new coronavirus outbreak China, Korea, USA - mod warnings in OP (updated 24/02/20)

littlemac1980 · 19-02-2020 08:59PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Its nonsense to suggest it isnt getting any coverage and simply a case of twisting reality to fit some crazy conspiracy theories.

You know I appreciate your comment and of course there are articles now, but really you need to jump back a couple of weeks to truly understand the context of what I am referring to. Many posters here have been following this for 3 weeks +.

God be with the days Sky News would do 24/7 cover of non-issues - could have done with some coverage from the beginning, but this incident has been a cacophony of watching the horse bolt as you wonder who exactly is supposed to be closing the gate.

Mic 1972 · 19-02-2020 09:02PM

wadacrack wrote: »

What is your point about the 2%. Do you genuinely think that is low? 1 in 50 will die so its obviously not comparable to the flu

actually 1 in 50 have died so far while 75% of people infected are still open cases. Do you think that out of those 75% of people (46,000) no one else is going to die?

ceadaoin. · 19-02-2020 09:03PM

littlemac1980 wrote: »

You know I appreciate your comment and of course there are articles now, but really you need to jump back a couple of weeks to truly understand the context of what I am referring to. Many posters here have been following this for 3 weeks +.

God be with the days Sky News would do 24/7 cover of non-issues - could have done with some coverage from the beginning, but this incident has been a cacophony of watching the horse bolt as you wonder who exactly is supposed to be closing the gate.

Yeah I have been following this all that time too. There have been articles and tv coverage since then, even on my local news channel here in the US. Maybe it's been different tv wise where you are but anyone could find articles online. if they keep up to date with the news it would be hard not to notice.

Call Me Jimmy · 19-02-2020 09:04PM

BloodBath wrote: »

Like yourself?

You are 1 of the people who has been called out for misrepresenting the numbers several times already saying the death rate was 12% or higher when in fact it's 2.3% of "confirmed cases" only at the moment with no estimate of unconfirmed recoveries accounted into that figure at all which means it's far below 2.3%

Just out of interest, do you know for that 2.3% calculation, does it include the Chinese figures?

EDIT: Nevermind just saw the previous post with the info.

Mic 1972 · 19-02-2020 09:04PM

BloodBath wrote: »

But you have been proven to be wrong several times already in both your calculations and your logic.

But you work with numbers and statistics so you know better right?

No I haven't been proven wrong
yes i understand numbers

And my calculations are actually taken from Worldometer which contains a dedicated section on how to calculate death rate. I posted the link several times

SeaBreezes · 19-02-2020 09:04PM

littlemac1980 wrote: »

What's with all this non-sense about people panicking? The vast majority of the posts I've read on this forum have been very sensible and reasonable. The only ones that strike me as dumb are those that are insisting that Covid-19 is no worse than the flu. That position has been clearly incorrect from the outset and anyone trying to maintain that at this stage is either trolling or needs to have someone help them understand the fundamental metrics - which even based on the "official" Chinese numbers are very easy to interpret vis-a-vis a comparative analysis. I wouldn't even be bothered responding to those posters at this stage. It's just mindless repetition without any rational basis.

A previous poster mentioned MSM has been very slow to publish meaningful articles about the virus/outbreak/potential pandemic. I agree!

The current situation has shown up the true nature of our now "Big Brother" global cyber community where information can now be rationed out via major Techological corporations and seemingly at their entire discretion.

With how little MSM attention this is getting one might almost begin to wonder if the economic impact of the outbreak in China might somehow have a negative impact on Google/Facebook et al. share prices, how might that ever be possible? That would surely require the Chinese economy to be an integral (& sizeable) part of the Global economy. But even if that was the case, then there would also need to be some weird market mechanism whereby share prices could somehow fluctuate based on consumer/purchaser confidence. What a weird world that would be to live in, huh? People could get rich (and poor) simply through speculation... of course only in so far as the major Internet players could control the dissemination of information. It would make no sense to allow those type of companies to also be publicly floated companies right?

How to manage the narrative:
https://m.theepochtimes.com/exclusive-chinese-regime-deploys-1600-internet-trolls-to-suppress-information-on-coronavirus_3242454.html/amp?__twitter_impression=true

The propaganda department in virus-stricken Hubei Province has engaged over 1,600 censors to scrub the internet of “sensitive” information relating to the coronavirus outbreak, according to an internal document obtained by The Epoch Times.

wadacrack · 19-02-2020 09:06PM

Mic 1972 wrote: »

actually 1 in 50 have died so far while 75% of people infected are still open cases. Do you think that out of those 75% of people (46,000) no one else is going to die?

That has nothing to do with what I asked you. You compared a virus with a 2% death rate to the flu? Its strange as the flu is no where near that rate

Fr_Dougal · 19-02-2020 09:07PM

Mic 1972 wrote: »

No I haven't been proven wrong
yes i understand numbers

And my calculations are actually taken from Worldometer which contains a dedicated section on how to calculate death rate. I posted the link several times

You’re wasting your time with that poster.

Mic 1972 · 19-02-2020 09:10PM

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

You’re wasting your time with that poster.

edit

Mic 1972 · 19-02-2020 09:12PM

wadacrack wrote: »

That has nothing to do with what I asked you. You compared a virus with a 2% death rate to the flu? Its strange as the flu is no where near that rate

you are correct, the flue is lower, I'm referring to people comparing this to a flue because of low death rates. Coronavirus doesn't have a low death rate when you look at the actual deaths out of closed cases

cnocbui · 19-02-2020 09:13PM

SeaBreezes wrote: »

How to manage the narrative:
https://m.theepochtimes.com/exclusive-chinese-regime-deploys-1600-internet-trolls-to-suppress-information-on-coronavirus_3242454.html/amp?__twitter_impression=true

The propaganda department in virus-stricken Hubei Province has engaged over 1,600 censors to scrub the internet of “sensitive” information relating to the coronavirus outbreak, according to an internal document obtained by The Epoch Times.

Is there a list? Does one of them go by 'Snow Garden'?

Fr_Dougal · 19-02-2020 09:15PM

Mic 1972 wrote: »

edit

Not you, the poster who doesn’t believe the official CFR of 2.1%.

Duke of Url · 19-02-2020 09:17PM

wadacrack wrote: »

What is your point about the 2%. Do you genuinely think that is low? 1 in 50 will die so its obviously not comparable to the flu

1 in 50 people with COVID19 will die is not proven.

fritzelly · 19-02-2020 09:23PM

Duke of Url wrote: »

1 in 50 people with COVID19 will die is not proven.

Outside Hubei it is considerably lower - in other Chinese provinces its averaging about 1% if not lower

Drumpot · 19-02-2020 09:31PM

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.rte.ie/amp/1116379/

Good to see this start to be discussed more by people in authority.

Speaking on RTÉ's Drivetime, Dr Ronan Glynn reiterated the view of the department that he "would not be surprised if Ireland had a confirmed case of the virus."

No panic , nothing to get overly concerned about right now but if it comes here, we are prepared. Good message to start communicating. I wonder have the headlines about Irish people on infected ships pushed them to start this sort of exercise, no harm if it did.

Duke of Url · 19-02-2020 09:36PM

fritzelly wrote: »

Outside Hubei it is considerably lower - in other Chinese provinces its averaging about 1% if not lower

It’s still not proven. You can’t have a % death rate without knowing how many people have the virus.

They don’t know how many people would test positive in Habei because they can’t test everyone.

It’s believed that the comfirmed cases represents a tiny % of the overall number of people who would test positive if you tested the whole population of Habei.

BloodBath · 19-02-2020 09:39PM

Mic 1972 wrote: »

actually 1 in 50 have died so far while 75% of people infected are still open cases. Do you think that out of those 75% of people (46,000) no one else is going to die?

I pointed out to your failure in logic and statistics earlier. Here it is again.

As the death rate goes up in that number so too will the infected and recovered in somewhat the same proportion. The % trend however is downwards. How much of this is down to Chinese intervention is open to debate.

It also does not take into account unconfirmed cases which some groups are estimating but it is not accounted for at all by the WHO. It's almost impossible to calculate this number but it should be at least 100% of the confirmed cases looking at similar infections.

This will increase the R0 number and lower the death rate when they can somewhat estimate it. It will never be accurate though.

wadacrack wrote: »

That has nothing to do with what I asked you. You compared a virus with a 2% death rate to the flu? Its strange as the flu is no where near that rate

As it's been pointed out to you and others several times already the flu number of 0.1% takes into account an estimate of undiagnosed infections which far exceeds the confirmed ones. The corona number is only from confirmed cases with no use of an estimate of an unconfirmed %.

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

You’re wasting your time with that poster.

I'm wasting my time with you and others here who are clueless.

Fr_Dougal · 19-02-2020 09:44PM

Drumpot wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.rte.ie/amp/1116379/

Good to see this start to be discussed more by people in authority.

Speaking on RTÉ's Drivetime, Dr Ronan Glynn reiterated the view of the department that he "would not be surprised if Ireland had a confirmed case of the virus."

No panic , nothing to get overly concerned about right now but if it comes here, we are prepared. Good message to start communicating. I wonder have the headlines about Irish people on infected ships pushed them to start this sort of exercise, no harm if it did.

Good article. He has also confirmed the death rate.

at the moment the fatality rate of Covid-19 is 2%."

fritzelly · 19-02-2020 09:48PM

Duke of Url wrote: »

It’s still not proven. You can’t have a % death rate without knowing how many people have the virus.

They don’t know how many people would test positive in Habei because they can’t test everyone.

It’s believed that the comfirmed cases represents a tiny % of the overall number of people who would test positive if you tested the whole population of Habei.

They are using the 2.x% based on the total everywhere

Remove Hubei from the equation since outside it deaths are minuscule then you get a CFR 0.7%

That is a much happier number - unless deaths suddenly ramp up everywhere else that is a more realistic figure. Forget Hubei as it is skewing the ratio's for something that is centered on itself

Charles Babbage · 19-02-2020 09:54PM

The more severe cases may respond to treatment, in Hubei the system is overloaded, while treatment is possible in other parts of China and in Singapore etc.

4068ac1elhodqr · 19-02-2020 09:55PM

No data is definate, or will ever be final, for this dynamic event.
However the best available large set of data shows for Hubei (largest region with longest duration)
https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6

62k currently confirmed, with most in an unknown state
I..e 'status:pending' (each case may take weeks or perhaps months before final status can be assigned)

15k recovered and 2k dead
So of the 'final status' we know of, 13.333% didn't ever recover.

igCorcaigh · 19-02-2020 09:58PM

Charles Babbage wrote: »

The more severe cases may respond to treatment, in Hubei the system is overloaded, while treatment is possible in other parts of China and in Singapore etc.

Yes, that's what I'm thinking.

But every health system will surely get overloaded if the ratio of severe cases of around 10 to 20 pc keep up like this.

That's my concern.

igCorcaigh · 19-02-2020 10:00PM

Legacy Better Explosion wrote: »

No data is definate, or will ever be final, for this dynamic event.
However the best available large set of data shows for Hubei (largest region with longest duration)
https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6

62k currently confirmed, with most in an unknown state
I..e 'status:pending' (each case may take weeks or perhaps months before final status can be assigned)

15k recovered and 2k dead
So of the 'final status' we know of, 13.333% didn't ever recover.

Takes time for the numbers to settle. Recovery rate will be high I'm sure.

19-02-2020 10:08PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

But no one is talking about it and its a huge coverup according to others

You just complained about a headline saying killer virus, is it not a killer virus? At least the daily mail offers a different view on the issue

SeaBreezes · 19-02-2020 10:13PM

https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200219-sitrep-30-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=6e50645_2

WHO Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Situation Report – 29 Feb 19..
WHO is working with an international network of statisticians and mathematical modelers to estimate key epidemiologic parameters of COVID19, such as the incubation period (the time between infection and symptom onset), case fatality ratio (CFR, the proportion of cases that die), and the serial interval (the time between symptom onset of a primary and secondary case). Reports of current analyses that have estimated these parameters are provided in this Situation Report as a summary of currently available evidence. These values should be considered preliminary and parameters will likely be updated as more information becomes available.

Preliminary estimates of median incubation period are 5-6 days (ranging from 0-14 days) and estimates for the serial interval range from 4.4 to 7.5 days

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, 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.

(They skip past the fact all they have to do, to get a better idea, is factor in the time lag to closed cases, and estimate the number of cases 3 weeks(ish) before, but everyone seems to be fudging that issue, so it must be a scary number, otherwise it would be all over every release.(IMO))

Anyway, here is it, the latest and greatest from WHO..

Edit: Comments in Twitter make me laugh/cry:

- When do we expect the findings from the team
- Apparently after half the world's population has it.

whiskeyman · 19-02-2020 10:13PM

Drumpot wrote: »

Speaking on RTÉ's Drivetime, Dr Ronan Glynn reiterated the view of the department that he "would not be surprised if Ireland had a confirmed case of the virus."

No panic , nothing to get overly concerned about right now but if it comes here, we are prepared. Good message to start communicating. I wonder have the headlines about Irish people on infected ships pushed them to start this sort of exercise, no harm if it did.

I just saw a clip of him on the RTE 9 news.
He said if you have symptoms, to call 999 or your GP!!!

WTF??

4068ac1elhodqr · 19-02-2020 10:15PM

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Takes time for the numbers to settle. Recovery rate will be high I'm sure.

Largely agree 13% is too high, if someone's going to pass, it may happen within the early weeks, rather than months. 2-5% may be more realistic.

But there is also a risk of 'demand overload' for oxygen machines, which won't help in most situations. The young may be given priority, who knows for sure, again it can depend on external contexts and resource availability.

When the Titanic went down, they only saved the good lookin wimin, a few super wealthy chaps and most of the young uns, Leonardo sank.

RebelButtMunch · 19-02-2020 10:15PM

whiskeyman wrote: »

I just saw a clip of his on the RTE 9 news.
He said if you have symptoms, to call 999 or your GP!!!

WTF??

Seems ok to me. What do you think they should do?

givyjoe · 19-02-2020 10:16PM

RebelButtMunch wrote: »

Seems ok to me. What do you think they should do?

Call Joe Duffy

Duke of Url · 19-02-2020 10:18PM

fritzelly wrote: »

They are using the 2.x% based on the total everywhere

Remove Hubei from the equation since outside it deaths are minuscule then you get a CFR 0.7%

That is a much happier number - unless deaths suddenly ramp up everywhere else that is a more realistic figure. Forget Hubei as it is skewing the ratio's for something that is centered on itself

The death rate is only based on confirmed cases of people who tested positive by medical staff.

Analysis suggests that the confirmed cases only represent around 5 - 10% of the real number of people who have contracted COVID19 but have not been tested.

This would drop the actual death rate to 0.3% or lower