It's bad, but not as bad as hysteria might make it out to be. Plus, we're learning more about it everyday.
The World Health Organization (“WHO”) released a study on how China responded to COVID-19. Currently, this study is one of the most exhaustive pieces published on how the virus spreads.
The results of their research show that COVID-19 doesn’t spread as easily as we first thought or the media had us believe (remember people abandoned their dogs out of fear of getting infected). According to their report if you come in contact with someone who tests positive for COVID-19 you have a 1–5% chance of catching it as well. The variability is large because the infection is based on the type of contact and how long.
The majority of viral infections come from prolonged exposures in confined spaces with other infected individuals. Person-to-person and surface contact is by far the most common cause. From the WHO report, “When a cluster of several infected people occurred in China, it was most often (78–85%) caused by an infection within the family by droplets and other carriers of infection in close contact with an infected person.
From the CDC’s study on transmission in China and Princess Cruise outbreak -
A growing body of evidence indicates that COVID-19 transmission is facilitated in confined settings; for example, a large cluster (634 confirmed cases) of COVID-19 secondary infections occurred aboard a cruise ship in Japan, representing about one fifth of the persons aboard who were tested for the virus. This finding indicates the high transmissibility of COVID-19 in enclosed spaces
Dr. Paul Auwaerter, the Clinical Director for the Division of Infectious Diseases at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine echoes this finding,
“If you have a COVID-19 patient in your household, your risk of developing the infection is about 10%….If you were casually exposed to the virus in the workplace (e.g., you were not locked up in conference room for six hours with someone who was infected [like a hospital]), your chance of infection is about 0.5%”
According to Dr. Auwaerter, these transmission rates are very similar to the seasonal flu.
Air-based transmission or untraceable community spread is very unlikely. According to WHO’s COVID-19 lead Maria Van Kerkhove, true community based spreading is very rare. The data from China shows that community-based spread was only a very small handful of cases. “This virus is not circulating in the community, even in the highest incidence areas across China,” Van Kerkhove said.
“Transmission by fine aerosols in the air over long distances is not one of the main causes of spread. Most of the 2,055 infected hospital workers were either infected at home or in the early phase of the outbreak in Wuhan when hospital safeguards were not raised yet,” she said.
True community spread involves transmission where people get infected in public spaces and there is no way to trace back the source of infection. WHO believes that is not what the Chinese data shows. If community spread was super common, it wouldn’t be possible to reduce the new cases through “social distancing”.
There are over 15,000 unlucky people in NY...
ReplyDeletehttps://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/22/nyregion/coronavirus-new-york-update.html
In the analysis of the 3711 people on board the Diamond Princess cruise ship that was quarantined in Japan, although they were living in the open for almost three weeks before the orders to stay in their cabins, 83% of the people never got the virus - they tested negative. Of the 17% who got the virus, almost half of them didn't know it. They never had any symptom at all. The 7 deaths were all among the oldest passengers, ages 70 and over, and all of them had other conditions. 7 deaths out of 3,711 passengers in quarantine is 0.19% fatality rate.
ReplyDeleteDon’t trust WHO on anything
ReplyDeleteThey have pretty much parroted the ChiCom position on WuFlu and can't be trusted for that very reason.
DeleteThe very fact that this study faitfully utilized data direct from the Chinese government is evidence it isn't worth the time to read nor the effort to assemble.
DeleteI realize its the only data we have right now, but you'd be better off baking a cake with a fish cookbook.
ANY conclusion at all, is utterly worthless, as its based on false data!
C.T. Bergstrom wrote a very negative introductory piece for Ginn's piece and is one of the Trump-haters par excellence - if you must (have the time to waste), read thru his other twitterings.
ReplyDeleteAaron Ginn, in my opinion, did a fabulous job separating the grain from the overwhelming load of fertilizer with which the MSM has been loading on it.
PZ Myers puked up a short article against Ginn as well. PZ Meyers says little that can be trusted. But, Ginn, who makes no claims about credentials, does a good job in his article. It's all about critical thinking. Plenty has been done, but the hysterical idiots and politicians, ignore them because they aren't say saying what the idiots want to hear.
DeleteIt was reported in January that Chinese authorities bull-dozed dirt across roads to close off traffic to and from Wuhan. They also confirmed that they were using (at least) two portable crematorium units outside Wuhan.
ReplyDeleteNow maybe it's me, but those don't sound like normal procedures for a standard flu-bug.
...just sayin'.
Stay healthy and stay safe!
leaves a guy wondering if the chinese solution to the spread of the virus involved the use of the thirty caliber solution to those who wouldn't stay locked down. that would certainly slowed the spread. it could also account for the lowered numbers reported shortly after publicly acknowledging an issue in Wuhan.
Delete