Some experts are now saying that the outbreak is now effectively out of control in China, given the new information about its ability to spread before symptoms appear. Further, that although the mortality rate seems to be around 3% (i.e. Worse than the Spanish Flu outbreak), the number of deaths is likely considerably to exceed the SARS pandemic,simply because of the likely far greater infection rate.

I fear that this is rapidly turning into the potential catastrophe that epidemiologists have long predicted if one of these animal viruses mutated in the 'right' way and made the jump to humans. The Chinese authorities are going to be tested severely in the coming weeks.

Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

Populations are always regulated by disease, war, famine etc

This is no different. And its the old, economically inactive who are mostly dying, so in the long run, it could work out well for China, assuming a vaccine can be made of course before it gets too bad

Originally Posted by: The Beast from the East 

Some experts are now saying that the outbreak is now effectively out of control in China, given the new information about its ability to spread before symptoms appear. Further, that although the mortality rate seems to be around 3% (i.e. Worse than the Spanish Flu outbreak), the number of deaths is likely considerably to exceed the SARS pandemic,simply because of the likely far greater infection rate.

I fear that this is rapidly turning into the potential catastrophe that epidemiologists have long predicted if one of these animal viruses mutated in the 'right' way and made the jump to humans. The Chinese authorities are going to be tested severely in the coming weeks.

Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

Will be interesting to see how much person to person infections there are out-with China - in France, Vietnam, Singapore etc.

Surely that will be a measure of just how catastrophic this could turn out to be? Cases outside China seem relatively small so far, and all seem to involve links to Wuhan.  

Originally Posted by: Joe Bloggs 

I fear that this is rapidly turning into the potential catastrophe that epidemiologists have long predicted if one of these animal viruses mutated in the 'right' way and made the jump to humans. The Chinese authorities are going to be tested severely in the coming weeks.

Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

Long-predicted is right, Gandalf. It was an issue being addressed in my undergrad course in the 60s and my work in the 70/80s, so it gives me considerable satisfaction to see folks debating the issues here from a wide range of perspectives. I've made the point in other posts, but I strongly recommend readers do a search for "lessons learned from the SARS experience", and also the general models for epidemiology, like the "epidemiological triad". These help us to think through the overall picture. Meteorologists are likely to have the science and modelling understanding to make sense of it all. Ideal.

This is a good BBC article. China coronavirus: The lessons learned from the Sars outbreak

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-51221394

For anyone really interested, try searching "Zoonotic Disease" and "human-animal-environment interface".

Bugis Streets in Singapore is not what it one was!

R

Originally Posted by: Roger Parsons 

Thanks as always, Roger.

When I bought and read the book in novel viruses it made me realise it was a ticking bomb.  There is no vaccination programme for these episodes and a growing population and increasing encroachment into wild areas means more risk of contact with an infected animal. Then greater movement of people heightens then risk of an outbreak spreading.  We are fairly well placed in countries with sophisticated and well-resourced healthcare systems but these outbreaks generally occur in places lacking both.  I think China still sits between the two.

Bugis Street??!!  Sometimes you amaze me!  But like much of Singapore, the ‘old’ has given way to the ‘new’

Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

By coincidence just watched Tony Robinson's History of Britain on Channel 5, where he tells the story of ordinary people living in Tudor times. The life expectancy was only 35 as many died of viruses they picked up from animals they worked with

Originally Posted by: The Beast from the East 

By coincidence just watched Tony Robinson's History of Britain on Channel 5, where he tells the story of ordinary people living in Tudor times. The life expectancy was only 35 as many died of viruses they picked up from animals they worked with

Originally Posted by: The Beast from the East 

There's still a substantial list of Zoonoses to worry about, Beast. Here's the HSE list for Farm Animals: have you had any of these?

https://www.hse.gov.uk/agriculture/topics/zoonoses.htm

Roger

Originally Posted by: Roger Parsons 

I know of a fair few of these  as Dad worked in the agricultural  sector (although not actually as a farmer).  My sister contracted Lyme disease a few years ago,   bit, fortunately   recognised the symptoms and got   treatment before  it  really got going !  I worked on a pig unit as a part time college job and we are warned about weil's disease  disease - the food mill   was  infested with rats and they pissed over everything !

Originally Posted by: Bugglesgate 

By coincidence just watched Tony Robinson's History of Britain on Channel 5, where he tells the story of ordinary people living in Tudor times. The life expectancy was only 35 as many died of viruses they picked up from animals they worked with

Originally Posted by: The Beast from the East 

Those were the days, back when we lived in harmony with nature.

Originally Posted by: Northern Sky 

Yes - they were spoilt for choice, NS - no wimpy antibiotics or bed blocking.

Originally Posted by: Roger Parsons 

There is a point here - we have disturbed the balance of nature by our ingenuity. The biggest problem we face is one of over population - too many people for nature to support. In the "good old days", nature kept a balance - fecundity versus pestilence and disease - human populations were largely held in balance for millennia as baby production and mortality more or less matched each other.

Our modern ability to identify causes of disease and to prevent disease, has upset the old balance. If humanity is to have a future where we can live long lives unmolested by viruses and bacteria, then we need to control the fecundity side of the equation by balancing baby production with deaths. In the advanced world, this has been more or less achieved, since wealthy people prefer to divert all their resources into raising one or two offspring, rather than in having a large litter. Unfortunately, for both cultural and economic reasons, poor countries produce an over supply of offspring, leading to all the issues of over population and attendant environmental calamity.

Nature will sort us out one way or another, if we don't remedy the problem ourselves. The key aims of foreign aid for example, should be education and family planning.

Originally Posted by: Maunder Minimum 

There is a point here - we have disturbed the balance of nature by our ingenuity. The biggest problem we face is one of over population - too many people for nature to support. In the "good old days", nature kept a balance - fecundity versus pestilence and disease - human populations were largely held in balance for millennia as baby production and mortality more or less matched each other.

Our modern ability to identify causes of disease and to prevent disease, has upset the old balance. If humanity is to have a future where we can live long lives unmolested by viruses and bacteria, then we need to control the fecundity side of the equation by balancing baby production with deaths. In the advanced world, this has been more or less achieved, since wealthy people prefer to divert all their resources into raising one or two offspring, rather than in having a large litter. Unfortunately, for both cultural and economic reasons, poor countries produce an over supply of offspring, leading to all the issues of over population and attendant environmental calamity.

Nature will sort us out one way or another, if we don't remedy the problem ourselves. The key aims of foreign aid for example, should be education and family planning.

Originally Posted by: Maunder Minimum 

There is a point here - we have disturbed the balance of nature by our ingenuity. The biggest problem we face is one of over population - too many people for nature to support. In the "good old days", nature kept a balance - fecundity versus pestilence and disease - human populations were largely held in balance for millennia as baby production and mortality more or less matched each other.

Originally Posted by: Maunder Minimum 

I'm not really sure there is a balance of nature MM, or at least anything other than (in the majority of cases) a very transitory balance. I would say nature is more an ever changing procession of winners and losers. 

Originally Posted by: Northern Sky 

Such a clinical view of humanity. 

Never ceases to amaze me how those that talk of 'over-population' never really include their own existence in that. 

Originally Posted by: Chunky Pea 

I love the way that you assume to know everyone’s thoughts.

Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

I'm not really sure there is a balance of nature MM, or at least anything other than (in the majority of cases) a very transitory balance. I would say nature is more an ever changing procession of winners and losers. 

Originally Posted by: Northern Sky 

'Baby production'.

I know what I read. Perhaps the great population purge of WW2 back in the day was part of that 'nature balancing itself' thing as well? Same principle applies. 

Originally Posted by: Chunky Pea