Number of dead compared to number of released also suggest the mortality is high.
When computing mortality, unconfirmed cases are ignored by definition. That's unknown factor.
Also, as long as the infection is developing, you can't just take actual number of dead and compare it with actual number of cases, which would give you 2%. Those 2 numbers don't corresponds to the same set of patients. Wuhan virus can take up to 2 weeks to kill you, so you have to compare actual number of deaths with number of confirmed cases 1-2 weeks back. That will give you much larger numbers, certainly more than 10%.
 
Dr.Sid said:
Btw. Wikipedia has nice table:
Click to expand...

Very interesting, thanks.

Dr.Sid said:
You don't know what you are talking about. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be too bothered, mate - this is from the first page of the thread, and it's a claim she is steadfastly failing to acknowledge is a load of foetid dingo's kidneys.

Skeptic Ginger said:
Influenza is thousands of time more deadly and more easily spread.
Click to expand...

Dr.Sid said:
Those 2 numbers don't corresponds to the same set of patients. Wuhan virus can take up to 2 weeks to kill you, so you have to compare actual number of deaths with number of confirmed cases 1-2 weeks back. That will give you much larger numbers, certainly more than 10%.
Click to expand...

I think you're over-estimating.

A week ago, Imperial College estimated the number of cases then at 100k. The current death rate against that number is still 0.3%, which is bad enough, and certainly a lot worse than influenza.

The trick is to not get a severe case of it, which is what your numbers show, and they are indeed bloody awful. The death rate among severe cases is running at about 30%, which isn't good news for anyone with compromised immune system or heart'/lungs.

The best defence seems to be being young, so I'm off to change my birth certificate immediately. By my reading, I haven't yet seen a person under 40 dying of it, so I'm aiming for late 20s.
 
The Atheist said:
... A week ago, Imperial College estimated the number of cases then at 100k. The current death rate against that number is still 0.3%, which is bad enough, and certainly a lot worse than influenza.
Click to expand...
Are you unaware of the range with influenza viral strains?
 
The Atheist said:
I think you're over-estimating.

A week ago, Imperial College estimated the number of cases then at 100k. The current death rate against that number is still 0.3%, which is bad enough, and certainly a lot worse than influenza.

The trick is to not get a severe case of it, which is what your numbers show, and they are indeed bloody awful. The death rate among severe cases is running at about 30%, which isn't good news for anyone with compromised immune system or heart'/lungs.

The best defence seems to be being young, so I'm off to change my birth certificate immediately. By my reading, I haven't yet seen a person under 40 dying of it, so I'm aiming for late 20s.
Click to expand...

I base the numbers of 'confirmed' cases. Which is the same metric used in SARS. It's people who sought medical attention. Mild cases, people who didn't
seek medical attention, are simply unknown number. So it's pointless for predictions and comparisons.
 
LA Times: Op-Ed: International overreaction to the coronavirus is more dangerous than the virus itself

Security Magazine: Coronavirus: Are We Overreacting?
Let’s put this into perspective. In 2019, the Centre for Disease Control reports that 61,200 people died from the common flu virus. That’s 168 deaths per day! Compared to Coronavirus that was first reported on December 31, with 213 deaths in total until January 31. Based on last years statistics, 5,208 people have died of the common flu in that same time period....

Wuhan Coronavirus, while highly infectious, is reported to have a low fatality rate, with a mortality rate of only two percent, compared to SARS that had a mortality rate of 9.6 percent, Lassa at 10-20 percent and Ebola at 50 percent.
Click to expand...
 
Dr.Sid said:
I base the numbers of 'confirmed' cases. Which is the same metric used in SARS. It's people who sought medical attention. Mild cases, people who didn't
seek medical attention, are simply unknown number. So it's pointless for predictions and comparisons.
Click to expand...

Not how it works.

First, there were few to none unrecognized cases of SARS.

Second, when antibody tests are developed, epidemiological studies of populations are done to find the actual cases, mild or not.
 
Dr.Sid said:
Are those numbers included in reported 8000 cases of SARS ?
Click to expand...
Not sure what you are asking, but assuming you want to know if any epidemiological studies were done to find the actual denominator of SARS cases?

Here's one population survey:
CDC: SARS-CoV Antibody Prevalence in All Hong Kong Patient Contacts
A total of 1,068 asymptomatic close contacts of patients with severe acute respiratory (SARS) from the 2003 epidemic in Hong Kong were serologically tested, and 2 (0.19%) were positive for SARS coronavirus immunoglobulin G antibody. SARS rarely manifests as a subclinical infection, and at present, wild animal species are the only important natural reservoirs of the virus.
Click to expand...

If you meant something else, let me know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom