SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Coronavirus declared global health emergency by WHO
The new coronavirus has been declared a global emergency by the World Health Organization, as the outbreak continues to spread outside China.
"The main reason for this declaration is not what is happening in China but what is happening in other countries," said WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.
The concern is that it could spread to countries with weaker health systems.
1st Person-To-Person Spread Of Coronavirus Has Occurred In U.S., CDC Says
Coronavirus: US reports first person-to-person transmission
Chicago health officials have reported the first US case of human-to-human transmission of the deadly coronavirus.
The new patient is the spouse of a Chicago woman who carried the infection back from Wuhan, China, the US Centers for Disease Control said on Thursday.
The discovery marks the second report of the virus in Illinois and the sixth confirmed case in the US.
This paper provides early estimates of 2019-nCoV epidemiological parameters: Novel coronavirus 2019-nCoV: early estimation of epidemiological parameters and epidemic predictions (open, DOI: 10.1101/2020.01.23.20018549) (DX)
Used model does not offer much grounds for optimism.
Previously:
China Reports 3rd Death, Nearly 140 New Cases of Coronavirus
China Confirms Human-To-Human Transmission of New Coronavirus; CDC Confirms First US Case
Coronavirus: Millions Quarantined in Wuhan City
China Battles Coronavirus Outbreak: All the Latest Updates
In The Pipeline: Coronavirus
Plague Inc. Maker: Don't use our Game for Coronavirus Modeling
Original Submission #1 Original Submission #2 Original Submission #3
(Score: 4, Touché) by PartTimeZombie on Friday January 31 2020, @12:58AM (17 children)
I shouldn't think it is a biological warfare virus. It is not really lethal enough for that is it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 31 2020, @01:15AM (5 children)
For now, it doesn't seem more lethal than your average annual flu, does it? "Regular" flu kills thousands (millions?) annually.
(Score: 1) by Adam on Friday January 31 2020, @01:33AM (4 children)
Regular flu kills 0.1% of people who catch it (these days). This coronavirus has killed ~2% of the infected at this point.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 31 2020, @03:04AM (1 child)
That's inaccurate. Maybe 0.1% of a vulnerable sub-population. The 1,000 student high school by me doesn't have a death a year to influenza. Envelope check your math - a 0.1% death rate, assuming half the population catches the flu twice a year, would be staggering.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 31 2020, @03:58AM
I've got to partly agree with this. I had what I suspect was the flu once several years ago. Almost two weeks of high fever, sweating, and generalised pain. I lost more than 20lb (even after it was over and I was rehydrated I was 20lb lighter). But I didn't go to a doctor, and that case would not be recorded in any statistics, either as a flu case or as a survivor.
But not with this. Assuming half get it twice per year is the same as everybody getting it every year. That is ridiculous. Wikipedia says 5 million cases per year worldwide which is a 1 in a 1400 chance of getting it each year. I think that estimate might be low due to the reason in the first part, but not by a factor of 1400.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 31 2020, @07:37AM (1 child)
More like 2% of those who were identified to have it. Not the same as 2% of those infected.
Not all who are infected would go to a hospital to contribute to the statistics.
I'd only go to the hospital if I'm sick enough. If I was sick but not feeling that bad I wouldn't go to the hospital (especially at this time) - because that's where lots of people with germs, including superbugs are... So I might have the coronavirus or it could be flu or something with similar symptoms but nobody would know what it was.
I'd stay home, load up on zinc, vitamin C, lie in bed, keep body warm and head not too warm.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 31 2020, @12:53PM
> "I'd stay home, load up on zinc, vitamin C, lie in bed, keep body warm and head not too warm."
Don't forget lots of fluids and chicken soup.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 31 2020, @01:28AM (3 children)
Why would you think the best weaponized virus is the most lethal?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 31 2020, @07:43AM (2 children)
Strawman. OP didn't say best is most lethal. It's just not lethal enough. It doesn't really appear more dangerous than the nastier flus of recent decades.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 31 2020, @08:16AM (1 child)
I don't think you want it to be lethal at all. Zero lethality is ideal. Max morbidity causes the biggest drain on resources.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 31 2020, @10:35AM
1) it's below par in terms of morbidity too.
2) Max morbidity doesn't cause as much drain on resources as you think because less resources will be spent on you if you're too sick. Max resource drain might be something like a disease where you stay fairly healthy and active but you go around secretly destroying resources and infecting other people...
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Friday January 31 2020, @03:05AM (6 children)
First thing you learn is you want as long an incubation period as possible without any symptoms. If a symptom pops up (like coughing) you try to squash it ASAP, else those clever bumpkins notice your little science fair project.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Friday January 31 2020, @06:54AM
Username checks out.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 31 2020, @07:52AM (4 children)
If I were a bioweapons researcher I'd try to make a combination weapon. e.g. you normally only die if you get infected by both viruses within a certain time period. If you get infected by one it's only like the common cold or something - e.g very contagious but doesn't kill.
See also: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170131124205.htm [sciencedaily.com]
That way it's easier to control who dies and maybe harder to figure out what's going on. Also if one gets loose it's not as big a problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 31 2020, @08:26AM (3 children)
Why would you want the enemy to die instead of continuing to consume resources in a hospital bed? The best bioweapon is probably something like HFCS...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 31 2020, @10:37AM
Go ask the others making lethal weapons if you can't figure out why.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 31 2020, @12:56PM (1 child)
High Fructose Corn Syrup ?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 31 2020, @02:25PM
Yes, simply drain the enemys resources by making them so unhealthy they require constant medical care for their entire lives.