chemisttree said:Patients 3 and 4 had no contact with the (now symptomatic) index patient. I believe patients #3 and #4 contracted it from patient #1 before he had symptoms.
StatGuy2000 said:According to your chart above, it looks like Patient 4 had contact with Patient 1 on the very verge that Patient 1 was displaying symptoms, and thus more likely to be able to infect others (other coronaviruses have been show to be transmissible through droplets released during breathing).
I'm also curious as to how investigators were able to confirm which dates Patients 3 and 4 had contact with Patient 1. It's difficult to be precise about these timelines, so I'm not sure that it really tells us just how transmissible the Coronavirus is.
I’ve seen blog posts asserting that China essentially owns the WHO. China objected to Taiwan’s inclusion in the WHO and so Taiwan isn’t a member. This is just another datapoint supporting that assertion.kadiot said:What does Taiwan have to say about this?
Territory of China?
With cases that are confirmed I just don't know the reason why Taiwan was removed.chemisttree said:I’ve seen blog posts asserting that China essentially owns the WHO. China objected to Taiwan’s inclusion in the WHO and so Taiwan isn’t a member. This is just another datapoint supporting that assertion.
What does Taiwan have to say? Taiwan is “outraged.”
https://www.worldtribune.com/taiwan...part-of-china-on-who-coronavirus-declaration/
bhobba said:I just finished watching a virologist talk about the latest with this virus. He said human to human transmission has been confirmed - its droplet spread. The death rate is about 5%.
But keep calm - the silver bullet is coming. We now have the technology to create vaccines very quickly - evidently the University of Queensland near were I live (as mentioned previously it swung into action immediately and is making progress at an amazing rate) has just completed the first one, or it soon will be completed. The two enablers are the synthesized virus created by the University of Melbourne and the 'molecular clamp' technology (whatever that is) invented and patented by UQ scientists.
I had no idea our local university was so advanced. Then its to trials and mass production. The thinking is April when it can be used by humans and ready for mass inoculation a bit after that - certainly all in a maximum of a 6 months time frame.
The virologists concern was we do not know how fast it is mutating. It's very similar to both a virus that causes the common cold and the even deadlier SARS virus. If it goes in the cold direction it may just peter out - if it goes in the SARS direction then its all stops out on the vaccine.
Finger's crossed - but it seems we have the technology.
How about Singapore? Is she considered a modern country?bhobba said:Added later: Watching TV makes me think people are really starting to worry. If you live in a modern country like the US, UK ,or Australia - don't. With modern care I think the death rate will be much lower than 5% - maybe about the same as the flu.
The first confirmed case in the Philippines was detected using the DOH/WHO protocols in place and is asymptomatic. No definitive evidence of infectiousness in asymptomatic patients yet, although I've hrard it is possible. She had a mild cough.Ygggdrasil said:Just to clarify, the possibility still exists that asymptomatic individuals can spread the disease, we just don't have solid evidence of whether or not this is true. There have been anecdotal reports from doctors in China that this is the case (discussed in the Science news piece I posted earlier), but we await further evidence. Hopefully, the doctors in Germany who published the NEMJ piece can provide an updated paper to clarify how patients 3 and 4 were infected.
kadiot said:How about Singapore? Is she considered a modern country?
The big emitters are (nearly) all rich. There is an extremely strong correlation between wealth and CO2 emissions. The big emitters just don't live in countries with a population of 1 billion, that's why the per country numbers are often smaller. Per capita is the only useful measure on the level of people: The average US or Australian citizen contributes as much to CO2 emissions as an Indian family of 8-9.bhobba said:A real worry is the big emitters are all poor
In at least one of these first world countries many die because they don't go to a hospital unless it's a really life-threatening emergency (and then often to late to save them) - because they have to fear absurd hospital bills.bhobba said:The real advantage of first world countries is they have the facilities to ensure everyone, rich or poor, will be taken care of during emergencies, poor countries simply do no have the resources to do that.
mfb said:The big emitters are (nearly) all rich.
mfb said:To contain such an outbreak the governments spend significant resources on isolation and treatment of the cases, luckily. No death in first world countries yet (~100 cases).
Wait, let's learn some lessons here...is the quarantine area a problem? Why not use passenger vessels or cruise ships...then stationary on the shore?mfb said:To contain such an outbreak the governments spend significant resources on isolation and treatment of the cases, luckily. No death in first world countries yet (~100cases).
kadiot said:Wait, let's learn some lessons here...is the quarantine area a problem? Why not use passenger vessels or cruise ships...then stationary on the shore?
kadiot said:It’s confusing - China imposed self lockdown on January 23 to prevent further spread of the virus and the rest of the world doing travel bans and quarantine measures - is this for real ? Am I missing something here ?
It’s quite difficult to explain to the public. We have travel van but WHO says it’s wrong to impose such move ?
https://cnnphilippines.com/news/2020/2/6/World-Health-Organization-China-travel-ban-novel-coronavirus.html?fbclid=IwAR1-ZM_8lcjAANHrrFgaKK-gbJCAVb3fLL-rEbY9g4J-pO3F2TeAqnb4Iz4
https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/92/12/14-135590/en/The results of our systematic review indicate that overall travel restrictions have only limited effectiveness in the prevention of influenza spread, particularly in those high transmissibility scenarios in which R0 is at least 1.9 (Box 2). The effect size varied according to the extent and timeliness of the restrictions, the size of the epidemic, strain transmissibility, the heterogeneity of the travel patterns, the geographical source and the urban density of international travel hubs. Only extensive travel restrictions – i.e. over 90% – had any meaningful effect on reducing the magnitude of epidemics. In isolation, travel restrictions might delay the spread and peak of pandemics by a few weeks or months but we found no evidence that they would contain influenza within a defined geographical area.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/02/03/fighting-coronoavirus-with-travel-bans-is-mistake/Even if it were feasible to keep Coronavirus out through travel bans, these measures can make us less safe. Travel bans can penalize countries that report cases, which may in turn reduce countries’ willingness to share information about their outbreaks. Travel bans may also interrupt the flow of essential supplies upon which we depend to control the epidemic. China is a large producer of critical medicines and personal protective equipment — it is in our best interest to stay positively engaged with China in responding to this epidemic.
I wonder if there are other studies conducted on the same subject and came up with different findings.Ygggdrasil said:Research done on travel bans suggest that they could delay, but not stop the spread of pandemic diseases. For example, the WHO performed a meta-analysis on studies of past influenza outbreaks and concluded:https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/92/12/14-135590/en/
Maybe they have own channel or usual transport for supplies and medical expert go in than back must self-quarantine.Ygggdrasil said:While travel bans don't provide much benefit, there are a number of negatives associated with the imposition of travel bans:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/02/03/fighting-coronoavirus-with-travel-bans-is-mistake/
Travel bans can also restrict the flow of supplies and experts to sites of outbreaks, which can also harm efforts to contain epidemics.
Only Canada followed the WHO's advice. The rest of the world does not agree. Approach is variable from country to country. I’d like to believe that worst case scenario is the best . It’s logical to stonewall a country. It’s basic.Ygggdrasil said:Here's another news article that links to additional research on the topic: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...st-travel-bans-tied-to-coronavirus-backed-by/
chemisttree said:Now a Nature report states that Remdesivir and the generic chloroquine are effective against nCoV.
kadiot said:Fact-check please:
"Good news! The registration for clinical trials on the antiviral drug Remdesivir has been approved, and the first batch of pneumonia patients infected by the novel Coronavirus are expected to start taking the drug Thursday"
chemisttree said:There is no possible way to compare those two numbers to nCoV. Not a good idea to compare time series data to final counts. China started building two special hospitals when the official case count was in the low thousands! If the infection rates were accurate, how come a city like Wuhan with available hospital bedspace of greater than 40,000 is swamped by the then number of around 2,000?
View the time series data here:
https://ncov.r6.no/
Looks to me like nCoV is much worse than SARS.
They are just into intellectual property. What is wrong with documenting what you know? It does not take your time from the curing? If America did it, we see nothing wrong with it.chemisttree said:File under, “No Good Deed.” China has filed a patent against Gilead’s patented Remdesivir anti-viral medication for use in treating nCoV. The Wuhan Institute claims to have made the application out of “national interest” and won’t exercise their patent rights if foreign pharmaceutical firms work with China to curb the contagion. In other words, “let us make it in China license-free or we’re just going to steal it from you!”
What an outrage!
https://time.com/5778216/china-patent-coronavirus-drug/
chemisttree said:File under, “No Good Deed.” China has filed a patent against Gilead’s patented Remdesivir anti-viral medication for use in treating nCoV. The Wuhan Institute claims to have made the application out of “national interest” and won’t exercise their patent rights if foreign pharmaceutical firms work with China to curb the contagion. In other words, “let us make it in China license-free or we’re just going to steal it from you!”
What an outrage!
https://time.com/5778216/china-patent-coronavirus-drug/
If they weren’t stealing it then they could just operate under WTO rules and declare the emergency as you have mentioned. They have not chosen that path and are instead patenting it in China. Patenting on top of another patent, one which specifically identifies the Coronavirus family for applicability, is stealing the patent. Providing your valuable intellectual property that has cost your company many many millions of dollars at no cost (very charitable) only to have the patent stolen for “national interest” certainly qualifies as accurate and the action by the Chinese authorities is most certainly not charitable. It IS an outrage.Tghu Verd said:That article does not best describe this situation. WTO rules gives China the right to declare an emergency and compel a company to license a patent to protect the public. China would then be required to pay a fair market value license fee, so they are not 'stealing' it.
The Chinese Government is quarantining 60-odd million people in Hubei province to try and slow the spread of nCoV for everyone's benefit so your 'no good deed' sentiment seems to me uncharitable.
This is way beyond “documenting what you know.” The first patient in the US was treated with Remdesivir, successfully, after all. If someone in America tried to patent a claim in some else’s foreign patent only because they proved it to be true in a case they identified, it would be denied as would be expected. When has “America” done this? You know of a case?kadiot said:They are just into intellectual property. What is wrong with documenting what you know? It does not take your time from the curing? If America did it, we see nothing wrong with it.
chemisttree said:File under, “No Good Deed.” China has filed a patent against Gilead’s patented Remdesivir anti-viral medication for use in treating nCoV. The Wuhan Institute claims to have made the application out of “national interest” and won’t exercise their patent rights if foreign pharmaceutical firms work with China to curb the contagion. In other words, “let us make it in China license-free or we’re just going to steal it from you!”
What an outrage!
https://time.com/5778216/china-patent-coronavirus-drug/
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/wuhan-institute-virology-applies-patent-gilead-s-remdesivirAs there is significant prior art (e.g., Gilead’s own patent applications including CN108348526A entitled “Methods for treating arenaviridae and coronaviridae virus infections”) it is unclear if the China National Intellectual Property Administration will grant a patent.
Except that in this case it does. Wuhan Institute of Virolology is not some independent local think tank, its actually called Wuhan Institute of Virolology, Chinese Academy of Sciences. It is most certainly the Chinese government’s Academy and referring to it as “China” is as accurate as it gets.Ygggdrasil said:It's worth being a bit more precise with the claims here. "China" did not apply for the patent, the Wuhan Institute of Virology did. Your claim is akin to saying that actions by, say the University of Wisconsin, represents the position of the US govnerment.
chemisttree said:It IS an outrage
Weird, if it was successful, that Gilead's stock price budged, almost imperceptibly.chemisttree said:...The first patient in the US was treated with Remdesivir, successfully...
VERY unusual that Gilead is almost unique in its non-performance. The Chinese Central Bank has been injecting massive amounts of cash into their market and markets around the world have been rocked by... record highs? I also wonder, “why not Gilead too?”OmCheeto said:Weird, if it was successful, that Gilead's stock price budged, almost imperceptibly.
View attachment 256781
Am I missing something here?
Of course I would. Do you have any modern examples of a US governmental academy, Department, representative doing something like this for reasons of “National Interest?” For any reason? I mean without going all the way back to the late 1700’s.Tghu Verd said:...but I have no doubt that if a foreign company had IP that would help America in a crisis such as this, it would be appropriated without a second thought, esp, if that might save thousands. This is clearly a hypothetical question, but I am interested in whether you would feel outrage in such circumstances.
Rocket technology after WW II, rocket technology during the cold war?chemisttree said:Of course I would. Do you have any modern examples of a US governmental academy, Department, representative doing something like this for reasons of “National Interest?” For any reason? I mean without going all the way back to the late 1700’s.
I’m all ears. What rocket technology? Paperclip?mfb said:Rocket technology after WW II, rocket technology during the cold war?
chemisttree said:Of course I would.
‘In the segregated ward, we wear level-3 protective gear. One shift is 12 hours for a doctor and eight hours for a nurse. Since protective gear is in a shortage, there is only one set for a medical staff member a day. We refrain from eating or drinking during our shift because the gear is no longer protective once we go to the washroom.’
‘The most regretful thing to me was a pregnant woman from Huanggang. She was in very serious condition. Nearly 200,000 yuan (S$39,505) was spent after more than a week in the ICU. She was from the countryside, and the money for hospitalisation was borrowed from her relatives and friends. Her condition was improving after the use of Ecmo, and she was likely to survive. But her husband decided to give up. He cried for his decision. I wept too because I felt there was hope for her to be saved. The woman died after we gave up. And exactly the next day, the government announced a new policy that offers free treatment for all coronavirus-infected patients. I feel so sorry for that pregnant woman.
If true then how did a pangolin catch it from a bat? Are pangolins eating dead bats or do they feed on bat feces?kadiot said:"It is probable that the virus originated in bats, with pangolins being the vector into humans. In past epidemics, vectors have been pigs, chickens, ducks and camels."
Taken from:
https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/art...n3zlXCxcw_kTkyVD6d9okpEaOO7ZXGKOwWrvCD4YtcRaI
Droplet - respiratory secretions can travel 3-6 feet away due to generation of aerosols when one sneezes or coughs. Since the droplets are relatively large, they don't stay in the air very long.chirhone said:Whats new in this confirmation. Arent all Coronavirus airborned like the common colds?
https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/coronavirus-is-airborne-chinese-official-confirms/news-story/201218c04deb601b1b144f4cbbc4d807#.m4qig
"
It comes as a Chinese official confirmed a worrying new fact about the deadly coronavirus; infections are taking place through aerosol transmission.
It was previously understood that two main ways the virus transmitted from person to person were:
• Direct transmission: breathing in air close to an infected patient who sneezes or coughs, and
• Contact transmission: when a person touches an object tainted with the virus before infecting themselves by touching their mouth, nose or eyes.
However, over the weekend, an official in Shanghai confirmed the virus also traveled through aerosol transmission, which means it can float a long distance through the air and cause infection later when it is breathed in.
“Aerosol transmission refers to the mixing of the virus with droplets in the air to form aerosols, which causes infection after inhalation, according to medical experts,” Shanghai Civil Affairs Bureau deputy head Zeng Qun said at press briefing on Saturday, the China Daily reports."