WHO declares coronavirus outbreak a public health emergency

Post by ddeck » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 1:00 PM UTC

bra4you wrote: post #346

peteretep wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, however: > Most patients were men, with a mean age of 55·5 years (SD 13·1; table 1). 50 (51%) patients had chronic diseases, including cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases, endocrine system disease [and some others] The findings conclude: > In general, the characteristics of patients who died were in line with the early warning model for predicting mortality in viral pneumonia Also the group was s…

>50 years is not old. I don't know what is considered old but I know that >75y has a two magnitudes higher mortality rate with the flu. I doubt that the 50 years old Hospital doctor who died had any serious per-existing health condition. In fact, you could argue hat most doctors have a stronger immune system than average since they are exposed to more germs due to their profession. So this 50y old professional droppi…

Post by ddeck » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 1:06 PM UTC

Brave-Steak wrote: post #368

rurp wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, in what world is wiping out half a population not that bad??

One could argue that thinning the population of the older demographic with pre-existing (and expensive) conditions could be a net benefit to governments with socialized healthcare. See Taiwan which has repeatedly had to refund their system because of an aging population and the related growing costs.

Post by AlayaMatrix » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 1:33 PM UTC

mrb wrote: post #118

hanniabu wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any idea what the rates are for the corona virus?

Ignore the people telling you it's 2-3%. The case fatality ratio is between 9 and 56% according to proper epidemiological methods, such as using the formula "deaths / (deaths + recoveries)": https://mobile.twitter.com/zorinaq/status/122242770872387993... Disclosure: no I'm not an epidemiologist. But for a reference to a paper by actual epidemiologists see https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ebf2/48c9fc0a1a23d1778b9408..…

Post by vonmoltke » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 1:42 PM UTC

ajna91 wrote: post #284

mrtksn wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Last Update: Jan 30, 2020 11 am EST. It is not a real-time map, I find it bizarre that people believe that we can track the population's wellbeing in real-time. Are you ready to be hooked up to such a system?

This comment and the replies to it really give a glimpse into the psyche of the more pedantry-prone members of HN. For me, if someone says X, and a literal interpretation of X would be impossible/ridiculous, I naturally assume the more generous interpretation Y. I would find it bizarre to believe that X was intended. Some people however cannot escape the interpretation X, and find the statement bizarre fullstop.

Post by bryanrasmussen » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 1:45 PM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #266

forever_spring wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On timeline of events, there was a week or so of delay between first death + ICL paper and the city lockdown. It can be argued the lockdown was very late. The OP might also mean poor containment within China - which is only relying on other countries right now.

Very late relative to what? Certainly later than one would hope, but is there a real world benchmark for the handling situations like this that they fell short of? Have similar viruses crossed over in other countries and been handled better?