COVID-19 Mega thread

[100% pro-life no matter what]

So far there are 17 dead with 900 or so reported cases. That comes out to a 1.9% fatality rate so far. Of course, a good deal of the people in those 900 are newer cases who may still die but may not have died yet. So 2% seems like a low end estimate of the fatality rate that is likely to emerge over time, but it is likely to go somewhat higher than that.

The big thing is stopping the spread as soon as possible and buying more time through that for development of antivirals/vaccines.

This is one case where maybe having Trump be President might not be a totally bad thing. He is a germaphobe, right? So that might hopefully motivate him to deal with this properly... The Wuhan quarantine seems prudent, but more may be needed despite apparently fairly low communicability.

Probably the biggest thing to hope for now is that the fairly small #s of cases that have already emerged outside of Wuhan/China can be contained without spreading further and creating other areas with larger numbers of cases in other countries, so that then local containment measures in China/Wuhan can put an end to it.

This is a good source for detailed information/reports - https://flutrackers.com/forum/forum/-2019-ncov-new-coronavirus

I actually think that fatality rate is overstated.  What often happens with outbreaks of respiratory illness is that the mild cases never get reported.  That's why swine flu looked really scary at first when it was in Mexico- we just never knew about all the people with mild illness.  Based on the international spread, experts think there have really been thousands of cases- presumably with most of the unknown ones not having been severe enough to merit a doctor's visit.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

I actually think that fatality rate is overstated.  What often happens with outbreaks of respiratory illness is that the mild cases never get reported.  That's why swine flu looked really scary at first when it was in Mexico- we just never knew about all the people with mild illness.  Based on the international spread, experts think there have really been thousands of cases- presumably with most of the unknown ones not having been severe enough to merit a doctor's visit.

Good point, there are some estimates that there may in reality be anywhere from 1000 to 9700 cases (including potential milder un-reported ones) so far:

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-global-infectious-disease-analysis/news--wuhan-coronavirus/

[Beet]

I think this is the big one.

1) Unlike Ebola, it spreads easily from person-to-person.

2) It has a slow incubation period meaning that someone can be walking around making contact for days before being discovered.

3) The low death rate is no consolation, it is too early for reliable estimates of the death rate.

4) It is already out of control.

The likely scale of the infection is far greater than what has been publicly revealed. Steps such as quarantining an entire city of 11 million or cancelling New Years' celebrations suggests panic at the top levels of government.

[Cokeland Saxton]

All this panic is an overreaction

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

All this panic is an overreaction

You don't want to panic, but this is something that should definitely be treated seriously. More information will make things clearer over the next few days, but at the moment China is now up to 7 cities (all near Wuhan) with 23 million people reportedly under travel restrictions/quasi-quarantine.

https://twitter.com/CNBCTheExchange/status/1220409319839162368

[Cinemark]

The World Health Organization said that the people dying already had preexisting conditions and most of the transmission of the disease were between family groups. And at the moment, there has been no recorded transmission of the disease from person to person outside of China.

[dead0man]

The World Health Organization said that the people dying already had preexisting conditions and most of the transmission of the disease were between family groups. And at the moment, there has been no recorded transmission of the disease from person to person outside of China.

sure sure, but if there isn't widespread panic, how else are we going to stop this?  It's the only way don'tchaknow?

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

Possible (not confirmed) 2nd case in the USA, in College Station TX. This is seemingly unrelated to the Washington State case, it is a Texas A&M student who had traveled to Wuhan recently.

https://www.wtsp.com/article/news/health/possible-case-of-coronavirus-in-brazos-county-health-department-confirms/67-c0fb43c0-6c58-4011-bc1d-7ccfa329169f

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

10 people being checked for Coronavirus in Alameda County CA

https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2020/01/23/10-patients-tested-deadly-coronavirus-alameda-county/

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

And now in New Jersey (NYC area)

https://www.pix11.com/news/local-news/new-jersey/nj-health-department-investigating-possible-coronavirus-case

[Cinemark]

And now in New Jersey (NYC area)

https://www.pix11.com/news/local-news/new-jersey/nj-health-department-investigating-possible-coronavirus-case

https://twitter.com/PhillyNewsGuy/status/1220557121793806336

For posterity:

"#BREAKING Hackensack Med Center
“AFTER AN EVALUATION OF THE PATIENT AND CONSULTING WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EXPERTS HAVE DETERMINED THE PATIENT DOES NOT HAVE THE WUHAN #CORONAVIRUS. DUE TO PATIENT PRIVACY, WE ARE UNABLE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.” @CBSPhilly"

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

Another suspected case in TN from a student at Tennessee Tech with recent travel history (presumably to Wuhan/China)

https://fox17.com/news/local/tennessee-tech-student-undergoing-testing-for-possible-infection-with-coronavirus

[Beet]

A healthy young man has died of coronavirus.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/healthy-young-man-dies-of-coronavirus-in-china-new-cases-in-japan-and-south-korea/ar-BBZh7lo

2nd US case confirmed in Chicago

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/cdc-confirms-second-coronavirus-case-in-us-a-chicago-resident-who-returned-from-wuhan-on-jan-13-2020-01-24?mod=home-page

R-nought of 1.4-2.5, per the WHO estimates — ebola during the 2014 outbreak was 1.5-2.5. So, if anything, it spreads slightly less easily than ebola. This is why transmission (outside of Wuhan) has so far been limited to family groups.

Do you seriously expect us to believe that an influenza virus-- which spreads through the air-- is less infectious than ebola, which only transmits through bodily fluids? For reference, the first case of ebola  in the 2014 West African outbreak was in December 2013, and when WHO announced the outbreak on March 25 of 2014, there were still only 86 confirmed cases. Whereas the first case of 2019-nCov was in December 2019, and in 1 month there are already over 900 confirmed cases. Ebola took 9 months to travel to the U.S., 2019-nCov about 1 month.

The incubation period is long (up to 14 days), but all this means is that temperature screenings cannot necessarily detect infected individuals. We do not know whether infected people are contagious during the incubation period; given that SARS patients are not, I would be willing to bet that this coronavirus is also not contagious during the incubation period.

That is really speculation. "I would be willing to bet" is not data.

You work with the data you have — what we have is a sample of nearly a thousand confirmed cases and a small handful of deaths, concentrated in elderly people with existing health conditions. It is too early for a rigorous, definitive statement on the precise death rate, but at the moment, all signs suggest that this is not ebola. Or SARS, for that matter.

Even with a very low death rate, it would still kill millions of people if spread uncontrolled. The 2014 Ebola outbreak was controlled and still last years.

[Cinemark]

I was watching CNBC and they had Scott Gottlieb on. He basically said that the amount of people infected is probably substantially more than 900 and that this is probably more infectious than Sars was back in 2003. But he also noted that its less severe than Sars and that quite a large chunk of the people infected will recover without medical assistance.

Not sure if he's right, but always a good idea to remain calm in these situations.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

I was watching CNBC and they had Scott Gottlieb on. He basically said that the amount of people infected is probably substantially more than 900 and that this is probably more infectious than Sars was back in 2003. But he also noted that its less severe than Sars and that quite a large chunk of the people infected will recover without medical assistance.

Not sure if he's right, but always a good idea to remain calm in these situations.

Basically, I see potential for this to become swine flu 2.0, where a lot of people get mildly sick, but relatively few have severe illness, and even fewer die.  I can't see it getting worse than that.

[lfromnj]

i mean obviously its more 900 if multiple cases are basically already in the US.

[Skill and Chance]

The Chinese government's authoritarian control over the spread of information is what makes me uneasy about this.  The statistics that have become publicly available suggest it is less dangerous than generic influenza, but the scale of the Chinese government response suggests they are treating it something comparable to the Black Death.   

It's interesting that everyone is downplaying it compared to Ebola, when Ebola was happening in a very economically isolated part of the world and seems to have required a "spouse" level of physical contact for human to human transmission in a city with indoor plumbing.   If I recall correctly, Ebola was (initially) more likely to kill you than not if you contracted it?  That seems to be the major difference that would make this disease less scary assuming we have accurate information about it?

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

It's interesting that everyone is downplaying it compared to Ebola, when Ebola was happening in a very economically isolated part of the world and seems to have required a "spouse" level of physical contact for human to human transmission in a city with indoor plumbing.   If I recall correctly, Ebola was (initially) more likely to kill you than not if you contracted it?  That seems to be the major difference that would make this disease less scary assuming we have accurate information about it?

The threat of ebola was also, in hindsight, exaggerated because it was new, and because the first outbreaks were in countries with health systems ranging from poor to nonexistent. We used to think upwards of 90% of people who contracted ebola would die; the fatality rate now that we've figured out how to treat patients is around 50%, and less than that in developed countries. (The ongoing ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has a case fatality rate of around 61% — not good, but probably the best you can do given infrastructure and the ongoing conflict in the region.)

Part of it is also that initially, as with any outbreak of a new virus strain, it was not entirely clear just how contagious/transmissable it was (similarly that is not entirely clear at the moment with this Coronavirus strain).

Ebola had been around for many years before 2014, and has always had a very high death rate, so that part was not new - the main reason for concern back then was uncertainty about how transmissable it was.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

It's interesting that everyone is downplaying it compared to Ebola, when Ebola was happening in a very economically isolated part of the world and seems to have required a "spouse" level of physical contact for human to human transmission in a city with indoor plumbing.   If I recall correctly, Ebola was (initially) more likely to kill you than not if you contracted it?  That seems to be the major difference that would make this disease less scary assuming we have accurate information about it?

The threat of ebola was also, in hindsight, exaggerated because it was new, and because the first outbreaks were in countries with health systems ranging from poor to nonexistent. We used to think upwards of 90% of people who contracted ebola would die; the fatality rate now that we've figured out how to treat patients is around 50%, and less than that in developed countries. (The ongoing ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has a case fatality rate of around 61% — not good, but probably the best you can do given infrastructure and the ongoing conflict in the region.)

Part of it is also that initially, as with any outbreak of a new virus strain, it was not entirely clear just how contagious/transmissable it was (similarly that is not entirely clear at the moment with this Coronavirus strain).

Ebola had been around for many years before 2014, and has always had a very high death rate, so that part was not new - the main reason for concern back then was uncertainty about how transmissable it was.

Even though Ebola and coronavirus might have similar number of second generation infections per case, I still think Ebola is more difficult to catch.  They occurred in different parts of the world with different health care systems and- importantly- different traditions and customs.  If they both appeared right now in NYC, more people would likely get coronavirus than Ebola, since you need actual contact with bodily fluids to catch Ebola.

[Meclazine for Israel]

The Chinese are trying to pin 11 million people in Wuhan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmgPVhubmQA

Crazy that they are building a hospital within 5 days.

In Perth, Western Australia, our new hospital took 2-3 years to build.

Good luck to them. I hope they get better and the panic stops.

[Cinemark]

So we're at 41 deaths, 1287 infected. Mortality rate holding steady at around 3%.

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1ZM087#click=https://t.co/tKeHaGD5Sf

Edit: I'm not trying to be insensitive by stating this statistic so clinically. This whole situation is heartbreaking.

[HillGoose]

Another suspected case in TN from a student at Tennessee Tech with recent travel history (presumably to Wuhan/China)

https://fox17.com/news/local/tennessee-tech-student-undergoing-testing-for-possible-infection-with-coronavirus

oh sh**t bro everyone press F to pay respects for HillGoose, I work like 3 minutes from campus and I have a ton of friends who haven't graduated yet.

[Beet]

R-nought of 1.4-2.5, per the WHO estimates — ebola during the 2014 outbreak was 1.5-2.5. So, if anything, it spreads slightly less easily than ebola. This is why transmission (outside of Wuhan) has so far been limited to family groups.

Do you seriously expect us to believe that an influenza virus-- which spreads through the air-- is less infectious than ebola, which only transmits through bodily fluids?

1. This is not an "influenza virus." Influenza viruses are in the family Orthomyxoviridae, coronaviruses are (as the name suggests) in the family Coronaviridae. They're both RNA viruses, but not closely related.

They are both respiratory airbone viruses. Colloquially there is very little difference. This does not really pertain to the point of our discussion, which is that it cannot be compared to ebola and saying that it has less infectivity defies belief.

2. Yes, I do.  If you don't want to believe the WHO estimate, you can certainly find more alarming epidemiological modeling that suggests an R0 of up to 3.6-4.0. In any case, even that estimate supports a substantially lower R0 than diseases like smallpox, polio, and measles — your worst-case scenario is something similar to SARS.

This is complete nonsense. First of all, the 1918 influenza had an R0 of only 2-3 and it killed 50-100 million people, which was the equivalent to about 350 million people when you factor in population growth between then and now. That is certainly worse than SARS was. SARS is irrelevant as it was not a serious epidemic.

3. This is a rather pedantic point: the R0 for seasonal flu (1-2) is lower than ebola (1.5-2.5). If you (incorrectly) think this is an "influenza virus," your assumption should be that it is less transmissible than ebola.

You are comparing seasonal flu, which is completely normal, to a new viral outbreak. The obvious difference is that we have a vaccine for seasonal flu, which distorts its numbers. Second of all, not all influenza viruses are seasonal flu. The coronavirus influenza that we are seeing now is not normal. Even if you insist on not calling it influenza, it makes no difference.

Seems unsurprising that a virus would spread more quickly in a city of eleven million people than it would in rural Guinea. Also unsurprising that more people are traveling from China to the US than from Liberia. Not sure what this is supposed to prove.

I am not sure the relevance of the notion that it starting in an urban area is making it spread faster. Whether it is urban or rural is irrelevant. If it is urban, it is just more proof that it is alarming, as it has reached areas of high population immediately.

Yes, but your entire post is baseless speculation grounded in zero data, so I don't feel particularly bad about it. We do not know, and will not know for some time, how transmissible the virus is during its incubation period. All we know is that its close relatives are not. If you want to assume the worst-case scenario, you are free to do so, but you won't have a shred of evidence to back up your assumptions.

I don't use any baseless speculation at all. All my posts are strictly based on facts and logic derived from those facts.

Yes, most diseases would. Fortunately, we have invented modern medicine, so what the disease would do in a hypothetical world where there are no efforts to contain it is really not relevant to this discussion.

Modern medicine unfortunately does not give us a cure for this. Modern methods of containment have already failed. Quarantine is a medieval method of containment and as a last ditch effort. Trying to cut off 11 million people is a desperate last ditch effort and we can deduce from this that the government is hiding information from which it is now in total panic behind the scenes.

[Beet]

https://twitter.com/ASBreakingNews/status/1220499377313271808

https://twitter.com/old_plot1996/status/1220757397087457280

https://twitter.com/Juronaut/status/1220822800300113923

[Beet]

1. This is not an "influenza virus." Influenza viruses are in the family Orthomyxoviridae, coronaviruses are (as the name suggests) in the family Coronaviridae. They're both RNA viruses, but not closely related.

They are both respiratory airbone viruses. Colloquially there is very little difference. This does not really pertain to the point of our discussion, which is that it cannot be compared to ebola and saying that it has less infectivity defies belief.

There are lots of "respiratory airborn [sic] viruses." Does not mean it is accurate to call this a "smallpox virus" or a "measles virus." Anyway, that's not the point — there is no "belief" here. You can either accept what the scientific community is saying, or you can persist in your hysteria.

2. Yes, I do.  If you don't want to believe the WHO estimate, you can certainly find more alarming epidemiological modeling that suggests an R0 of up to 3.6-4.0. In any case, even that estimate supports a substantially lower R0 than diseases like smallpox, polio, and measles — your worst-case scenario is something similar to SARS.

This is complete nonsense. First of all, the 1918 influenza had an R0 of only 2-3 and it killed 50-100 million people, which was the equivalent to about 350 million people when you factor in population growth between then and now. That is certainly worse than SARS was. SARS is irrelevant as it was not a serious epidemic.

This is not a serious epidemic. Feel free to bump this thread when it gets anywhere near to where SARS was.

3. This is a rather pedantic point: the R0 for seasonal flu (1-2) is lower than ebola (1.5-2.5). If you (incorrectly) think this is an "influenza virus," your assumption should be that it is less transmissible than ebola.

You are comparing seasonal flu, which is completely normal, to a new viral outbreak. The obvious difference is that we have a vaccine for seasonal flu, which distorts its numbers. Second of all, not all influenza viruses are seasonal flu. The coronavirus influenza that we are seeing now is not normal. Even if you insist on not calling it influenza, it makes no difference.

You do not seem to understand what a R0 is — it is not distorted by vaccination. The value of R0 represents the extent to which the infection would spread through a wholly susceptible population; reducing the size of the susceptible population doesn't reduce the number, because one of the underlying assumptions of R0 is that the population is entirely susceptible to the infection. Anyway, there was no comparison there; all I was doing was pointing out that you are thoroughly uninformed on this topic and need to stop polluting this forum with your hyperventilating.

Seems unsurprising that a virus would spread more quickly in a city of eleven million people than it would in rural Guinea. Also unsurprising that more people are traveling from China to the US than from Liberia. Not sure what this is supposed to prove.

I am not sure the relevance of the notion that it starting in an urban area is making it spread faster. Whether it is urban or rural is irrelevant. If it is urban, it is just more proof that it is alarming, as it has reached areas of high population immediately.

Higher population density=more contacts between people=more of those oh-so-scary case counts. It's not rocket science.

Yes, but your entire post is baseless speculation grounded in zero data, so I don't feel particularly bad about it. We do not know, and will not know for some time, how transmissible the virus is during its incubation period. All we know is that its close relatives are not. If you want to assume the worst-case scenario, you are free to do so, but you won't have a shred of evidence to back up your assumptions.

I don't use any baseless speculation at all. All my posts are strictly based on facts and logic derived from those facts.

Uh huh.

Yes, most diseases would. Fortunately, we have invented modern medicine, so what the disease would do in a hypothetical world where there are no efforts to contain it is really not relevant to this discussion.

Modern medicine unfortunately does not give us a cure for this. Modern methods of containment have already failed. Quarantine is a medieval method of containment and as a last ditch effort. Trying to cut off 11 million people is a desperate last ditch effort and we can deduce from this that the government is hiding information from which it is now in total panic behind the scenes.

Wash your hands and you'll be fine.

Calm down. You are getting emotional and attacking me personally. I am just the messenger. I do not want this to be the pandemic, but no matter what I post here, the facts cannot be changed. Any objective dispassionate analysis will show there is no comparison between nCov and SARS. See below:

https://twitter.com/LanceAndrews/status/1220523146178191363

The government response to this is already far more severe than SARS- at the peak of that crisis only one city had quarantine, and public transportation was still running. Now there are 13 cities on quarantine with military blockades, and cars from local license plates have been banned from gas stations.

In fact there are multiple local reports that 90,000 or 100,000 may already be infected. And believe me, I will take no pleasure in bumping this thread to "prove" you wrong. I suggest you take some time to cool off and re-approach this subject dispassionately.