COVID-19 — Coronavirus

[grunge]

From the WHO

1. We don't know how many were infected("When you look at how many people have died, you need to look at how many people where infected, and right now we don't know that number. So it is early to put a percentage on that."[1][2]).

Mortality rates are estimated at around 3% yet one of the issues they are finding is finding how many people have contracted the disease . In a lot of people the symptoms are mild akin to a cold . How many people have contracted the disease not reported it or tested for it and recovered .

the actual mortality rate may be less , who knows .

but I agree wash your hands and take sensible precautions

the London school of medicine models came back with approximately 1% mortality rate when taking everything / estimates etc

 

[kevin horlocks wand]

The high death toll is as a result of both the mortality rate and spread. Saying mortality is high or low is by comparison with other diseases the Case fatality rate is lower than SARS or MERS but the number of cases is going to be far higher.The Case fatality rate is likely to be far higher than standard seasonal flu and we remain in a bit of a state of uncertainty about what the incidence will be.
I don't know about pretending to be a champion of science but I can assure you I understand the science of it.

If you like science have a poke on that site click what you want to understand further , eg mortality etc and it will give you relevant analysis often from the who.

I am not saying this to win an argument , it’s just very interesting . You obvs do know and are interested , when I discovered it it was helpful.

I am supposed to be goi g to Japan in April on holiday so I am a bit obsessed now !!!!

 

[kevin horlocks wand]

the London school of medicine models came back with approximately 1% mortality rate.

it’s interesting isn’t it .

the language of the global press seems very hysterical . How many people have you seen on tv interviewed who have had it and made full recovery? You would think looking at the press that everyone dies from it

 

[TheRemainsOfTheDave]

https://www.worldometers.info/

In the time we have discussed this quite a few more have died from flu, no more from corona virus thankfully

have a poke around on here really good stats and science on the mortality etc

This is the go-to source I am following and it makes for interesting reading. We are clearly on a knife edge, where the virus could go one way or the other, but there are some positive signs...

The daily rate of new cases seems steady and it has never been more than 4000 worldwide apart from the adjustment day on Feb 12. The growth rate has slowed to under 1 (above 1 is bad, under 1 is good) for 2 days globally and 1 day outside China. Total active cases (globally) have dropped for the 14th day in a row, to 2/3rds of the peak value, and serious/critical cases have dropped by 40% in the same period. Of course all this should be viewed with caution, it could be that the drastic actions the Chinese took worked well and because the vast majority of cases are there it is skewing the data. South Korea is particularly worrying too.

 

[kevin horlocks wand]

This is the go-to source I am following and it makes for interesting reading. We are clearly on a knife edge, where the virus could go one way or the other, but there are some positive signs...

The daily rate of new cases seems steady and it has never been more than 4000 worldwide apart from the adjustment day on Feb 12. The growth rate has slowed to under 1 (above 1 is bad, under 1 is good) for 2 days globally and 1 day outside China. Total active cases (globally) have dropped for the 14th day in a row, to 2/3rds of the peak value, and serious/critical cases have dropped by 40% in the same period. Of course all this should be viewed with caution, it could be that the drastic actions the Chinese took worked well and because the vast majority of cases are there it is skewing the data. South Korea is particularly worrying too.

I know I wish people would actually have a look at it than make snide comments . It’s a really Interesting fact base site .

 

[Indaparkside]

Makes me laugh all the scientists and doctors on here, this would be the last place I’d come for advice go on the nhs website or similar sites for advice.
Some on here will get a sneeze then fuck off to puffin island to self isolate:)

 

[George Hannah]

.... I don't know about pretending to be a champion of science but I can assure you I understand the science of it.

if that is the case maybe you should offer your services to the other experts who claim they don't

 

[Cityfan]

if that is the case maybe you should offer your services to the other experts who claim they don't

They understand the science they don't pretend to know all the facts

 

[Indaparkside]

They understand the science they don't pretend to know all the facts

Are you Einstein reincarnated

 

[George Hannah]

They understand the science they don't pretend to know all the facts

and I suspect you don't understand either.

 

[grunge]

it’s interesting isn’t it .

the language of the global press seems very hysterical . How many people have you seen on tv interviewed who have had it and made full recovery? You would think looking at the press that everyone dies from it

yeah there is certainly some "interesting" media coverage.

the key points seem to be

1) estimates of 1% death rate.
2) and this is the big one to me, 18% of people who get it need hospital treatment. this will very quickly overwhelm health services which will increase point 1.

 

[SebastianBlue]

The government is undoubtedly dragging its feet, no surprise there. But part of the problem is that in this country they need the consent and cooperation of the public. They can’t impose restrictions like China, the public don’t blindly follow government instructions as in Japan. And public opinion is at least 30 days behind the facts on the virus. They really should be restricting large public gatherings now, but they won’t do it until there are thousands of cases and quite few deaths. Calls for self isolation will continue to fall on deaf ears. Blame the government by all means, they deserve it. But it’s also the British culture that stops them from taking effective action.

I have already made these points about our not being able to take the same actions as China, and what that means for containment and the economic, social, and political implications, in previous posts, mate.

My point was about the lack of preparedness, urgency, and cohesion of our government. Our culture only has so much to do with that, and what influence it does have, is mostly down to the more recent acceptance (if not eagerness) to elect/support inept governance. But we aren’t alone there, and I don’t want to turn this is in to a politics thread, so I will just say we actually generally agree, just perhaps with some differences on the causes for the insufficient response.

 

[Gabriel]

From the Guardian

"China reported 125 new cases on Tuesday, its slowest daily increase in six weeks (eight times as many cases were recorded outside of China as inside in the last 24 hours)".

 

[George Hannah]

yeah there is certainly some "interesting" media coverage.

the key points seem to be

1) estimates of 1% death rate.
2) and this is the big one to me, 18% of people who get it need hospital treatment. this will very quickly overwhelm health services which will increase point 1.

The principal reason for hospitalization is supposed to be access to intensive oxygen therapy. It may be that such treatment could be made available to many people wth respiratory problems in their own home if the availability of mobile units is increased.

 

[TheRemainsOfTheDave]

yeah there is certainly some "interesting" media coverage.

the key points seem to be

1) estimates of 1% death rate.
2) and this is the big one to me, 18% of people who get it need hospital treatment. this will very quickly overwhelm health services which will increase point 1.

The 18% figure is those currently severe out of total current cases so is not 18% of all cases. I'll estimate most of those who are/were severe are probably still classed as a current case and haven't fully recovered yet, so that would make the overall % severe nearer to 10%. Also, outside of China, the figure of 18% drops to under 3% (only 292 cases).

Can you please be careful with what you report as fact.

 

[cibaman]

The 18% figure is those currently severe out of total current cases so is not 18% of all cases. I'll estimate most of those who are/were severe are probably still classed as a current case and haven't fully recovered yet, so that would make the overall % severe nearer to 10%. Also, outside of China, the figure of 18% drops to under 3% (only 292 cases).

Can you please be careful with what you report as fact.

I suspect they’re also probably adopting a policy of hospitalising anyone with more than very mildest of symptoms. Partly to contain the virus but also because they’re in the learning stage and want to monitor as many people as is practical.

An epidemiologist on the radio just made the point that when swine flu started in Mexico it had a high mortality rate. As it spread the mortality rate fell. Hopefully the experience with Coranavirus will be the same.​

 

[SebastianBlue]

yeah there is certainly some "interesting" media coverage.

the key points seem to be

1) estimates of 1% death rate.
2) and this is the big one to me, 18% of people who get it need hospital treatment. this will very quickly overwhelm health services which will increase point 1.

It’s also worth noting that even the 1% is a “best guess” from a wide possible range of 0.05-4% currently estimated mortality rate, and is based on very, very limited data so could very well be inaccurate (being higher or lower than it actually is) — that has all been confirmed by the researchers themselves.

WHO and CDC have both continually also said that the mortality rate will vary quite a bit based on region, general health of populace, healthcare access and quality, timing of infection, number of cases, and many other factors.

As you allude to, the fixation on the mortality rate is misguided, as the severe case rate (which is currently being generally estimated at 10-25%) is the one health professionals are focusing on as it impacts every other metric. That is, if it goes down, mortality rates tend to go down (below current projections); if it goes up, mortality rates tend to go up (above projections) — that’s both for people infected with COVID-19 and those with any other condition or disease. The latter is because healthcare systems will be strained or completely overwhelmed if you have abrupt, sustained severe case loads, which leads to less access to healthcare and the overall quality of care declining.

This is why slowing transmission is so important. It makes this outbreak manageable and much less impactful until tested vaccines can be made available. Which is why a thoughtful, science-based, sufficiently urgent response from the government is needed.

Again, it is important to note that all figures are estimations due to very limited available data availability and the nature of assessment for viral outbreaks. We won’t really have a very good understanding until well after the current cycle finishes, and even then it could be incomplete depending on where the outbreak takes hold (there will probably never be accurate reporting out of countries/regions with poor assessment, screening, and general healthcare systems, like India, Iran, Africa, large swathes of South America, and so on).

 

[Blue Hefner]

 

[SebastianBlue]

The 18% figure is those currently severe out of total current cases so is not 18% of all cases. I'll estimate most of those who are/were severe are probably still classed as a current case and haven't fully recovered yet, so that would make the overall % severe nearer to 10%. Also, outside of China, the figure of 18% drops to under 3% (only 292 cases).

Can you please be careful with what you report as fact.

To be fair, he has generally been careful, mate.

I am fairly sure @grunge was referring to the common median estimated severe case rate across all current and future cases that is being quoted by most health organisations. The actual estimated projections vary quite a bit and could very well be as low as 10% or as high as 25%, depending on the model and many, many factors that I reference in an early post.

Although the Worldmeter site is very helpful to get a general sense of how things are progressing, it doesn’t necessarily help with projections in the way continual epidemiological modelling will, which is what most of the WHO and CDC guidance is based on (since they need to make best guesses of what is to come based on what is now happening to actually respond to the outbreak).

Something I can say with certainty, as a data scientist that analyses very large universes of data daily, is that the current very limited and inherently inaccurate data collection makes meaningful estimation very difficult and is one of the reasons the reputable global health entities are erring on the side of caution. And why I am more than happy they are.

 

[kevin horlocks wand]

He has generally been careful, mate.

I am fairly sure @grunge was referring to the common median estimated severe case rate across all current and future cases that is being quoted by most health organisations. The actual estimated projections vary quite a bit and could very well be as low as 10% or as high as 25%, depending on the model and many, many factors that I reference in an early post.

Although the Worldmeter site is very helpful to get a general sense of how things are progressing, it doesn’t necessarily help with projections in the way continual epidemiological modelling will, which is what most of the WHO and CDC guidance is based on (since they need to make best guesses of was is to come based on what is now to actually respond to the outbreak).

Something I can say with certainty, as a data scientist that analyses very large universe of data daily, is that the current very limited and inherently inaccurate data collection makes meaningful estimation very difficult and is one of the reasons the reputable global health entities are erring on the side of caution. And why I am more than happy they are.

stop talking sense it was banned on bluemoon years ago.