Coronavirus - worldwide spread and control

I am probably missing something here, but what makes them think the numbers infected will stop at 60%, or 80%, and why?

I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be nearly 100%, only missing those who were, and remain, in isolation when this started in their area. So people doing survivor type tv programs, people living in a tent in the middle of a dessert - that sort of thing.

But if this thing is as infectious as they seem to think, what stops it at 80%?

 

It's based on network of transmission and the relationship between those who are immune due to prior infection and those who are not. The faster it moves through the community, the more people who will be infected. Slowing it down could limit it to less than 60% for some years at least.

 

Is anyone else starting to feel a creeping sense of terror or is it just me?

 

My apologies to this man for not hearing the full story.

 

High infection rates are most dangerous when almost nobody is infected. Once most are infected its much less likely to spread. Most will no longer be infectious, and most in the population should be immune. It might indeed close on 100% at peak infection, or it might be 50%, or much lower, like 20%. A huge factor here is how much we do to contain it and slow transmission. I think trying to keep it under 1% has now already failed.

If we can isolate and limit for a month or longer then infection rates should be much lower. Fewer and fewer people will be left to infect others. We do however need the capacity to potentially test millions of people, and it needs to be part of a public screening program. This is public health, not best viewed as personal health.

My biggest concern is that with enough millions infected the virus will have a high risk of mutating, creating new strains, and maybe becoming endemic. Though in the endemic case, over a long time anyway, viruses typically become much less virulent. The less virulent strains out-spread the highly virulent ones, and then dominate. There is also likely to be some degree of partial immunity to similar strains. Its a bit like cowpox creating some immunity to smallpox.

The common cold is ancient, and well adapted to humans. Its not very virulent. In time this might be the future of any Corona virus. Its the early phases, with a new virus, that are the most dangerous.

 

A virus like this that can completely overwhelm our hospital systems is like nothing that I can remember in my lifetime, at least what I can remember of it. So it is very concerning.

I'm getting tired so I'm going to try to take a break from reading and hearing about it for a bit.

 

@Leila very interesting article. It’s true, countries like the UK can’t afford to just flatten the curve, it’s not enough.

Italy is seeing more and more younger people sick. Self treating at home and then some time later get sicker. (How could the UK have thought it’s ok to let the infection spread without knowing anything about how the virus affects people?)
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...le-hospital-luca-lorini-bergamo-a9402531.html

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1239239417715396609


https://twitter.com/user/status/1239046190857150465

 

From the twitter thread scientists letter
https://twitter.com/user/status/1239089310558797825

 

On this topic, I saw this very interesting and illuminating thread. I’m posting it here. It’s by a statistics professor.

Essentially it seems the assumptions by the UK govt for example, are caused by the fact that they think Wuhan beat the virus in part due to herd immunity. The assumption of needing to have herd immunity to beat this virus, is perhaps what leads to needing to have an 80% figure.

But that’s not actually the case. And in places like China and South Korea, they got their cases under control by actually getting the Re number as close to 0 as possible. I’ve started halfway through the thread but clicking on it you can also navigate to the top post if you wish.


Ie, my understanding is, the UK govt are assuming:
1) Wuhan beat the virus by having herd immunity: not true
2)Herd immunity through transmission has to occur to beat the virus: not true
3) Since 80% of people will get infected anyway, we might as well let 60% get infected: not true

https://twitter.com/user/status/1239049763527540738


https://twitter.com/user/status/1239049768732590081


https://twitter.com/user/status/1239049770922061824


https://twitter.com/user/status/1239049779314900992



https://twitter.com/user/status/1239049781596557312

 

Thank you. I had come across that graph before but to me it made very little sense. The green curve (ie the one without a second peak) relies on social distancing. Ie the very thing that the government isn’t doing!

Also professor Ian Donald’s tweets. I find that very interesting and actually quite sinister. Especially the part about using children as an infection “tool”, turning the tap “on and off”. But tellingly this also relies on the assumption that 80% of the population will inevitably get the virus anyway. This assumption isn’t really borne out by the evidence from what I can understand. China and South Korea never worked on that assumption. I have no idea why the UK officials got this idea.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1238518383693496320

 

I've been having an eery feeling in my stomach for weeks that got better when our government and people around me finally acknowledged that this is serious. And the media stopped mocking this as "hysteria".

I don't know what it is that in crisis people either panic (me) or go into denial. Not much in between.

It feels very surreal to have this invisible threat around everything especially now with spring coming.

I am too worried about what happens to society/social stability with people losing their jobs and decline of health care and possibly certain goods/services getting scarce.

 

Succinct video re social distancing
https://twitter.com/user/status/1239255917943820289

 

Former director of WHO, last night

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...egy-questions-unanswered-coronavirus-outbreak

 

There are already news articles in Sweden about how the recently closed borders between many EU countries are negatively affecting deliveries of much needed medical supplies to Sweden. They are not getting through Source

Other news articles (with pictures of empty shelves) are telling people to stop panic buying food, saying "there are no problems with deliveries or availability of goods, there won't be any problems, everything is fine"...

ETA to clarify, Sweden has not closed its borders.

 

One of the first infected people in Sweden tells his story. About symptoms, trying to get tested, advice changing over time etc.

https://kvartal.se/artiklar/vi-var-bland-de-forsta-som-fick-corona/