Ugly In The Morning posted:

Bear in mind those numbers are coming from the PRC, who were denying that there was person to person transmission at all until yesterday. I'd take anything they say with a grain of salt.

Coolguye posted:

Yeah if anything the sickened are higher and the overall lethality lower because funny thing it turns out to be pretty hard to hide a corpse and when one is found people tend to start asking questions

frajaq posted:

Ugly In The Morning posted:

A lot. The WHO had a bunch of positive stuff to say about traditional Chinese medicine last year. TCM is, at best, placebo. At worst, it’s straight up poison. Most of it isn’t even traditional, it’s a bunch of stuff that was made up in the 50s.

hakimashou posted:

The ambulance says Suizhou City which is 100 miles from Wuhan

numberoneposter posted:

how about not eating bat soup in the future

bob dobbs is dead posted:

WHO estimate of R0 is 1.5 to 2.5. I think it's just one the upper end of scale. Incubation of 9 days instead of the 4 days the scary R0 paper changes math quite a lot

Jamsta posted:

Imperial College London estimates the current trans rate is 2.6

https://twitter.com/MRC_Outbreak/status/1221032729971773440

Ugly In The Morning posted:

The R0 is how many people you expect each sick person to infect.

Son of Rodney posted:

man saying a virus is " a 2.6" is the lamest way to classify these things

if you want the average human to take this seriously give it a cool name like "the virus is omega level" or "the virus is dragon class", that sounds dope as gently caress. "This is a 2.6" is for nerds.

13Pandora13 posted:

The R0 estimate from the WHO is around 1.4-2.5 which is roughly in line with "bad year" seasonal flu outbreaks. This year's flu has been pretty bad for pediatric deaths; the coronavirus so far has mostly killed people over the age of 65 with only a handful in the 30-50 range. Like yes, exercise good handwashing and stop touching your loving face, but panicking over this is not helping anyone. It's just making things worse for healthcare providers.

13Pandora13 posted:

There has been a great deal more transparency about this outbreak (ironically, because of how hosed they were during SARS) and we have AI learning now that doesn't depend on official statements at all https://www.wired.com/story/ai-epidemiologist-wuhan-public-health-warnings/

SARS had an R0 of 2-5.

Charlz Guybon posted:

There are no known infections in Africa or India, right?

That seems doubtful to me given the volume of traffic between China and them. If it gets a foot hold in either of those two, there ain't no going back. This isn't like Ebola where blood is pouring from places it shouldn't and it's obvious you're very sick. It starts off with normal cold symptoms.

LibCrusher posted:

This is the poo poo that causes the real damage in a pandemic situation. People get freaked out and stop doing stuff so the economy tanks.

Breh you’re more likely to be gunned down in the street by a lunatic or a cop than you are to catch the Fluhan. Chill and be normal.

i am harry posted:

I feel like, statistically, as we look at how many people leaving Wuhan have ended up in different countries and possibly positive for the virus, there’s no way the infection numbers are only in the thousands...there must be thousands of people infected who cannot afford to fly out of Wuhan, or have no reason to leave, for every one person who can and is also infected.

i am harry posted:

It has to be right? The chances that 1200 people in a city of 11million get infected and then 40 of them depart for all corners of the globe is absurd!

Burt Sexual posted:

Trumps gonna win too

RaffyTaffy posted:

Welp its now in OC.
https://twitter.com/ochealth/status/1221328989060358144

poty posted:

The poor don’t go to the hospital in the US, in most places they do

nankeen posted:

lmao i just started reading this thread, clicked from halfway through page 1 to page 15 (as is standard practice) and the jump from calm to distraught was a rollercoaster

Charlz Guybon posted:

We're boned

https://www.theguardian.com/science/live/2020/jan/26/coronavirus-outbreak-death-toll-rises-to-54-as-canada-confirms-first-case

Charlz Guybon posted:

This dude exposed hundreds of people

https://twitter.com/XinqiSu/status/1221354258957660160

Ratios and Tendency posted:

Pfft, 2.6 is some weak-rear end poo poo. Measles is an 18 and that poo poo is nbd.

Son of Rodney posted:

So what's the actual risk of this thing. All I've read suggested that it's a slightly more dangerous flu, but nothing really ground-breaking?

spacetoaster posted:

When I finally got better I had lost so much weight my wristwatch was two sizes too big for me.

quote:

We estimated that the mean R0 ranges from 3.30 (95%CI: 2.73-3.96) to 5.47 (95%CI: 4.16-7.10) associated with 0-fold to 2-fold increase in the reporting rate. With rising report rate, the mean R0 is likely to be below 5 but above 3. Conclusion: The mean estimate of R0 for the 2019-nCoV ranges from 3.30 (95%CI: 2.73-3.96) to 5.47 (95%CI: 4.16-7.10), and significantly larger than 1. Our findings indicate the potential of 2019-nCoV to cause outbreaks.

RichardA posted:

"preprint first posted online Jan. 24, 2020". This is the old estimates.

quote:

These numbers fit very nicely to case data available as of January 22, 2020, but unfortunately, they are wrong. The abrupt surge in confirmed case counts (to 1423 cases as of January 26, 2020) is not compatible with the growth process described above, certainly not with a SARS-compatible generation time of 6-10 days. Indeed, the authors of the MRC model (3) noted in one of their earlier reports that the volume of observed exported cases in countries outside China suggested a much larger underlying epidemic than had been reported at that time, and this epidemic may have begun a month prior to the recognition of the market-associated outbreak, consistent with the reported timing of viral emergence based on phylogenetic analyses (5). The authors of several analyses cited above have incorporated the MRC estimates of under-reporting in order to fit their models (2, 3, 5). A second line of evidence suggesting undercounting of cases relates to the older age of cases (median 59 years in early reports), and the even older age of fatal cases (averaging around 75 years in the first 17 deaths) as contrasted with a median age of 37 or 38 years in China. Increased age in cases as compared to the population as a whole suggests that younger (likely milder) cases have been under-reported. As such, it would seem likely that at least part of the sudden apparent growth in case counts does not reflect changes in transmission, but rather increasing ascertainment of previously undercounted cases.

Drone_Fragger posted:

heard that 2000 people were in contact with infectious chinese persons who flew back to the UK before the ban on leaving came into force, so basically the UK is now plague island. the government is covering it up so far but the hospitals are already turning people away and the ambulance service no longer responds to calls.