Posted on 01/26/2020 3:12:08 AM PST by LibWhacker
HOLY MOTHER OF GOD - the new coronavirus is a 3.8!!! How bad is that reproductive R0 value? It is thermonuclear pandemic level bad - never seen an actual virality coefficient outside of Twitter in my entire career. I’m not exaggerating... #WuhanCoronovirus #CoronavirusOutbreak
2/ “We estimate the basic reproduction number of the infection (R_0) to be 3.8 (95% confidence interval, 3.6-4.0), indicating that 72-75% of transmissions must be prevented by control measures for infections to stop increasing...
3/ ... We estimate that only 5.1% (95%CI, 4.8-5.5) of infections in Wuhan are identified, and by 21 January a total of 11,341 people (prediction interval, 9,217-14,245) had been infected in Wuhan since the start of the year. Should the epidemic continue unabated in Wuhan....
4/ we predict the epidemic in Wuhan will be substantially larger by 4 February (191,529 infections; prediction interval, 132,751-273,649), infection will be established in other Chinese cities, and importations to other countries will be more frequent. Our model suggests that..
5/ travel restrictions from and to Wuhan city are unlikely to be effective in halting transmission across China; with a 99% effective reduction in travel, the size of the epidemic outside of Wuhan may only be reduced by 24.9% on 4 February. Our findings are...
6/ ...critically dependent on the assumptions underpinning our model, and the timing and reporting of confirmed cases, and there is considerable uncertainty associated with the outbreak at this early stage. With these caveats in mind, our work suggests that...
7/ a basic reproductive number for this 2019-nCoV outbreak is higher compared to other emergent coronaviruses, suggesting that containment or control of this pathogen may be substantially more difficult.”!!!! #wuhanvirus #CoronavirusOutbreak #ChinaCoronaVirus ...
8/ ... SUMMARY: so what does this mean for the world??? We are now faced with the most virulent virus 🦠 epidemic the world has ever seen. An R0=3.8 means that it exceeds SARS’s modest 0.49 viral attack rate by 7.75x — almost 8 fold! A virus that spreads 8 faster than SARS...
9/ ...cannot be stopped by containment alone. A 99% quarantine lockdown containment of Wuhan will not even reduce the epidemic’s spread by even 1/3rd in the next 2 weeks. Thus, I really hate to be the epidemiologist who has to admit this, but we are potentially faced with...
10\ ... possibly an unchecked pandemic that the world has not seen since the 1918 Spanish Influenza. Let’s hope it doesn’t reach that level but we now live in the modern world 🌎 with faster ✈️+ 🚞 than 1918. @WHO and @CDCgov needs to declare public health emergency ASAP!
11/ REFERENCE for the R0 attack rate (reproductive coefficient) of 3.8 and the 99% containment models come from this paper: medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
12/ What is the typical R0 attack rate for the seasonal flu in most years? It’s around an R0=1.28. The 2009 flu pandemic? R0=1.48. The 1918 Spanish Flu? 1.80. This new #WuhanCoronavirus reproductive value again? R0=3.8. (Flu reference: Estimates of the reproduction number for seasonal, pandemic, and zoonotic influenza: a systematic review of the literature The potential impact of an influenza pandemic can be assessed by calculating a set of transmissibility parameters, the most important being the reproduction number (R), which is defined as the averag… https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2334-14-480 )
13/ ...and it gets even worse, the Lancet now reports that the coronavirus is contagious even when *no symptoms*: specifically: “crucial to isolate patients... quarantine contacts as early as possible because asymptomatic infection appears possible”! Doctors warn China coronavirus carriers may show no symptoms of illness CAT scan revealed signs of pneumonia on 10-year-old Shenzhen boy’s lungs even though he had no outward signs of infection. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3047636/doctors-warn-china-coronavirus-carriers-may-show-no-symptoms
14/ Let’s pretend the 3.8 estimate is too high (there’s unpublished estimates of 2.5). even if this virus’s R0=2.5, that’s still 2x higher than seasonal flu’s 1.28 (ref above), and higher than 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic of 1.80 that killed millions. So 2.8 is still super bad folks
Thanks for the advice. Besides the shoes, I think I’ll add leaving my coat in the garage.
If people show up at a rally wearing goggles and masks, Pres Trump will think he’s in China! (bad joke)
Today I have a cold and am paranoid about it although there is no reason to be.
Can we put Kerry into this workable solution, and leave him there for a century or so?
First thing I'd do is find a walk-in freezer, dance because no one's watching, let the frozen chocolate fall off and then take off the mask, gown & gloves. Problem would be that I'd probably be tempted to have a piece of chocolate.
“what I don’t understand is China building a hospital in a week when they have so many ghost cities already built that patients could be transferred to.”
My guess its not a hospital but preparation for a body disposal site. The PLA could set up a large field hospital in hours.
The elderly with other health impairments.
Children currently appear to be asymptomatic.
Chernobyl-CPSU : Wuhan-CCP
I’m preparing by playing Tom Clancy’s Division and Division 2.
“Wear N95 masks (80 % more effective then nothing)”
I agree. Professional protection level? No, hardly, because of fit problems and contamination occuring during/after removal.
An improved situation over no mask whatsoever? Hell yes!
No totally unconstrained path directly into the lungs for one thing.
This virus targets the lower respirator system — not the upper like a cold. The virions are pulled down via inhalation. Anything you can do to interfere with that, even imperfectly, is going to increase your chances of survival. The fewer the particles that make it into the lungs the better. A minimum number of particles is needed for infection. Keep the count as low as you can!
And look up NAC (N-acetyl cysteine) to keep those lungs working!
“Drug stores usually stock 91% right next to the standard 70%.”
You can find the 91%, but per my post yesterday from a manufacturer, it isn’t any more effective than 70% (as a viricide).
“Young adults with strong immune systems could drown in their own antibodies.”
Oh wow, that is weird!
It’s pretty scary.
Yup.
Most flus kill the young and the elderly, people with weak immune systems, often by secondary pneumonia.
But hybrid flus kill the young and strong as well, by provoking massive immune system responses, the “cytokine storm”.
The antivax crowd are taking a bigger risk than they realize if they are refusing flu shots. The real flu isn’t a stomach ailment, it’s serious lung disease and it can kill you.
“It takes a lot of training and patience” (to remove a mask without contaminating other surfaces including your mucous membranes).
It sure does and a perfect process would be essential in the case of, say, a nerve toxin (where you would have chemical filtration as well, not just mechanical), or Ebola, and essentially any amount would be fatal.
But in the case of a Cov, one that evidently targets lower respiratory cells, anything you can do to obstruct that “STRAIGHT SHOT” into the lungs without a mask, offers value. Justa-hairyape talks about 80% effectiveness in consumer hands. Probably about right and infinitely better than nothing. When combined with differences in individual resistance, differing virulence based on mutation state, and other factors like health status of the individual, a few particles getting through is not necessarily terminal. Anything you can do to reduce the viral load is helpful.
While this spreads 8 times faster than spanish flu, it is 8 times less dangerous.
Spanish flu 20% mortality
Kung flu 3% mortality (by the REPORTED numbers I’m seeing)
This is amusing, since there have been “don’t panic” topics two or three times. :^)
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/wuhan/index
Think a persistent cough are early symptoms. Gonna be crazy if people we know get it. Imagine the drama on social media.
There was a web report early on that cited a recent scientific study. A person with a N95 mask was 80 % less likely to get the flu when in the same room as an infected person. As compared to no mask.
Thank you. Sounds like Zeke Emanuel’s dream disease.
The same study showed equal protection from a surgical mask, and that was with fitted and fit-tested N95 masks.
If you are using an N95 mask that is not fit tested you may be less safe that using a surgical mask.
And if you have a beard (I do) you can't use an N95 mask at all.
Stop wasting your money and get a couple of boxes of quality surgical masks.
Of the original 41 infected most were middle aged men with no underlying health issues.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.