Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Coronavirus - worldwide breaking news, discussion, stats, updates and more

Seasonal flu last year killed 0.05% of cases according to the CDC. The current mortality rate for Coronavirus is over 40 times that.
Interesting, I was going to accept 1 - 3 three times more for the mortality rate, but 40 is much more than that.
 
I suppose how much to worry is a combination of your own circumstances, personality, your opinion of the facts and unknown aspects, and whether you have or feel any personal connection to people or places that are telling some of the worring stories of this outbreak.

My own preferred method for coping psychologically is that I come to terms with an absolute worst case doom scenario for me and my loved ones. And that actually frees me up to get on with living, it no longer obscures the other broader and more likely spectrum of possibilities that dont involve death. For if by any chance the worst case happen, well I've already come to terms with it and not wasted whats left of mine of a loved ones life fretting needlessly about it. Granted this may be a lot easier to pull off if you've already come to terms with the illusions of security, and the temporary nature of all things that matter to us.
 
Word from my friends still studying at Chinese universities is that their courses are all moving online for the time being. I'll note that my friends are specifically foreign students, and I think their degrees are targeted at foreigners (though they are taught in Chinese, and they are proper degree courses), so not sure how this applies generally. Lectures are going to be delivered by app/website and there's (unsurprisingly) no word on when they'll be expected back on campus.
 
By the way, to continue the talk about UK-related confirmed cases that showed little in the way of symptoms. The British honeymooner who tested positive said at the time that he didnt really have any symptoms , and subsequently said on facebook that 'I am in a isolation room and have become there lab rat as doctor confused as I have no symptoms and tests all say I am healthy apart from having virus xxx'. And I dont think his condition changed much after that as he is now hoping to get out of the hospital towards the end of the week.
 
I'm not overly alarmed by the situation in the UK, but we have a few cases here now and it does seem very infectious.

It is slightly worrying that I don't think we know how soon after someone starts incubating the virus before they will be detected by a test. If people can be incubating the virus without being detected by tests then potentially there is a problem. I am talking about the period before the person gets symptoms.

Also we are hearing about people contracting the virus outside of China in places like Singapore and Thailand which if we are to believe reports have hardly any cases. As we are seeing people contracting the virus from Thailand and Singapore it does seem as if the reports cannot be right.
 
Why probably not by much?

Would you really be surprised if it fell to 0.2% or 0.02%? Why?

Expectation management. I’d prefer to work with the info to hand rather than go down the road allowing irresponsible speculation. I have spent most of my working day in meetings establishing a common understanding and mitigating myths. I’ve heard shocking things come out of very senior managers that their opinion formed from social media may well kill. I dont work in a typical environment. There’s high risk all over.
 
One of the reasons I dont take the 2% figure seriously is the following lesson from the past. Although I also have to guard against the relatively mild eventual outcome of H1N1 2009 pandemic making me complacent. We wont always be so lucky.

The highest case fatality risk estimates were observed in Argentina,30, 42 Mexico,20, 42 and Colombia.18All of these studies reported case fatality risks among laboratory-confirmed cases. Apart from differences in case definition, it is not clear why estimates during the early stage of the pandemic were so high in Mexico (ranging from 100 to 5,580 deaths per 100,000)

There is very substantial heterogeneity in published estimates of case fatality risk for H1N1pdm09, ranging from <1 to >10,000 per 100,000 infections (Figure 3). Large differences were associated with the choice of case definition (denominator). Because influenza virus infections are typically mild and self-limiting, and a substantial proportion of infections are subclinical and do not require medical attention, it is challenging to enumerate all symptomatic cases or infections.

In 2009, some of the earliest available information on fatality risk was provided by estimates based primarily on confirmed cases. However, because most H1N1pdm09 infections were not laboratory-confirmed, the estimates based on confirmed cases were up to 500 times higher than those based on symptomatic cases or infections (Figure 3). The consequent uncertainty about the case fatality risk — and hence about the severity of H1N1pdm09 — was problematic for risk assessment and risk communication during the period when many decisions about control and mitigation measures were being made.

From Case fatality risk of influenza A(H1N1pdm09): a systematic review
 
I get it. However, I’m very conscious of the large number of people who may be reading this that are not nerds and cannot be expected to see the nuance. They are likely to want clear info and do not have the time to unpick long winded complex info.
 
One of the reasons I dont take the 2% figure seriously is the following lesson from the past. Although I also have to guard against the relatively mild eventual outcome of H1N1 2009 pandemic making me complacent. We wont always be so lucky.







From Case fatality risk of influenza A(H1N1pdm09): a systematic review

I don't see how you can use that for any comparison tbh. Your just overlaying your predjuduces and a bit of knowledge to decide on an answer. Wait and see is the only real guide.
 
I don't see how you can use that for any comparison tbh. Your just overlaying your predjuduces and a bit of knowledge to decide on an answer. Wait and see is the only real guide.

Eh? I havent decided on an answer. My whole point is that the early estimates from first outbreak countries such as Mexico in relation to swine flu were a poor guide as to the actual mortality rate. Im just bringing it up as another reason why I dont base my thinking on the initial 2% number thats been waved around in recent weeks. Its just a more detailed version of 'wait and see is the only real guide', its just an example of why the waiting bit is necessary!

If I've accidentally said something that made it sound like I actually expect the mortality rate to fall to something specific and low like 0.02% then I'm sorry, that isnt what I meant at all. What my point in regards this bit was supposed to be, is that the order of magnitude of the mortality rate can change over time, there is no reason to think that any shift could only be small. It might end up only being a small shift, but it could be a large one, and I have no reason to favour one of these possibilities more or less than the other!
 
I get it. However, I’m very conscious of the large number of people who may be reading this that are not nerds and cannot be expected to see the nuance. They are likely to want clear info and do not have the time to unpick long winded complex info.

I understand the need for clear info but I have absolutely no intention of giving the 2% figure any credibility if it makes people looking for a clear and simple picture think that 2 out of every 100 people who catch Covid-19 will die.

There are several reasons why I dont go down this route. A big one is because I dont have to, there are plenty of other sources for that sort of thing if thats the sort of info people want, just skip my shit. Another big one is that I watched a bunch of credible nuclear experts on television delivering their nice, safe, tidy messages in the first days after the woes at the nuclear plant began. Then one of the buildings suffered a hydrogen explosion and some of those experts became instantly useless in the field of public communication about Fukushima, because this eventuality was not covered by the picture they painted. I also saw people mocking the earlier mortality rates given for swine flu, once it became clear that the reality differend by several orders of magnitude.

Well, I feel bound to try to say things that avoid going down such a dead end myself. After all, I am likely to still be talking about this subject long after most people have lost interest. And most of my waffle is of even less use if I've blown my credibility with oversimplifications. If I am ever of any use at all, its by trying to describe the picture as I see it, even if such a process is tedious, occasionally alarming, not to some peoples tastes, treads on a few toes, and I do it with relish, with little regard for whether I come across at times as a bloated and pompous, arrogant imposter.
 
elbows the shift can be up aswell as down,

Here is a translation from under investigation Prof. Xu Zhangrun which went around on Weibo before being banned,


We are funding the countless locusts—large and small—whose continued existence depends on a totalitarian system. The storied bureaucratic apparatus that is responsible for the unfettered outbreak of the coronavirus in Wuhan repeatedly hid or misrepresented the facts about the dire nature of the crisis. The dilatory actions of bureaucrats at every level exacerbated the urgency of the situation. Their behavior reflects a complete lack of interest in the welfare and lives of normal people. All that matters is constant support for the self-indulgent celebratory behavior of the “Core Leader” whose favor is sought through adulation of the peerless achievements of the system. Within this self-regarding bureaucracy there is even less interest in the role that this country and its people play in a globally interconnected community.

The song Let the People Sing from Les Mis the musical is also now inaccessible in both English and French versions, because it trended so much on Weibo.

Lots of infected nurses and doctors

While the government has reported individual cases of health care workers becoming infected, it has not provided the full picture, and the sources said doctors and nurses had been told not to make the total public.

But the doctor warned that the situation may be worse in other cities in Hubei province and said he had heard that many health care workers in the neighbouring city of Ezhou had been infected.
Hospital clusters have also been reported in different parts of the country. In the island province of Hainan, the local health commission said a doctor and nurse had become infected after being exposed to a patient for six minutes even though they were wearing masks.

In Fuxing hospital in Beijing, six medical staff, five patients and four caretakers were reportedly infected by a patient. A source said the hospital’s president Li Dongxia had been sacked as a result.
 
Well yes there are factors that could make it go up. I dont think I will delve into them much unless there is any sign of this happening at some point. Numbers of new deaths announced are inevitably going to carry on sucking for quite some time, and would do so for a while even after a clear peak of cases happened.

Plus as I've said before, if the outbreak cannot be contained then at some point the numbers we are getting is going to change in nature anyway, including numbers relating to mortality. If its a pandemic then clear numbers of confirmed cases will take a backseat to estimated number of infections in the population, which will be compared to number of hospital admissions, intensive care admissions, and fatalities. More like the sort of things we see in the weekly flu reports: sentinel and other tests still confirming some cases, but lots of other data being used to build the picture. Everything from number of calls to 111, GPs, hospital data, internet searches for certain terms, weekly tracking surveys, boarding school data, overall mortality stats.

As for anecdotes and political opinion from China, it can help build a useful picture in some ways, but I can rarely use anecdotal evidence to get a sense of scale. Even numbers that I dont think are terribly certain or useful at this stage are so much better in this regard than trying to measure the volume of anecdotes.
 
I understand the need for clear info but I have absolutely no intention of giving the 2% figure any credibility if it makes people looking for a clear and simple picture think that 2 out of every 100 people who catch Covid-19 will die.

There are several reasons why I dont go down this route. A big one is because I dont have to, there are plenty of other sources for that sort of thing if thats the sort of info people want, just skip my shit. Another big one is that I watched a bunch of credible nuclear experts on television delivering their nice, safe, tidy messages in the first days after the woes at the nuclear plant began. Then one of the buildings suffered a hydrogen explosion and some of those experts became instantly useless in the field of public communication about Fukushima, because this eventuality was not covered by the picture they painted. I also saw people mocking the earlier mortality rates given for swine flu, once it became clear that the reality differend by several orders of magnitude.

Well, I feel bound to try to say things that avoid going down such a dead end myself. After all, I am likely to still be talking about this subject long after most people have lost interest. And most of my waffle is of even less use if I've blown my credibility with oversimplifications. If I am ever of any use at all, its by trying to describe the picture as I see it, even if such a process is tedious, occasionally alarming, not to some peoples tastes, treads on a few toes, and I do it with relish, with little regard for whether I come across at times as a bloated and pompous, arrogant imposter.

You do not come across like that. You’ve got passion and insight and I’m very grateful you’re on this thread. I have also repeatable said at work today that the 2% figure is likely to go down...with the big caveat of all the unknowns.

If I underestimate there’s very a real risk colleagues could die. If I underestimate others could die. Which may account for my sombre tone...and the grand total of 2 hours sleep doesnt help :)

Maybe we could knock something up for those that are worried off the thread as a reference? A one pager and put in a sticky thread?
 
You do not come across like that. You’ve got passion and insight and I’m very grateful you’re on this thread. I have also repeatable said at work today that the 2% figure is likely to go down...with the big caveat of all the unknowns.

If I underestimate there’s very a real risk colleagues could die. If I underestimate others could die. Which may account for my sombre tone...and the grand total of 2 hours sleep doesnt help :)

Maybe we could knock something up for those that are worried off the thread as a reference? A one pager and put in a sticky thread?

Thanks and sorry to hear of your lack of sleep!

If I'm looking for an area of detail where a sombre tone seems appropriate, it only takes a different stat to be combined with the mortality ones. Estimates for how much of the global population in total could be infected. A stat with some very wide ranges of modelled estimates from what I've seen. Obviously this sort of factor makes a huge difference to disease impact, and even modest mortality rates can lead to to very ugly outcomes if the total number of infections is very high, especially if it happens in a short period of time. One of the complications with this sort of stat is that it is rarely possible to predict stuff like how many waves these infections will take place over.

I dont know about a sticky or anything, I'm used to just spilling my thoughts in a thread, and I assume people usually find other places to discuss things in a very different way if its needed. For example if this outbreak becomes a widespread part of our lives then I can well imagine people starting a thread in one of the subforums that is better suited to a bit more sensitive discussion about peoples personal health and family matters.
 
Someone elses thoughts that are a good fit with what I was going on about earlier, although they have a more sensible emphasis on certain things than I usually manage. And I'm always jealous when people can manage to make similar points to me but with so many fewer words, which is all the time!

 
Shortage of masks could stop US operatations, most of the manufactures are in china and the demand is so extreme there's likely to be shortages

Mike Bowen, vice president of Prestige Amaritech in Texas, one of the few manufacturers of medical masks outside of China, explains why a shortage of masks globally is not good news for his business


Jump to 8 minutes 5 seconds to 12 minutes 44

(if you don't want to login, you can download the audio)
 
If I'm looking for an area of detail where a sombre tone seems appropriate, it only takes a different stat to be combined with the mortality ones. Estimates for how much of the global population in total could be infected. A stat with some very wide ranges of modelled estimates from what I've seen. Obviously this sort of factor makes a huge difference to disease impact, and even modest mortality rates can lead to to very ugly outcomes if the total number of infections is very high, especially if it happens in a short period of time. One of the complications with this sort of stat is that it is rarely possible to predict stuff like how many waves these infections will take place over.

And yes, if any of that sounds rather familiar today, I have indeed been infected by some of the thoughts of Prof Gabriel Leung on this subject. Stuff that the Guardian has been going on about today.


Not that I was a big fan of everything Leung said, such as the 'maybe it will attenuate its lethality' stuff, a subject that I've picked at before, something of an overstated cliche.
 
They're demonising some poor bastard calling him a "super-spreader". Jesus.

Yes. I did explain the other day that the use of the term super-spreader was already normalised, including in some of the professional fields that take an interest in this sort of thing. But quickly after that I learnt that some other professionals were among the people horrified to see the term used in the media, and I did not try to work out exactly which different fields the term is considered normal or deeply unhelpful in. Its in some of the literature, but it depends which discipline.

Dr Michael Ryan of the WHO spoke about this stuff today and was not happy about it, and I was glad to see this aspect mentioned and criticised. Useful things have been learnt from past known super spreading events, and I am interested in the detail of them, but its better to focus on them as events, not individual people ripe for tabloid blame, horror and panto moralising.

Dr Michael Ryan, the executive director at WHO’s health emergencies programme, said it was “deeply, deeply unhelpful” to single out sufferers as culpable in some fashion.

He told a press conference on Tuesday: “I really wish we could refrain from personalising these issues down to individuals who spread disease.”

When asked about Walsh, Ryan said it was important to learn from individual cases, but that WHO’s overall risk assessment had not changed.

“This is by no means, compared to other events, a massive ‘super-spreading’ event. This is an unusual event and it is a wake-up call because there may be other circumstances in which this disease can spread like this, so we need to study those circumstances for sure but it doesn’t change our overall assessment.

And of course even the likes of the Guardian fail in their own way to take the high ground, and instantly plummet into the very depths he was just appealing against, with the very next words they wrote after finishing quoting him no less!

“People are not at fault – they are never at fault in this situation, so let’s be extremely careful here, it’s really, really important that we don’t attach unnecessary stigma to this.”

Walsh is thought to be a so-called super-spreader – someone who transmits infections to far more people than the majority do. He was transferred to St Thomas’ hospital from Brighton on Thursday.


I suppose aside from the crap media angle, there are more complicated questions of how much information we are given, and how much we deserve. Its understandable that people in, for example, Brighton, would want to know the exact who's, where's and when's of the matter, and even crude stories about the super-spreading feel like useful info compared to the usual nothing. Its interesting to contrast a privacy and 'dont tell people some stuff in case they do something stupid with the info' approach with the likes of Singapore where they were giving out lots of info about cases including the street where they live. And no I'm not praising anything about Singapore and its regime, or the existing security apparatus that enables their efficient tracing of contacts and their approach towards how they treat their public. Just interested in the differences of approach, but as I already implied they are operating with a different backdrop to the UK in the first place.
 
I'd have thought it's more likely to discourage people from coming forward if they think they'll be labelled as a superspreader. Not at all helpful.

Given how infuriating counterproductive shit can be at work, thinking about or observing such things in the context of attempting to contain a large outbreak, or fighting a war, really puts the dodgy icing on the cake of my opinion of the triumphs and efficiencies of human endeavour.
 
Meanwhile its sad but not really surprising that the situation with the cruise ship continues to include loads more positive test results. This time a quarantine officer is one of them.


Thirty-nine more passengers on the Diamond Princess cruise ship and one quarantine officer have tested positive for the new coronavirus, health minister Katsunobu Kato said Wednesday morning.

The new cases bring the total linked to the ship to 175.

“Out of 53 new test results, 39 people were found positive,” he told reporters, referring to the figure for passengers.

He added that: “At this point, we have confirmed that four people, among those who are hospitalized, are in a serious condition, either on a ventilator or in an intensive care unit.”

 
Bit busy today, so not caught up on the thread, so apologises if it has already been mentioned.

One of yesterday's new cases, infected by the guy from Brighton & Hove, worked in the A&E department at Worthing Hospital, which is not surprising as lots of people commute both ways between here and B&H, being only 12 miles apart.

So, Public Health England is working with the hospital to trace staff & patients that came into contact with them, I am keeping my fingers crossed that there's not an outbreak there, as that would be a nightmare for the town, plus I have family & friends that work at the hospital.
 
You missed the key point “severe cases of flu” and irresponsibly tagged “severe” onto Coronavirus.

Out of all recorded cases of Coronavirus the mortality is just over 2%. You are not comparing it to all cases of seasonal flu.

Yes, I tagged “severe” onto Coronavirus, because it's widely reported that in China mild cases are not being tested, and are turned-away to self isolate, I read an estimate from researchers at Imperial College that only 1 in 19 cases are being tested. Other estimates/modelling suggest there is likely to be well over 200k cases in China, compared with current confirmed cases of around 45k.

So, it seems logical that the vast majority of recorded cases are “severe”, and it's that pool of people that produce the 2% figure.
 
Back
Top Bottom