Event 201 - Global Pandemic Exercise

[Hyperduck Quack Quack]

Rumours that whilst in Wuhan the official figures give a death rate of 2500 one crem had 5000 urns delivered in two days,Wuhan has 5 crematoria.

The city of Wuhan has a population of 11 million, at least a couple of million more than London. The coronavirus epidemic there won't have stopped people dying from other conditions or just from old age. Given that China has an annual death rate of about 7 per 1000, that would give about 1400 deaths per week in Wuhan under normal circumstances.

[papasmurf]

Who it that idiot?



If you really want to be silly, a work of fiction called  "The Eyes of Darkness," by  Dean Koontz in 1981, describing a killer virus called it Wuhan 400.

[Scott777]

[cromwell]

Rumours that whilst in Wuhan the official figures give a death rate of 2500 one crem had 5000 urns delivered in two days,Wuhan has 5 crematoria.

[Barry]

Here's another interesting article suggesting we are over-reacting as we did to H1N1 Swine flu in 2009.

https://www.rt.com/uk/484319-coronavirus-swine-flu-hysteria-redux/">//https://www.rt.com/uk/484319-coronavirus-swine-flu-hysteria-redux/

[Barry]

Whilst we're close to being in the Twilight zone, I wonder what the basis of stories that chloroquine can block the virus might be. I see that Trump has got the FDA to allow compassionate use whilst clinical trials start.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/51980731">//https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/51980731

In the meantime, our own government have said that chloroquine is not licenced for treatment of CV19, but then, nothing really is, is it?

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/chloroquine-and-hydroxychloroquine-not-licensed-for-coronavirus-covid-19-treatment">//https://www.gov.uk/government/news/chloroquine-and-hydroxychloroquine-not-licensed-for-coronavirus-covid-19-treatment

And the conspiracy theorists are saying it won't be allowed because the pharmaceutical companies won't make much money as it is cheaply produced and an existing drug, previously used as an anti-malaria pill.

[Scott777]

Does it?

They've tested 14 thousand people, of which just under 1 thousand people have the virus.

Yes, that indicates that it hasn't spread in Iceland yet.  The indicator that more people have it than WE are testing is that people have no symptoms or few symptoms.  We cannot go by our testing yet.  But translating Iceland to the UK, we would expect 5-10 times more people have it than the official cases, making it c.130,000.  And that's just who have got it, not who has had it.

[Nalaar]

You're right, the death rate has small figures, and may be at the early stages in Iceland.  But it shows us than many more people have it than we know.

Does it?

They've tested 14 thousand people, of which just under 1 thousand people have the virus.

A 6-7% infection rate, is certainly higher than the 2-3% infection rate tests where showing in South Korea, but not anything like unreasonable.

[Scott777]

Iceland is a much smaller and more isolated population, with the benefits that brings, but their data is interesting nonetheless -



https://www.covid.is/data">https://www.covid.is/data



Just over 14,000 tests with 963 confirmed infections, 6 people in critical care, and 2 dead.



That's about a 0.2% fatality rate, if any patient in critical care dies they add 0.1% to rate - Small numbers give huge potential swings in the data.

You're right, the death rate has small figures, and may be at the early stages in Iceland.  But it shows us than many more people have it than we know.

[Nalaar]

In Iceland (not the shop), random trials show that about 50% who have Covid-19 have no symptoms at all.  Now add to that the number who have slight symptoms, such as cough, or sore throat.  That may be many more, who will not be tested, and therefore undiagnosed.  This is partly why the Oxford study says most people may have already had it.  That's my conclusion based on the study and the other data.



"For every known case of coronavirus, another five to 10 cases are out there undetected, a new study suggests."



https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/16/health/coronavirus-statistics-undetected.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/16/heal ... ected.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/16/health/coronavirus-statistics-undetected.html

Iceland is a much smaller and more isolated population, with the benefits that brings, but their data is interesting nonetheless -



https://www.covid.is/data">https://www.covid.is/data



Just over 14,000 tests with 963 confirmed infections, 6 people in critical care, and 2 dead.



That's about a 0.2% fatality rate, if any patient in critical care dies they add 0.1% to rate - Small numbers give huge potential swings in the data.

[Scott777]

Okay so break that down - how do you know how widespread it is, where it is undiagnosed?

In Iceland (not the shop), random trials show that about 50% who have Covid-19 have no symptoms at all.  Now add to that the number who have slight symptoms, such as cough, or sore throat.  That may be many more, who will not be tested, and therefore undiagnosed.  This is partly why the Oxford study says most people may have already had it.  That's my conclusion based on the study and the other data.



"For every known case of coronavirus, another five to 10 cases are out there undetected, a new study suggests."



https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/16/health/coronavirus-statistics-undetected.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/16/heal ... ected.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/16/health/coronavirus-statistics-undetected.html

[Barry]

I trust the South Korean figures, if you do not then we have nothing to discuss.

I used the S. Korean figures. I'm done here.  :hattip

[Nalaar]

A large net, yes, but a net that only catches ill people, and testing for having it, not having had it.  I don't have evidence that it's 0.1%, it's speculation based on how widespread we know it is where it's undiagnosed.

Okay so break that down - how do you know how widespread it is, where it is undiagnosed?

[Scott777]

Maybe, but they have cast a pretty wide net - 350 thousand tested to find 9 thousand with the disease, that's about as good as you could expect from real world conditions in a few weeks, and the number found is way above 0.1%.



What evidence do you have that it is only 0.1%?

A large net, yes, but a net that only catches ill people, and testing for having it, not having had it.  I don't have evidence that it's 0.1%, it's speculation based on how widespread we know it is where it's undiagnosed.

[Nalaar]

You haven't questioned my reasoning in my post above which puts it at less than 0.1% of infections. (Tested positive is obviously not equal to actual infections).

It's not the percentage of deaths which is a worry, it is the sudden floodgates which are breached rapidly as the infection is so rapid in its spread.

I really don't know what we are arguing about. Most figures are unreliable, after all. Do you trust Iranian figures?

I trust the South Korean figures, if you do not then we have nothing to discuss.