according to various models the infection rate should shift from exponential growth to an s-curve function where growth rapidly falls off, the first stage of containment, somewhere around the 15th. the 17th is the monday after that, so many schools and business and cities are planning for everyone to just stay home until the 17th (at least).
>according to various models the infection rate should shift from exponential growth to an s-curve function where growth rapidly falls off
I'm sort of skeptical of such models because the quality of their output is entirely dependent on the data coming in. There were anecdotal accounts of hospitals in China running out of test kits. Limited test kits -> limited diagnosis -> underreported infection numbers -> misleading models. Garbage in, garbage out.
Infections are increasing approximately 20% per day.
When you see the new daily infection rate drop to 10% or less then that's a pretty good signal that we're reaching the top of the S-curve and nearing containment.
The big question is if that will happen before healthcare and quarantine capacity is exceeded.
Couldn't that thinking be flawed, though? I mean, it's only not exponential now because of effective containment. You have to maintain containment until the disease no longer exists. If you don't do that, and the disease exists, then the virus will spread exponentially as soon as containment stops.
It seems to me that the "various models" assume the non-existence of containment attempts. In that case, you have to be careful you're not drawing the wrong conclusions.
The number of deaths is growing exponentially. As of January 25th, there were 41 deaths total [1]. By January 26th that number had risen to 56 [2]. Now, on February 2nd the number is 304, an increase of 45 over the past 24 hours [3].
More people have died from this virus in the past 24 hours than all of 2019 and the 3 weeks in January prior to the 25th, combined. Now do you see why there is reason for alarm? There were only 1320 confirmed cases just over a week and a half ago, globally. Now the number has increased by 2604 in the past day!
China has implemented drastic containment measures and many foreign companies have sharply cut business they do in China.
Emergency braking of Chinese commerce will hit the global economy hard, no matter how low the death rate is believed to be, because fatalities aren't the driver of the economic impact.
According to this link there was 14451 cases in China, even if statistically insignificant (something like 0.001%) it's a bit much for my taste, especially if we consider that the Chinese authorities could have massively downplayed the number of infected persons.
A virus with R0 of 2 and a mortality rate of 2% would kill 1% of the world population if no containment measures are taken. That would be 75 million people.
Thanks, TIL. For those like me who paused at R₀ (r-naught), quote from wiki[1]:
> R-naught is the average number of people infected from one other person, for example, Ebola has an r-naught of two, so on average, a person who has Ebola will pass it on to two other people.
See “Limitations of R₀” too: when solely derived from math models, “values [of R₀] should be used with caution” and “this severely limits its usefulness.”.
As I understand, take it for what it is: model not gospel.
Yes, quarantines and public awareness will reduce the spread quite significantly. Hopefully to the point that less than one person gets infected per sick individual.
Chinese CDC reported that there were only 144 flu-caused deaths in 2018 (https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1177725.shtml). So if we are to trust China's numbers, then the Wuhan virus has already caused twice as many deaths as the flu did in an entire year.
deaths are absolutely the wrong metric to focus on at this point.
as you said, the normal flu is plenty deadly. even if we assumed that variable was break-even, what matters now is the rate of infection transmission and growth.
right now it is still exponential. we can only hope for the bend in a sigmoid curve to come soon, but we haven't seen it yet.
now on top of the fact that it is still exponential is the greatest crackdown on freedom of movement we've ever seen. a side affect of china's massive population is basically anything new they do becomes the biggest X we've ever seen. dozens of cities that are tens of times larger than most american cities on various levels of lockdown/quarantine. this is already historic.
> what matters now is the rate of infection transmission and growth
I don't think it's the right metric to focus either.
The survivability rate once infected is probably the most important.
I believe that medias business model (pay per click) force them to jump on and exaggerate any threat so as to get more views. It's not the first time and sadly not the last that we see such a thing.
I could be wrong but I don't think it's the end of the world ;-)
Survivability is important but I believe it's a component of what is important, not the only or even most important factor. You must also consider the infectivity rate.
If one infected person infects, on average, less than one other person, the disease will dwindle and die. It could kill 100% of infected people, but it would kill only a small and decreasing number over time.
Conversely, an infectious disease, where one infected person will infect three others on average, will spread quickly. Even if this disease has a more modest fatality rate, suppose it kills only 5% of infected, it could wind up killing tens of millions, if not more.
In this case, I think the mainstream media is actually understating the danger, by comparing it to the flu to suggest it's not so bad, pointing out how SARS was worse, or claiming that concerns over nCoV are inspired by xenophobia. The academic and medical sources I've been reading tell of high infectivity rates, that it's contagious while asymptomatic, that China is underreporting infections and death, and so on.
You're right that this is probably not the end of the world. This is probably not going to be a major epidemic like The Spanish Flu. However, most potential risks don't materialize. If, for any potential risk, you assume it won't happen, you'll usually be right, but, because of the huge downside of being wrong, that's not a great pattern to follow.
This is a somewhat different argument than the parent comment. The parent comment, as I read it, says that news of the virus is sensationalized. This says it's below your current threshold to act.
When you should take actions to mitigate risks depends on where you are and what resources you have available and what else you are dealing with. Where I am, we have had one case of the virus and I expect we have an above average amount of people recently in China.
I find it quite comforting to read about the virus so I can understand it and take steps to mitigate what I think are the likely risks. Reading the advice of medical experts has helped me take what I hope are sensible precautions and develop a good strategy for what to do if something bad happens with my family.
I have gathered enough food for my household to eat for a month, some water, stocked our medicine cabinet with things that are useful for dealing with the symptoms of the virus, a couple boxes of N95 surgical masks, and, maybe a bit more out there - I've got a pulse oximeter and a stethoscope and I've practiced listening to normal lung sounds and made sure I can use the oximeter.
If the virus sets in where I am, my household will shelter in place and stay inside. If we get sick we will stay home, since I know hospitals can't do more than treat the symptoms and going to hospitals will expose you to other pathogens including pneumonia which seems to kill many people with the virus. I will use the oximeter to detect a drop in blood oxygen of any sick person which is an indicator of pneumonia as a signal that home care is insufficient and then we'll strap on our masks and safety goggles and go to the hospital.
If the viruses doesn't materialize then we'll eat the food in the stockpile and I'll have spent only a small sum on things that aren't likely to be useful.
Providing up to date news about an epidemic is one of the most valuable services of the media. Calling this type of news 'clickbait' is quite bizarre in my opinion. The sources I've been reading haven't been sensationalistic.
the context of the thread, the post you were replying to, is about the economic impacts of most of china staying "on vacation" for a few more weeks.
your twice now trying to catastophize that into a deathtoll or "the end of the world" constitutes either a double-mis-reading or an active attempt at trolling. you want to blame the media, but you are the person introducing the false extremes to this conversation.
people don't have to die from a disease to not want to get it.
China = ??% of global supply chain -> shutdown until Feb 17th.
This is the current status quo. If the situation isn't controlled by Feb 13th you can kiss at least 1/3 of global GDP goodbye.
And, don't get me started on possible outbreaks elsewhere.