quote:

Originally posted by 6guns:
^^^ I read the same thing and if I remember correctly, the re-infection was far more serious.

Yes, that is my recollection as well.

quote:

Originally posted by VBVAGUY:
So here is my questions. We know that there are thousands of people that have survived being infected with the Coronavirus and fully recovered. These people now have Coronavirus antibodies in their blood. Could we not use some of these people's blood to create an anti-virus shot, etc. ??? Again I am not a doctor nor do I play one on TV, but I did play doctor when I was much younger with my next door neighbor's daughter. God Bless

I believe the UK is doing just that.

For the time being, and hopefully only in China where medical facilities are overwhelmed, the death rate went up a bump to 2.3%. Time will tell if it remains that severe but I suspect it will be lower where individuals get better care.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/w...coronavirus.amp.html

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:

If 60% of the worlds population caught the virus and the death rate was .5 then 24 million people would die.

4.8 billion X .005

We can't really extrapolate to that level. On one hand, most of the world's population doesn't have access to Western standards of healthcare like in France, Japan and Taiwan (not sure about the Philippines), so you could expect higher mortality than in the non-Chinese cases so far. On the other hand, since most infected appear to develop only symptoms of a mild cold, at best the flu (in flu season) and some seem never to fall ill at all, there's probably an unknown but potentially huge number who don't even suspect they are infected or see a doctor at all, were never tested and don't show up in any statistic. Just saw that from the number of mutations discovered so far, it is suspected that the total might be 200,000. So the ratio of total cases to deaths may be much higher, i. e. mortality much lower than even the currently calculated 0.5 percent outside China.

For comparison take measles, about the most contagious disease there is - on average any case infects twelve others, while Covid-19 is currently estimated at 1.8 to 3.5. About two-and-a-half million died worldwide of them every year until 1980 or so, when vaccinations available since the 60s began to make an impact in the developing world. Even today, mortality is 0.2 percent. We are quite sure of that because it's hard to mistake a case of the measles for something else.

I'm not saying Covid-19 should be disregarded, and I wouldn't like it to hit my family; both my parent's are in their 70s, my father is a stroke patient with a strained immune system from frequent infectious due to impaired bodily functions, and my mother narrowly survived a recent acute lung edema which left her with a reduced capacity. But they are just as much at risk from getting a bad case of the flu; and in the great scheme of things, I'm more worried about the recent trend of a resurgence in measle cases due to a lapse in immunizations.

Coronavirus up to 20 times more likely than Sars to bind to human cells, study suggests

https://www.scmp.com/news/chin...nd-human-cells-study

The deadly new coronavirus
is up to 20 times more likely to bind to human cell receptors and cause infection than severe acute respiratory syndrome (Sars), a new study by researchers at the University of Texas at Austin has found.

The novel coronavirus and Sars share the same functional host-cell receptor, called angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2).

The report, published on the website bioRxiv on Saturday, said the new coronavirus had around 10 to 20-fold higher affinity – the degree to which a substance tends to combine with another – for human ACE2 compared with Sars.

But the researchers added that further studies were needed to explore the human host-cell receptor’s role in helping the new virus to spread from person to person

“Compared with SARS-CoV, 2019-nCoV appears to be more readily transmitted from human to human,” the report of the study said. “The high affinity of 2019-nCoV S for human ACE2 may contribute to the apparent ease with which 2019-nCoV can spread from human to human.”

The disease caused by the new coronavirus, which the World Health Organisation (WHO) has named Covid-19, has killed more than 1,800 people and infected over 70,000 worldwide.

The number of Covid-19 deaths is more than double the global figure of 813 attributed by the WHO to the Sars epidemic of 2002-03.


The deadly new coronavirus is up to 20 times more likely to bind to human cell receptors and cause infection than severe acute respiratory syndrome (Sars), a new study by researchers at the University of Texas at Austin has found.

The novel coronavirus and Sars share the same functional host-cell receptor, called angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2).

The report, published on the website bioRxiv on Saturday, said the new coronavirus had around 10 to 20-fold higher affinity – the degree to which a substance tends to combine with another – for human ACE2 compared with Sars.

But the researchers added that further studies were needed to explore the human host-cell receptor’s role in helping the new virus to spread from person to person.

“Compared with SARS-CoV, 2019-nCoV appears to be more readily transmitted from human to human,” the report of the study said. “The high affinity of 2019-nCoV S for human ACE2 may contribute to the apparent ease with which 2019-nCoV can spread from human to human.”

The disease caused by the new coronavirus, which the World Health Organisation (WHO) has named Covid-19, has killed more than 1,800 people and infected over 70,000 worldwide.

The number of Covid-19 deaths is more than double the global figure of 813 attributed by the WHO to the Sars epidemic of 2002-03.
Coronavirus contagious even in incubation stage, China says
17 Feb 2020

The new study found that although the novel coronavirus’ receptor-binding domain (RBD) had a relatively similar structure to that of Sars, it did not have appreciable binding to three published Sars RBD-specific monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), which are copies of one type of antibody used to neutralise pathogens.

The researchers said this suggested antibody cross-reactivity – the extent to which different antigens appear similar to the immune system – may be limited between the two virus RBDs, meaning Sars-directed mAbs will not necessarily work against the new virus.

Instead, they identified the spike protein of coronaviruses, which is essential to gain entry into host cells during the infection process, as the most important target for vaccines, therapeutic antibodies and diagnostics.
Scientists debate whether China coronavirus came from bats or snakes
17 Feb 2020

“Due to the indispensable function of the [spike] protein it represents a vulnerable target for antibody-mediated neutralisation,” the report said. “Knowing the atomic-level structure of the spike will support precision vaccine design and discovery of antivirals, facilitating medical countermeasure development.”
Scientists in Australia first outside of China to recreate coronavirus for vaccine

The WHO has declared the outbreak a global public health emergency, making it the sixth incident to date to warrant that designation.

There are currently no specific treatments for the novel coronavirus but the WHO director general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said last week that the first vaccine may be available in 18 months.

quote:

Originally posted by BansheeOne:

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:

If 60% of the worlds population caught the virus and the death rate was .5 then 24 million people would die.

4.8 billion X .005

We can't really extrapolate to that level. On one hand, most of the world's population doesn't have access to Western standards of healthcare like in France, Japan and Taiwan (not sure about the Philippines), so you could expect higher mortality than in the non-Chinese cases so far. On the other hand, since most infected appear to develop only symptoms of a mild cold, at best the flu (in flu season) and some seem never to fall ill at all, there's probably an unknown but potentially huge number who don't even suspect they are infected or see a doctor at all, were never tested and don't show up in any statistic. Just saw that from the number of mutations discovered so far, it is suspected that the total might be 200,000. So the ratio of total cases to deaths may be much higher, i. e. mortality much lower than even the currently calculated 0.5 percent outside China.

For comparison take measles, about the most contagious disease there is - on average any case infects twelve others, while Covid-19 is currently estimated at 1.8 to 3.5. About two-and-a-half million died worldwide of them every year until 1980 or so, when vaccinations available since the 60s began to make an impact in the developing world. Even today, mortality is 0.2 percent. We are quite sure of that because it's hard to mistake a case of the measles for something else.

I'm not saying Covid-19 should be disregarded, and I wouldn't like it to hit my family; both my parent's are in their 70s, my father is a stroke patient with a strained immune system from frequent infectious due to impaired bodily functions, and my mother narrowly survived a recent acute lung edema which left her with a reduced capacity. But they are just as much at risk from getting a bad case of the flu; and in the great scheme of things, I'm more worried about the recent trend of a resurgence in measle cases due to a lapse in immunizations.

As far as the difficulty in calculating mortality rate from reported infections - let's say, hypothetically, that you lived in a place with the highest population density in the world (let's say about 400 people per square mile, #1 on the planet). Let's say, also hypothetically, that you lived in one of the most densely populated cities in that place. And let's say that this was the epicenter of a highly communicable disease, whose early symptoms were indistinguishable from, let's say, a cold. And that you were aware that 10 percent of your neighbors had been imprisoned in their homes, or locked up collectively in a place with other citizens demonstrating those symptoms, who may or may not have this disease, without any significant chance of interventive care. And let's say that if you went to a doctor, or reported any symptoms (which really made you feel just a little bit bad) resembling this disease, that you knew that men in white suits were likely to come in the middle of the night and forcibly take you and you family to one of those places and lock you up with other, maybe, infected citizens. And that the disease might kill you. Hypothetically.

China reports 1,300 more coronavirus cases among medical workers

New cases push total among health staff past 3,000, according to authorities

https://www.scmp.com/news/chin...mong-medical-workers

The risk of the deadly coronavirus
to China’s frontline health staff is in sharp focus with health authorities announcing that 1,303 more medical workers had been diagnosed with or were suspected of having the disease.

The Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said on Monday that by February 11 there were more than 3,000 coronavirus cases among medical workers, 1,716 of whom had tested positive and showed symptoms.

Hours after the new numbers were released, authorities announced that Liu Zhiming, head of Wuchang Hospital in Wuhan, the epicentre of the outbreak in central China, died aged 50.

Liu, a neurosurgeon, was diagnosed with Covid-19, the disease caused by the virus, in late January and had been in a critical condition for days, his wife told Red Star News, a news site operated by Chengdu Media Group.

He is the second medical worker to die from the disease at the hospital in a week; 59-year-old nurse Liu Fan died on Friday.

Medical workers try to lift their spirits by cheering for each other before entering a temporary hospital set up at Wuhan Sports Centre in Wuhan, Hubei province. Photo: XinhuaMedical workers try to lift their spirits by cheering for each other before entering a temporary hospital set up at Wuhan Sports Centre in Wuhan, Hubei province. Photo: Xinhua
Medical workers try to lift their spirits by cheering for each other before entering a temporary hospital set up at Wuhan Sports Centre in Wuhan, Hubei province. Photo: Xinhua
The risk of the deadly coronavirus
to China’s frontline health staff is in sharp focus with health authorities announcing that 1,303 more medical workers had been diagnosed with or were suspected of having the disease.

The Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said on Monday that by February 11 there were more than 3,000 coronavirus cases among medical workers, 1,716 of whom had tested positive and showed symptoms.

Hours after the new numbers were released, authorities announced that Liu Zhiming, head of Wuchang Hospital in Wuhan, the epicentre of the outbreak in central China, died aged 50.

Liu, a neurosurgeon, was diagnosed with Covid-19, the disease caused by the virus, in late January and had been in a critical condition for days, his wife told Red Star News, a news site operated by Chengdu Media Group.

He is the second medical worker to die from the disease at the hospital in a week; 59-year-old nurse Liu Fan died on Friday.

Infections among medical workers have triggered widespread anger, particularly after it emerged that some doctors had raised concerns about the dangers but were ignored or silenced.
Li Wenliang, an ophthalmologist at Wuhan Central Hospital
, died on February 7 after contracting the virus from a cataract patient in early January. He was told by police not to talk about the outbreak after a message he sent to medical school alumni about a “Sars-like virus” was shared widely online.

By last week, more than 230 staff at Li’s hospital had the virus, China News Weekly, published by the official China News Service, reported on Tuesday.

The report said that one of Li’s colleagues was silenced by authorities after she twice tried to notify the hospital about possible human-to-human transmission.
Ai Fen, director of the hospital’s emergency department, was quoted as saying that she was reprimanded by the hospital’s disciplinary committee on January 2 after she told the hospital on December 30 and January 1 about cases of suspected human-to-human transmission in patients with no connection to a seafood and meat market linked to the outbreak
.

“You have no professional principles, you are creating rumours and causing trouble. Your irresponsible behaviour creates social panic, and affects the growth and stability of Wuhan,” the committee leader was quoted as saying to her.

After Ai was disciplined, Wuhan Central Hospital ordered all staff to keep quiet about the outbreak, according to the report.

“At the beginning, only a few hospital departments, such as the emergency and respiratory departments, knew more about the disease,” Ai was quoted as saying.

She added that, despite the surge in coronavirus cases in early January, most hospital staff let down their guard because it was widely believed before January 15 that there was no human-to-human transmission.

Wuhan’s health commission first announced 27 cases of “viral pneumonia of unknown cause” on December 31, but said that there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission.
China only confirmed human-to-human transmission on January 20, three days before Wuhan, with its population of 11 million, went on lockdown
.

According to the CDC report, 1,080 of the first group of infected medical personnel were in Wuhan, and of those 191 were in a “severe or critical” condition. In early January, the proportion of Wuhan’s infected health workers in a severe or critical condition was as high as 38.9 per cent.

Elsewhere in Hubei province, 394 medics were confirmed infected and 10.4 per cent, or 41, were in a severe or critical condition. At one point in early January, up to 45 per cent of the infected medical workers throughout the country were severe or critical cases, the report said.

National Health Commission official Jiao Yahui admitted in an interview with state broadcaster CCTV on Monday that a lack of timely treatment and overstretched hospital resources meant that Wuhan had a higher proportion of severe cases compared to the rest of the country.

“Particularly in the initial stages, because outbreak prevention and control measures were not implemented in time, there were still many community cases that were not treated in time," Jiao said.

“Many patients’ conditions turn from mild to severe during these 10 days while they are waiting for treatment. So this gap in medical resources needed by the public has continued to widen, leading to many communities where sick people are unable to receive timely treatment.”

quote:

And let's say that if you went to a doctor, or reported any symptoms (which really made you feel just a little bit bad) resembling this disease, that you knew that men in white suits were likely to come in the middle of the night and forcibly take you and you family to one of those places and lock you up with other, maybe, infected citizens. And that the disease might kill you. Hypothetically.

You have demonstrated why so many people in China may not be seeking treatment. They have to be asking themselves if they would be worse off than they would be just trying to ride it out.

Vicious cycle... A bunch of people get sick, then infect a bunch of medical workers, and a resulting lack of medical resources means more people can't get treatment/quarantine, which means even more people get sick, so they infect even more medical workers, which even further cramps resource availability, etc. etc.

Coming to a city near you soon. Health care workers? What health care workers? They all called out sick or quit their job. Good luck in your self care efforts.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
Vicious cycle... A bunch of people get sick, then infect a bunch of medical workers, and a resulting lack of medical resources means more people can't get treatment/quarantine, which means even more people get sick, so they infect even more medical workers, which even further cramps resource availability, etc. etc.

Interestingly I just saw a Chinese data dump claiming that while mortality in Hubei province is 2.9 percent, in the rest of the country so far it's 0.4, on par with that seen outside China. If that's true it points to an overwhelmed healthcare system at the epicenter of the outbreak - people dying who might have been saved if given all possible care, but too many cases meeting ressources themselves affected by the disease. Which is the exact disaster scenario you want to avoid in an epidemic.

Other statements: 80 percent of cases show merely mild symptoms like a cold, 14 more severely like influenza, five percent critical; one percent remain asymptomatic. Overall mortality is higher in men (2.8) than women (1.7) and increases with age: up to nine years it's zero, 10-39 = 0.2, 40-49 = 0.4, 50-59 = 1.3, 60-69 = 3.6, 70-79 = 8.0, and from 80 up it's a considerable 14.8 percent.

All of these 2% mortality figures are being calculated by dividing the "known" deaths by "known" cases. All the cases. Including those newly sick. That simply does not give an accurate estimate. A much better estimate is to divide deaths by resolved cases (ie both dead and recovered).

Last I saw, this was running around 20%.

This is using official figures. So it doesn't account for unknown cases, incompetence, nor outright lies.

quote:

That simply does not give an accurate estimate. A much better estimate is to divide deaths by resolved cases (ie both dead and recovered).

Right, but it's too early to tell how many have or will recover. I don't think we have a good handle yet on how lethal this may be.

Name confusion: SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19… Just “Corona virus” seems to be sticking despite the renaming effort.

“… COVID-19 is a name for the disease, not for the virus that causes it, which until now had a temporary moniker, 2019-nCoV, signifying it was a novel coronavirus that emerged last year…”

www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/0...ame-create-confusion

quote:

Originally posted by BansheeOne:
Interestingly I just saw a Chinese data dump claiming that while mortality in Hubei province is 2.9 percent, in the rest of the country so far it's 0.4, on par with that seen outside China. If that's true it points to an overwhelmed healthcare system at the epicenter of the outbreak - people dying who might have been saved if given all possible care, but too many cases meeting ressources themselves affected by the disease. Which is the exact disaster scenario you want to avoid in an epidemic.

Other statements: 80 percent of cases show merely mild symptoms like a cold, 14 more severely like influenza, five percent critical; one percent remain asymptomatic. Overall mortality is higher in men (2.8) than women (1.7) and increases with age: up to nine years it's zero, 10-39 = 0.2, 40-49 = 0.4, 50-59 = 1.3, 60-69 = 3.6, 70-79 = 8.0, and from 80 up it's a considerable 14.8 percent.

I'm not impugning your data. I just think we're at a point in technology where links aren't all that hard to find back, if you've closed a window before posting on SigForum. I'd love to read where this came from, contextually speaking.

I have been watching the Johns Hopkins data charts that were posted here by another member.
In the US we had 15 cases for the past week or so and just now it jumped to 29 confirmed cases...

What happened? Is it some of the people that were on the infected cruise ships that are now being reported as US cases?

^Yes, before leaving the cruise ship, 14 people tested negative that later tested positive before they got on the planes. They are back in the USA and are counted in the total of infected people in the USA.

quote:

Originally posted by Veeper:
I'd love to read where this came from, contextually speaking.

So we had the Hong Kong flu, the Spanish flu, the pig flu. Are you suggesting this be the China flu or the Wuhan flu? We could go with this I think. Or maybe the WalMart flu?

quote:

Originally posted by Veeper:
I'm not impugning your data. I just think we're at a point in technology where links aren't all that hard to find back, if you've closed a window before posting on SigForum. I'd love to read where this came from, contextually speaking.

Sorry, I forgot:

https://github.com/cmrivers/nc.../master/COVID-19.pdf

All caveats about Chinese data, people unaware of being infected or avoiding to report apply.

And yes, mortality rates are necessarily approximations while this thing is still expanding, but have been pretty consistent across subsequent generations of cases. Putting deaths in relation to full recoveries during the expansion is a lot more fallacious, as it will typically take longer to establish that you're recovered than that you're dead.