221–230 of 465 posts
It seemed during the conference that they were trying their best to not step on Beijing's toes. I wonder if they think China would stop cooperating if they called them out on their poor containment procedures.
Find it staggering to insinuate that were it originating in Western countries we'd do the same?
Dr. Eric Ding has been tweeting timely and detailed information: https://twitter.com/drericding
No, Eric Ding has been tweeting pretty terrible misinformation, and is being rightly dragged for it by pretty much every epidemiologist I know on Twitter, including myself. His takes are bad . He's called this virus's R0 the worst he's seen in his career, which is absurd. He's conflated R0 and attack rate. Familiar errors because no one pays attention to ID epidemiology until there's an outbreak, and then suddenly de…
How is this worse than your normal influenza cycle with 3-5Mio infections and 290k-650k death to warrant such an emergency?
The issue isn't absolute numbers. We don't know the deadliness of the current outbreak. Lets take the flu for example. According to CDC https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/preliminary-in-season-e... . The death rate is around 0.09% at the worst according the numbers on the cdc estimates (Which is a very pessimistic estimate). If the coronavirus has a mortality rate of 1/100 it would make 10x more deadly than the flu…
How is this worse than your normal influenza cycle with 3-5Mio infections and 290k-650k death to warrant such an emergency?
Simply because it has a mortality rate a couple of orders of magnitude greater than the flu's. Something like 8 percent of the world gets the flu in a given year. Millions will die if that happens for this one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just to put it in better perspective: Coronavirus: -5,974 confirmed cases -170 deaths -143 recoveries -5,661 still sick SARS: -8,098 cases -774 deaths -7,324 recoveries
Virulence versus pathogenicity. Perhaps you contend that SARS' pathogenicity is greater than this coronavirus'? But virulence demands our attention, too. Why? Because public engagement can help prevent its spread. When AIDS/HIV was near its peak, folks would often compare it in a similar fashion to cancer. If we ignore the fact that cancer is a big diverse bucket, most/many cancers really don't have any 'virulence' s…
How is this worse than your normal influenza cycle with 3-5Mio infections and 290k-650k death to warrant such an emergency?
The Spanish flu killed 50-100 million people. Worth reading about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a very good observation on these 10 provinces. But I would apply caution when interpreting a cherry-picked data subset. Nitpick: I don't claim "20-56%" death rate, but "9-56%", thus your observation of a 10% CFR is in line with my claim.
One other observation, for what it's worth. According to the John Hopkins site, between 29th Jan and 30th Jan updates (that's the data I happen to have access to), we have worldwide: * 29th: deaths 133, recovered 126 * 30th: deaths 171, recovered 143 But for Hubei, we get: * 29th: deaths 125, recovered 88 * 30th: deaths 162, recovered 90 Which looks like the death rate is going up in Hubei. Subtracting Hubei though,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One other observation, for what it's worth. According to the John Hopkins site, between 29th Jan and 30th Jan updates (that's the data I happen to have access to), we have worldwide: * 29th: deaths 133, recovered 126 * 30th: deaths 171, recovered 143 But for Hubei, we get: * 29th: deaths 125, recovered 88 * 30th: deaths 162, recovered 90 Which looks like the death rate is going up in Hubei. Subtracting Hubei though,…
It's consistent with natural selection. Cases inside Hubei likely have fewer viral generations (= less mutation) than cases outside. Additionally, every case outside has a population bottleneck in that it was transmitted through a host that was well enough to travel. The most virulent cases would be expected to sicken their hosts and discourage travel or extensive social contact.
Other possible explanations are that the healthcare system in Hubei is overwhelmed, so more patients die, or alternatively they're just too busy to accurately report recoveries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>they advise against restriction measures for international travel, which personally boggles the mind. >At some point they vapidly ask "Where is the science behind this?". The science behind this is the discovery of viruses and the impossibility of teleportation. but it's true though. there's limited evidence that travel bans will stop the spread of the infection. the evidence ranges between "no effect at all" to "de…
Other studies say travel restrictions delay infection by 2-3 weeks which is precious extra time for vaccine development and rollout. An extra month matters
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's currently 171 deaths, 8,288 confirmed infected, which is 2% dead. However, what needs to be taken into consideration is that infected individuals don't die the day they are confirmed infected, there is a lag of several days. Assuming the average time from symptom onset and diagnosis to death is 7 days, we're looking at at 20% death rate (830 confirmed infected 1 week ago). Even a 5 day lag between symptom onset…
Do a sanity check: does your 20% number make any sense based on what is known about the cases outside of China?