OK so it's airborne. Transmission through aerosols is possible.

 

---

Surely unsurprising for a coronavirus (e.g. the common cold)?

---

Notably?

No

---

These are the same, if you are talking about the family in the ski chalet. The person from Brighton had travelled to France shortly after getting back from Singapore, and had infected them. Also a student acquaintance of the Brit who went to Singapore was told to self-isolate.

So the only British people known to be infected are that one business traveller from Singapore, his acquaitances since, and one guest on the Diamond Princess who is symptom-free.

---

Latest from Singapore

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/coronavirus-7-new-confirmed-cases-in-spore-possible-new-cluster-involving-church-in-paya

Note:
1. It is not remotely ‘out of control’ in Singapore 
2. Quoted death rate outside Hubei province is 0.2%

---

I think I heard someone (BBC Today I think) say you need to be close to an infected individual and need to breath in droplets with virus particles? I don't think it can transmit via surfaces or aerosols or, say, across a crowded room?

But much is still unclear? And to be to absolutely sure either way is unwise? Hence all the talk and speculation...

Is there something that makes Brexiters make statements without much evidence?

Singapore could of course upgrade its alert to red (indicating an out of control situation), but this hasn't happened yet.

Weeks ago, all but essential travel to SE Asia should have been avoided with government recommendations to that effect. Weeks ago, all Far East cruises should have been suspended by the WHO.
 
Singapore and Malaysia are now clearly epicentres for the virus and the situation can only get worse.

---

Agreed. The government are not being helpful either with their self isolate nonsense.

 

---

From Dr. Tom Frieden

A study published Friday in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) found that 41% of the first 138 patients diagnosed at one hospital in Wuhan, China, were presumed to be infected in that hospital.

This is big news. In plain English, it means that nearly half of the initial infections in this hospital appear to have been spread within the hospital itself. This is called nosocomial transmission. (Doctors use big words to hide bad things: Nosocomial means caught it in the hospital.)

What's more, most spread doesn't appear to have been the result of a so-called "super-spreader event," in which a single patient transmits infection to many other people. In these — where a doctor inserts a tube into the patient's lungs — can result in many infections.

This would be a concern, but not nearly as much as what appears to have happened: Many health care workers and many patients got infected in many parts of the hospital. What's more, since there's a broad spectrum of infection and only patients who were sick were tested, it's quite likely that there was even more transmission in the hospital.

So, like SARS and MERS — other coronaviruses — before it, the Wuhan coronavirus is spreading in hospitals.

---

Conspiracy theory from The Times:

"Notice that in Hubei region death rate is around 50 percent Everywhere else about 2 percent. It confirms the theory that we are dealing with two viruses. One is likely a potent bioweapon. Another was released to create a smokescreen. The second is bad but please don't let the first in as it has potential to depopulate the country."

 

---

Don't say stuff like that. Q will wet himself.

---

I have to say that by now I was expecting a higher number of infections and deaths outside of China, but the numbers are still very low. This could still change quickly though in the next few weeks.

Conspiracy nonsense unworthy of the Times.

The death rate is nowhere near those figures.

Honestly, this is poor journalism; the last thing we need is to scare people unnecessarily. After all, we have Quantum, you and a few other misguided souls in here doing that already.

 

---

Absolute rubbish; ‘weeks ago’ there was insufficient evidence to warrant such actions.

Hindsight is not useful.

---

do we know the real death rate?

WHO agrees with you, Gandalf. Coronavirus: WHO chief warns against 'trolls and conspiracy theories'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51429400

Roger

Addition: Coronavirus deaths exceed Sars fatalities in 2003 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-51431087

 

 

 

---

  There are those who want sensationalism and those with common sense!  

Gandalf and I have both experienced the real world and I am shocked but not surprised by the stories that are being fabricated.  Sadly, some would rather believe the media hype than the facts. 

 

---

 

We do, outside of China....

---

Currently we've taken Quantum's advice and barricaded the hotel bedroom door and having room service leave the meals outside the door. Once it's safe we open the door and take the food in. Also unplugged the internet connection: you never know with these viruses....

(only joking... nothing new to report here. Life goes on apart from a few outbreaks of panic buying in a few supermarkets)

---

With respect you haven't seen much of the real world from a cruise, and will have heard less of what's going on in China than we have.
It would surprise me if the lab base in Wuhan and specialising in tinkering with this exact form of virus isn't somehow implicated, we shall never know.

It's a mystery why WHO still seeks to downplay an event which is already far worse than SARs even by official figures which almost everyone accepts are far less than reality.

 

---

This seems to be a reliable site which is updated regularly.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-rate/

Wuhan 4.9%

Hubei province 3.1%

Other provinces 0.16%

China 2.1%

 

WHO current estimate is 2% but very tentative. In comparison SARS was close to 10%; the Spanish flu a century ago was around 2.5%.

---

I've stopped commenting here much, Caz. I like to see folks trying to grasp a science issue. However, as Terry Pratchett put it: "...if you fling a thousand darts at the board, some of them will hit the bull." He goes on to say: "...the people using the computers were not in fact shiny, new people, but the same dumb old human beings that there have always been. They did not - much - want to use the technology to get educated. They wanted to look at porn, play games and chat."

R

---

Woke up this morning with a sore throat. I know what comes next, always starts in the throat for some reason. Must have got it off some arsehole in the pub

---