No, it's not just like the flu
In response to:
Is the new coronavirus like flu? No. It kills 26 times more – Portugal
March 6, 2020
The Director-General of Health, Graça Freitas, compared the appearance of the new coronavirus subtype, Covid-19, to the outbreak of a common flu, saying that the Directorate-General for Health would be working withwith a scenario identical to that which existed in 2009, when influenza A – also known as Influenza A / H1N1. The pandemic took less than a month to arrive in Portugal and caused 122 deaths in the country, with 166,922 cases registered until August 2010 – when the end of the pandemic was declared.
The data say, however, that the new type of coronavirus is not only a disease that spreads faster than common flu or influenza A, but is also a more lethal virus.
Three times more viral than a common flu
A common flu has a transmissibility of 1.3 points, which means that every 10 infected people pass the disease to 13 people. The number is used to measure the potential of an epidemic, translating the degree of reproduction of the disease: the higher the number, the greater the degree of exposure and threat of the disease.
In 2009, the H1N1 pandemic had a transmissibility of 1.5 and could not be contained, with estimates suggesting that 11–21% of the world's population has been infected. Initial studies on the new coronavirus, Covid-19, pointed to a 2-3 point transmissibility, more than double the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, which today is just one of the four types of common flu.
A graph showing the evolution of COVID-19 and H1N1 in its first 31 days shows that three times more cases of the new coronavirus have been confirmed in relation to influenza A in the first 31 days.
But the latest mathematical model by researchers at Xiamen University in China, published in the scientific journal Infectious Diseases of Poverty points to estimates of transmission of isolated surfaces in humans of 2.3 and 3.58 in person-to-person transmissions – which explains the dizzying rise in the number of cases of infection.
This last number, the most worrying, translates into a transmissibility almost three times greater than a common flu and concerns the introduction of an affected individual in susceptible environments: closed spaces, with a large population or without ventilation. For comparison, common flu infected 20 to 30 million people in the European Union last year.
In comparison with known outbreaks of other coronavirus subtypes, the transmissibility of Covid-19 in environments is greater than that seen in 2012 with the Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), from 0.8 to 1.3, but less than that recorded in 2002 with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), 2.9 points.
Covid-19 is 26 times more deadly than a common flu
Although H1N1 affected between 700 million and 1.4 billion people, its mortality rate was, for the proportion of the disease, relatively low: between 0.01 and 0.08%, with estimates of 150 to 575 thousand deaths. In relation to the peak of H1N1, which had mortality rates of 0.4% in its early stages, the new coronavirus is seven times more deadly, with mortality rates of 2.5% in the first 31 days.
Is the new coronavirus like flu? No. It kills 26 times more – Portugal
March 6, 2020
The Director-General of Health, Graça Freitas, compared the appearance of the new coronavirus subtype, Covid-19, to the outbreak of a common flu, saying that the Directorate-General for Health would be working withwith a scenario identical to that which existed in 2009, when influenza A – also known as Influenza A / H1N1. The pandemic took less than a month to arrive in Portugal and caused 122 deaths in the country, with 166,922 cases registered until August 2010 – when the end of the pandemic was declared.
The data say, however, that the new type of coronavirus is not only a disease that spreads faster than common flu or influenza A, but is also a more lethal virus.
Three times more viral than a common flu
A common flu has a transmissibility of 1.3 points, which means that every 10 infected people pass the disease to 13 people. The number is used to measure the potential of an epidemic, translating the degree of reproduction of the disease: the higher the number, the greater the degree of exposure and threat of the disease.
In 2009, the H1N1 pandemic had a transmissibility of 1.5 and could not be contained, with estimates suggesting that 11–21% of the world's population has been infected. Initial studies on the new coronavirus, Covid-19, pointed to a 2-3 point transmissibility, more than double the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, which today is just one of the four types of common flu.
A graph showing the evolution of COVID-19 and H1N1 in its first 31 days shows that three times more cases of the new coronavirus have been confirmed in relation to influenza A in the first 31 days.
But the latest mathematical model by researchers at Xiamen University in China, published in the scientific journal Infectious Diseases of Poverty points to estimates of transmission of isolated surfaces in humans of 2.3 and 3.58 in person-to-person transmissions – which explains the dizzying rise in the number of cases of infection.
This last number, the most worrying, translates into a transmissibility almost three times greater than a common flu and concerns the introduction of an affected individual in susceptible environments: closed spaces, with a large population or without ventilation. For comparison, common flu infected 20 to 30 million people in the European Union last year.
In comparison with known outbreaks of other coronavirus subtypes, the transmissibility of Covid-19 in environments is greater than that seen in 2012 with the Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), from 0.8 to 1.3, but less than that recorded in 2002 with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), 2.9 points.
Covid-19 is 26 times more deadly than a common flu
Although H1N1 affected between 700 million and 1.4 billion people, its mortality rate was, for the proportion of the disease, relatively low: between 0.01 and 0.08%, with estimates of 150 to 575 thousand deaths. In relation to the peak of H1N1, which had mortality rates of 0.4% in its early stages, the new coronavirus is seven times more deadly, with mortality rates of 2.5% in the first 31 days.
Comments (103)
Asymptomatic people will most likely not be tested. An extremely large number of people won't go a doctor or worry about being a little sick.
A major unknown factor as far as infection and spread.
If people are only a "little sick", they probably shouldn't go to the doctor at this time, and instead isolate themselves at home until they fully recover UNLESS the symptoms get much worse.
There's still more good going on with the new virus than bad. A lot more. It's too bad they mostly only report the worse.
Over all, it's still not looking any worse than the others we go through every year. Maybe even a little lighter if we had actual, COMPLETE, information.
Over all, even if we had enough kits, it's too late for anything accurate as far as infections and spread.
for this to go more than once or twice wouldn't be a surprise.
We do have deadly viruses that we don't have vaccines or any types of actual cures for.
It was mentioned in an interview I posted with a virologist in another blog. That was one of jim's.
I'm not one to go to a doctor much either. since it's been a really long time that I've ever been hit with any thing that hard, I was considering it.
Common sense, I stayed home from work the first two days the following week since it hit on the start of the weekend.
Out of curiosity, if test kits had been available, with out a doubt; I would have used one just know.
It pretty much started to clear up quickly after I bought some nyquil over the counter so I could sleep.
It's been decades since I've been sick. Not even the flu or cold, and I don't get the flu shot either.
It's been just as long since I've used any thing other than an occasional aspirin and multi-vitamins.
I have a lot of aunts, uncles, one grandparent, and my mother. It's a very real possibility many of them wouldn't survive if they contracted the new virus.
With any of the known contagions, we never know what year will be the year to lose one or more. It may not even be a contagion that takes them.
This new version just doesn't seem too far off from the others. That is the biggest threat about it. It's new but still survivable.
I mentioned about influenza making three waves.
for this to go more than once or twice wouldn't be a surprise.
We do have deadly viruses that we don't have vaccines or any types of actual cures for.
It was mentioned in an interview I posted with a virologist in another blog. That was one of jim's.
Seriously, it can be a matter of life & death for some, and has been.
We need to take the necessary precautions outlined in the video I posted.
He states, that since the virus in an envelope virus, it is actually killed by prolonged contact with soap.
The soap disintegrates the envelope. That's why washing your hands thoroughly with soap before
contacting your nose, mouth or eyes can really help you from getting it.
Of course, staying a safe distance from people who cough and/or sneeze is highly recommended too.
The truth and fact is, there's no way it's never going to be other wise with any thing.
We will all be at that point in our lives sooner or later. Maybe sudden, maybe fighting, maybe lucky to be old and happily sleeping. No one knows when, how, or why.
We're going to pretend like people never die now? We already have numbers and studies from past pandemics and a whole lot of other causes. Sometimes they are able to come up with a vaccine. Just as we're gathering information and numbers now. And still not thinking the life part though they think they might have comparable numbers. Only preaching the death.
If people are only a "little sick", they probably shouldn't go to the doctor at this time, and instead isolate themselves at home until they fully recover UNLESS the symptoms get much worse.
That's exactly what they're telling people here. Trouble is people that must work and leave their kids with grandparents because schools are closed. One of my friends feels that if she didn't take them, they'd be alone..
When there's something with a 60-100% death rate besides nuclear war, let me know. As long as it's something comparable to what we have and know now, it's not worth the turmoil.
With that attitude, now I understand why you think Trump is terrific. Compared to your attitude, I guess he is terrific.
best whishes
heck youre not going whith out me
I suppose witches brews are bound to be on someone's list eventually.
However, I'm not sure the newts will.....see it the same way.
It probably can — but you shouldn't be overly worried. Here's why.
So far, there aren't scientific findings on how long the virus can live on fabric. But fabrics are generally porous — as is cardboard, which has been tested. And a recent study did find that the virus can live on cardboard for up to 24 hours.
We're not getting any full numbers of infected. We're only getting numbers from the worst cases that can be tracked and accounted for.
Some estimates were from a place in the U.K. that has the U.S. death rate at 2.2 million people. That model has been starting to be pommeled as too high with extreme and unchecked conditions put into it.
Either way, it's looking pretty foolish as the numbers in these models or mostly for potential infected and can only give another type of projection in fatality.
Percentages have been dropping in projected fatality rates. Especially as they are finding ways to fight it better.
The fools are the people that don't wait for the rest of the stories to at least start being put forward.
Now, apparently there are some emails surfacing concerning the CDC that may not look good for them. Maybe that would a good read to help your "narrative" jim. Indications so far seem to actually fall on the CDC.
This link is dated Monday, March 16. Few were taking this seriously
Louisiana is experiencing the fastest growth in new cases in the world; the current trajectory is was similar to those in Spain and Italy.
If this was not so sad, it might be funny.
Reuters Examines Changes To CDC, NSC Epidemiology, Pandemic Response Staff Under Trump Administration
Mar 26, 2020
Reuters: Exclusive: U.S. slashed CDC staff inside China prior to coronavirus outbreak
“The Trump administration cut staff by more than two-thirds at a key U.S. public health agency operating inside China, as part of a larger rollback of U.S.-funded health and science experts on the ground there leading up to the coronavirus outbreak, Reuters has learned. Most of the reductions were made at the Beijing office of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and occurred over the past two years, according to public CDC documents viewed by Reuters and interviews with four people familiar with the drawdown. … The CDC’s China headcount has shrunk to around 14 staffers, down from approximately 47 people since President Donald Trump took office in January 2017, the documents show. The four people, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the losses included epidemiologists and other health professionals…” (Taylor, 3/25).
Reuters: Partly false claim: Trump fired pandemic response team in 2018
“Numerous posts and images circulated on social media make the claim that President Donald Trump fired the ‘entire pandemic response team’ in 2018 … The Global Health Security and Biodefense unit — responsible for pandemic preparedness — was established in 2015 by Barack Obama’s National Security Advisor, Susan Rice. The unit resided under the National Security Council (NSC) — a forum of White House personnel that advises the president on national security and foreign policy matters. In May 2018, the team was disbanded and its head Timothy Ziemer, top White House official in the NSC for leading U.S. response against a pandemic, left the Trump administration, the Washington Post reported. … There is disagreement over how to describe the changes at the NSC’s Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense in 2018. The departure of some members due to ‘streamlining’ efforts under John Bolton is documented. The ‘pandemic response team’ as a unit was largely disbanded” (3/25).