Chinese Wuhan Virus

[confused2]

From https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-51955509

How long are you ill for?
For four out of five people Covid-19 will be a mild disease, a bit like flu.
Symptoms include a fever and dry cough. You may feel grotty for a few days but you should be back to normal within a week or so of symptoms appearing.
Lots of people may not even know that they are infected - we are unsure about this but it would be very positive news if that is the case because it would build up the level of so-called herd immunity in society.
If the virus gets well established in the lungs it can cause breathing difficulties and pneumonia. About one in seven people may need hospital treatment, and about one in two critical care - such things as a ventilator and oxygen.
In China, those who got most sick were in hospital for around three weeks. While many died, the vast majority of those who fall ill will recover, even if they are elderly or have underlying health conditions.

So (if correct) around 7% will need a ventilator [for how long?]. Without enough ventilators to go round you have to unplug someone so the next person can be ventilated. Nobody wants to be the decider or the decidee.

[stryder]

From https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-51955509

How long are you ill for?
For four out of five people Covid-19 will be a mild disease, a bit like flu.
Symptoms include a fever and dry cough. You may feel grotty for a few days but you should be back to normal within a week or so of symptoms appearing.
Lots of people may not even know that they are infected - we are unsure about this but it would be very positive news if that is the case because it would build up the level of so-called herd immunity in society.
If the virus gets well established in the lungs it can cause breathing difficulties and pneumonia. About one in seven people may need hospital treatment, and about one in two critical care - such things as a ventilator and oxygen.
In China, those who got most sick were in hospital for around three weeks. While many died, the vast majority of those who fall ill will recover, even if they are elderly or have underlying health conditions.

So (if correct) around 7% will need a ventilator [for how long?]. Without enough ventilators to go round you have to unplug someone so the next person can be ventilated. Nobody wants to be the decider or the decidee.

The problem with the figures is how it's applied. For instance is that one in seven people that contract the virus will need ventilators?, or one in seven people that have it turn to a respiratory problem will need ventilators?

If it's the latter the number of ventilators necessary is lesser.

[confused2]

It is clumsy but my interpretation (could be wrong) is:-
"and about one in two [of the one in seven hospitalised] critical care - such things as a ventilator and oxygen."
So half of 1 in 7 is 1 in 14 or 7% needing such things as a ventilator [and oxygen].

If correct then UK cases (2,600 - mostly recent) will require 180 ventilators doubling every few days - unless something changes.

[Secular Sanity]

I've had an idea.
The general plan seems to be to keep everyone locked up.
Alternative.
While the numbers are relatively small.
Young fit and unattached are invited to coronavirus parties where they are deliberately infected.
14 days (maybe a bit more) later you have a group who are immune and no longer carrying the virus.
They would (also) be volunteering to do all kinds of things (maybe for good money).
Controlled herd immunity.
Kinda beats sitting at home waiting for a vaccine to arrive.
I'd do it.

I can see where you got this idea from but I think that we should address the possible misconceptions.

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/2XRc389TvG8

What is Herd Immunity and Could it Stop the Coronavirus?

Scientists have pointed out that if COVID-19 is allowed to spread, there will be fewer younger people to look after the vulnerable.

"Intentionally allowing the virus to spread requires accepting that people will die in the short term, in part due to hospitals and the health system being overwhelmed," Dr Silva says.

British virologist Professor John Oxford from Queen Mary University of London said letting the virus spread also takes governments into murky ethical waters.

"As a virologist, I'm totally unnerved by it. I don't like it, I say it's got a touch of eugenics, which I'm frightened about," he says.

"I feel nerve-wracked about it, I think it's kind of a huge experiment when you're indulging letting the virus go like this, rip through the community. People will die. What will their relatives say?

"The whole thing is a bit of a farce — and a dangerous farce."

The UK has abandoned its more relaxed approach to coronavirus after researchers warned that 250,000 people would die as a result.

The Imperial College London told Prime Minister Boris Johnson in a briefing at Number 10 that trying to achieve herd immunity by allowing the virus to spread was unsafe.

This is the part that's troubling me, though. This might be a big misconception.

"Historians believe the second wave of the Spanish flu pandemic in mid-1918 was the most devastating because few people became immune to it during the first wave. Britain's chief science advisor said herd immunity would prevent a similar situation if coronavirus was to disappear but then re-emerge."

Some are suggesting that those who were infected in the mild first wave remained susceptible to infection in the deadly second wave in the fall, but were protected from death. Some virologists believe that immunity from the first wave is inconclusive because we don't have any samples from the first or third wave. We only have samples from the second wave, which was reconstructed, but only positive RNA samples from all three waves could conclude whether or not immunity would follow. 

Correct me if I'm wrong.

[confused2]

Apparently snowflakes are calling it the 'Boomer remover'. I fail to see any humour in that and nor, I suspect, will they when they find anything they might have hoped to inherit will become the property of a troop of gorillas somewhere in darkest Africa.

[Yazata]

The US State Department has just issued its highest Level Four 'do not travel' warning for all foreign travel. All Americans currently abroad are advised to return to the US immediately, unless they are prepared to remain where they are "indefinitely". The warning says that other countries are closing their borders without warning, international air travel is shutting down, and ability to travel is already severely reduced. US embassies and consulates are reducing staff and their ability to help US citizens abroad is shrinking.

World War Z... in real life. (Except without the zombies.)

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/...issue.html

---

So (if correct) around 7% will need a ventilator [for how long?].

That's an excellent question. The Chinese, who saw the first cases, didn't seem to want to talk about that. The US CDC guidance to doctors didn't say either. 

Here's their current FAQs for the general public

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nco...4387482747

And for healthcare professionals

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/faq.html

The most straightforward answer is that they just don't know. But given that this thing appeared in China in December, and given that there's lots of talk about 'recoveries', they must have some clinical experience with what the course of the illness typically is. So, the skeptic in me speculates that they must know more than they are saying. Which in turn suggests that the news might not be good. I'm thinking that people linger on in ICUs with tubes down their throats for weeks, until they either gradually recover or until they experience organ failure, sepsis and death.

Without enough ventilators to go round you have to unplug someone so the next person can be ventilated. Nobody wants to be the decider or the decidee.

China reached that point and now Italy seems to be. It's basically triage, I guess. Refuse treatment to the mildest cases who will probably recover anyway, just quarantine them for as long as necessary. And refuse treatment to the cases with the worst prospects, who are likely to die even if they receive aggressive treatment. That way they can save treatment resources for those who might have a bad outcome if they aren't treated, but are most likely to respond to treatment.

It's brutal, but it's how military hospitals function in wartime.

[Yazata]

Apparently snowflakes are calling it the 'Boomer remover'. I fail to see any humour in that and nor, I suspect, will they when they find anything they might have hoped to inherit will become the property of a troop of gorillas somewhere in darkest Africa.

Us boomers can get revenge by enacting huge trillion dollar recovery efforts to keep vital industries, small business and all the out-of-work workers from going broke when the world's economy is effectively shut down for something like a year. And pay for it by adding to the national debt. We won't have to pay for any of it, the kids will.

Besides, the CDC says that 38% of people hospitalized with Covid-19 are between the age of 20 and 45. Some of them even require aggressive ICU care. It's just that they have a better chance of recovering and are less likely to be among the deaths.

So it's not like they are invincible and the disease is somebody else's problem. It's their problem if the hospitals reach capacity and sick kids can't receive the hospital care they might very well need. That would lead to death rates rising among younger people too.

[Secular Sanity]

Apparently snowflakes are calling it the 'Boomer remover'. I fail to see any humour in that and nor, I suspect, will they when they find anything they might have hoped to inherit will become the property of a troop of gorillas somewhere in darkest Africa.

Sorry, guys, but the name is a little catchy. 'Boomer remover'  

Some of those little millennials are pretty clever, aren’t they? A virus shouldn’t be adding fuel to a generational war, though, that’s for sure.

Good news is that an at home test will be available to consumers this Monday. Bad news is that the CEO and founder of the company is one of them…a millennial. She’s a smart one, though.

Coronavirus (COVID-19): Our part in fighting the virus

Heard that Musk is changing his tune and offering to make ventilators. I hope GM or Ford don’t one-up him. Wouldn’t want another defamation suit.

[Yazata]

Today's news is that both New York and California have announced statewide "shelter in place" orders. That's 55-60 million people including America's largest (NYC) and second largest (LA) metropolitan areas. Probably 20% of the US economy right there. Reportedly Illinois is going to do it too. (Another 10+ million and America's third largest metropolitan area (Chicago).

Edit: The Illinois order was announced this afternoon.

This does seem to be an urban disease so far. Last I heard, states like the Dakotas, Montana, Idaho and Wyoming each have only a small handful of cases. It seems to have been brought into the US by travelers from China, and these were most likely headed for the large cities.

[Secular Sanity]

Maybe the home test kits aren’t such a good idea after all. From what I’ve been reading, there’s a lot of reports of false negatives, which could complicate the efforts to control the virus. They’re saying the tests are reliable for people with symptoms but in asymptomatic people not so much. The false negatives might give them more confidence to head out into the community.

Some have questioned the accuracy of the statistics released by the Chinese government regarding the reported number of cases and deaths due to the outbreak. Now there are concerns about the accuracy of the laboratory tests used to confirm diagnoses.

Reports suggest some people test negative up to six times even though they are infected with the virus, according to the BBC and Chinese media. Such was the case with Dr. Li Wenliang, the ophthalmologist who first identified the outbreak and was reprimanded by Chinese authorities when he tried to warn others.

False-negative test results, where patients are told they do not have a condition when they actually do, cause several problems. Patients may be turned away from hospitals and medical facilities when they require care. They may infect others at home, work, school, or in the community. Patients' conditions may also worsen without treatment.

When faced with a highly infectious, potentially deadly pathogen, even a small number of false negatives can have a potentially serious and widespread impact on the larger population.

https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/...key=228250