Live data from Hacker News

New coronavirus can spread between humans, but started in a wildlife market

nationalgeographic.com

191–200 of 350 posts

Re: New coronavirus can spread between humans, but started in a wildlife market

#191

Need I say More? https://twitter.com/chenqiushi404/status/1219885244670607361

> Need I say More?

Yes, actually. Can you demonstrate how this actually resulted in the pandemic rather than subtly shaming a cultural practice you don't agree with?

(I don't agree with it either, but "need I say more" pointing to the specific practice is not the same thing as "here's a resource which links bat game consumption to outbreaks." The tone is ever so slightly edging in the wrong direction.)

Re: New coronavirus can spread between humans, but started in a wildlife market

#192
Is HN now part of the misinformation bubble? The paranoia, national agenda anti China hate brigade are strong here.

Seriously, can people take a chill pill and stop spreading fud?

I read https://promedmail.org and I'm waiting for them to panic before I invoke contagion metaphors. It's way too early to state the infection and mortality rates

Re: New coronavirus can spread between humans, but started in a wildlife market

#193
post #180

Based on documented facts and best epidemiological guesses about the novel coronavirus 2019-nCoV, I think it will probably turn into a pandemic affecting most countries. Let's review: • human-to-human transmission while asymptomatic, truly the killer feature [1] • 15% mortality rate in first patients (6 of 41 are dead) [2] • cases/deaths doubling every 2 days [public data] • epidemiologist predicts 100x more infectio…

I don’t know if you do this intentionally or if Hanlon’s razor, but you intermix source backed claims with made up ones. Nature does not claim the mortality rate is 11%. They do make a comparison to SARS’ mortality rate which was about 11% and argue that Wuhan coronavirus is lower in that regard[1].

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00166-6

Re: New coronavirus can spread between humans, but started in a wildlife market

#194
post #135

I'm amazed that there's not a movement to stop eating and being around animals as much world-wide, given that so much disease (and environmental damage) comes from consumption of and proximity to animals: - MERS-CoV: bats via dromedary camels - nCoV-2019: bats or snakes? - Influenza: pigs, birds - E. coli O157:H7: cows and other farm animals. ... (Edit: I mean along the lines of how safer sex is encouraged to prevent…

Another reason we all should go vegan: prevent disease outbreaks. (besides: kindness to animals, lower climate impact, solve food scarcity, human health)

I agree.

It’s possibly a combination of the infected urine, feces, and blood from infected animals. And it mutated into something that transmitted to humans.

And it doesn’t even have to be a wild animal. The wild animal could’ve just been the carrier, and was immune to the actual virus.

And it was your house pet that got sick from it, and had infected bodily fluids. And then when you clean up your pet, your infected hands touched your mouth or eyes, and you got sick. Then you might’ve transmitted it to someone else with a weaker immune system, and they got sick, and so forth, and now we have a full blown pandemic.

So it could have been a wild animal that transmitted their infected feces to your house pet, or to a stray dog or cat. And dogs urinate on every tree, and other dogs like sniffing and licking that urine. Then your dog licks you or your kids. Gross.

Maybe it’s time I became a vegetarian. Although you can still get E. coli poisoning from unsafe industrial food processing.

But that sweet meat and bbq sauce.. delicious.. I.. can’t.. resist..

Re: New coronavirus can spread between humans, but started in a wildlife market

#196

President Xi has warned that the virus is spreading. His intervention seems to be unprecedented. Is it worse than what it seems to be? They have quarantined whole cities and are building a hospital at war scale especially for this. Maybe the Chinese know something that the world doesn't know yet.

Here is a map I made of the spread yesterday (only). https://github.com/globalcitizen/2019-wuhan-coronavirus-data...

While making it, I was watching the numbers quite closely. An observation I made is that the official statistics were ~900 officially confirmed cases on the 24th evening, ~1200 officially confirmed cases 25th (morning), yet only 1300 officially confirmed cases on the 25th (evening). Why ~50% jump then nothing? All previous figures had followed this hyperbolic path.

A few possible reasons (conjecture): overwhelmed doctors, possible low level bureaucratic pressures not to report or admit new cases, people dying at home, undiagnosed infections, geographic spread and Chinese New Year resulting in slower diagnosis.

All we can really take from this is that clearly the official statistics are only part of the story. In terms of the speed of the domestic geographic spread, it is horrifying. The cat is truly out of the bag.

Re: New coronavirus can spread between humans, but started in a wildlife market

#197
post #180

Based on documented facts and best epidemiological guesses about the novel coronavirus 2019-nCoV, I think it will probably turn into a pandemic affecting most countries. Let's review: • human-to-human transmission while asymptomatic, truly the killer feature [1] • 15% mortality rate in first patients (6 of 41 are dead) [2] • cases/deaths doubling every 2 days [public data] • epidemiologist predicts 100x more infectio…

I don’t know if you do this intentionally or if Hanlon’s razor, but you intermix source backed claims with made up ones. Nature does not claim the mortality rate is 11%. They do make a comparison to SARS’ mortality rate which was about 11% and argue that Wuhan coronavirus is lower in that regard[1]. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00166-6

You are right, I misremembered Nature's video (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00209-y claimed SARS, not nCoV-2019, had an 11% mortality rate.) I edited the comment.

Re: New coronavirus can spread between humans, but started in a wildlife market

#198
post #182
post #173

Viruses are scary. My company switched to work at home maybe 18 months ago, so I no longer am exposed to the viruses of my coworkers. At the grocery stores at which I buy most of my food I use the self checkout, so no interacting with humans there. At McDonalds I order and pay at the kiosks, so no human interaction there except when they hand me the bag with my food. At Burger King and Wendy's I do order at the count…

Are you avoiding human contact because you are worried about infection?

I’m not avoiding human contact. I use the self checkout because it is faster, not to avoid cashiers. Most of my social activities are online or solitary because those are what I enjoy, not because other activities would involve in person contact.

So when we switched to work at home, and so I was no longer in daily contact with people with school children (a big factor in spreading viruses), I hoped maybe it would mean much fewer colds and such.

Re: New coronavirus can spread between humans, but started in a wildlife market

#200
post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

General consensus so far seems to be about twice as fatal as the annual flu. (Which says nothing about transmissibility rate / R0, which they are still figuring out.) Really rough numbers, annual flu is around 0.1% , while the spanish flu was more like 2.5% So, not a pandemic in terms of fatality. General sense so far seems to be it's more of a big deal than the (run-of-the-mill) flu, less of a big deal than SARS. (K…

Care to quote a source for "twice as fatal as the flu"? Everything indicates it's way worse. 6 of the first 41 identified patients have died. That's a mortality rate of 15%. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... Caveat: 41 is a very small sample, and the first patients are likely to have been the most severe cases (pre-existing conditions, weak immune systems, etc). And when you take publicl…

Because the 1441 confirmed cases are likely to be far lower than the number of people who actually have it. Carriers, latency, people recovering on their own. This ratio is the number that will get much more accurate over the next couple of weeks.
Post reply on HN