Model built by researchers suggests coronavirus outbreak began in November(utoronto.ca)
utoronto.ca
Model built by researchers suggests coronavirus outbreak began in November
https://www.utoronto.ca/news/model-built-u-t-researchers-suggests-coronavirus-outbreak-began-november-has-yet-be-controlled
11 comments
So what do you think would happen if no quarantine was in place (because “the flu exists”), the virus spreads and suddenly that 1% mortality rate starts to stack up.
Is your country ready to handle 1% of its population dying, and many more falling ill? Flu is seasonal - predictable, known and accounted for. When flu season hits the system copes. This virus? Not so much.
Sorry you’re stuck on a boat, but it’s for the best.
Is your country ready to handle 1% of its population dying, and many more falling ill? Flu is seasonal - predictable, known and accounted for. When flu season hits the system copes. This virus? Not so much.
Sorry you’re stuck on a boat, but it’s for the best.
Further, it's very clearly higher than a 1% mortality rate.
Those deaths are from the lower outbreak figures from weeks ago, as people typically don't die in the first two weeks of infection. According to doctors dealing with this in China, it's the third week that is where patients are dying.
The questionable official numbers have us at 40,171 infections with 908 dead. That's a 2.2% mortality rate off the max figures. More realistically let's go back in time, conservatively, two weeks ago: on 1/27 there were only around ~4,500 infections.
That's a mortality rate a lot closer to 20% (even if you inflate the infection numbers, it's high). Those 4,500 people are the ones that have overwhelmingly contributed to the 908 dead figure that exists today. Unless one assumes there were a lot more than 4,500 infections two weeks ago; or people are dying a lot faster than reported.
With tens of thousands of infections in the last two weeks (again, at the supposed numbers), how many will be dead at the given rate, in a few more weeks? Something obviously doesn't add up with these figures, one direction or another.
Those deaths are from the lower outbreak figures from weeks ago, as people typically don't die in the first two weeks of infection. According to doctors dealing with this in China, it's the third week that is where patients are dying.
The questionable official numbers have us at 40,171 infections with 908 dead. That's a 2.2% mortality rate off the max figures. More realistically let's go back in time, conservatively, two weeks ago: on 1/27 there were only around ~4,500 infections.
That's a mortality rate a lot closer to 20% (even if you inflate the infection numbers, it's high). Those 4,500 people are the ones that have overwhelmingly contributed to the 908 dead figure that exists today. Unless one assumes there were a lot more than 4,500 infections two weeks ago; or people are dying a lot faster than reported.
With tens of thousands of infections in the last two weeks (again, at the supposed numbers), how many will be dead at the given rate, in a few more weeks? Something obviously doesn't add up with these figures, one direction or another.
I'm not saying that nothing should be done. I do think, however, that focusing so much attention on cruise ships is a little ridiculous, and not just because I happen to be on one. The virus us much more likely to spread through airports, but I don't see international air travel being shut down.
List of airlines that suspended flights to China.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-health-airlines-fac...
I don't think the Corona Virus is as benign as a flu virus. Sure the mortality rate is 1% but that is what we know today. No one knows what this Virus is capable of, in terms of mutation etc, and it is because of these unknowns organisations and public officials are on alert and taking quarantining steps - rightly so.
It is foolhardy to undermine WHO's cause for concern.
I am sorry you are stuck on a ship and I do hope you get to disembark in Singapore.
It is foolhardy to undermine WHO's cause for concern.
I am sorry you are stuck on a ship and I do hope you get to disembark in Singapore.
Yeah from the Singapore numbers, 45 cases and 7 in critical care. I don't recall seeing those sort of numbers with flu.
edit - googling a bit the % going into critical care seems to be about 0.2% for flu vs the above about 15% for coronavirus.
edit - googling a bit the % going into critical care seems to be about 0.2% for flu vs the above about 15% for coronavirus.
Corona viruses are a well known class of virus.
Sure, this is a new strain, but the flu is a new strain each year too
Sure, this is a new strain, but the flu is a new strain each year too
N. Taleb wrote a very good note [1] on why conventional risk-benefit considerations don't apply in the case of an unknown contagion like NCov19 - the comparison to the seasonal flu is not helpful in these cases (thin-tailed risks vs fat-tailed risks which are an existential threat on a long-enough timeline).
[1] https://www.academia.edu/41743064/Systemic_Risk_of_Pandemic_...
[1] https://www.academia.edu/41743064/Systemic_Risk_of_Pandemic_...
Really good read, thanks. Tl;dr, Taleb et al think extraordinary measures to reduce transportation flow can be very effective and that policy makers shouldn’t shy away from employing them when facing a viral outbreak of unknown tenacity.
> Corona virus has infected fewer than 100,000 people and killed less than 1000
I heard this bogus reasoning so many times in the last weeks. You're comparing a disease that's global and reached pretty much everywhere to the one that's at its initial stages of spreading.
Coronavirus is highly contagious, at least 50-200 times more deadly than flu. It's exactly the virus you should be worried about.
When you walk with a flu into a doctor's office, he doesn't bat an eye. Coronavirus is treated in hazmat suits.
I heard this bogus reasoning so many times in the last weeks. You're comparing a disease that's global and reached pretty much everywhere to the one that's at its initial stages of spreading.
Coronavirus is highly contagious, at least 50-200 times more deadly than flu. It's exactly the virus you should be worried about.
When you walk with a flu into a doctor's office, he doesn't bat an eye. Coronavirus is treated in hazmat suits.
I'm so sick of people comparing this to the flu.
It's nothing like the flu -- coronavirus death rates are 2%, flu 0.01 -- it's 200 times as deadly and it can spread before any symptoms.
It's nothing like the flu -- coronavirus death rates are 2%, flu 0.01 -- it's 200 times as deadly and it can spread before any symptoms.
We don't know the death rate of nCov-2019, because we don't know how many people are infected, and we don't know how many people are dying.
Do we really know how many people are infected with the flu?
I'm sure only the more severe cases get tested for both.
I’m totally out of my element here but I’d wager that because the flu is much more pervasive we’re able to extract more reliable statistics, even if it’s from a relatively small sample set.
I'm no statistics expert, but given they can predict election outcomes from samples of a couple thousand people for tens of milions of voters, 40k+ infected with coronavirus is enough to have a very good idea about death rates.
The table on Wikipedia Influenza page gives <0.1% for fatality rate of seasonal influenza.
So perhaps just 20x as deadly as the seasonal flu.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza
So perhaps just 20x as deadly as the seasonal flu.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza
you are comparing 2019-nCoV Case Fatality Rate with Influenza mortality rate? why?
Wikipedia states:
Asian (1956–58) flu ~ 0.1% [44] Hong Kong (1968–69) flu ~ 0.1% [44] Influenza A, typical pandemics < 0.1% [44]
So 2% would be roughly 20x Asian or HK flu, or in terms of of a typical Influenza A pandemic at the very least 20x harder...
Wikipedia states:
Asian (1956–58) flu ~ 0.1% [44] Hong Kong (1968–69) flu ~ 0.1% [44] Influenza A, typical pandemics < 0.1% [44]
So 2% would be roughly 20x Asian or HK flu, or in terms of of a typical Influenza A pandemic at the very least 20x harder...
I'm not sure he is comparing Case Fatality Rate with Influenza mortality rate. I thought 1-2% was a reasonable estimate of the % of people who catch coronavirus who'll die. The CFR seems higher.
because it’s a severe illness we are all familiar with.
read my comment more closely, why are we comparing a voltage with a current?
CFR Case Fatality Rate: fraction of people diagnosed with an affliction that eventually died.
For example if the Sniffles has a CFR of 1%, then 99% of people diagnosed with Sniffles will survive.
Mortality rate: fraction of all deaths in a group, that are attributed to a specific affliction.
For example if mortality rate of Sniffles in Belgium is 4%, then 96% of deaths in Belgium are attributed to other afflictions.
For a comparison check out the following lists:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_disease_case_fat...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rat...
CFR Case Fatality Rate: fraction of people diagnosed with an affliction that eventually died.
For example if the Sniffles has a CFR of 1%, then 99% of people diagnosed with Sniffles will survive.
Mortality rate: fraction of all deaths in a group, that are attributed to a specific affliction.
For example if mortality rate of Sniffles in Belgium is 4%, then 96% of deaths in Belgium are attributed to other afflictions.
For a comparison check out the following lists:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_disease_case_fat...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rat...
Interesting distinction, but I don't think anyone was talking about mortality rate over all people. All the discussion I've seen is the mortality rate of people with the disease.
so people are discussing CFR's but calling it mortality rates
consider how mortality rates are extensive quantities i.e. proportional to the number of people infected while CFR's are intensive quantities i.e. independent of the number of people infected
consider how mortality rates are extensive quantities i.e. proportional to the number of people infected while CFR's are intensive quantities i.e. independent of the number of people infected
I agree, 2% is terrifying, try an online rng and see if you survive. Then try it for close friends/family. Its russian roullete with a few more chambers.
The 2% figure is across all groups. For older people, diabetics it would be much higher. And that 2% assumes a scenario where there are infinite medical resources. The
> Corona virus has infected fewer than 100,000 people and killed less than 1000.
Of the 42,638 who have caught coronavirus, 1,016 have died, and 3,996 people have recovered.
Because it's not simply ongoing but accelerating, we can't say the fatality rate is simply 1k/42k = 2.4%. The overwhelming majority of the people who have caught the disease still have the disease, and we can't say for sure that it is not going to kill them. We can say for sure that the mortality rate is significantly higher than 2.4%.
https://bnonews.com/index.php/2020/02/the-latest-coronavirus...
Of the 42,638 who have caught coronavirus, 1,016 have died, and 3,996 people have recovered.
Because it's not simply ongoing but accelerating, we can't say the fatality rate is simply 1k/42k = 2.4%. The overwhelming majority of the people who have caught the disease still have the disease, and we can't say for sure that it is not going to kill them. We can say for sure that the mortality rate is significantly higher than 2.4%.
https://bnonews.com/index.php/2020/02/the-latest-coronavirus...
I'm seeing a lot of posts on why the seasonal flu is worse.
This to me seems ridiculous by any reading of even the reported numbers.
This to me seems ridiculous by any reading of even the reported numbers.
We don't know the final statistics, especially since the numbers we're getting are coming from the Chinese government.
It's simply too early to say whether we're overreacting or not compared to how we handle the common flu.
It's simply too early to say whether we're overreacting or not compared to how we handle the common flu.
Really sorry to hear your stuck.
This virus is a stress test for many aspects of our globalized society. There’s a risk in both overreacting, and under-reacting. Both carry costs.
It’s also a test of how we can all align interests in an age where trust in institutions is being eroded. We’re awash in information, and disinformation — and we’re experiencing in real-time the effects of that.
This virus is a stress test for many aspects of our globalized society. There’s a risk in both overreacting, and under-reacting. Both carry costs.
It’s also a test of how we can all align interests in an age where trust in institutions is being eroded. We’re awash in information, and disinformation — and we’re experiencing in real-time the effects of that.
The virus has impacted hospitals so badly they can’t keep up and they’ve had to turn away patients. China isn’t building new emergency hospitals for flu but is for the Coronavirus, so something is different.
>Personally, I am much more worried about public officials freaking out about the corona virus than I am about the virus itself.
That's understandable given the circumstances you are personally encountering. I hope you are allowed docking somewhere soon, followed by a suitable period of quarantine in comfort, and a confirmation of no infection.
That's understandable given the circumstances you are personally encountering. I hope you are allowed docking somewhere soon, followed by a suitable period of quarantine in comfort, and a confirmation of no infection.
megablast(1)
Not surprising considering for a few days there, after control was implemented, the National Health Commission numbers adhered to an exponential trend with an R2 value of 0.995-9.
https://twitter.com/whistle_posse/status/1221964216040509440
An exponential curve is a great way to catch up to the numbers of infected that already exist.
The good news is this means the outbreak is less contagious and uncontrolled than was reported.
Its also probably harder to hide deaths than recoveries, so the mortality rate is likely lower.
The bad news is, people may be infectious for longer before they show symptoms.
https://twitter.com/whistle_posse/status/1221964216040509440
An exponential curve is a great way to catch up to the numbers of infected that already exist.
The good news is this means the outbreak is less contagious and uncontrolled than was reported.
Its also probably harder to hide deaths than recoveries, so the mortality rate is likely lower.
The bad news is, people may be infectious for longer before they show symptoms.
"The bad news is, people may be infectious for longer before they show symptoms."
There is evidence that the study claiming the virus can be transmitted by people without symptoms was flawed.[1]
Also, according to that article, even if asymptomatic people transmit the virus "asymptomatic transmission likely plays a minor role in the epidemic overall, WHO says. People who cough or sneeze are more likely to spread the virus, the agency wrote"
[1] - https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/02/paper-non-symptomati...
There is evidence that the study claiming the virus can be transmitted by people without symptoms was flawed.[1]
Also, according to that article, even if asymptomatic people transmit the virus "asymptomatic transmission likely plays a minor role in the epidemic overall, WHO says. People who cough or sneeze are more likely to spread the virus, the agency wrote"
[1] - https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/02/paper-non-symptomati...
>There is evidence that the study claiming the virus can be transmitted by people without symptoms was flawed.
There's also a recent news story that a UK citizen is a "super spreader", and that he had contact with all the cases in France while being asymptomatic. He even went home and felt fine, carrying on his normal activities for four days before becoming Ill and being confirmed with the virus.
There's also a recent news story that a UK citizen is a "super spreader", and that he had contact with all the cases in France while being asymptomatic. He even went home and felt fine, carrying on his normal activities for four days before becoming Ill and being confirmed with the virus.
Of course people who cough and sneeze are more likely to transmit it! I can’t trust the WHO when they make what to me seem to me to be intentionally misleading statements.
>Its also probably harder to hide deaths than recoveries, so the mortality rate is likely lower.
1) you obviously mean Case Fatality Rate, instead of mortality rate, since the latter is independent of number of recoveries when keeping deaths fixed (unhideable).
2) What would China's motive be to hide recovered infection counts with the result of reporting a higher than truthful case fatality rate? Do you actually believe China wants local panic and fear, or that it actually wants to loose 2% annual productivity per week in quarantine?
1) you obviously mean Case Fatality Rate, instead of mortality rate, since the latter is independent of number of recoveries when keeping deaths fixed (unhideable).
2) What would China's motive be to hide recovered infection counts with the result of reporting a higher than truthful case fatality rate? Do you actually believe China wants local panic and fear, or that it actually wants to loose 2% annual productivity per week in quarantine?
Cool username!
1) Sure! I don't think that really changes my points though. 2) That's only true if the rate correlates with panic, and if the Chinese government knows that would be the effect. They may be sacrificing panic, over a higher case fatality rate, in order to retain an illusion of competence in identifying and addressing the outbreak. I don't think it'd be out of character for an authoritarian government to care about appearances in that sort of way.
1) Sure! I don't think that really changes my points though. 2) That's only true if the rate correlates with panic, and if the Chinese government knows that would be the effect. They may be sacrificing panic, over a higher case fatality rate, in order to retain an illusion of competence in identifying and addressing the outbreak. I don't think it'd be out of character for an authoritarian government to care about appearances in that sort of way.
A pizza a day keeps the doctor away
The good news is this means the outbreak is less contagious and uncontrolled than was reported.
How do you figure? If you're juicing the numbers presumably you're doing so to make things look better than they are. An optimistic curve is going to catch up to reality only if reality stays the same (or improves). About the only thing we know is that the data from China are suspect.
How do you figure? If you're juicing the numbers presumably you're doing so to make things look better than they are. An optimistic curve is going to catch up to reality only if reality stays the same (or improves). About the only thing we know is that the data from China are suspect.
Maybe they juiced the numbers to make it appear like the epidemic was discovered promptly, rather than late.
Maybe hiding the deaths has been working well: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7969861/Wuhan-crema...
If they are requesting 100 body bags per day how does that’s square with the official death count?
If they are requesting 100 body bags per day how does that’s square with the official death count?
Wuhan is a city of 11 million people. New York City has a population of about 8 million people. In 2010 NYC saw an average of 144 deaths per day (Table P3). By those numbers you'd expect to see around 200 deaths daily in Wuhan without any added pressure from a pandemic.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/pdf/govpub/6551as_2010_final...
http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/pdf/govpub/6551as_2010_final...
Daily mail? I'm going to need some more sources for whatever it is they're claiming.
That's why we would all be sleeping easier in our bed if the Chinese would just accept externla help from the USA/WHO/anyone. So far as I understand, there are currently no external observers. There are no reliable sources. Daily Mail is currently no more or less reliable than any other source currently.
I think “bad information from China => daily mail as good as anything else” is a pretty cynical view. I don’t think it’s true in this case
TLDR: A research by Uni Toronto suggests that the coronavirus epidemic started one month earlier than is commonly reported (Nov 2019) and has yet to be brought under control.
David Fisman, one of the model’s creators said: “You can’t get up to that level of cases if the epidemic started in December. even if you pushed the reproduction really high. The plausible start date seems to be mid-November,”
Wikipedia lists[1] start date to be Dec 1, 2019 and with Fever, cough, shortness of breath etc as symptoms[2], I think it's difficult to predict even for doctors exact date of the outbreak.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_Wuhan_coronavi...
[2] https://thestrife.co/wuhan-coronavirus-resources
David Fisman, one of the model’s creators said: “You can’t get up to that level of cases if the epidemic started in December. even if you pushed the reproduction really high. The plausible start date seems to be mid-November,”
Wikipedia lists[1] start date to be Dec 1, 2019 and with Fever, cough, shortness of breath etc as symptoms[2], I think it's difficult to predict even for doctors exact date of the outbreak.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_Wuhan_coronavi...
[2] https://thestrife.co/wuhan-coronavirus-resources
Yeah, running a regression back to the Y intercept to get a 0 time is nice in retrospect, but you'll never find the index patient, the cell or origin, etc.
[deleted]
Playing with their model as linked gives a much better match with reported numbers with a shorter serial interval, 5 or 6 days instead of the 7 assumed by the default model settings.
This is also a better match with the more recently reported case studies.
I find it a little irresponsible to make such an extreme claim from such a limited modelling tool... Small changes to the assumptions can account for the discrepancy seen, and it's unrealistic to expect a basic model like this to accurately represent reality in such an unusual situation as in Wuhan.
I find it a little irresponsible to make such an extreme claim from such a limited modelling tool... Small changes to the assumptions can account for the discrepancy seen, and it's unrealistic to expect a basic model like this to accurately represent reality in such an unusual situation as in Wuhan.
[deleted]
There was an article in China News Weekly that investigated the origins of the Virus and also pointed out that 1) the first cases were in November and 2) that the first cases were not linked to the Huanan Seafood Market.
https://chinachange.org/2020/02/09/the-regret-of-wuhan-how-c...
https://chinachange.org/2020/02/09/the-regret-of-wuhan-how-c...
If the blue dots represent the data and if the yellow line represents the model -- doesn't the picture show an obviously bad fit?
I'm in China and it's astonishing how different out lives changed with less than 10 days.
Quarantine and lockdown came so quick a lot of people still haven't got used to it.
I've made a video about it and you can see it for yourself: https://youtu.be/uxW7k5462Ms
This is something I've never experienced before.
Quarantine and lockdown came so quick a lot of people still haven't got used to it.
I've made a video about it and you can see it for yourself: https://youtu.be/uxW7k5462Ms
This is something I've never experienced before.
How many coronavirus articles are you going to post this to?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22294779
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22294779
[deleted]
Remember ~15% of common cold cases are caused by a coronavirus, one that has evolved so as not to kill it's host .... there's a good chance it started out a lot like the current coronavirus
Oh good so the German scientist who visited for a few days last week, who was working in Wuhan in December and caught a pathogen (“but it wasn’t the flu”) may have been carrying coronavirus?
If he's been symptom free for 3+ days then no.
dont you mean 24 days? https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.06.20020974v...
"The median incubation period was 3.0 days (range, 0 to 24.0 days)."
"The median incubation period was 3.0 days (range, 0 to 24.0 days)."
I read it that the person got sick after the visit to Wuhan but recovered from that before the visit to OP. Hence 3+ days should be enough to rule out a possible infection of OP with whatever the scientist had.
Since they traveled to Wuhan in December, from then to last week, that would've been more than 24 days, so in case they did not get sick yet and I read that wrong, it should also be pretty much impossible, since that would be the longest incubation period of ncov by quite a bit.
Since they traveled to Wuhan in December, from then to last week, that would've been more than 24 days, so in case they did not get sick yet and I read that wrong, it should also be pretty much impossible, since that would be the longest incubation period of ncov by quite a bit.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Corona virus has infected fewer than 100,000 people and killed less than 1000. To put these numbers in perspective, seasonal flu results in 3 to 5 million cases of severe illness every year, and kills 290,000 to 650,000. [1]
Personally, I am much more worried about public officials freaking out about the corona virus than I am about the virus itself.
[1] https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/influenza-(...