COVID-19 Mega thread

[Beet]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/21/health/wuhan-coronavirus-first-us-case-cdc-bn/index.html

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Beet]

Calm down. You are getting emotional and attacking me personally.

I am personally attacking you because very little of what you have posted in this thread has to do with the scientific facts surrounding novel coronavirus, and everything to do with the baseless catastrophizing that has become your rhetorical signature during your years here on the forum. Normally, I think your neuroses are kind of funny — the bit you did where you became a MAGA chud for like a week was hilarious — but if you are spreading disinformation about a public health crisis I am going to correct the record.

Any objective dispassionate analysis will show there is no comparison between nCov and SARS. See below:

https://twitter.com/NelsonL24507424/status/1220832766566129664
Dr. Lee is the physician who identified and described SARS in 2003. Your source is... a resident of Newfoundland.

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.

There is no evidence to support the claim that 100,000 may already be infected — as far as I can tell, the only evidence is a noisy recording of a conference call from medical staff at one hospital. Please stop posting unverified twitter rumors in this thread.

Personal attacks are against the rules. If you have a problem with my arguments, fine, then stick to those. This is not about me. No matter how much you "correct the record" the facts will not change. ALL of your arguments thus far are self-admitted appeals to authority.

There are two pieces of evidence that the number infected was 90,000 to 100,000. One was the medical staff at a local hospital. Another is a recording of a nurse who personally witnessed 1,000 patients being treated at just her own hospital. I did not state these as fact, but they are local, on the ground reports. They are more reliable than whatever underreported WHO statistics you are relying on.

[Beet]

As another example of the utter ridiculousness of trying to compare this with SARS (obviously I am not talking about clinical presentation but epidemiology), the number of cases in the past day has jumped from 1,300 to 2,000 or 700 new confirmed cases in a single day. In contrast, during SARS, at the peak only 80 new cases were confirmed in a day.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC539564/

(Cue some irrelevant pedagogical point by sjoyce trying to make this about how awful I am and ignoring the simple, glaring facts as loud as a hurricane at this point.)

[Beet]

Very bad news today... perhaps the worst since this thing has started. However, explains why the virus has transmitted so quickly. The Chinese MoH has confirmed it spreads before any symptoms appear, during the incubation period. This is unlike SARS which could be screened for by screening fever, which was the tactic that controlled that outbreak.

Critically, that means a person apparently healthy can be walking around for 2 weeks, spreading it, touching public door handles, surfaces on escalators, elevators, etc. infecting them with no evidence whatsoever. It also means the only method of infection control left is either to physically isolate people for 14 days and ensure no symptoms during the period, or develop a reliable mobile test for the virus, which is a long ways away considering that samples currently have to be sent to labs (sometimes internationally)  and take days to come back.

[Beet]

https://funnyjunk.com/Tencent/ozBhMbm/

[Beet]

Take it straight from me: Don't be afraid. I don't tell anyone how to interpret the facts... I'm just the messenger.

The mortality rate for this thing appears to be approaching 100%. Virtually no one has recovered the past several days, whereas many people have died.

None of this is accurate. Not surprising from you

China is reporting very few "recoveries," but the numbers we have from countries outside of China suggest the virus is not particularly dangerous. There are eight confirmed cases in Thailand, for example: if the mortality rate was actually "approaching 100%," you would expect most of them to be dead or at least still in the hospital. Instead, five of them have already recovered and have been discharged. The more likely explanation is that China is either failing to accurate report the number of discharged cases or is keeping people under medical supervision after they've recovered, not that everyone is dying.

It is accurate. Including the Thailand numbers in there doesn't change it, as it is only 8 total cases, not a statistically significant sample. The rest of your post is just baseless speculation. I would just stick to the facts as reported. What you say is of course possible, but there is no evidence of it. In fact, there are news stories of patients that have "recovered", such as one in Zhejiang, which suggests the Chinese authorities are releasing recovered patients and actually touting them. However it is just 2 or 3. Also, there are strict criteria for when a patient has recovered (such as no fever, no virus in the upper respiratory tract for several days). These criteria have been the same since the beginning, and there is no evidence that it has changed.

[Beet]

Can you provide any source reporting the "fact" that the mortality rate is approaching 100%? If not, I would advise you to avoid the baseless speculation and just stick to the facts as reported.

Sure. According to the Lancet article you posted earlier in this thread, 28 out of the 41 initial cases up to January 2 had recovered, and six died, a mortality rate of 17.6%. From then until yesterday, 50 more people had died, and 24 people had recovered, according to the sources cited here. The CFR from January 2 to yesterday was 67.6%. Then, from yesterday to today an additional 25 people died and 5 recovered, according to Reuters. The CFR has risen to 83.3%. Thus it is getting nearer to 100%, and it is not approaching any lower limit. Further, that is not even including the mistaken Tencent graphic I posted above. Some people say it is a typo, though.

The caveat of course is that this is based on very fractional data, as there are many deaths and likely recoveries that are not being recorded, however, it is the only data we have.

[Beet]

Can you provide any source reporting the "fact" that the mortality rate is approaching 100%? If not, I would advise you to avoid the baseless speculation and just stick to the facts as reported.

Sure. According to the Lancet article you posted earlier in this thread, 28 out of the 41 initial cases up to January 2 had recovered, and six died, a mortality rate of 17.6%. From then until yesterday, 50 more people had died, and 24 people had recovered, according to the sources cited here. The CFR from January 2 to yesterday was 67.6%. Then, from yesterday to today an additional 25 people died and 5 recovered, according to Reuters. The CFR has risen to 83.3%. Thus it is getting nearer to 100%, and it is not approaching any lower limit.

So, there is no source reporting that the mortality rate is approaching 100%, just your own speculation? Got it.

Anyway, that's not how you calculate a case fatality rate. You would criticize me, and rightfully so, if, tomorrow, two people were released and none died, thereby proving the disease is harmless as the CFR has dropped to 0%. The evidence you have presented supports one of two conclusions: either 1. the disease is mutating rapidly and becoming much more deadly, or 2. your samples are unrepresentative. The latter is much more likely, for reasons I have already explained.

The fatality rate among those who are diagnosed and admitted to a hospital, for those interested, is around 14% (per a press conference yesterday from Gabriel Leung, Dean of Medicine at Hong Kong University). That 14% number is very close to estimates published three days ago by Chinese researchers studying the first 41 cases in Wuhan.

The actual case fatality rate is far lower, as there is a large population of people who are infected and become sick, but not sick enough to go to the hospital. The difficulties of quantifying the number of non-diagnosed cases makes it difficult to calculate exactly what it is at this time, but it is far below 100%.

On your first link, OK but it is not said where he is getting the 14% number. If it is heavily influenced by the same 41 initial cases then it is of course outdated.

In the latest CGTN update, the number of discharged actually dropped to 47. This could indicate some people who were previously thought to have recovered have relapsed.

Latest update (47 discharged):

https://twitter.com/CGTNOfficial/status/1221964113393270784

Previous update (had 51 'cured'):

https://twitter.com/CGTNOfficial/status/1221584859971219456

Technically that puts the mortality rate over the past day as over 100%, making my previous post an underestimation, but that is a statistically anomaly, however. In the last 24 hours, latest update, 20 more died, no recovered which is 100%, up from 83.3% yesterday. Again, I have been proven correct with my statement yesterday.

Edit: See the update below. The CFR for 1/27 is 86%, not 100%.

[Beet]

Perhaps a mortality rate of over 100% should make you question the source of your numbers.

Finally we agree! I missed out on the NHC Daily report when making that post. These tweets are comparing national numbers and Hubei numbers only. Why I was confused was that there was a massive SURGE in the number of cases, that the cases in Hubei alone ~2,700 are roughly equal to the total number of cases worldwide yesterday. Now the total number of cases is roughly 4,500 or a 1,300 jump in one day!

During the SARS epidemic the worst day had only 80 new cases per day. This is very bad news.

The real numbers are in the last day, deaths increased from 82 to 107 and 4 people recovered. So the CFR is not 100%, it is 86%. However, it is still much closer to my estimate than your 14%.

[Beet]

I am not an 'alarmist'. I'm one of the few people here who have explicitly said don't be afraid. And I repeat: Don't be alarmed.

I sometimes post some things here, which are all either conservatively factually based or plausible based on evidence (not speculation), and these are usually confirmed or borne out. However, excessive fear or panic helps no one. It's best to focus on the things you can do.

As for how this can be contained, I am less alarmed than The Impartial Spectator. As mentioned some posts ago, there are still methods that can be used to contain spread even if asymptomatic transmission is possible. The first is 14-day quarantine periods for people coming from epidemic areas. After the incubation period if there are no symptoms, the person is in clear. The second is developing a more short term test, such as a mobile PCR test- with accuracy adjusted towards generating false positives rather than vice versa. The third is developing a vaccine, and the fourth is developing a treatment. Of course, the last two will take time.

Additionally, the development of higher habits of hygiene can control the spread. For instance, avoiding large gatherings and wearing masks, goggles and gloves (when touching public surfaces), avoid touching the face, and washing your hands (as mentioned by sjoyce) can help slow the spread.

[Beet]

Why the name calling?

I am not an 'alarmist'. I'm one of the few people here who have explicitly said don't be afraid. And I repeat: Don't be alarmed.

>Goes on FunnyJunk.com to find a fake graphic

If you have plausible evidence the graphic is fake, please post it and I will happily delete that post.

>'Case mortality rate of 86%!'

Those are not my numbers, they are derived from wikipedia sources and Johns Hopkins University public statistics, based on the simple transparent formula (new deaths)/(new recoveries + new deaths). I wish it were far lower. If you feel you have a better method of calculation, feel free to disregard it or argue for your alternative.

>'I estimate this virus will kill 3-5% of the global population'

5% is my estimate yes, but yes, it is not yet factually true (obviously), which is why I was careful to post it on a different thread on a different board and keep it out of this discussion entirely, until now. It should also be pointed out that in that same thread, another poster said 3-4 billion (about 50%) would die, and seven people voted (>1 billion) in the poll, all of which are far more alarmist than myself. The only ones already proven wrong so far, however, are the 3 people who voted under 100.

[Beet]

In the past day 47 recovered and 25 died, the CFR for this period dropped to 35%.

Case #s continue to be unreliable due to a shortage of testing equipment.

A decent article here-- https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/26/2019-ncov-china-epidemic-pandemic-the-wuhan-coronavirus-a-tentative-clinical-profile/

[Beet]

More bad news:

On the 29th, according to the Health and Health Committee of Anyang City, Henan Province, China, his father (45 years old) and two aunts were infected by Lu Mou who returned home from Wuhan, Hubei. Later, Lu Mou's father was transmitted to Lu Mou's mother Zhou Mou and Lu Mou's another aunt (3rd infection). Ms. Lu is a confirmed patient, but after she returned from Wuhan on the 10th, the incubation period (up to 14 days) has passed, and the symptoms have not yet appeared

https://flutrackers.com/forum/forum/-2019-ncov-new-coronavirus/china-2019-ncov/824791-china-2019ncov-cases-outbreak-news-and-information-week-5-january-26-february-1-2020/page19

Basically, a person who never had any symptoms even after 14 days infected three people. This means that it cannot be controlled simply by isolating people for 14 days; the only alternative left is direct testing.

----

As JHU is not providing real time updates, according to BNO Newsroom the death to recovery ratio is now 170:124, which means since yesterday the case fatality rate has jumped back up to 38/(38+14) or 73%. Yikes.

[Beet]

Doing so means you are leaving out all of the people that have not yet recovered, but will do so in time.

True, but you are also leaving out all of the people that have not yet died, but will do so in time. Since we have no idea what the numbers are for either statistic, it makes no sense to include them in numbers; any such inclusion will necessarily be speculative.

You can only calculate the CFR of a group of patients after they have all either died or recovered.

Well that is precisely my point, my fellow! That is just what I do. Your definition of CFR is perfect, and by adhering to it as I do, you arrive at the statistics I have posted.

Reason 2a, let's look at the designated population part. The numbers are for patients that have been positively diagnosed with the virus. These are a subset of the total infected population. In particular, this is a subset that (for the most part) had such severe symptoms that they went to hospitals. They are likely not representative for the total infected population. (On the other side, if you agree with this paragraph, you do have to admit that the total number of infected is higher than the number of people officially diagnosed.)

Certainly, but absent a statistically randomized study, we don't have any representative data. Thus any attempt to suggest what they would be is speculative and is essentially an exercise in making up data.

Reason 2b again has to do with the designated population. The 73% is reached by picking only hospitalized patients that died or recovered in the last day. Did the disease suddenly become more deadly, or is picking small subsamples a bad way to do statistics?

Well yes actually, this disease has a high mutation rate, and even several days ago, a Wuhan nurse reported that prior to mutation they were able to treat the virus, but post-mutation they cannot. Thus looking at the daily CFR can help us pick up trends, but given its very high volatility (~35% to ~86%) I may switch to a 3-day moving average. Since the Death:Recovery ratio of 81:52 approximately four days ago, according to JHU about 91 have died and 81 recovered, the CFR is about 53%.

[Beet]

You are not. Unless you define your group of patients as the group of patients that died or recovered on day X. The CFR for that group is completely uninformative overall unless, again, you make the assumption that death is equally likely at every day post infection and additionally assume that recovery is equally likely at every day post infection.

True, but that objection is a case for not having a CFR at all, not an alternative measure of CFR against mine. Since all alternative measures also assume things about the time distribution curve of likelihood of recovery. My assumption is the simplest. The real question is whether having flawed numbers is better than having none; I think partial numbers are marginally better as long as you know where it's coming from and that it's just a rough estimate snapshot at a given point in time.

We do not have the exact numbers no. What we do have is the knowledge that looking at hospitalised cases is an overestimation. Because we can not quantify exactly by how much this is an overestimation doesn't mean we can completely ignore that and pretend our overestimation is correct.

You are forgetting cases that have died but never recorded. Hence we don't really know if it's an overestimation or underestimation.

I can find no information whatsoever either in WHO reports, or the scientific literature, saying anything about mutation rates. In fact, an article published today on the site of Nature (I can not include links, the title is "Coronavirus outbreak: what’s next?", you should be able to google it.) discusses the possibility of mutation and it's possible impact on lethality. It basically dismisses that as a serious concern. If this had already happened, I would expect the article to mention that. If you have any serious sources supporting the "mutation rate" please link them.

Here is one (It seems that it mutates faster because its genetic information is stored in RNA):

Meanwhile, a senior researcher at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which was not involved in the new study, told the South China Morning Post on Wednesday that the new strain was an RNA virus, meaning that its mutation speed was 100 times faster than that of a DNA virus such as smallpox. RNA (ribonucleic acid) molecules are simpler than DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) molecules.

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3047114/coronavirus-weaker-sars-may-share-link-bats-chinese-scientists

Can you reconcile 20% of reported cases being severe with 50% of infected patients dying? Or maybe you should consider that either your methodology or data is faulty.

Well the theory is that death takes time, and the patient gradually goes from mild to severe to death.
Edit: For instance, the number of serious to critical patients in Hubei Province, where Wuhan is located, has risen 42% in the past day alone.

[Beet]

3 days ago 170 died and 124 recovered. Today 304 died and 335 recovered. Case Fatality Rate in the past 3 days has dropped to 39%. It would be relevant to see the difference between those who have treatment and those who did not have treatment. While there is speculation that many mild cases are not being reported and this is almost certainly true, cases that are tested and reported are more likely to have gotten treatment.

Meanwhile, there number of cases in the city of Huanggang (outside of Wuhan) has increased by 600% in just one day, and residents are no longer allowed to leave home. Meanwhile, a city in Eastern China (far from Hubei Province) has over 200 confirmed cases. This could indicate the geographical spread of the virus.

[Beet]

NY Times correspondent Amy Qin got inside Wuhan. Good thread here:

https://twitter.com/amyyqin/status/1223279662127706113

Also, Christianity doing good:

SALT LAKE CITY — President Russell M. Nelson’s 40-year-old professional ties to China are facilitating a donation of supplies from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that will help Chinese health care workers in their effort to contain the coronavirus outbreak.

The church loaded 220,000 particulate respirator masks, more than 6,500 pairs of protective hospital coveralls and 870 pairs of protective goggles at two bishop’s central storehouses in Salt Lake City and Atlanta on Wednesday morning.

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2020/1/29/21113386/coronavirus-china-outbreak-lds-church-mormon-russell-nelson-donation-chinese-health-wuhan

[Beet]

It hurts me to say it, but we need to shut down travel and trade to China.  This hurts me economically.   I have investments in companies that need parts from China, and I am stuck with those investments due to the tax laws.   Roku is one of those companies, which receives parts from a Chinese company called TCL.    

I think the important ongoing issue with the coronavirus is that China will not let us bring CDC workers into their country to help contain the virus.  They have denied our requests.  

Just a tidbit.  Go to 1 minute in the video.  This is how the plague spread into Europe.  It went along the silk road.  Avenues of trade are always great pathways for a virus.  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTn6YIwybwM

Sell your Roku shares. It's a crap product. I got given it for free because Telstra Australia were giving them away, and i am just going to throw it in the bin. It was painful.

I believe China did allow the CDC into the country.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/30/china-asks-cdc-help-investigate-wuhan-virus/

[Beet]

* It was discovered that the 2019-nCov coronavirus is present in feces. This is very bad news, as the primary mechanism for protection that people have been using for the past week has been isolation from person-to-person contact. However, during the 2003 SARS outbreak at the Amoy Gardens housing complex, 1 person infected over 300 people via the feces route. After depositing infected diarrhea into the toilet, the virus entered the sanitary system. It then transmitted by the following means:

- Dry U-traps in floor drains and toilet systems allowed infected gases to escape into people's bathrooms, depositing on surfaces such as toothbrushes, shower curtains and towels.

- Fans and air systems when bathroom doors were closed created negative pressure, further drawing viral laden gases into living quarters.

- Open windows and prevailing winds carried viral laden air into apartments in nearby towers.

- Roaches, rats and other pests carried viral loads into different apartments.

Given that the standard housing situation in China are multifamily apartments, this means that people cannot avoid getting the virus simply by staying home and not seeing anyone else. All building sewage systems must regularly be tested. All toilets and drains must be kept in working order, not clogged, and U-traps, P-traps and other traps must be kept filled with water. Rodents and pests must be eliminated. Windows must be closed at all times.

* Further evidence of mass underreporting and continued shortages of hospital beds, inability to get to the hospital, mandatory orders to remain indoors, and other disincentives to seek treatment are troubling. Many are being left to die at home and it is impossible to know how many are dead or dying inside their apartments with the doors closed. This is convenient for the authorities.

* Current US and international quarantine procedures requiring those from China to remain in isolation for 14 days are inadequate, as a 10 year old boy was found to be shedding virus without presenting any symptoms. Although relatively rare, this happens. It would be more efficient to directly test these people via Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test, as sensitive as possible to very low virus traces. Rather than keeping them for two weeks. To maximize efficiency of quarantine beds, people should be kept there for no more than 12 hours (preferably shorter) while an accurate PCR test is performed. Clothing and belongings may be stored longer, if they are unable to be reliably disinfected completely.

* The official totals are 362 dead, 487 recovered, and the death rate for the past 3 days is at 35%.

[Beet]

California couple who became ill of coronavirus 'suddenly much more ill'

https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-cures/481377-california-husband-and-wife-infected-with

Photos of people suddenly dying on the street. Still a mystery, have not seen any in depth mainstream news stories on it, but many online videos, some of which were confirmed by the WaPo/NYT to have been authentic. Given the twitching, and manner of collapse, it is not likely caused by heart attack. One person had symptoms indistinguishable from an epileptic seizure; others I would say had symptoms more like stroke or a Central Nervous System (CNS) problem.

Deprivation of oxygen to the brain, which can occur during extreme pneumonia, or when the lung fils with fluids, can cause brain damage and loss of consciousness within a few minutes. Further, infection of the CNS directly has been observed by coronavirus and has been found to result in four-limb twitching. See a discussion here.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fncel.2018.00386/full

However, most of these cases were hospitalized cases. Not people suddenly collapsing.

Purported ethnic and smoking risk factors

I have seen this study being bandied around as evidence that East Asians are more susceptible to the virus; (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.26.919985v1) Study claims if you are not Asian, you only have one-fifth the number of ACE-2 receptors which has been confirmed as the mechanism by which the virus binds to your cells. Thus you would be less likely to be infected and the virus would spread more slowly if you were infected, likely improving mortality rate. This could explain the lack of cases/deaths outside of China thus far. However, it is contradicted by this study (https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202002.0051/v1) which claims there is no ethnic difference, at least between Asians and Caucasians. However it claims that smoking is a risk factor. (As if you need another reason to quit). But on the other hand, only 3 of the first 41 cases in the Lancet study of the 1st cases were regular smokers, and all 3 of them survived. I would like to see a more mainstream publication shed light on this. What is certain is that the virus binds to ACE-2 receptors, like SARS.

Death rate.

3 days ago 304 died, 335 recovered. Currently 492 died, 906 recovered. The case fatality rate of the past 3 days has dropped to 25%.