Novel Coronavirus – China

[Emz by the Thames]

The trouble with some sporting events (taking a friend/colleague mine who is a huge Watford FC fan as an example) is that they are crammed into places - busy pubs before and after matches, busy transport networks, crowded stadiums/stairwells etc - the opportunity to spread is huge. Even if I tried to avoid this virus by avoiding crowds, the people in my apartment block and work seemingly aren't and I don't want to risk getting it and giving it to my Dad via them.

So I've made the decision to not visit by 75 year old Dad for a while because he has 2 different lung conditions including COPD and recently had carioversion  and has decided to avoid crowds. Don't feel sorry for him though...he's a newlywed. 

[Bristawl Si]

South Korea has tested more than 140,000 people for the new coronavirus and confirmed more than 6,000 cases. Its fatality rate is around 0.6%.

SK's extensive testing probably shows a much truer fatality rate, rather than countries where testing is less so. By this assumption the 3, 4% mortality rates are probably way too high.

So, months down the line from now, should we expect a 'true' fatality rate of 0.6% OR if a country can contain more effectively, then maybe fatality rate will be even lower than 0.6%?

[ThundersnowDays]

6 minutes ago, Bristle boy said:

South Korea has tested more than 140,000 people for the new coronavirus and confirmed more than 6,000 cases. Its fatality rate is around 0.6%.

SK's extensive testing probably shows a much truer fatality rate, rather than countries where testing is less so. By this assumption the 3, 4% mortality rates are probably way too high.

So, months down the line from now, should we expect a 'true' fatality rate of 0.6% OR if a country can contain more effectively, then maybe fatality rate will be even lower than 0.6%?

Those numbers are similar to the cruise ship which was 0.6-0.8% so probably around that number.

[ciel]

5 minutes ago, Bristle boy said:

South Korea has tested more than 140,000 people for the new coronavirus and confirmed more than 6,000 cases. Its fatality rate is around 0.6%.

SK's extensive testing probably shows a much truer fatality rate, rather than countries where testing is less so. By this assumption the 3, 4% mortality rates are probably way too high.

So, months down the line from now, should we expect a 'true' fatality rate of 0.6% OR if a country can contain more effectively, then maybe fatality rate will be even lower than 0.6%?

Even if that fatality rate is anywhere accurate, it is unlikely to be distributed equally between different age groups.

[Azazel]

This will be the last post I make about my mystery flu illness back at Christmas but I read something last night I thought was interesting enough.

I read the account of "Patient 1" in Germany (the chinese business woman who infected the German guy at that conference) and her progression of symptoms.

Nothing unusual - sounds very much like a cold/the flu - apart from one thing.

She noted a pain in her ribs and then her chest which was only triggered by touching or pushing on certain areas. 

My thing started just like that - a pain in my ribcage on the right hand side which only hurt if i pushed it (I thought it was really weird at the time because I couldn't remember knocking it)

Spooky!

[Methuselah]

2 minutes ago, ciel said:

Even if that fatality rate is anywhere accurate, it is unlikely to be distributed equally between different age groups.

Or, dare I say it, between different social strata?

[DAVID SNOW]

Each family will have to decide what they think is best for older relatives etc.

But... I do hope that this virus doesn't give the excuse to 'some'  less caring families not to go see their dear old mum and dad.

There are a lot of elderly people in the UK who feel isolated as it is, and many will be frightened by this virus(media storm).

This is not aimed at anyone in here, just a general point.

[Snipper]

1 hour ago, SteveB said:

It's lost on me why this is a big issue.

While people have died from COVID-19, it is the old and weak. If fit young people were dying, then yes, we have an issue.

TB kills 40,000 a day! and there is a cure

 

Hi, I hope you are fit and healthy and if you do get Coronavirus it will be mild.
 

Please check your facts as it rather defeats your argument.
 

The big issue, as you call it, is not necessarily about you but the ones who are vulnerable (millions). Do you have parents or grandparents? They are the ones who have a higher risk of serious illness or worse. Would you be happy because of your or somebody else’s actions they were put at risk?
 

I suggest you rely on your own research and not throwaway comments on some social media sites.

If you are a betting man I am sure the bookies are offering good odds that it is nothing and will blow over in a couple of weeks.  I am sure the many old people and those at serious risk, who are apparently of no worth in your eyes, will be happy if you win.

[alexisj9]

10 hours ago, Frost HoIIow said:

Anyone know what happens if it mutates? as they keep talking about it probably doing so but not giving an explanation as to the implications if it does.

Apart from the fact it then becomes recatchable to people who have already had it, I've no idea, could be worse better different the same, no one knows till a few cases are seen, what a mutation of anything looks like. 

[Astral Goat Juice]

22 minutes ago, Bristle boy said:

South Korea has tested more than 140,000 people for the new coronavirus and confirmed more than 6,000 cases. Its fatality rate is around 0.6%.

SK's extensive testing probably shows a much truer fatality rate, rather than countries where testing is less so. By this assumption the 3, 4% mortality rates are probably way too high.

So, months down the line from now, should we expect a 'true' fatality rate of 0.6% OR if a country can contain more effectively, then maybe fatality rate will be even lower than 0.6%?

It really is pointless to be calculating any CFR until at least another 6 months to a year to gather sufficient data or until it's all under control. 

[Gael_Force]

A very succinct account of how it can all go wrong very quickly ...

Quote

An elderly couple hospitalized in medicine in Molinette, in the ward of primary Luca Scaglione, tested positive for coronavirus after an ordinary hospitalization for what was thought to be a trivial flu. Husband and wife, around 70 years old, did not communicate that their son worked in Lodi, the outbreak in Italy of the epidemic and that he had come to Turin to find them. Today both of them have gotten worse and hospitalization in the intensive care unit has become necessary for her husband: her condition is considered rather serious.
The confirmation of positivity came in the evening and now the hospital management - the third largest in Italy - is organizing the closure of the ward. The two patients had arrived at Molinette on Sunday by going to the emergency room and now there is the big problem of figuring out whether to decide to trace the route starting from the emergency department. A serious problem for the whole region, given the role of Molinette in the Piedmontese health system. The first effect is the quarantine for medical staff working in the ward: 25 nurses and at least six doctors are involved. In addition to family members. And then there are the other patients in the ward: about thirty according to the first rumors.

https://torino.repubblica.it/cronaca...C12-P3-S1.8-T1
 

 

[Bristawl Si]

19 minutes ago, ciel said:

Even if that fatality rate is anywhere accurate, it is unlikely to be distributed equally between different age groups.

True (probs)

[nick sussex]

It makes sense to test as many people as possible . You can’t avoid the political ramifications in how this plays out .

The public will just see their countries fatality rates v other countries . Trying to defend that position by saying the reason we have a worse rate is because we didn’t test more people then leads to other questions .

The true fatality rate I’d agree with some other posts is likely to be lower towards 0.6% but a lot depends on the health care systems in place in each country .

Even if we get lower towards 0.4% that’s still four times higher than flu .

Flu though tends to be less loaded towards older people , they still have a much higher risk but the corona virus is likely to show the biggest age differential between younger and older people.

There also seems to be some narrative that even in those who become critical but recover that after that it’s all fine .

The issue of long term lung damage is prevalent in SARS and MERS, the current virus shares a lot in common with that although thankfully much less fatal.

The longer term impacts are of course not the biggest concern for most countries who are understandably busy trying to deal with the spread.

 

[Bristawl Si]

5 minutes ago, Astral Goat Juice said:

It really is pointless to be calculating any CFR until at least another 6 months to a year to gather sufficient data or until it's all under control. 

Maybe, but SK's testing numbers are high, so should give some positivity to allay fears of 3,4% CFR everywhere it hits.

[abruzzi spur]

1 hour ago, SteveB said:

It's lost on me why this is a big issue.

While people have died from COVID-19, it is the old and weak. If fit young people were dying, then yes, we have an issue.

TB kills 40,000 a day! and there is a cure

 

What a deeply unpleasant point of view.

One of the tests of any civilised and mature society is precisely how it respects and cares for the old and weak.

[alexisj9]

1 hour ago, Bristle boy said:

One of government's medical officers was on GMB this morning.

No plans to cancel sporting events or play matches behind closed doors. Why not?

He doesnt believe it works, in direct contrast to France and Italy.

Why doesnt it work? Said that anyone affected by COVID-19 in a crowd out in the open would likely infect a few nearby, but that would be it. If events were played behind closed doors, everyone would flock to pubs, where rammed pubs would have a much higher risk of spreading infection, because of enclosed environ.

Good point, and he is right too. 

[Yarmy]

1 minute ago, nick sussex said:

It makes sense to test as many people as possible

This is what makes the situation in the States so insane: charging people for tests. The Senate fast-tracked an 8.3 billion dollar emergency funding package (just Rand Paul voted against, for reasons only he could explain) yesterday, but it's far too late and should have been done weeks ago. 

[weirpig]

1 hour ago, SteveB said:

It's lost on me why this is a big issue.

While people have died from COVID-19, it is the old and weak. If fit young people were dying, then yes, we have an issue.

TB kills 40,000 a day! and there is a cure

 

I kind of get your point.  For me it does seam a little hyperbole     But like anything we shall see over the coming weeks  exactly how dangerous it could become.   At the moment  non of my ordinary behaviour as stopped   Football Saturday then the pub 

[Yarmy]

1 hour ago, Bristle boy said:

If you had a large pub with 200 rammed into it, much more likely of onward transmission to all in the enclosed space.

Anyway, thought i'd post a summary from a medical expert, which is what my original post was for.

I was at the Norwich game on Wednesday night. Every pub, restaurant and cafe within a 5-mile radius of the stadium was rammed for several hours before the game. If it had been played behind closed doors, the vast majority would have stayed at home and watched it on TV. 

[alexisj9]

1 hour ago, fujita5 said:

I just don't get the logic of that.

What about the people travelling to and from these sporting events.... many will travel by coach and other public transport surely?  Some fans travel from half way across the country and back.

At least if people are gather in pubs they're keeping the transmission in their local area, whereas if you move 200 miles you've got the opportunity to move the infection to another area that was previously unaffected - doesn't that completely undermine the whole point of containment/delay???

 

That's also true, his assumption is, that people in the crowd could only spread to people very close to them, ie the three feet advise, which might not be true anyway, we don't know. But yes those who say go by coach or train, can spread to everyone on board,, just like people in a pub, so may be playing the games behind closed doors, and also not televising is the answer, or cancelling completely, but both of those will cause financial problems for clubs. For now money is winning. 

[weirpig]

6 minutes ago, Yarmy said:

I was at the Norwich game on Wednesday night. Every pub, restaurant and cafe within a 5-mile radius of the stadium was rammed for several hours before the game. If it had been played behind closed doors, the vast majority would have stayed at home and watched it on TV. 

Maybe  Yarmy  But that game i think  was free on the i player      Prem games are on Sky and BT  most cannot watch at home.  so they go down the boozer.  For me it makes no sense to play behind closed  doors   either leave it as it is  or cancel the games 

[Snowy L]

43 minutes ago, ciel said:

Even if that fatality rate is anywhere accurate, it is unlikely to be distributed equally between different age groups.

That's true but that's often the case with infections. I think everyone was tested on the cruise ship eventually so this will have picked up all cases including severe, mild and asymptomatic. So while it is a small sample size this should be the best estimate of mortality rate. The cynic in me says they left them on the ship for exactly those reasons. That tells us its about 4-6 times deadlier than seasonal flu.

[swebby]

2 hours ago, Bristle boy said:

One of government's medical officers was on GMB this morning.

No plans to cancel sporting events or play matches behind closed doors. Why not?

He doesnt believe it works, in direct contrast to France and Italy.

Why doesnt it work? Said that anyone affected by COVID-19 in a crowd out in the open would likely infect a few nearby, but that would be it. If events were played behind closed doors, everyone would flock to pubs, where rammed pubs would have a much higher risk of spreading infection, because of enclosed environ.

I had a few issues with this thinking when i heard it last night, and can only assume the politicians and the senior advisers on this have never been anywhere near a major sporting event as a bog standard paying punter?

Yes, pubs could be packed out if a game is played behind closed doors, but have you ever seen pubs local to grounds before/after games? Yes, for footah there are sometimes closures before certain high risk games, but your standard lower league footah matches, or top level rugby, they are packed!

Secondly, it makes it the perfect way to transmit from one community to another.  Let's say it's rife in North London, but low in Manchester and non existent in Tyneside? Man City or Newcastle traveling to Arsenal may not be the kind of "regional leveling up" that the PM was after?

[Yarmy]

3 minutes ago, weirpig said:

Maybe  Yarmy  But that game i think  was free on the i player      Prem games are on Sky and BT  most cannot watch at home.  so they go down the boozer.  For me it makes no sense to play behind closed  doors   either leave it as it is  or cancel the games 

Maybe, but I'd say there would be far more people attending pubs, cafes, etc when the game is attended than when it is behind closed doors? And most games aren't televised free-to-air or subscription. 

 

[weirpig]

3 minutes ago, Yarmy said:

Maybe, but I'd say there would be far more people attending pubs, cafes, etc when the game is attended than when it is behind closed doors? And most games aren't televised free-to-air or subscription. 

 

I just hope they dont go down the route of closed doors.  for me it defeats the object   also it makes the league unfair     Having  advantage of playing at home will be negated.   Fingers crossed it does not get to that point