mrAru and I discussed it [though our cruise isn’t until next Feb, our 30th anniversary] it wouldn’t’ be that big a deal to us - we always get a handicapped rigged balcony stateroom so it has a bit more floorspace than the normal balcony cabin for 2 people. Additionally, oddly enough we go on cruises so he can hit ports and ship/play tourist, do fun stuff like swim with rays or bask on a beach and people watch - well and food too =) Since I take along about 500 tea bags, plenty of powdered splenda and plenty of powdered lemon packets, and I would guess they would keep the coffee and fixings coming, we can bask on the balcony and people watch the pier - much like what we do now.
I do the recommended thing and bring my actual medication bottles [well with vials of insulin it is sort of required =)] so I tend to bring my 3 month fresh supply … so I am not overly worried about running out of meds any time soon. But I do see that as a valid issue for most people who just bring their 1 week/2 week supply.
Is it a buccal swab or a blood test? How can a major modern country not be able to push 500 tests through a lab?
Apparently there is a shortage of specific materials needed for the specific test. Remember, this test didn’t even exist a couple months ago, so there’s no backlog of kits to distribute. Production isn’t keeping up with demand.
People have argued the quarantining was a good idea, but it looks like it may not have been such a good idea after all. The total number of confirmed cases is 545. Insane.
I am not extremely worried, but more so that previous outbreaks of viri d’jour. But this is due to my circumstances…I am changing careers, and in a month or so I will be working in a hospital, touching patients. The hospital in the state where all the sickest people end up. If this virus is suspected, either I or one of my cohort will be in contact with those patients. TB worries me more though…pain in the ass gowning & masking up to go in those rooms.
This is a very infectious virus which kills 2 out of every hundred people it infects. The mortality rate dwarfs that of flu or other common respiratory illness by an order an magnitude. This number could be falsely high or low, but we might as well stay with it as an estimate. While older people are more at risk, it has killed plenty of younger people as well. It makes 1 out of 5 patients seriously ill for a prolonged period. It has a long incubation period, can be transmitted by asymptomatic carriers and cases have occurred in dozens of countries, so its hard to see how it won’t start spreading in North America or wherever you live. China may or not have slowed or stopped its spread only by using quarantine measures which are insanely disruptive and draconian by Western standards.
And you’re not worried about it because people die in car accidents all the time?
I would disagree with that, if that high estimate is being used as a jumping off point for sensationalizing.
The numbers outside of hubei are likely to be more reliable, since those medical systems are less stressed (and also it’s looking at multiple provinces’ / countries’ data versus 1) and they are suggesting a value within the same order of magnitude as flu.
To be clear: no one wants another novel pathogen added in to the mix, so I admire (and have supported) the efforts being made to contain the spread. But no I don’t think it’s worth people panicking over, particularly people who are apathetic about getting a flu jab.
Sure. And of course the number of undetected mild or asymptomatic infections may be much higher, which would lower the death rate considerably.
On the other hand, the natural course of this disease seems to be a slow one (see the recent case report in the Lancet which described 10-14 days from onset of symptoms to death), so the death rate may lag behind in areas where the virus is becoming established.
Nothing is worth panicking over, because it’s not constructive. My point was really that some people’s insouciant attitudes seem to stem from numerical illiteracy or denial rather than a calmly considered view of the situation.
But that is exactly what some of us are worried about–that the number of cases will get so high that the medical system can’t handle it and consequently large numbers will die.
And that’s a legitimate concern; that if secondary pockets spring up elsewhere things could ultimately get as bad as seasonal flu. That’s very serious, don’t get me wrong, but it’s still different to the framing that’s going on in the media.
I live in China, and while it’s great friends and family are concerned for me, I have to tell them that, even in China, in the city im in, I’m still approximately 100x more likely to catch the flu.
Number of new daily cases decreasing, even with the expanded liberal case definition now in use in Hubei.
Total number of worldwide deaths outside of Hubei Province: 94. Out of 13,617 identified cases. Identified case fatality rate 0.6% - only slightly higher than influenza (and still likely subject to a selection bias to the sickest cases being identified).
Number of cases considered recovered outside of Hubei: 5787. That’s 42% of all identified cases outside of Hubei are already considered recovered. The recovered rate inside Hubei is under 17% to date. If the death rate outside of Hubei is lagging the recovery rate sure is not!
The virus, or minimally identifiable disease caused by the virus, has apparently NOT spread like wildfire across China outside of Hubei. And outside of Hubei identified cases are recovering more often and after fairly short courses of illness with a fraction of the case fatality rate.
There is of course reason for some concern and for appropriate actions that reduce risk. But “numerical literacy” and “calm consideration” leads to a conclusion that the these actions are, appropriately, reducing a fairly tiny risk to one even smaller, because the risk is of something potentially big. Rational thought would have people even more concerned about much larger established risks that can be reduced with relatively little efforts.
Which one? The hong Kong paper which has already been shown to be way off in its predictions?
(The paper itself is correctly tentative in its speculations, but it got reported in much of the media as “experts say”)
And subject to the opposite bias that this virus does not lead to death in a day or two. The cases outside of Hubei have all arisen more recently and therefore we wouldn’t expect to see many deaths yet.
Or there may be more aggressive efforts to identify mild cases outside of Hubei, made possible because the medical infrastructure is not overwhelmed, so you’d expect to see more recoveries (and a lower death rate, for that matter) because you’re not looking at the same more severe subset of cases.
I think we can all agree that people who don’t mitigate known risks by getting flu shots are acting unwisely.
I think you are missing the point of those numbers.
If we are not seeing many deaths because “the cases outside of Hubei have all arisen more recently”, then we should not be seeing many completely recovered yet, because “the cases outside of Hubei have all arisen more recently”.
Yes, there are many more relatively milder cases being identified outside of Hubei, whereas in Hubei the relatively mild cases are not being identified. THAT IS PRECISELY THE POINT. It is why the statement that the virus “kills 2 out of every hundred people it infects” is a complete mis-statement, based on a faulty understanding of what the current identified or “confirmed” case fatality rate, mostly driven by the subset of confirmed cases in Hubei, means.
Also notable - per that China CDC article (Table 1) there have been up through 2/11/20 only under a thousand cases confirmed in children 19 and under. It is very plausible (and it seems to be) that children get milder or even asymptomatic disease more often, but it is not so likely that there are actually that few kids catching the virus.
Please also be aware - the comparison is being made to influenza fatality rates. For that we have years of developing the models and the standard approach uses multipliers of as reported/confirmed cases are known to be just the tip of the iceberg. But we have ways to deduce how big that iceberg is from the tip.
Right now the cases identified outside of Hubei in China are likely only the tip of the total number of cases … we just don’t yet have the means to completely model how big the iceberg is. We know it is larger than the tip. The larger the iceberg is, of course, the lower the actual fatality rate, which again, outside of Hubei is already not very far off from influenza’s number.
A pandemic infecting many millions with a case fatality rate even significantly lower than influenza would still be a big deal. Containing it if possible is VERY appropriate.