COVID COVID-19 Coronavirus Containment Efforts

[kadiot]

The virus is evolving. From nCov to COVID-19

"Having a name matters to prevent the use of other names that can be inaccurate or stigmatizing. It also gives us a standard format to use for any future Coronavirus outbreaks,” said Ghebreyesus.

https://cnnphilippines.com/world/2020/2/12/novel-coronavirus-is-now-COVID-19.html?fbclid=lwAR2

 

[mfb]

The paper says it's not yet a peer reviewed. It is a preprint. The media should have not used it as reference in their news report like it has been validated.

The outbreak is too fast for the formal peer review system. By the time these studies are peer-reviewed they will be outdated.
"Not peer reviewed" doesn't mean wrong (and "peer reviewed" doesn't mean right!), it just means it's advisable to be more careful with the conclusions.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

Were the hiv link, snake, pangolin, and airborne debunked already?

As far as I can tell:

• The non-peer-reviewed pre-print claiming the HIV link was flawed and has been retratcted: https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/03/retraction-faulty-coronavirus-paper-good-moment-for-science/
• The snake origin theory is doubtful: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00180-8
• There is evidence for pangolins as an intermediary for the current outbreak, but the results are preliminary and have not yet undergone peer-review: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00364-2
• Like other coronaviruses and respiratory viruses, it is thought that the current Coronavirus outbreak can be spread through airborne droplets:

  Most often, spread from person-to-person happens among close contacts (about 6 feet). Person-to-person spread is thought to occur mainly via respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs or sneezes, similar to how influenza and other respiratory pathogens spread. These droplets can land in the mouths or noses of people who are nearby or possibly be inhaled into the lungs. It’s currently unclear if a person can get 2019-nCoV by touching a surface or object that has the virus on it and then touching their own mouth, nose, or possibly their eyes.

  https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/about/transmission.html

 

[russ_watters]

The outbreak is too fast for the formal peer review system. By the time these studies are peer-reviewed they will be outdated.
"Not peer reviewed" doesn't mean wrong (and "peer reviewed" doesn't mean right!), it just means it's advisable to be more careful with the conclusions.

It's worth pointing out that ordinarily these types of sources (and news sources) would violate our guidelines, but in my opinion (not discussed by the mod team), this situation should warrant an exception to those guidelines.

 

[chemisttree]

The virus is evolving. From nCov to COVID-19

"Having a name matters to prevent the use of other names that can be inaccurate or stigmatizing. It also gives us a standard format to use for any future Coronavirus outbreaks,” said Ghebreyesus.

https://cnnphilippines.com/world/2020/2/12/novel-coronavirus-is-now-COVID-19.html?fbclid=lwAR2

Meet the new virus... same as the old virus! I love the politics of it even though we’re not supposed to discuss it on the Forum.

Here’s the lesson:

"Having a name matters to prevent the use of other names that can be inaccurate or stigmatizing. It also gives us a standard format to use for any future Coronavirus outbreaks,” said Ghebreyesus.”

Here’s the rationale:

“Further, the WHO also said that there is a "realistic chance" of stopping the outbreak.”

And here’s an example of how you should use it in a sentence:

"If we invest now in rational and evidence-based interventions, we have a realistic chance of stopping the COVID19 outbreak,” said Ghebreyes.”

I know I feel better about it!

 

[chirhone]

Here is good news.

https://www.dimsumdaily.hk/senior-m...ys-coronavirus-outbreak-may-be-over-by-april/

His words may placate us making us think its just a bad dream. But other experts seemed to be saying the nightmare scenerio could still happen infecting 60% of the world's populations.

 

[chemisttree]

0.60 * 6,000,000,000 * 0.022 = 79,200,000 projected deaths

ugh! That for a fatality rate of 2.2%. If it’s closer to 6%, it’s nearly 240,000,000.

 

[WWGD]

0.60 * 6,000,000,000 * 0.022 = 79,200,000 projected deaths

ugh! That for a fatality rate of 2.2%. If it’s closer to 6%, it’s nearly 240,000,000.

Over what timeline? The short run?

 

[chemisttree]

Over what timeline? The short run?

Over the timeline it takes for 60% of the world’s population to catch it plus a couple of weeks. R0 is very different in various places.

 

[kadiot]

The increase on the number of Confirmed cases vs Suspected cases is something positive as this means one thing. The lock-down and containment efforts of the Chinese government is effective and is working as they were able to search, quarantine, identify, treat patients.

The continued rise of Recovered (patients) vs Death is very encouraging to the total effort and to the whole world who is still very scared. The correlation between numbers in Confirmed, Suspected, Recovered cases is very evident. AS the numbers of Confirmed rises so is the slow increase of the daily new suspected cases and the overall drop in numbers. The continued rise in the numbers of Recovered patients shows the correlation in the overall decrease of the numbers of confirmed cases. Overall, this trend manages the CFR to just 2-3%.

What we need to wait if this trend continues is the exponential increase in the numbers of Recovered patients and a big drop from the numbers of Suspected cases and the continued steady decrease in the numbers of Confirmed cases in the next couple of weeks.

 

[kadiot]

Meet the new virus... same as the old virus! I love the politics of it even though we’re not supposed to discuss it on the Forum.

Here’s the lesson:

"Having a name matters to prevent the use of other names that can be inaccurate or stigmatizing. It also gives us a standard format to use for any future Coronavirus outbreaks,” said Ghebreyesus.”

Here’s the rationale:

“Further, the WHO also said that there is a "realistic chance" of stopping the outbreak.”

And here’s an example of how you should use it in a sentence:

"If we invest now in rational and evidence-based interventions, we have a realistic chance of stopping the COVID19 outbreak,” said Ghebreyes.”

I know I feel better about it!

For accuracy, the name of the disease is COVID-19 (COrona VIrus Disease), BUT the VIRUS itself is called SARS-CoV 2. Because COVID-19-CoV (Corona Virus Disease - Corona Virus) would just be strange.

 

[morrobay]

Over the timeline it takes for 60% of the world’s population to catch it plus a couple of weeks. R0 is very different in various places.

And also depends on the generation/infecting period. With x(log3) = log42000 in about 42 days then about 9.7 generations so about 4.33 days.

 

[kadiot]

0.60 * 6,000,000,000 * 0.022 = 79,200,000 projected deaths

ugh! That for a fatality rate of 2.2%. If it’s closer to 6%, it’s nearly 240,000,000.

If I undertood correctly, the overall mortality worldwide is 2.2%. That means we expect 97.8% of the total infected to recover. Correct?

 

[kadiot]

His words may placate us making us think its just a bad dream. But other experts seemed to be saying the nightmare scenerio could still happen infecting 60% of the world's populations.

Would you know the expert's basis for 60%? Any forecast ought to have assumptions and basis to support the % number. I'm looking for that one even if mostly qualitative.

 

[WWGD]

Topic may need to be split...

Er: They are developing much, much faster than we did (their economic growth runs double or triple ours now and growth during the industrial revolution was quite slow), precisely because they benefit from our experience. Why would they even want to repeat our mistakes and our pain? Because being corrupt would allow them to develop even a little bit faster? They're trying to have it both ways.

I don't want ti derail the thread, but. I agree some like China, possibly others do want to have it both ways in that they are very advanced in many high-tech areas (and I don't fault either now-developed countries for not respecting copyright/patents in their respective beginnings for the same reason). But there are African countries with net GDP less than 1/1000 of that of developed (e.g. OECD) countries. It seems until a country reaches a baseline level where/when it can compete on a reasonably level playing field, it ought to be able to not follow Copyright lest they never be able to build themselves up. There is an analogy with poor students downloading protected material. Until they graduate and have a reasonable salary, I don't see a problem with them doing this. Of course, tis may just have to see with my just having a couple of obscure papers out there and no more, I admit.

 

[kadiot]

Faulty ones must have been bought by the Indonesia health ministry or they have an amazing immune system? They are covid19-free so far.

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/new...-faulty-coronavirus-test-kits-across-12429566

 

[mfb]

Maybe they just don't have much exchange with China.

Singapore stays the only place outside China that regularly gets new cases. The international case count is at 520, with just two deaths (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:2019%E2%80%9320_Wuhan_coronavirus_data/International_medical_cases). Meanwhile China reports 60,000 cases and 1355 deaths. The distribution in time is somewhat similar so this doesn't explain the difference. China is missing most infections, underreporting the number of infections, other places didn't report deaths or overreported infections, or China has a much higher death rate than other places.

 

[chemisttree]

We’ve just had a news story in San Antonio that the city will hold an unscheduled news conference tomorrow morning at 10:00 am. When asked if it was to report a case of nCoV the representative said they, “...could neither confirm nor deny.”

This is very unusual so I expect the worst. Hoping the recent arrivals in quarantine at JBSA-Lackland aren’t infected!

 

[chemisttree]

Maybe they just don't have much exchange with China.

Singapore stays the only place outside China that regularly gets new cases. The international case count is at 520, with just two deaths (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:2019%E2%80%9320_Wuhan_coronavirus_data/International_medical_cases). Meanwhile China reports 60,000 cases and 1355 deaths. The distribution in time is somewhat similar so this doesn't explain the difference. China is missing most infections, underreporting the number of infections, other places didn't report deaths or overreported infections, or China has a much higher death rate than other places.

I think they’re just making it up at this point. Not that they haven’t been up to this point!
Only now are clinical diagnoses being counted in the daily numbers in Hubei, the epicenter of the outbreak.
Quoting Feng Zhanchun, president of the School of Medicine and Health Management under the Tongji Medical College of Huazhong University of Science and Technology in Wuhan,

“...this will not lead to a surge in the number of new cases.”

Oops!

 

[kadiot]

Maybe they just don't have much exchange with China.

Singapore stays the only place outside China that regularly gets new cases. The international case count is at 520, with just two deaths (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:2019%E2%80%9320_Wuhan_coronavirus_data/International_medical_cases). Meanwhile China reports 60,000 cases and 1355 deaths. The distribution in time is somewhat similar so this doesn't explain the difference. China is missing most infections, underreporting the number of infections, other places didn't report deaths or overreported infections, or China has a much higher death rate than other places.

Yes. This graph is in full agreement with you.

 

[WWGD]

Maybe they just don't have much exchange with China.

Singapore stays the only place outside China that regularly gets new cases. The international case count is at 520, with just two deaths (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:2019%E2%80%9320_Wuhan_coronavirus_data/International_medical_cases). Meanwhile China reports 60,000 cases and 1355 deaths. The distribution in time is somewhat similar so this doesn't explain the difference. China is missing most infections, underreporting the number of infections, other places didn't report deaths or overreported infections, or China has a much higher death rate than other places.

Why would the death rate in China bevso much higher than that of the rest of the world; around 5x in China?

 

[chemisttree]

Would you know the expert's basis for 60%? Any forecast ought to have assumptions and basis to support the % number. I'm looking for that one even if mostly qualitative.

From the story:

“Prof Gabriel Leung, the chair of public health medicine at Hong Kong University, said the overriding question was to figure out the size and shape of the iceberg. Most experts thought that each person infected would go on to transmit the virus to about 2.5 other people. That gave an “attack rate” of 60-80%.”

Apparently its just a mathematical prediction that results from an R0 of ~2.5.

Later in the story he says,

“Epidemiologists and modellers were trying to figure out what was likely to happen, said Leung. “Is 60-80% of the world’s population going to get infected? Maybe not. Maybe this will come in waves. Maybe the virus is going to attenuate its lethality because it certainly doesn’t help it if it kills everybody in its path, because it will get killed as well,” he said.”

Looks like the headline is clickbait.

 

[mfb]

We’ve just had a news story in San Antonio that the city will hold an unscheduled news conference tomorrow morning at 10:00 am. When asked if it was to report a case of nCoV the representative said they, “...could neither confirm nor deny.”

They got a plane where 250 people were put into quarantine. Could just be an update on their status.

“...this will not lead to a surge in the number of new cases.”

Oops!

Well, of course you get a one-time jump when changing the criteria.

 

[chemisttree]

It won’t likely be a one time jump. It will probably be a change in slope of the curve of new cases. They are adding additional cases that used to include only RNA test results, those being potentially throttled by the scarcity of test kits, but now also include clinical diagnoses (CT scans, cough, fever) that aren’t subject to the scarcity of test kits. We’re going to see numbers somewhat closer to reality but potentially miss the asymptomatic or mild cases that aren’t tested.

 

[chemisttree]

Still waiting for a story about treating patients with chloroquine. Chloroquine is much more available and cheaper since its generic.

 

[OmCheeto]

Why would the death rate in China bevso much higher than that of the rest of the world; around 5x in China?

According to mfb's Monday post from the NY Times

If they can only run 6000 tests per day in all of Hubei (?) and if that test is needed to confirm a case (?) it is no surprise that we don't see an exponential increase any more.
4000 new confirmed cases per day from 6000 tests?

If 2 out of 3 people are testing positive, then potentially 2 our of 3 people in Hubei are already infected.
I seem to recall that about half of the population skipped town early on, which would leave around 5 million people, yielding 3.3 million infected people. From that, and eyeballing the deaths curve, I'm guessing a mortality rate of 0.1%, or 1 death per 1000 confirmed infections. This would mean it's roughly 10 times more lethal than the common flu. [ref: kpp 14.4/100k in the USA]

This may be way over exaggerated, but the current death rates indicate to me that the infection rate in Hubei is way under exaggerated.

There are 9 provinces with 2600 confirmed cases, yet no deaths.
At the Hubei rate of 1 death per 37 cases, 70 of those people should be dead.
The mortality rate in the remaining 20 provinces, is about 1 death per 160 confirmed cases.

 

[Rive]

If 2 out of 3 people are testing positive, then potentially 2 our of 3 people in Hubei are already infected.

With limited capacity for tests the priority would be to test only the already sick (with respiratory illness similar to the expected symptoms) part of the population, not the whole population.

 

[chemisttree]

According to mfb's Monday post from the NY Times
If 2 out of 3 people are testing positive, then potentially 2 our of 3 people in Hubei are already infected.
I seem to recall that about half of the population skipped town early on, which would leave around 5 million people, yielding 3.3 million infected people. From that, and eyeballing the deaths curve, I'm guessing a mortality rate of 0.1%, or 1 death per 1000 confirmed infections. This would mean it's roughly 10 times more lethal than the common flu. [ref: kpp 14.4/100k in the USA]

This may be way over exaggerated, but the current death rates indicate to me that the infection rate in Hubei is way under exaggerated.

There are 9 provinces with 2600 confirmed cases, yet no deaths.
At the Hubei rate of 1 death per 37 cases, 70 of those people should be dead.
The mortality rate in the remaining 20 provinces, is about 1 death per 160 confirmed cases.

All of these are numbers are complicated by self selection and don’t represent the actual numbers. Someone feeling REALLY bad is going to the hospital for testing (filter #1). Some are tested and potentially hospitalized (filter #2). Of that cohort some die (filter #3) and are counted. Some reports indicate that someone found dead on the street or dead at home weren’t being counted at all. Cause of death listed as “pneumonia” rather than nCoV. Even at the hospitals it is reported that confirmed cases with underlying conditions, COPD, heart disease, for example, are listing those conditions as cause of death. At one crematorium (of the several?) around Wuhan a worker reported as many as 60% of the bodies are coming in from people’s homes. Of the death certificates he had, 48 were “suspected nCoV” and only 8 were reported as nCoV fatalities. The fatality rate is being underreported as well so not much can be said at all. He reported that he was seeing 4X-5X more bodies than usual and that he was burning 116 per day as of a few days ago. Take 25% off that number gives us a minimum of 87 bodies more than usual. At one crematorium! He reports another crematorium even busier than his! Just those two are burning nearly 200 bodies a day extra! There are something like 8 crematoriums in Wuhan I believe? These reported numbers are crazy and not much can be divined from them.

 

[chemisttree]

They got a plane where 250 people were put into quarantine. Could just be an update on their status.

Yep! It was an update on their status. One of them tested positive, now the US’s 15th case of nCoV.

Hug your kids, guys...

 

[Mary Conrads Sanburn]

On February 11, 2020 the World Health Organization announced an official name for the disease that is causing the current outbreak of Coronavirus disease, COVID-19. CDC will be updating our website and other CDC materials to reflect the updated name.

[. . .]

###
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nCoV/summary.html