- #36
chemisttree
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
- 3,943
- 778
Global health emergency = pandemic?
A pandemic (from Greek pan all + demos people) is an epidemic of infectious disease that spreads through human population across a large region (for example a continent), or even worldwide. It is also infectious.chemisttree said:Global health emergency = pandemic?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/02/02/health/coronavirus-pandemic-china.amp.htmlkadiot said:A pandemic (from Greek pan all + demos people) is an epidemic of infectious disease that spreads through human population across a large region (for example a continent), or even worldwide. It is also infectious.
17,400 confirmed cases, 362 deaths, 486 recoveries based on this website. For people where the outcome has been determined, 40% died. The longer people survive the more likely they are to recover, so 40% is an upper limit on the death rate, but "most patients have already recovered" in general is wrong. There are many people who are currently ill, we'll have to see how many recover and how many die.kadiot said:So far n-COV is less fatal than SARS and even comparable in severity to the common flu. Most patients have already recovered.
Yes, increasingly like Pandemic. However, despite sensational media reporting, nCov cannot yet cause sustained and efficient human-to-human transmission.chemisttree said:https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/02/02/health/coronavirus-pandemic-china.amp.html
Not sure what to call it or if it really matters. A rose is a rose.
Where do you get that from? That disagrees with every single estimate for R0 I have seen. Here are some, they are all larger than 1.kadiot said:Yes, increasingly like Pandemic. However, despite sensational media reporting, nCov cannot yet cause sustained and efficient human-to-human transmission.
From a Viber post from an infectious diseases doctor (will omit name). Looks like it is NOT accurate and is a mix of facts, unverified assertions, and pseudoscience because that doctor has taken it down. Sorry for that. I'll stick to official sources of information including Philippine-DOH and WHO. However, I noticed that DOH uses a different gauge - PUIs, not RO. I have no idea on what PUI accronym mean. Anyway, I am attaching the latest nCoV report from DOH wherein PUI is mentioned. I hope DOH will determine this RO in coordination with CDC and WHO.mfb said:Where do you get that from? That disagrees with every single estimate for R0 I have seen. Here are some, they are all larger than 1.
Patients under investigation according to the image you attached, that's not a measure how fast it spreads.kadiot said:However, I noticed that DOH uses a different gauge - PUIs, not RO. I have no idea on what PUI accronym mean.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/02/paper-non-symptomatic-patient-transmitting-coronavirus-wrongThe letter in NEJM described a cluster of infections that began after a businesswoman from Shanghai visited a company near Munich on 20 and 21 January, where she had a meeting with the first of four people who later fell ill. Crucially, she wasn’t sick at the time: “During her stay, she had been well with no sign or symptoms of infection but had become ill on her flight back to China,” the authors wrote. “The fact that asymptomatic persons are potential sources of 2019-nCoV infection may warrant a reassessment of transmission dynamics of the current outbreak.”
But the researchers didn’t actually speak to the woman before they published the paper. The last author, Michael Hoelscher of the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich Medical Center, says the paper relied on information from the four other patients: “They told us that the patient from China did not appear to have any symptoms.” Afterward, however, RKI and the Health and Food Safety Authority of the state of Bavaria did talk to the Shanghai patient on the phone, and it turned out she did have symptoms while in Germany. According to people familiar with the call, she felt tired, suffered from muscle pain, and took paracetamol, a fever-lowering medication.
chemisttree said:
- Isn’t this a pandemic yet?
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.
View attachment 256598
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/