Coronavirus 2019-2020 thread (no unsubstantiated rumours!)

[AndrewS]

About the temperature issue. Yes, we currently have little clue how COVID-19 will behave at high temperature. Normal influenza virus becomes sluggish at higher temps.

The hot temps mainly cause the outside surfaces to be very hot. With an atmospheric temp of ~30oC, most surfaces directly under sun light will get up to 50-60oC. Thats enough to kill off any virus on those surfaces. We know that many of these surfaces are the main sites for viral transmission. With these surfaces cleaned off, it becomes harder for the virus to transmit.

Temperature has little effect on direct transmission, like hugging and kissing, etc. Keep in mind that, no matter how hot the outside temp is, your body temp stays at 37oC...

Currently, in Singapore and other equator countries, most of the cases have come from abroad. So when the temperature gets hotter, it will certainly get better. How much better? We don't know.

Question:

Are there any studies which can quantify surface transmission of a coronavirus? Eg. Doorknobs, smartphones etc

And also, anything on the amount of UV light exposure required to kill a coronavirus at room temperature?

 

[Quickie]

No it's a constant effect as long as the number of new cases are decreasing. You can calculate mild cases/total cases for the last ten days. It's dropping. Why? Because on average mild cases recover faster than serious cases, and on average we're seeing less and less new cases per day.

We're not even discussing the final case fatality rate, so I don't know why you're bringing it up. We're discussing whether the formula daily death/(daily discharged+daily death) overestimate the case fatality rate (when we're on the downward part of the epi curve), and it seems you actually agree it's an overestimate.

Epi curve and mortality curve are two different things.

Don't shift the goal post. You claimed that the mortality rate would suddenly increase at the ending stage of the epidemic. And I never ever said, or claimed, anything about overestimating.

I'll let the outcome of the end of the epidemic to prove it to you that the mortality rate would continue to stabilize right to the end of the epidemic.

Even now you can see it for yourself in the mortality rate outside of Hubei in China where the recovery rate is already at 95% and so, already coming to an end.

Outside of Hubei, the mortality rate is now stabilizing at 0.88%. I believe the end result should be close to 0.88%.

But according to you, it'll go ominously up at the ending of the epidemic.

You can calculate the mortality rate for the last 10 or 20 days for cases outside Hubei in China now, and see for yourself whether there is a sudden increase in mortality rate.

 

[AssassinsMace]

The critics of China in the beginning believe their criticism of the country's handling was well-deserved. And now these very critics in their loud and lauded arrogance of how superior they would've handled the coronavirus is turning out to be in reality the complete opposite. And they don't like the criticism...? If it were altruistic constructive criticism for China, wouldn't they accept the criticism they're receiving now to be the same? No, because it was actually an attack to carry out their anti-China agenda hoping to exploit this situation for their self-serving interests? That's why they don't like the criticism they're getting now because like their agenda, they see it as an attack to destroy them because that's what they were attempting. Did you see calls for calming heads to prevail when they were criticizing and accusing China? No. And now they expect not to be served crow but they seem to suffering from a seriously severe case of denial and hypocrisy anyway.

Can you imagine if China obeyed. Like the Asian Financial Crisis 20 year ago, all the countries that listened to them got worse. But then look at how they were relishing this would carry out Trump's trade war against China better. And that too is where blowback is coming right back them. Is it draconian to give coronavirus tests for free and if it's positive, the government will cover the costs for treatment? Maybe in a society so deathly afraid of free health care for all. Those who seek power actually want to see people blindly obey them fully knowing their situation will get worse because that would be the ultimate sense of having power having people do things against their own interests.

 

[Gatekeeper]

Well, I'd love to tell you, but then I'd have to give myself a warning, lets just say lots of beautiful black dirt, verdant prairie, hills, streams, corn, soybeans, sorghum, beef and dairy cattle,,,,,, and some high falutin, high tax and spend politicians that ran about half the business out of the state of Central Obamastan, lousy roads and bridges, economy that is tanking.... a beautiful place

oh I forgot Chicago, which is where most of the tax and spend comes in..... anyway, I lost an amazing 3 jobs working for a Hospice, that I was very good at. Thanks to the affordable care act and the medicare re-write that resulted in cutting reimbursements for every single medical service we offered,, so lots of jobs got cut.

anyway it is personal, and yes I pay a lot more taxes, but a sardonic sense of humor does indeed make it kinda fun!

Come on Brat. Now you're a Mod. You should give yourself a warning for this post. Lol

 

[supercat]

While the rest of EU ignored Italy's call for help, China responded massively:

Italy asked to activate EU mechanism for supply of medical equipment: “Unfortunately, not a single EU country responded to the Commission’s call. Only China responded bilaterally. Certainly, this is not a good sign of European solidarity.”

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1237471328564908032

In a call between the two foreign ministers, China agreed to supply Italy with 1,000 ventillators and 2 million masks. Additionally, they are donating (!) them 100k respirators, 20k protective suits, and 50k test kits as part of "massive aid" package.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1237448125800988675

 

[supersnoop]

Yes. Clifford Lane, described as a 'right-hand man' to Anthony Fauci, did an interview with Science:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Random political dig aside (by the magazine interviewer mind you), the doctor mentioned ECMO machine in treatment of critical patients. This is not the first time it has come up in this thread. Reading other sources, this is an extremely rare and expensive machine, not even available in many hospitals in developed countries.

It seems like certain kinds of medical care and attention can greatly affect outcome even without an effective drug. Wuhan's initial heavy toll seems to stem from initial shortages of gear, overcrowded hospitals, and overworked staff. We can see the repeat situation occurring in Italy (caught unprepared) and Iran (totally short of gear due to sanctions). Meanwhile South Korea and Singapore which have had a large number of cases, but not too many deaths.

As I am in Canada, we are hearing a lot from Dr. Bruce Aylward who was the head of the WHO fact finding mission to China. He was very impressed with the handling of the situation and has stayed out of the politics as far as I have seen.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I think one problem with the current handling of the situation in many countries is treating as a political issue. A lot of media/countries were pointing to the infection and death of Dr. Li as a weakness of the PRC and "proof" of covering up. By creating this miasma around the situation, they gave many people a false sense of security ("I don't have to worry as long as I avoid China", "Every other country would have let doctors solve the problem"). Honestly, how many garbage articles were written about eating bats/mice/pangolins/whatever in the first few weeks of the outbreak?

 

[Broccoli]

Michael Osterholm thinks second wave begins sooner than later.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[supersnoop]

Here is a perfect example of what I'm talking about as written by the BBC:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

'An epic political disaster'
Analysis by Stephen McDonell, BBC News, Beijing

The death of Dr Li Wenliang has been a heart-breaking moment for this country. For the Chinese leadership it is an epic political disaster.

It lays bare the worst aspects of China's command and control system of governance under Xi Jinping - and the Communist Party would have to be blind not to see it.

If your response to a dangerous health emergency is for the police to harass a doctor trying to blow the whistle, then your structure is obviously broken.

The city's mayor - reaching for excuses - said he needed clearance to release critical information which all Chinese people were entitled to receive.

Now the spin doctors and censors will try to find a way to convince 1.4 billion people that Dr Li's death is not a clear example of the limits to the party's ability to manage an emergency - when openness can save lives, and restricting it can kill.

Chinese people are going to take some convincing.

It is totally fair to criticize the heavy-handed treatment, but ironically the article mentions spin doctors, which is exactly what this writer is. By concentrating on these political aspects, there is a missed opportunity to actually learn what might be effective in combating the disease.

 

[Jura The idiot]

the point is it's not over in China (which could be what one might think by looking at most of posts in this thread):

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[OppositeDay]

Don't shift the goal post. You claimed that the mortality rate would suddenly increase at the ending stage of the epidemic. And I never ever said, or claimed, anything about overestimating.

I'll let the outcome of the end of the epidemic to prove it to you that the mortality rate would continue to stabilize right to the end of the epidemic.

Even now you can see it for yourself in the mortality rate outside of Hubei in China where the recovery rate is already at 95% and so, already coming to an end.

Outside of Hubei, the mortality rate is now stabilizing at 0.88%. I believe the end result should be close to 0.88%.

But according to you, it'll go ominously up at the ending of the epidemic.

You can calculate the mortality rate for the last 10 or 20 days for cases outside Hubei in China now, and see for yourself whether there is a sudden increase in mortality rate.

OK, now I see where the misunderstanding lies. I copied and pasted the wrong formula from your earlier post when I wrote

As the makeshift hospitals are closed and mild cases being discharged at a rapid rate, if you calculate "sum of daily death" / ("sum of daily death + daily cured)", expect the rate to increase drastically in coming days. But don't be alarmed, it's just a distortion.

I meant to claim your preferred method of estimation, current average daily death / ("average daily death + average daily cured") would overestimate.


Remember the discussion started when I made a crude estimation of the ongoing fatality rate for serious cases given Wuhan's vastly expanded healthcare capacity.

Here's the quote

Some very sobering numbers: in the last three days, 927 patients in serious/critical conditions have recovered and 89 patients have died in China.

Assuming all people who died were in serious/critical conditions, we see a 89/1016=8.75% death rate for serious/critical cases (I know the average days to recovery and average days to death are different, so just a back of the envelope calculation).

This is really scary considering most of these closed cases were in Wuhan, the place with the most advanced capacity and experience for treating COVID-19. Remember Wuhan now has less than 1% of China's population but 10% of China's ICU personnel, and China's healthcare system was good to begin with. Also massive numbers of ventilators, negative pressure isolation rooms and ECMOs. Even with all these, Wuhan's death rate is still significantly higher than the rest of China. No healthcare system, no matter how supercharged it is, is a match for exponential growth.

You then bought up a method of estimating the final case fatality rate

The thing is the mortality rate is going to be "sum of daily death" / ("sum of daily death + daily cured") until when the epidemic ends with existing cases reduced to 0.

If conditions are relatively stabilized, the mortality rate is going to be close to current average daily death / ("average daily death + average daily cured")

I pointed out there will be a time-induced distortion with your method, and the effect will be particularly pronounced toward the end of the outbreak. And the unforunate miscopying notwithstanding, my point still stands, current average daily death / ("average daily death + average daily cured") will overestimate toward the end of the outbreak.