Corona Virus 2019-nCoV

[Sarkus]

The people (not you) who are mocking any comparison between these two viruses because CORONAVIRUS! Look at the pictures! Contagion! Death! Artificial designer virus on track for genocide! Comparing that to the flu is ridiculous!

Understood. Thanks for the clarification.

I was responding to your post (in that discussion) where you said ". . . could result in hundreds of thousands, if not millions, dying around the world . . If it was left to spread as per a regular influenza virus, you might expect 400k deaths in the US alone... this year... possibly more . . . Ready to take it seriously yet?" To answer your post, 1) yes, people are taking it seriously, 2) it's not on track to kill more people than the flu in the US. (And flu kills about 40K a year in the US.)

Okay. First, I was being somewhat sarcastic with the "Ready to take it seriously" comment (note the winking emoji deliberately used). As for the comparison to flu, the "this year" was an error - rather I was looking to compare should it ever be as common as flu, and part of the landscape as seasonal flu seems to be, not the year it first arrives to a territory.
Glad that was all sorted.

 

[exchemist]

Aren't most countries trying to quarantine cases, which will impact on the accuracy of such results, surely? I mean, if you have a single case, quarantine them, and noone else gets infected, do we claim the virus to not be infectious?
How long has it been since the first cases identified, and what is the typical time from infection to death? But with over 100 confirmed cases, I'd be surprised if there is no bad news somewhere down the line.

True. I should have said I am assuming this will eventually not be 100% effective and we will get some spread, via contacts not traced, or traced but not isolated in time.

I was thinking that, because it is monitored so intensively, we will get an accurate picture of who has been exposed, who has transmitted it, who has developed symptoms and - eventually, with enough cases - a fairly accurate picture of the range of severity of the disease it causes.

I assume the efforts to contain the virus will eventually fail, but sufficiently slowly to buy us all some time for a vaccine and give us a better idea of how dangerous it really is.

Regarding the ship, I'd have thought with 100 cases we might expect some to be serious if the death rate is really 3%. But you have a point in that I don't how quickly people die of it. I was assuming it would be fairly quick to develop into something serious if it is going to, but I may be wrong about that.

 

[Quantum Quack]

WHO 12th-Feb-2020
Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) situation report
https://www.who.int/docs/default-so...20200212-sitrep-23-ncov.pdf?sfvrsn=41e9fb78_2

SITUATION IN NUMBERS total and new cases in last 24 hours

• Globally 45 171 confirmed (2068 new)
  
• China 44 730 confirmed (2022 new) 8204 severe (871 new) 1114 deaths (97 new)
• Outside of China 441 confirmed (46 new) 24 countries 1 death

WHO RISK ASSESSMENT

• China Very High
  
• Regional Level High
  
• Global Level High

 

[Quantum Quack]

I assume the efforts to contain the virus will eventually fail, but sufficiently slowly to buy us all some time for a vaccine and give us a better idea of how dangerous it really is.

I was going to post the following but couldn't be bothered searching for the scientists name that discussed it about 3 weeks ago..

Part of the problem is that there is little to no evolved partial immunity to this new virus in the global community, unlike the flu virus were there is a certain resistance.
This means that community vulnerability is considerably higher than that which exists for the flu.

so I wont post it here.

More than 7 billion people with little to no immunity to this new virus is part of the reason why the world has reacted the way it has. IMO
According to various sources there is no evidence that this virus is airborne which is why they are using the quarantine methods they are using.
This factor provides reason for optimism.

 

[Quantum Quack]

You then responded to that and again prattled on about it being airborne while questioning whether Billvon knew what the difference was between "direct/contact and aerosol transmission":

Transmission medical:
The term strictly refers to the transmission of microorganisms directly from one individual to another by one or more of the following means:

• droplet contact – coughing or sneezing on another individual
• direct physical contact – touching an infected individual, including sexual contact
• indirect physical contact – usually by touching a contaminated surface, including soil (fomite)
• airborne transmission – if the microorganism can remain in the air for long periods
• fecal-oral transmission – usually from unwashed hands, contaminated food or water sources due to lack of sanitation and hygiene, an important transmission route in pediatrics, veterinary medicine and developing countries.

Transmission can also be indirect, via another organism, either a vector (e.g. a mosquito or fly) or an intermediate host (e.g. tapeworm in pigs can be transmitted to humans who ingest improperly cooked pork). Indirect transmission could involve zoonoses or, more typically, larger pathogens like macroparasites with more complex life cycles. Transmissions can be autochthonous (i.e. between two individuals in the same place) or may involve travel of the microorganism or the affected hosts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_(medicine)
​

The term aerosol transmission most often refers to airborne transmission.

do you understand now?

Billvon is using the term aerosol as being distinct from airborne incorrectly.

Droplet size 10mm (Aerosol/Airborne) vs 20mm (direct contact) for starters...

Most 1st year med school students and even some high school students learn this.
Perhaps Billvon has forgotten...

So you are attempting to defend Billvon in ignorance..

 

[Quantum Quack]

Google : Crematorium Wuhan

The situation in China could be considerably under reported.

 

[Quantum Quack]

"Respiratory droplets" = "aerosol" = "airborne transmission." That's how TB spreads, too. TB is airborne. And the spread of TB is ameliorated via quarantine.

No need. Most people understand that about viruses. It would be like running a front page story on "SOME PEOPLE DIE OF THE FLU!"

see above videos explaining your error. Post#105
There is some evidence that the flu is airborne. But the debate in the scientific community is ongoing...

 

[Quantum Quack]

Latest update from John Hopkins. massive increase. 13th feb 2020 3pm Melb time(?). Approx 60 days since onset.
Confirmed
60329
Deaths
1369
Recovered
6017

 

[Quantum Quack]

Edit to post #105
Unit mm (micro meter) should read micron to avoid confusion with millimeter

 

[exchemist]

I was going to post the following but couldn't be bothered searching for the scientists name that discussed it about 3 weeks ago..

Part of the problem is that there is little to no evolved partial immunity to this new virus in the global community, unlike the flu virus were there is a certain resistance.
This means that community vulnerability is considerably higher than that which exists for the flu.

so I wont post it here.

More than 7 billion people with little to no immunity to this new virus is part of the reason why the world has reacted the way it has. IMO
According to various sources there is no evidence that this virus is airborne which is why they are using the quarantine methods they are using.
This factor provides reason for optimism.

Er yes, I think we all knew that much from reading the papers. (Except that it is fairly obvious it IS airborne, being spread by aerosol nuclei like any other cold or influenza virus, as well by contact with infected surfaces etc. It makes no sense to suggest quarantine would not work for airborne transmission.)

But, in spite of not having immunity, it seems the vast majority of people do not develop pneumonia and they shake it off within a few weeks. What interests me is what the mortality rate really is - though as Bells and I have been discussing, that will be a statistic that will be hard to get at for quite a while yet.

Another aspect that intrigues me is the prediction, from several medical experts in the UK, that the incidence of transmission of the disease in Europe may drop as we move into summer, presumably due to the well-known sterilising effect of sunlight.

I actually wonder if the high levels of air pollution in China may weaken sufferers there - and possibly even reduce the sterilising power of sunlight.

Anyway, we will find out, as it spreads around the world to countries that can monitor its progress from the outset.

 

[Bells]

do you understand now?

Billvon is using the term aerosol as being distinct from airborne incorrectly.

Droplet size 10mm (Aerosol/Airborne) vs 20mm (direct contact) for starters...

Most people, by which I mean, most people who are not you, understand the difference.

And by most people, I am making the distinction between everyone else and you, because you appear to have a lump of 4x4 for brain matter.

What no one knows yet, is whether the virus can stay alive and still be infectious say if someone sneezes from across a room and those droplets travel that distance and are then inhaled or it gets into people's eyes, nose, mouth, etc..

Do you understand now?

While that is traveling through the air, it is *gasp* airborne. Everyone understands this mode of transmission. I have provided you with numerous scientific links and links to infectious disease sites that explain this difference in quite some detail.

So either you have a hunk of 4x4 in your cranium, or you are so far up yourself that you cannot admit you are wrong.

Whichever the cause or reason, I don't particularly care.

What I do care about is that you stop trolling, you stop taking people's post out of context and you stop being such a dishonest hack.

Most 1st year med school students and even some high school students learn this.
Perhaps Billvon has forgotten...

So you are attempting to defend Billvon in ignorance..

Let's see, my choice is to trust Billvon (someone with a medical background who has thus far argued from a scientific standpoint which is backed up by actual science) or you and your "IMO", given you started this thread and started ranting and raving like a frigging lunatic about how this could be an engineered disease because it's only affecting Chinese people (despite clear evidence that it is not) and your complete dishonesty about "airborne" and your lack of comprehension as to what actually entails - not to mention your clear lack of understanding as to what droplet transmission actually entails - not to mention again, your posting stuff and then basically contradicting yourself and then lying about your dishonesty..

Gee, gotta tell you, it's a hard decision.. [/sarc]

 

[Bells]

I was going to post the following but couldn't be bothered searching for the scientists name that discussed it about 3 weeks ago..

Part of the problem is that there is little to no evolved partial immunity to this new virus in the global community, unlike the flu virus were there is a certain resistance.
This means that community vulnerability is considerably higher than that which exists for the flu.

so I wont post it here.

Except you just did post it here..

It's a new disease.. Isn't this kind of obvious?

More than 7 billion people with little to no immunity to this new virus is part of the reason why the world has reacted the way it has. IMO

No. They are reacting like this because:

a) It's new.
b) Lessons learned from SARS and MERS - other coronovirus that spread around the world.

The precautions being taken is standard and recommended and are put in place when bad outbreaks of known diseases occur (such as ebola, for example, countries impose quarantine measures and the regions with the outbreaks also impose strict quarantine measures).

According to various sources there is no evidence that this virus is airborne which is why they are using the quarantine methods they are using.

You keep saying "various sources" without actually providing any sources whatsoever.

They have said that it is likely to be by droplet transmissions, which was already linked numerous times already. What they do not know is how far it can actually spread in this way through the air.. They are guessing close droplet. They don't know yet how long it can live in those droplets through the air.

Understand now?

This would be a lot easier if you actually took the time to read the links posted in this thread.

 

[Quantum Quack]

They have said that it is likely to be by droplet transmissions, which was already linked numerous times already. What they do not know is how far it can actually spread in this way through the air.. They are guessing close droplet. They don't know yet how long it can live in those droplets through the air.

Did you watch the videos I posted? especially the first one? post #105
re: reference to droplet size...

I am not sure what you are arguing about...
Certainly not your defense of Billvons use of the term aerosol...

 

[Sarkus]

Another aspect that intrigues me is the prediction, from several medical experts in the UK, that the incidence of transmission of the disease in Europe may drop as we move into summer, presumably due to the well-known sterilising effect of sunlight.

Wiki has much to say on the he matter, which I am crudely summarising here... (look up “Season flu” for the full details) ...
Reasons might be that the colder temperatures tend to result in drier air and subsequent dehydration of mucous membranes, limiting ability to defend against such viruses. Or Vitamin B uptake during summer helping improve the immune system during summer. Less UV radiation means less chance of mutation or damage of the virus.
Also, colder and drier air also means aerosol transmission tends to be enhanced.
Warning: several hamsters may have been harmed in the research to obtain these results

There’s also research by the NICHD that suggests the (seasonal flu) virus has a harder shell in winter, meaning it has more chance of reaching the respiratory areas, whereas in summer the shell melts more easily, and gets fought off before it can reach anywhere it can do its nasty work.

Ah, the joys of wiki.

This is all related to the seasonal flu virus, of course, not this new one. So relevance to the new virus may be premature.

 

[Quantum Quack]

This is all related to the seasonal flu virus, of course, not this new one. So relevance to the new virus may be premature.

Interesting post...
I didn't think the coronavirus was able to be compared to the flu virus. I thought they were of a different genre so to speak.
Thoughts?

 

[exchemist]

Did you watch the videos I posted? especially the first one? post #105
re: reference to droplet size...

I am not sure what you are arguing about...
Certainly not your defense of Billvons use of the term aerosol...

From what I have read, in view of the dispute about this here, aerosols of droplets, sneezed or coughed by a sufferer, are undoubtedly a mode of transmission for this new virus, as seems to be true of all the common respiratory diseases.

Such droplets float in the air and gradually dry up, reducing to nuclei of dry material with viruses in them. The only point of doubt seems to be how long the virus stays active in these droplets as they dry. In the case of influenza and the common cold (some of which are also corona viruses), I understand the virus stays active for quite a while in these dry nuclei.

There seems to be a lack of unanimity in the sources I have read, as to whether to call transmission via the originally produced (wet) aerosol "airborne" or "direct". Some things I have read call any transmission via airborne particles, wet or dry,"airborne". Others seem to call transmission via the wet aerosol "direct", reserving the term "airborne" for only the persistence of the virus in the dry nuclei.

Perhaps other readers can confirm or correct this understanding.

 

[Quantum Quack]

From what I have read, in view of the dispute about this here, aerosols of droplets, sneezed or coughed by a sufferer, are undoubtedly a mode of transmission for this new virus, as seems to be true of all the common respiratory diseases.

Such droplets float in the air and gradually dry up, reducing to nuclei of dry material with viruses in them. The only point of doubt seems to be how long the virus stays active in these droplets as they dry. In the case of influenza and the common cold (some of which are also corona viruses), I understand the virus stays active for quite a while in these dry nuclei.

There seems to be a lack of unanimity in the sources I have read, as to whether to call transmission via the originally produced (wet) aerosol "airborne" or "direct". Some things I have read call any transmission via airborne particles, wet or dry,"airborne". Others seem to call transmission via the wet aerosol "direct", reserving the term "airborne" for only the persistence of the virus in the dry nuclei.

Perhaps other readers can confirm or correct this understanding.

From what was displayed in the videos I posted and other sources there is a specific meaning to the terms being discussed when it comes to transmission of a virus.
From what I understand :
For a virus to be an aerosol it has to be at less than about 10 microns in size.

To put it in perspective the humidity ( water vapor) that comes out of you mouth during normal breathing is made up of vapor about 10-15 microns in size. Therefore the aerosol is considered as air borne as water vapor is. ( think steam, humid conditions, or simply breathing the same air as an infected patient etc) For 100% protection a sealed positive pressure hazmat suit with oxygen/air tank is required if I am not mistaken.

For a virus to be only direct or contact transmitted (not aerosol) the size of the droplets has to be about 20 microns or larger in size ( Not water vapor) and is not transmitted by air in the same way that aerosols are. Breathing the air of an infected patient does not infect you.

 

[exchemist]

From what was displayed in the videos I posted and other sources there is a specific meaning to the terms being discussed when it comes to transmission of a virus.
From what I understand :
For a virus to be an aerosol it has to be at less than about 10 microns in size.

To put it in perspective the humidity ( water vapor) that comes out of you mouth during normal breathing is made up of vapor about 10-15 microns in size. Therefore the aerosol is considered as air borne as water vapor is. ( think steam, humid conditions, or simply breathing the same air as an infected patient etc) For 100% protection a sealed positive pressure hazmat suit with oxygen/air tank is required if I am not mistaken.

For a virus to be only direct or contact transmitted (not aerosol) the size of the droplets has to be about 20 microns or larger in size ( Not water vapor) and is not transmitted by air in the same way that aerosols are. Breathing the air of an infected patient does not infect you.

That can't be right. Viruses are, so I read, 10-100nm or so in size i.e. considerably less than less than 1 micron. https://www.horiba.com/scientific/p...pharmaceuticals/viruses-virus-like-particles/

It sounds to me as if you are confusing the size of the virus with the aerosol droplet itself.

I can't make sense of the rest of what you say. Let's see if someone else replies.

 

[Bells]

Did you watch the videos I posted? especially the first one? post #105
re: reference to droplet size...

Yes I did. And did you bother paying attention to what he was saying about how 'droplets' can travel great distances on things like gusts of wind and can still be infectious...

You know, what we had been saying?

Perhaps you should pay attention to what you post and link. Because what you linked is what we have been saying, and you have been demanding is wrong.

I am not sure what you are arguing about...
Certainly not your defense of Billvons use of the term aerosol...

What Billvon has been saying is what every other expert is saying.

You, on the other hand, deliberately misrepresented it and then ran with that misrepresentation and demanding he is wrong.

He is not wrong.

You, on the other hand, are wrong.

 

[billvon]

That can't be right. Viruses are, so I read, 10-100nm or so in size i.e. considerably less than less than 1 micron.

Yep.

One big issue is whether they can survive drying. Most viruses can't, so the time they can survive* in an aerosol depends on how long it takes for the droplets to evaporate. And since they are small they evaporate fairly fast.

(* - viruses aren't alive to begin with but you know what I mean.)