What Coronavirus Does to the Body
nationalgeographic.com
nationalgeographic.com
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytokine_release_syndrome#Hist...
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.12.20022418v...
From SARS we can guess at the long-term effects, including permanent fatigue, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, necrosis, breathing problems, chronic lung and kidney problems.
“The confirmed case fatality ratio, or CFR, is the total number of deaths divided by the total number of confirmed cases at one point in time. Within China, the confirmed CFR, as reported by the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention,9 is 2.3%. This is based on 1023 deaths amongst 44 415 laboratory-confirmed cases as of 11 February. This CFR does not include the number of more mild infections that may be missed from current surveillance, which has largely focused on patients with pneumonia requiring hospitalization; nor does it account for the fact that recently confirmed cases may yet develop severe disease, and some may die. As the outbreak continues, the confirmed CFR may change. Outside of China, CFR estimates among confirmed cases reported is lower than reported from within China. However, it is too early to draw conclusions as to whether there are real differences in the CFR inside and outside of China, as final outcome data (that is, who will recover and who will die) for the majority of cases reported from outside China are not yet known.”
https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situati...
Their confirmed CFR is not a good measure of anything because the conversion rate to CFR depends on average time between case confirmation and death. It effectively assumes that everyone diagnosed but alive will recover.
"According to CDC, this year's flu season has led to at least 12 million medical visits and 250,000 hospitalizations. In addition, CDC found that the percentage of outpatient visits for influenza-like illness increased to 6.8% in the week ending Feb. 8, up from 6.6% in the week ending Feb. 1. The national baseline for those visits is 2.4%. Between 14,000 and 36,000 flu-related deaths overall occurred from Oct. 1, 2019, to Feb. 8, CDC estimated."
The season is far from over.
The current estimate is 0.94 (0.37, 2.9).
> “It’s highly possible to get infected a second time,” one of the doctors, who declined to be identified, told the outlet.
> The physician said that medication used to treat the virus can have negative side effects on patients’ heart tissue, making them more susceptible to cardiac arrest.
> “A few people recovered from the first time by their own immune system, but the meds they use are damaging their heart tissue, and when they get it the second time, the antibody doesn’t help but makes it worse, and they die a sudden death from heart failure,” the doctor said.
China should have all the data on reinfection, and thus, if they share this data with the WHO like they are supposed to, there should be a factual source from the CDC or the WHO. Where is it?
If we stick to the official facts every time a whistle blower opens their mouth, there would be no point in blowing the whistle. Only one who benefits from that are the authorities.
Like the UK government: If China does not share more information, we are forced to assume the absolute worst.
The CDC did not make any statements about the transmissibility of WCV because they didn't have the information to make any statements. In fact, in one of their first press releases on the WCV they even noted that it might be possible for person-to-person transmission to occur because not enough was known about how the virus was spread. https://emergency.cdc.gov/han/han00426.asp
Like said, China should have all the data on reinfection and severity of reinfection. It is China that is being unhelpful, not the New York Post doing its job of a free press.
Chinese regime deploys 1600 internet trolls to suppress information on Coronavirus.
https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=2...
The first was SARS. [0]
Edit: As pointed out in the reply, only some colds are coronavirus. Wikipedia suggests ~15% [1]
The name is COVID-19.
> COVID-19 could infect 60 percent of the globe if left unchecked
Clearly the outbreak is not unchecked. Many measures have been put in place already. I am pretty sure the global community isn't going to just standby and allow the virus to communicate freely.
[1] https://www.channelnewsasia.com/image/12436712/0x0/3000/5883...
[2] https://www.channelnewsasia.com/image/12455138/0x0/2316/3209...
[3] https://coconuts.co/singapore/news/covid-19-heres-every-nove...
[4] https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=14y9TsLoO2Y6bLj...
Oh absolutely. In these crucial moments seeing every other country failing in its own way, Singapore's response impresses me. I think this crisis is acting as a child/adult/senile test. Some countries are not developed enough to handle this; they are denying anything is wrong and trying to delay the economic impact as long as possible. Some countries have been stable long enough to ossify; each is failing due to its own unique type of entrenched-power disease. Singapore is grown up enough to have the right resources to fight, and young enough to have control of its faculties.
> So if things go bad there, i'm pretty sure it will go bad everywhere.
I'm not sure about this. Singapore is one of the most polluted cities in the world, due to Indonesia being chronically on fire. There's some research that suggests that air pollution upregulates ACE2 receptors, which would be expected to increase transmissibility for a virus known to use those receptors to enter cells. We don't know much yet about its spread in populations with low smoking rates and cleaner air.
Add asymptomatic transmission in an incubation period of ~14 days and there is not much to check. Also, since China waited months, the virus was already left unchecked, resulting in an estimation ~1 million infected: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.12.20022434v...
This. (Actually I believe both numbers are optimistically correct: 1 million infected and 50k death, but I also realize that's crazy talk and panic time. If that is what is really happening in Hubei I would quarantine 10% of the world's population).
Btw it's not too far off that right now 10% of world's population is more or less under some level of quarantine.
I think this year will be remembered by many as "the year my grandfather died of pneumonia."
It's likely that 90% of the infections are asymptomatic, or close enough to be mistaken for a bad cold. That's bad, because such people are hard to quarantine, but it's good, because it means the true fatality rate may just be 0.2%.
Not that 0.2% of five billion wouldn't still be a horrible tragedy.
I would suggest that each dead person is mourned by approximately the same number of people, and therefore absolute units are more appropriate.
Also, the world of 1918 was much less interconnected. It's not clear if that makes losing n% of the population better or worse, but I would bet on worse.
Interviews of crematoriums in China claim that two thirds of the bodies they are picking up are from homes, not hospitals.
China is an outlier because their health system is overworked.
[1] https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situati...
[1] https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situati... [2] https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-...
2 weeks ago talking about potential upcoming supply line issues and speculating about the virus / disease (most of what turned out to be true) got me and others banned, censored, quarantined (because of "spreading misinformation") and even threatened over PMs on several of the other social networks.
You, the viewer, decide!
E.g. dropping sperm counts in men. Is that dropping in all men? Or is it a side effect of rising obesity in enough men to dent the average?
Is the mortality 1/500 here because a good health 30 year old has a 1/500 chance of dying? Or because the 1/100 30 year olds with poor health have a 1/5 chance of dying?
You get something like .4% for the 30-40 age range. This was a crude estimate... but that's why I say ballpark. It also could go up/down as we get more data.
I agree the risk here is considerably high. People just don't understand scale well. Assuming the R0 is high, it could eventually sweep through the majority of the population. IIRC, the 1918 flu pandemic is estimated to have infected 80% of the population. So in the US alone that's 6,000,000 deaths, or one Sept 11. like attack every day for 200 days.
For a reasonably accurate estimate you need to look at percentage of total infections detected, and the lag between detection and death. Using say 50% detection rate and 7 days between detection and death you get 2119 / (63,851 / 0.5) = 1.7% fatality rate. That’s about as optimistic as I think is reasonable.
PS: A 50% detection rate may be high or low, but that’s the real unknown.
Will mortality rate come down? Very likely. But it may not... And if not, what is the outcome at scale?
As for permanent lung damage, it's hard to say. From what I've read about ARDS, as expected, if you're young, lung function and general physical function can improve back close to baseline over time (e.g. 5 years). So it's not like you're going to be confined to a rocking chair but you won't be winning any marathons either.
EDIT: sourced: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulmonary_fibrosis which we saw in SARS coronavirus-induced pulmonary fibrosis.
> There is no known cure. [...] Life expectancy is generally less than five years.
No one under 10 has died from it, and only one person under 20. The mortality rate for people under 50 is about .2% (compared to 2.3% for all cases).
So far it's basically a logarithmic function of age.
The lung damage piece is obviously frightening, and we obviously still have a lot to learn about it as we're not sure why children are able to fend it off so easily yet.
11.5 is 2.3% of 500, thus 23 out of every 1000 would die at that rate if accurate.
> That helps explain why the COVID-19 epidemic has killed more than 1,800 people, surpassing the SARS death toll in a matter of weeks. While the death rate for COVID-19 appears to be a fifth of SARS, the novel coronavirus has spread faster.
That is bungled logic.
1. COVID-19 is very severe.
2. Because COVID-19 is so severe, in just few weeks it has killed more people than another famous severe disease SARS.
3. But wait, the death rate of COVID-19 is only 1/5th that of SARS, so it is actually less severe.
4. Right, okay, so COVID-19 has killed more people than SARS because it spreads faster. Why were we comparing SARS and COVID-19 severity again?
R0 and lethality are unrelated. COVID-19 has a higher R0 and a lower lethality than SARS.
COVID-19 has a higher lethality than the common cold.
Those are the data points I extracted from what you've quoted.
"Socrates is a man. Socrates is mortal. Therefore, all men are mortal."
Here, we can verify the facts that Socrates is a man, that Socrates is mortal and that all men are mortal.
So as far as "extracting data points" goes, everything is cool. We just ignore how the data points are related together, and pretend we don't see funny terms like "therefore", or "that explains why" and such.
If we just look for data points to extract, we are not engaging the arguments, though, It's an understandable reaction to the world though, in which we are bombarded on all sides by material trying to persuade us to believe or do something.
> R0 and lethality are unrelated.
Calling the bluff. You didn't extract this data point from the quote: it's something you already know. Nothing like vocabulary you're using appears in the quote.
Does that make sense?