Guest post by Rud Istvan
Introduction
The Wuhan coronavirus potential pandemic has been much in the news recently. ctm discussed my doing an update to a rather long comment a few weeks ago. I first agreed but then demurred until now.
The reasons for agreeing were the numerous analogies (below) to climate change ‘science’ and ‘prognostications’—albeit on usefully shortened testable time frames like this year, not 2100. Examples below include assuming we know what we actually don’t based on models, and reporting worst case but unlikely scenarios as ‘likely” because ‘if it bleeds, it leads’.
First reason for originally demurring was that the factual situation was too fluid for rational qualitative analysis—alarmist rumors were flying all over, like from ‘reputable’ UK research groups who modeled an R0 near 4 (horrible, as defined below). Pure unsubstantiated alarmism, just like AGW prognostications.
Second reason (ironically), I came down with a wicked, likely coronavirus (less runny nose, more sore throat and cough) cold last week and am still recovering at day nine. So was too sick to even think about a guest post until yesterday evening day 8. Finishing this draft today merely proves that I am finally recovering on day 9 and that it probably was a human common cold corona virus since the typical rhino duration is ‘only’ 5 days, not 9-10.
Qualifications
None, if you are a CAGW ‘believer’. I am not a microbiologist, a virologist, or an infectious disease MD. A CAGW/skeptic ‘critique’ all too familiar at WUWT.
But, I served as CEO for a decade of a small private company that attempted (unsuccessfully for reasons beyond the scope of this post) to commercialize a novel topical antimicrobial PERSISTENT against all bacteria, all fungi, and many viruses including all colds, influenza and pinkeye. I had to teach myself the topic and its medical ramifications in order not to mislead my investors or misuse their several million dollars. Plus, we formed a pre-eminent science advisory board on infectious disease. Plus, in the 2009 swine flu scare, my corporate board forced interactions with NIH (Dr. Fauci), CDC, the FDA, and even the National Security Council (special briefing in the EOB at the WH, 2 hours, spooky)—because our FDA regulatory guy DIED in June 2009 from the swine flu contracted while on a cruise vacation to Mexico with his family (more below).
Those not interested in the background science sections can skip to the last sections of this longish comment, where the intervening basic science is applied to Wuhan coronavirus without further explanation.
Basic Virology
What follows perhaps oversimplifies an unavoidably complex topic, like sea level rise or atmospheric feedbacks to CO2 in climate science.
There are three main types of human infectious microorganisms: bacteria, fungi, and viruses. (I skip important complicating stuff like malaria or giardia.) Most human bacteria are helpful; the best example is the vast gut biome. In human disease some bacteria (typhoid, plague, tetanus, gangrene, sepsis, strep) and certain classes of fungi (candida yeasts) can cause serious disease, as do some human viruses (polio, smallpox, measles, yellow fever, Zika, Ebola).
There are two basic forms of bacteria (Prokaryotes and Archaea, neither having a genetic cell nucleus). Methanogens are exclusively Archaean; most methanotrophs are Prokaryotes. Membrane bound photosynthetic organelle containing cyanobacteria are the evolutionary transition from bacteria to all Eukaryotes (cells having a separate membrane bound genetic nucleus) like phytoplankton, fungi, and us. Both Prokaryote and Eukaryote single cell (and all higher) life forms have a basic thing in common—they can reproduce by themselves in an appropriate environment.
Viruses are none of the above. They are not ‘alive’; they are genetic parasites. They can only reproduce by infecting a living cell that can already reproduce itself. The ‘nonliving’ viral genetic machinery hijacks the reproductive machinery of a living host cell and uses it to replicate virions (individual virus particles) until the host cell ‘bursts’ and the new virions bud out in search of new hosts.
There are two basic virus forms, and two basic genetics.
Form
1. Viruses are either ‘naked’ or ‘enveloped’. A naked virus like cold causing rhino has just two structural components, an inner genetic whatever code (only the two basic types–DNA and RNA–are important for this comment) and an outer protective ‘capsid’ protective viral protein coat. An example is cold producing rhinovirus in the family picornavirus (which also includes polio).
2. Enveloped viruses like influenza and corona (Wuhan) include a third outer lipid membrane layer outside the capsid, studded with partly viral and partly host proteins acquired from the host cell at budding. These are used to infect the next host cell by binding to cell surface proteins. The classic example is influenza (internal genetic machinery A or B) designated HxNy for the flavor of the (H) hemagglutinin and (N) neuraminidase protein variants on the lipid membrane surface.
Conceptual images of both virion forms follow from CDC.
Naked Rhino Enveloped Influenza
![clip_image004[1] clip_image004[1]](https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/clip_image0041.png?resize=233%2C222&quality=75&ssl=1)
Genetic Type
The second major distinction is the basic genetics. Viral genetic machinery can be either RNA based or DNA based. There is a huge difference. All living cells (the viral hosts) have evolved DNA copy error machinery, but not RNA copy error machinery. That means RNA based viruses will accumulate enormous ‘transcription’ errors with each budding. As an actual virology estimate, a single rhinovirus infected mucosal cell might produce 100000 HRV virion copies before budding. But say 99% are defective unviable transcription errors. That math still says each mucosal cell infected by a single HRV virion will produce about 10 infective virions despite the severe RNA mutation problem. The practical clinical implication is that when you first ‘catch’ a HRV cold, the onset to clinical symptoms (runny nose) is very fast, usually less than 24 hours.
There is a related epidemiological consequence of great concern. It has been proven possible for a single mucosal cell to be infected ‘simultaneously’ by more than one viral seriotype. That is a simple math probability of virions and host cells Example: you have an easily transmissible ‘normal’ coronavirus cold already (defined below), go to Wuhan and also contract Wuhan. In your body those two different coronaviruses can now both be replicating in the same host cells, and because of RNA replication are indiscriminately exchanging genetic material. So you might end up with an attenuated virulence Wuhan, or a more virulent Wuhan—but most likely both.
The history of the 2009 Swine flu scare showed this. The novel new H1N1 seriotype started in Mexico, where my guy contracted his early fatal infection. For reasons explained below, flu is strongly seasonal. It was winter in South America, so the first hard hit country was Argentina. The mortality data were horrific (5.5%). But, this in hindsight meant the most virulent strains were already burning themselves out, since dead people cannot replicate virions. By the time swine flu reached the North American winter several months later, it was already significantly less virulent (1-2%, still very bad). What actually saved the situation was that based on Argentina, the world appropriately panicked, commandeered global conventional flu vaccine production, and crashed through a swine flu vaccine in just under 6 months at the expense of the normal next year stockpile.
Upper Respiratory Tract viral infections.
So-called URI’s have only two causes in humans: common colds, and influenza. Colds have three distinguishing symptoms–runny nose, sore throat, and cough—all caused not by the virus but by the immune system response to it. Influenza adds two more symptoms: fever and muscular ache. Physicians know this well, almost never test for the actual virus seriotype, and prescribe aspirin for flu but not colds. Much of what follows in this section is based on somewhat limited actual data, since there has been little clinical motivation to do extensive research. A climate analogy would be sea surface temperature and ocean heat content before ARGO. Are there estimates? Yes. Are there good estimates? No.
Common cold URI’s stem from three viral types: RNA rhinovirus (of which there are about 99 seriotypes but nobody knows for sure) causing about 75% of all common colds, RNA coronaviruses, for which (excluding SARS, MERS, and Wuhan) there are only 4 known human seriotypes causing about 20% of common colds, and DNA adenoviruses (about 60 human seriotypes, but including lots of non-cold symptom seriotypes like conjunctivitis (pink eye and pharyngoconjunctivitis) causing about 5% of common colds.
Another climate change related analogy. The internet (including Wikipedia) gets the previous paragraph’s facts mostly wrong. For example, Wiki distinguishes picornviruses from rhinoviruses without realizing the later is a subset of the former, so double counts.
Available data says rhinovirus seriotypes are ubiquitous but individually not terribly infective, coronavirus seriotypes are few but VERY infective, and adenoviruses are neither. This explains, given the previous RNA mutation problem, why China and US are undertaking strict Wuhan quarantine measures.
This also explains why there is no possibility of a common cold vaccine: too many viral targets. You catch a cold, you get temporary (RNA viruses are constantly mutating) immunity to that virus. You next cold is simply a different virus, which is why the average adult has 2-4 colds per year.
This also explains why adenovirus is not very infective. It is a DNA virus, so mutates slowly, so the immune memory is longer lasting. In fact, in 2011 the FDA approved (for military use only) a vaccine against adeno pharyngoconjuntivitis that was a big problem in basic training. (AKA PCF, or PC Fever, highly contagious, very debilitating, and unlike similar high fever strep throat untreatable with antibiotics.) In the first two years of mandatory PCF vaccine use, military PCF disease incidence reduced 100 fold.
These data expanded to influenza also explain why the annual flu shot is so hit or miss. The intent is to match the most common HxNy A or B types from end of this season for vaccination next season. That guess is never perfect. Plus, RNA based influenza mutates rapidly. So even IF the annual flu shot was a good initial match, the flu that spreads by the end of the vaccinated season will be the bits the guess missed—basic Darwinian evolution at work explaining the limited efficacy of the annual flu shot.
A clinical sidebar about URI’s. Both are worse in winter, because people are more indoors in closer infectious proximity. But colds have much less seasonality than flus. Summer colds are common. Summer flus aren’t.
There is a differential route of transmission explanation for this empirical observation. Colds are spread primarily by contact, while flus are spread primarily by inhalation. You have a cold, you politely (as taught) cover your sneeze or cough with a hand, then open a door using its doorknob, depositing your fresh virions on it. The person behind you opens the door, picking up your virions, then touches the mouth or nose (or eyes) before washing hands. That person is now probably infected. This is also why alcohol hand sanitizers have been clinically proven ineffective against colds. They will denature enveloped corona and adeno, but have basically no effect on the by far more prevalent naked rhinos.
There is an important corollary to this contact transmission fact. Infectivity via the contact route of transmission depends on how long a virion remains infective on an inanimate surface. This depends on the virion, the surface (hard doorknob or ‘soft’ cardboard packaging), and the environment (humidity, temperature). The general epidemiological rule of thumb for common colds and flus is at most 4 days viability. This corollary is crucial for Wuhan containment, discussed below.
The main flu infection route is inhalation of infected aspirate. This does not require a cough, merely an infected person breathing in your vicinity. In winter, when you breathe out outside below freezing ‘smoke’ it is just aspirate that ‘freezes’ and becomes visible. Football aficionados see this at Soldier and Lambeau Fields every winter watching Bears and Packers games. The very fine micro-droplet residence time in the air depends on humidity. With higher humidity, they don’t dry out as fast, so remain heavier and sink faster to where they don’t get inhaled, typically minutes. In typical winter indoor low humidity, they dry rapidly and remain circulating in the air for much longer, typically hours. This is also why alcohol hand sanitizers are ineffective against influenza; the main route of flu transmission has nothing to do with hands.
Wuhan Coronavirus
As of this writing, there are a reported 37500 confirmed infections and 811 deaths. Those numbers are about as reliable as GAST in climate change. Many people do not have access to definitive diagnostic kits; China has a habit of reporting an underlying comorbidity (emphysema, COPD, asthma) as cause of death, the now known disease progression means deaths lag diagnoses by 2-3 weeks. A climate analogy is the US surface temperature measurement problems uncovered by the WUWT Surface Stations project.
There are a number of important general facts we DO now know, which together provide directional guidance about whether anyone should be concerned or alarmed. The information is pulled from reasonably reliable sources like WHO, CDC, NIH, and JAMA or NEJM case reports. Plus, we have an inadvertent cruise ship laboratory experiment presently underway in Japan.
The incubation period is about 10-14 days until symptoms (fever, cough) evidence. That is VERY BAD news, because it has been demonstrated beyond question (Germany, Japan, US) that human to human transmission PRECEDES symptoms by about a week. So unlike SARS where all air travelers got a fever screening (mine was to and from a medical conference in Panama City). Since transmission did not precede symptoms, SARS fever screening sufficed; with Wuhan fever screening is futile. That is why all the 14-day quarantines imposed last week; the only way to quarantine Wuhan coronavirus with certainty is to wait for symptoms to appear or not. Quarantine is disruptive and expensive, but very effective.
Once symptoms appear, disease progression is now predictable from sufficient hundreds of case reports—usual corona cold progression for about 7-10 days. But then there is a bifurcation. 75-80% of patients start improving. In 20-25%, they begin a rapid decline into lower respiratory pneumonia. It is a subset of these where the deaths occur with or without ICU intervention. And as whistleblower Dr. Li’s death in Wuhan proves, ICU intervention is no panacea. He was an otherwise healthy 34 years old doctor.
There are two (really now three) key epidemiological numbers: R0 pronounced medically as ‘Rnaught’ (or, as we now know, R0 before and after symptoms). R naught is how many naïves will a single infected individual infect? We know from the Japanese cruise ship Diamond Princess quarantine that R0 is at least ~2. (As of now, 63 diagnosed out of 2667 passengers and ~1100 crew). Since Japan has moved the 63 symptomatic patients to hospital isolation, that same cruise ship may in the next 14 days also provide an experimental symptomless Wuhan R0 estimate. Late revision update, now 69, so asymptomatic R0 is unfortunately above 1.
The second important number is mortality, a virulence metric. We don’t know the mortality rate yet even given 811 deaths/37500 diagnosed. That is because of the multi-week disease progression, even if there were no other data issues. SARS was about 10% in the end (774 deaths from about 8000 diagnosed). The “Spanish flu’ of 1918-19 was also ~10% or perhaps a bit higher (CDC guesstimate is 40-60 million died out of about 500 million infected). BTW, for those wanting to deep dive that last lethal viral pandemic, I highly recommend the NYT best selling book THE GREAT INFLUENZA by John Barry. Wuhan is very unlikely to reach anywhere close to that mortality; otherwise we would already have seen many more deaths.
We also now know from a JAMA report Friday 2/7/2020 analyzing spread of Wuhan coronavirus inside a Wuhan hospital, that 41% of patients were infected within the hospital—meaning the ubiquitous surgical masks DO NOT work as prevention. The shortage of masks is symptomatic of panic, not efficacy.
Scientists last week also traced the source. There are two clues. Wuhan is now known to be 96% genetically similar to an endemic Asian bat corona. Like SARS and ‘Spanish flu’, it jumped to humans via an intermediate mammal species. No bats were sold in the Huanan wet market in Wuhan. But pangolins were, and as of Friday there is a 99% genetic match between pangolin corona and Wuhan human corona. Trade in wild pangolins is illegal, but the meat is considered a delicacy in China and Vietnam and pangolins WERE sold in the Wuhan wet market. This is is similar to SARS in 2003. A bat corona jumped to humans via live civets in another Chinese wet market. Xi’s ‘simple’ permanent SARS/Wuhan coronavirus solution is to ban Chinese wet markets.
This is similar to what is now known about the 1918-19 H1N1 ‘Spanish flu’. It started as a 1917 avian H1N1 (wild duck, Mississippi flyway, fall migration) influenza. It was hosted and incubated in an intermediary species, hogs, in Haskell County, Kansas for the rest of that year. A country doctor tending surprisingly many severe flu cases among hog farmer families as winter 1918 began raised an alarm, but his public health warnings were ignored. Then it jumped from Haskell County, Kansas hog farmers to Camp Funston, Kansas soldiers during winter 1918, where doughboys were training then deploying to Europe to finish the great war. The rest was history, with an R0 guesstimated between 2 and 3.
Conclusions
Should the world be concerned? Perhaps.
Will there be a terrible Wuhan pandemic? Probably not.
Again, the analogy to climate change alarm is striking. Alarm based on lack of underlying scientific knowledge plus unfounded worst case projections.
Proven human to human transmissibility and the likely (since proven) ineffectiveness of surgical masks were real early concerns. But the Wuhan virus will probably not become pandemic, or even endemic.
We know it can be isolated and transmission stopped with 14-day quarantine followed by symptomatic clinical isolation and ICU treatment if needed.
We know from infectivity duration on surfaces that it cannot be spread from China via ship cargo. And cargo ship crews can simply not be given shore leave until their symptomless ocean transit time plus port time passes 14 days.
Eliminating Chinese wet markets and the illegal trade in pangolins prevents another outbreak ever emerging from the wild, unfortunately unlike Ebola.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Found some really interesting information on the replication and mutation rates of Corona Virus in general – stuff I had never read before. The section on Replication – Mutation raised my eyebrows. Apparently this type of positive sense RNA genetic material DOES mutate at a very high rate, and if I read the material correctly there is a possibility of material swapping between other similar viruses (it did not come out and say it, but if you can have strand deletions it would make sense you could have accidental strand additions, assuming the mRNA of multiple similar viruses was at play):
http://www.microbiologybook.org/virol/coronaviruses.htm
Once recovered survivors will have high levels of human immunoglobulin that can fight the virus. Should survivors be identified and asked to provide blood to treat newly infectious people
Antiviral drugs reportedly have shown effectiveness:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/02/developing-three-hopeful-treatments-for-coronavirus-one-treatment-using-anti-viral-drug-remdesivir-shows-results-within-hours-video/
And where is the evidence in your article that this person was asymptomatic? Only hearsay, just like in the debunked NEJM paper. Surprising how many WUWT readers are skeptical of climatologist findings yet are willing to uncritically accept other researcher’s findings. The following analysis titled “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False” cannot be re posted enough.
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
It’s very early days regarding this virus with a lot of misinformation and debunked theories going around. It would be better if people just said – I/we don’ know, rather than to spread misinformation based rumors and anecdotal data.
On protective clothing. In NZ we use a die in herbicides to identify which weeds have been spaayed (hand gun).
While the die is fairly safe to use it is very concentrated: 200 ml in 1000 ltr of water. Get one tiny drop of concentrate on the skin and it spreads and stays for days.
At one time I experimented with disposable gloves. It became very clear that one had to remove them and handle them with extreme care. The die showed up any mistakes. I made plenty, Where do you put them? How do you handle that container? At one time we used a powder. That was even worse.
Add to gloves; masks, gowns and goggles. Think about it. How do you get dressed and undressed? In what sequence? Is everything to be disposable or do you disinfect? How?
The average person has no chance of being fully protected without rigid training and practice.
The average person has not training in aseptic technique or isolation procedures. As an SF medic trainee aseptic technique was drilled into us day in and day out but isolation procedures was a subject that was taught and practiced in a single day. Then came the day in 1983 while a member of an SF MTT (Mobile Training Team) in Liberia a case of hemorrhagic fever n the tent flap of our little clinic. Talk about scared. We isolated the patient. Thank God for the SF medic handbook and the US Army Physicians Assistant assigned to the US Embassy in Monrovia. The SF medic handbook is a fantastic reference with all kinds of great info in it for field medicine and lab procedure. The PA arranged for proper evacuation of the patient a missionary hospital and confirmed we were handling the situation correctly. Turned out to be yellow fever and not Ebola. Definitive diagnosis was far beyond the capabilities of our own little lab. It doesn’t matter if it’s been 35 years, I still know how to wash my hands and the proper order and method to don cap gown, gloves and mask. So I reckon
A couple of points:
“BTW, for those wanting to deep dive that last lethal viral pandemic, I highly recommend the NYT best selling book THE GREAT INFLUENZA by John Barry. Wuhan is very unlikely to reach anywhere close to that mortality; otherwise we would already have seen many more deaths.”
Note that the Great Influenza had a milder form that swept through first, those who caught the first version seemed immune to the second, or was it the other way round, I cant remember, but its in the book above. Also, they think it independently developed in Spain (hence Spanish flu), the data is contradictory whether the US data from the hog farms was the main origin. Much of this is still debated.
There were probably at least three waves.
One thing is for sure…there is no consensus on any of the details of the Spanish Flu.
Some researchers have given strongly supported evidence based cases against nearly everything claimed by someone else.
That goes for where it originated, how it killed young people so quickly, etc.
Any accounts that do not give the many conflicting ideas, findings ,and theories, should be taken very skeptically.
There are many assertions for where it started, and even when, differing by which side of the planet and several years.
Yes that’s the impression I got about this flu of 1918-1919, about as clear as mud.
I’ve got another theory that I admit is a bit of a longshot: the reason it affected young and more fit people more is maybe because it evolved within the mostly young, but sick and wounded in 4 years of filthy trenches in World War 1.
Some say it seems to have started in army camps at the end of WW1, and also maybe within people who were also gassed. Hundreds of thousands of sick and wounded and gassed young people might do strange things to diseases over several years, with low immune systems and kicking people when they are down.
Nothing much other than circumstantial though. But why at the end of one of the most tragic war conditions in history? Co incidence?
Mortality occurred over a period of roughly five years is what I have read,
As for it being Spanish in origin, that is one point on which there seems to be rather general agreement: It did not.
There was a news blackout during the war from the countries involved.
But Spain was not a participant in the war, and so news reports flowed freely from there on the flu.
It was worldwide, but I have not seen any source assert it came from Spain…only the reason for how it became named as the origination point of the illness.
Bottom line, from the CDC:
“Typically, with most respiratory viruses, people are thought to be most contagious when they are most symptomatic (the sickest).”
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/about/transmission.html
People infected in the US:
Positive (have the virus) = 12
Negative (do not have it) = 318
Pending = 68.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-in-us.html
Read your first post on this, Mr. Istvan, and wanted to say I appreciate your follow-up. Also appreciate the discussion.
Thank you Rud and all who have commented. I find the subject fascinating but have no expertise in this area of science, so can’t add anything knowledgeable to the discussion.
Let us hope it turns into a case of overreaction, for all the right reasons.
Keep up the great work, informing those of us interested enough in all things factual, to look beyond the MSM for educational/accurate information.
Its late in the thread and late at night, but I wanted to paste an article from the Thailand Medical website. The discrepancies between various reports from China makes it really hard to know fact from fiction. Take this article with a big grain of salt. However, I do wonder how Rud’s view on the outbreak would change if what these articles says is accurate:
The Hubei provincial health commission had confirmed a total of 31,728 cases with 974 deaths by the end of Monday, indicating a fatality rate of 3.07%. for just Hubei alone.
It said there were still a total of 16,687 suspected cases of coronavirus in Hubei alone.
No mentioned was made of the deaths or infected cases nationwide in China.
The new figures will bring the coronavirus death toll in China to now 1013 and confirmed infected cases to 42,780 and those in critical condition to 6,508.
China’s health authorities have a strange manner of divulging the total figures each day to the media, most of it does not make any sense or even give a proper perspective of the actual coronavirus scenario nationwide.
Many epidemiological experts in the UK and US and also with data provide by local tech giant Baidu, along with feedback from a new network of doctors reporting anonymously, estimate that the realistic figure number of the coronavirus infected cases in China could be as high as between 500,000 to 2 million individuals out of a population of 1.4 billion people.
China is even more desperate to conceal figures of late due to the apparent economic fallout that it is witnessing day by day.
Many medical experts are expecting to see a massive rise of deaths and infected cases in China before the end of February.
Already many new cities in provinces like Chongqing, Jiangxi, Hunan, Henan and Zhejiang are reportedly becoming the new epicenters of the coronavirus, with many new cases each day and hospitals overflowing and resembling Wuhan.
“Many epidemiological experts in the UK and US and also with data provide by local tech giant Baidu, along with feedback from a new network of doctors reporting anonymously, estimate that the realistic figure number of the coronavirus infected cases in China could be as high as between 500,000 to 2 million individuals out of a population of 1.4 billion people.”
WR: This info appears to be from the Thailand Medical News Website: https://www.thailandmedical.news/news/update-death-and-critical-rates-increasing-in-china-due-to-coronavirus-103-deaths-in-last-24-hours,-death-toll-now-1013,-infected-42,780,-critical-6,5
“commandeered global conventional flu vaccine production”
Which has never been proven to be of ANY use.
The flu scare was a scam. A hoax. 100%
Congratulations to Rud on a very interesting and very readable post. I rate it as one of the most informative posts I have ever read here.
One that validates the hoax of the pandemic flu, invented by the WHO.
One that pretends the vaccine is part of the solution, and not a dangerous product that wrecked many lives for NO REASON WHAT SO EVER. That awful flu was extremely NOT severe.
How can you consider that Big Pharma/WHO apology to be credible, that’s beyond me.
Good article. I agree.
Masks are a product in search of a market.
Thank you Rud Istvan, as well as the several most knowledgeable commenters here. Real life presents us with very interesting case. A puzzle. But a genuine threat or not?
I believe you are arguing that the ongoing quarantine can be effective in controlling the disease. Not to worry too much. Others raise doubts about the data collected. Many raise the hidden motives of the CCP….(and the “Mandate of Heaven” dogma of Chinese history, politics, and belief ought to be better known: search Wiki for helpful short sketch) .
Nowhere else have I read more clearly that unleashing an epidemic might be best way to defeat a popular uprising as seen for most of 2019 in Hong Kong. Point made. Except, didn’t the recent elections result in a clear statement? And a clear democratic popular echo rejecting China by Taiwan?
Rud, your essay is powerful and lucid. And your credentials as an entrepreneur in the frontier of the relevant applied sciences truly impressive. (And, yes, your books have been on my shortlist to buy…long neglected for personal reasons, yet beckon ever more strongly to me. Thank you for the indirect reminder).
However, I think I speak up for many in saying that I am also out of my depth here. Earth sciences I can understand. Genetics and biology…not so much. For example, much water has gone under the bridge in three decades, but I recall the Nobel Prize in Chemistry to Tom Czech (sp?). He showed that RNA was not simply chemical junk, but was biologically active. And since then, HIV-Aids has generated more scientific knowledge relevant to viral disease.
Thus dunned, I know that while I can read, I cannot comprehend nor evaluate Rud’s thoughts without a good bit of refresher study on genetics.
Meanwhile, like others, I am impressed by the seriousness of the human health threat implied by quarentining millions and tens of millions of people. The pandemic of our lives, perhaps?
On the one hand, China and US authorities would not take such powerful measures if the threat were not truly serious. On the other hand, we see social justice warrior fad “science” telling us that quarantines don’t work and do more harm! “Don’t do it!” they shout – you’re both naive and evil, we’re told.
Look, look! We’re Johns Hopkins Medical authorities. Yet for every neuroscientist/MD – like an old and brilliant college roommate to come out of grad study at Hopkins, there’s also a snake oil salesman like John Money teaching there (SEE “As Nature Made Him,” about one of his sex-reassignment victims of fad science – relevant to the current child sex change trans fad). Call me – as with James Hanson and Michael Mann – deeply offended by these prostitutes of fad science, and therefore truly sceptical.
Fortunately, we have more transparent labvtests for the nCov epidemic outside of China from which to gauge the seriousness of the problem. First, the cruise ships. Then, island states like Singapore.
Finally, there are the quarantine frontiers of places like Thailand and Vietnam (and possibly elsewhere, like Africa?). They share porous borders with China. And while developing, they are poor in many places, and very poor in many, too. Viral reservoirs, too. And, hence, the threat of communicable disease transmission from “leakage” will, I fear, continue into 2021.
Consequently, a Great Influenza scenario, like 1918-19, cannot be confidently ruled out for a long time. A 4% global pandemic risk, someone avers?
Time will tell the tale. And this month and the next will generate new data to examine. I hope Rud and others will post again, here, in the months to come.
Again, thank you Rud and contributors. You have given this humbled thinker much to chew on.
It’s Tom Cech. He was on my PhD thesis committee.
A giant. You were blessed.
To clarify, no one thought that RNA was junk. What Cech and Altman showed was that RNA could act as an enzyme (ribozyme) as well as a store of genetic information and a transfer and template agent in protein synthesis.
I’ve found the names:
– “Common cold URI’s stem from three viral types: RNA rhinovirus (of which there are about 99 seriotypes but nobody knows for sure) causing about 75% of all common colds, RNA coronaviruses, for which (excluding SARS, MERS, and Wuhan) (…)”
WHO and China decided to change naming. China accepted NCP (Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia). From PR point of view it was colossal error, a blunder. You may read NCP as New-Year Chinese Plague, as well.
The best way would be to follow up existing nomenclature. For example:
SEARS – South-East Asian Respiratory Syndrome or more sinister or more correct:
WARS – Wuhan Acute Respiratory Syndrome
2019NovCoV would suffice, too, or simply more readable 19NewCoV (19NCV).
Coronavirus disease named Covid-19
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-51466362
– “The new name is taken from the words “corona”, “virus” and “disease”, with 2019 representing the year that it emerged (the outbreak was reported to the WHO on 31 December).”
WHO went nuts. China too.
Is TTD a good name? The Twenty-Twenty Disease ?
An easy and neutral name.
Excellent, but for the Event which awaits us in 2020. On the other hand, it’s too enigmatic.
Nobody knew the event in 2019. In reality all happens in 2020. Only the beginning started somewhere in 2019. The only thing all people will remember that it all happened in 2020 (and perhaps after 2020 – let’s not hope so).
A bit of common sense from Taiwan
Taiwan sticks with ‘Wuhan’ for name of COVID-19 coronavirus despite WHO change
https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3875140
– “The Central Epidemic Command Center (CECC) issued a statement saying that the recurrent name changes by the WHO could easily confuse members of the public. Therefore, after a discussion, it said it had decided to stick with the already familiar name of “Wuhan virus” for use in Chinese.”
I’ve been right. 🙂 WARS – Wuhan Acute Respiratory Syndrome
Best name! Hands down.
In the flood of new names WARS stands out as the best.
Coronavirus latest: Scientists clash over virus name
13 February 12:15 GMT — Chinese virologists raise concerns about virus name
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00154-w
From SARS-CoV to SARS-CoV-2 (totaly sensless)
or (proposed then)
TARS-CoV (Transmissible Acute Respiratory Syndrome)
CARS-CoV (Clustered Acute Respiratory Syndrome)
RARS-CoV (RApid spread Respiratory Syndrome)
WARS-CoV (Wuhan Acute Respiratory Syndrome) is up to the point.
BTW. COVID-19 sounds like new VHS system – COviewing (in family) VIDeo.
Thanks for the update Rud. B. Nerlich has a post up-
http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2020/02/11/coronavirus-risk-rumour-and-resilience/
Scanning the comments, I saw several statements along the lines of: Yes, but the official numbers are really all we have to go on, implying that it’s the best starting point for analysis.
But is it? President Xi was notably absent from the news as the problem initially worsened. Then, on February 3, he went public (see below):
BEIJING (REUTERS) – Chinese President Xi Jinping on Monday said coronavirus control was the most important task at the moment, China’s state television reported. [end of quoted passage]
On Feb 4th, reported confirmed cases continued growing at an exponential rate of growth. On Feb 5th, and thereafter “reported” confirmed cases grew by lesser and lesser amounts. I rate the odds of such a dramatic reversal in behavior actually occurring just one day later at slim to none, but then I’m not a statistician.
New cases by day starting Jan 30 through Feb 4: 2,008; 2,127; 2,604; 2,837; 3,239; 3,925. (14.3% growth rate)
New cases by day starting Feb 5 through Feb 10: 3,723; 3,163; 3,437; 2,676; 3,001; 2,546. (-7.3% growth rate)
Note: These are worldwide cases, but nearly all of the growth has been in mainland China.
Expected from Feb 5 to Feb 10 with just 400 new cases per day: 4,300; 4,700; 5,100; 5,500; 5,900; 6,300.
Expected from Feb 5 to Feb 10 with just 10% growth in cases per day starting Feb 3, since Feb 4’s number looks high: 3,563; 3,919; 4,311; 4,742; 5,216; 5,738; 6,311.
And with 15% growth (from Feb 3, not Feb 4): 3,725; 4,283; 4,926; 5,665; 6,514; 7,492; 8,615.
Add to the above weirdness, the fact that a few days ago some other provinces had reported over 1,000 cases with zero to one death and nearly 200 recoveries, and it’s likely that the leaders of those provinces had already anticipated the implied directive from President Xi and were downplaying the problem from the start.
If I have understood the original post and following comments – a big “if” – it seems the virus may be spread through the air, especially in dry conditions. Even if that is not the case for this episode, it seems likely for other bugs. The anecdotal evidence is the widespread experience of catching something on flights, especially long-haul.
That makes me wonder what, if anything, is done to clean up recirculated cabin air on aircraft – and cruise ships, conference centres, hospitals, etc, for that matter: very little is my guess.
Shouldn’t all such air conditioning systems include equipment to sterilise the air? For example, it’s my understanding that powerful UV light kills most viruses, bugs, etc..
They have air filters in planes to trap dust but that’s about it, sometimes carbon filters for odors. Apparently, UV filters are too expensive and if present would need to be maintained. They typically generate some ozone, so ozone scrubbing would also be needed.
Thanks Scissor; I wasn’t sure what, if any, filtration etc is used at present. I’d be surprised if putting in UV was too expensive relative to the cost of an aircraft. In principal it would just be a lamp in a length of pipe plus the electrics to run it. There would be a bit more maintenance, keeping the lamp clean and replacing it every so often.
Generation of ozone can be avoided, iirc, by controlling the UV wavelength. Anyway a downstream carbon filter would take out any ozone.
I’ll do a bit of research via a friend who works for a big UV treatment supplier, mainly for the water industry. There’s probably more to this than I think!
The CDC site has info on how the air on planes is filtered.
Most planes used for modern commercial air traffic circulate a mix of 50% new air from outside the plane, and 50% recirculated air.
The recirculated air is filtered with a HEPA (High Efficiency Particle Filters) filter units that are said to be the same level of filtration used in hospital operating rooms.
Turnover rates are said to be every two or three minutes.
I doubt many homes, offices, movie theatres, stores, etc, have that level of turnover.
Here is a tip I use myself: Always open the eyeball vent above your seat and point it at your head.
This will tend to push air from the people around you away from you, not towards you. Basically creating a zone of high positive pressure around your face.
I’d never given it any thought, but maybe that’s why I was taught to block a sneeze with the back of a hand. I’m more polite than I realized!
Note: I assume HRV means Human Rhinovirus(?) because I don’t see it defined.
Wim Röst, Rud Istvan & al.
For interested persons: a link to a new paper about 2019-nCOV, renamed Covid19 by the WHO:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.06.20020974v1
(PDF access inside)
Clinical characteristics of 2019 novel coronavirus infection in China
Wei-jie Guan & al.
The tweet reaction list to the article is quite interesting as well.
Rgds
J.-P. D.
About the study: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.06.20020974v1
“Clinical characteristics of 2019 novel coronavirus infection in China”
First of all, I myself would be interested in the conclusions of Andy Pattullo on this study. He is an expert in this field and he knows better than a layman as me how to weigh all the medical info in the study.
Second: this is a very long comment that I will also copy to yesterday’s thread. It might contain important or at least interesting thoughts/conclusions.
Some elements I picked up from the study which is about 1099 hospitalized patients from 552 hospitals in 31 provinces through January 29th, 2020.
– “4 out of 62 stool specimens (6.5%) tested positive to 2019-nCoV, and another four patients in a separate cohort who tested positive to rectal swabs had the 2019-nCoV being detected in the gastrointestinal tract, saliva or urine”.
WR: Because this study is about hospitalized patients, the big unknown is how many people have been infected but did not show any symptoms or did only show very slight symptoms. Most of them will not have been hospitalized. But they probably played a role in the transmission of the virus.
The 6.5% of researched stool specimens of hospitalized persons that tested positive for the virus is an indication that the digestive system plays a role. The study: “Collectively, fomite transmission might have played a role in the rapid transmission of 2019-nCoV, and hence hygiene protection should take into account the transmission via gastrointestinal secretions.”
The important role of the gastrointestinal secretions in the transmission is clear. But there is no clarity about the role of gastrointestinal secretions resulting in natural resistance (the development of antibodies) in only slight or very slight infected persons. Which could be an important field of research.
– “Our findings were consistent with the national official statistics, reporting the mortality of 2.01% in China out of 28,018 cases as of February 6th, 2020 [11,23].”
– “The fatality rate was lower (0.88%) when incorporating additional pilot data from Guangdong province (N=603) where effective prevention has been undertaken (unpublished data).”
WR: Effective prevention could have played a role in the low death rate for the Rest of Mainland China compared with Hubei. The yesterday suggested low rate of lung to lung transmissions for those areas is another possibility https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/02/08/the-corona-epidemic-a-dangerous-and-a-less-danerous-form/.
An indication for the possible importance of the lung to lung contaminations in creating severe cases can be found in a study that found out that “of more than 1,000 cluster cases, 83% were identified as family clusters.” Cluster cases generally refer to “more than two infected cases within a limited space”. (Source: https://edition.cnn.com/asia/live-news/coronavirus-outbreak-02-11-20-intl-hnk/index.html Most cluster cases are spread among families, China officials say. From journalist Alex Lin in Hong Kong)
The paper concludes:
“ – In summary, 2019-nCoV elicits a rapid spread of outbreak with human-to-human transmission, with a median incubation period of 3 days and a relatively low fatality rate.”
– Absence of fever and radiologic abnormality occurs in a substantial proportion of patients on initial presentation while diarrhea is uncommon.
– The disease severity is an independent predictor of poor outcome.
– Stringent and timely epidemiological measures are crucial to curb the rapid spread.”
WR: Elsewhere the study concluded: “These findings will inform the mass public, clinicians and policy makers the true transmissability of 2019-nCoV which has resulted in a major social panic.”
The high transmissibility is probably a main factor in the ‘major social panic’. The overwhelming growth of the number of patients in a short time and the lack of medical possibilities puts a high pressure on the whole society. Prevention in the spread of the epidemic plays the central role to control the what is called here ‘major social panic’.
Understanding the way of transmission in less severe cases (!) might play a main role in the development of the right policies to win the fight against this epidemic.
Possibly such a research could also lead to finding medical ways to stimulate healthy people to create antibodies without the medical risk of developing and later spreading the sickness. One of today’s commenters MarkW February 11, 2020 at 7:51 am told: “My dad was a doctor and of the 5 kids, none of us missed a single day of school due to illness. I always thought that this was because dad brought home micro-doses of whatever was going around on his clothes every day.”
If so, those micro doses if given to healthy people in a non-risky way (through the digestive system?) might lead to a way to fight effectively this epidemic. Specialists should research whether this could be an option.
One of today’s commenters, John Sheperd February 10, 2020 at 11:38 am guessed that in China only one out of ten Chineses people will go to a doctor in case of sickness. Doing research in this group that does not visit a doctor might help in finding out the real spread of the virus and might also help in finding the best way to end this epidemic.
Thanks for this well-written post and many interesting comments.
This seems like the key to the effectiveness of quarantines and the recurrence of the disease. Is this “infectivity duration” on surfaces measured clinically somehow – or just guestimated from the likely exposures?
It is almost surely being inferred from the known or probable characteristics of similar viruses.
There is no way anyone could have reached any sort of conclusive proof as to something like this for the new virus.
“China’s Coronavirus Epidemic Appears To Be Peaking; Next Up: Massive Stimulus”
Feb. 11, 2020 10:15 AM ET Random Itinerant
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4323096-chinas-coronavirus-epidemic-appears-to-be-peaking-next-up-massive-stimulus?utm_medium=email
Comment:
hamletmachine comments:
China recently revised the criteria used for “new cases”
It used to be anyone who tested positive for the virus. Now it is anyone who tests positive AND is currently displaying symptoms.
This obviously cuts down dramatically on the “new cases” being reported & therefore we can’t draw any conclusions on overall numbers without taking that into account
“China: A Brutal Post-Coronavirus Economic Reset”
Feb. 11, 2020 6:11 PM ET Albert Goldson
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4323286-china-brutal-post-coronavirus-economic-reset?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-widget
Interesting comments on both threads.
I think it must have broken as a story after you posted, but they have now changed the way they are reporting due to not having enough of the test kits, or people to do the testing. For whatever reasons, they cannot test everyone.
So now they are apparently using imaging tests and symptomology to count the number of infections, as well as the number of dead which are attributable to the COVID-19.
Long story short they are now mixing apples with oranges, and are using a method which risks overcounting due to including anyone with regular flu and/or pneumonia to the COIVID-19 numbers.
After all, it is not like other diseases have stopped occurring, and regular flu kills plenty of people…far more than most people realize, and this is the time of year it is worst.
So as of the evening of the 12th they are suddenly reporting an additional 14,840 cases and an additional 242 deaths today alone.
Although it is unclear if those 242 new deaths and ~15,000 new infections are meant to all be within the last 24 hours, or if those numbers represent a cumulative addition to the numbers that have been being reported, now that the new method of counting is being used.
I think it is fairly conclusive at this point that the cruise ship Diamond Princess is not acting as a quarantine as much as it has turned into a breeding colony for virus.
The mean time of incubation for new infections is now becoming firmly established as 3 days.
But the number of new infections on the ship is increasing faster all the time. This is impossible after over a week if the mean incubation period is three days, unless new people are being infected, and not only a few.
At this point that single ship has become the largest source of new patients outside of China.
Yesterday one of the quarantine officers came down sick as has been diagnosed with Covid-19.
25 January: One 80 year old disembarks in Hong Kong and six days later on Feb 1 is diagnosed with CXovid-19
On the next voyage of the ship (think about that):
Feb 3-4: 10 people on the ship are diagnosed, and the ship with 3700 on board is ordered quarantined for 14 days. The 3rd seems to be the first day of the quarantine.
Feb 7: The number of cases on the ship has grown to 61.
Feb 8: 3 new cases for a total of 64.
Feb 9: 6 new cases
Feb 10: 65 new cases! Total as of this date is 135 cases.
Feb 11: 39 new cases, including one quarantine officer, who was obviously infected after the quarantine started. So don’t they need to reset the clock? Total cases now at 174.
Feb 12: No info yet.
Feb 13: 44 new cases! This is not looking anything like what would be the case if the disease was not spreading to new people, and only those incubating since the 4th were coming down sick now. Most especially not if the average incubation period is 3 days. Outliers would be expected perhaps, but the 14 days is supposed to allow for a margin of safety by being longer a period of time than anyone could be infected and not showing symptoms yet.
As I suspected initially, this is looking like a very bad idea to lock all those people into a confined space with a virus known to be present and spreading readily.
That ship should have been evacuated and the people dispersed. It still should be.
Are they just going to keep them there if people are still presenting with the disease on day 14?
Obviously at that point the quarantine has been shown to have failed to contain anything, instead allowing the virus a large reservoir of 3700 people in a small space.
The way quarantine works is…people are isolated…not kept jammed together.
I have never been on a cruise ship, but obviously it is not like people being in separate houses. Many of the quarters have no windows, so obviously there is forced air. And a crew of over 1000 people. I do not think the crew have luxury accommodations. And they have to keep the ship running, cook and distribute food, etc.
And people need to be able to sanitize bedding and clothing, have fresh towels, etc.
I am beginning to think those people have had a terrible thing inflicted upon them by people who purport to be knowledgably medical authorities.
Just reading another article, which states that the 19th was the last day of the original quarantine, but that anyone in contact with a newly diagnosed victim of the disease is having the clock reset to another 14 days!
As I thought, they cannot stick to 14 days if they are yanking people out of there sick every day.
This could go on forever, and the idea of letting some people off the ship after a certain amount of time on the theory they can be sure of who has had contact and who has not is nuts.
They need to disburse those people so anyone not infected as of now can stay that way.
I saw that a few hours after I wrote this comment, Japanese authorities decided to begin to get those people off that dang ship to a proper quarantine facility.
I think the largest gaping hole in the plan to keep those people on that ship was that the crew of the ship was still interacting with the passengers and each other on a daily basis, and it is not like the crew was immune to being infected.
At least some of the crew were infected.
It could turn out to be the case that one crew member might have infected hundreds of others, especially if people are spreading it before they know they are sick.
Worst case one crew member could infect every other person on the ship if he was one of the ones handling or distributing food.
“the crew of the ship was still interacting with the passengers and each other on a daily basis”
So the whole isolation and confinement line was pure nonsense and a scam?
How is that ethical? What if the passagers sue?
Totalitarian system wants a blood…
https://twitter.com/PDChina/status/1227973703457095681
It looks like black scenario repeated from the famous Polish movie:
War of the worlds – the next century (1981)
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083335/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
Translated quote from Polish film database (my correction):
WOJNA ŚWIATÓW – NASTĘPNE STULECIE
http://www.filmpolski.pl/fp/index.php?film=12165
– “On December 28, 2000, of the twelfth day of Martians’ stay on Earth, Iron Idem (TV presenter) – a popular journalist leading independent magazine from the SBB TV company – will be forced to read in front of the cameras the text imposed on him, in which he is to call on for establishing friendly contacts with the aliens from Space and __voluntary donate__ (them) own blood.”
Re: “They need to disburse those people so anyone not infected as of now can stay that way.”
I’d guess every one of the “imprisoned” passengers is thinking similar thoughts. And I have the same question that you pose about how many times do you reset the clock, especially when you have new cases
popping up? Each new confirmed case presents additional, confounding uncertainties about sources of infection. Worse, if you have an increasing number of cases, it suggests the people in charge really are clueless as to how to conduct a humane quarantine. The lawyers must be drooling.
For soldiers returning from the European theater after WWI, the troop ships proved to far more deadly than fields of battle. Posh as the Diamond Princess may be, its crew and passengers are suffering far too many similar conditions.
Seems like the current waiting game is all too similar to one of those survivor programs where the last ones aboard are the default “winners”. Removing the passengers and crew at least eliminates one potential source of contagion, which may now be the ship itself.
Wim Röst, Rud Istvan
You will probably have the info already, but who knows?
Found today in the French newspaper Le Figaro:
https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6
Rgds
J.-P. Dehottay