Suggest you learn to read properly then, there is no mention of multiple infected passengers - just the one and husband who she was travelling with was tested negative.

We know how it spreads on a cruise, so I think that is a very optimistic interpretation.

Regardless, it was a dereliction of duty by the WHO not to have suspended all cruises in the Far East at the outset.

I can read perfectly well thank you - what I posted was a direct copy of the opening paragraphs from the NYT article.

no, you are speculating and not bothering with the facts, to suit your scaremongering agenda. It is possible that there may be more cases so we shall see but until then let's just deal in facts.

Why are you so uptight?

How can posting a NYT article be "scare mongering"?

How can pointing out that it is ridiculous for these cruises to have been allowed to go ahead be "scare mongering"?

Look at the Diamond Princess for example.

P.S. - another NYT article - N.B. This is as reported verbatim in the New York Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/17/world/asia/china-coronavirus.html

"Coronavirus Updates: Evacuated Americans Carried Virus From Cruise Ship to Airplane

Fourteen passengers, who were believed to be well before they were evacuated from a cruise ship in Japan on Monday, were found to be infected before boarding a charter plane to the United States."

You are splitting hairs SJ and I have no idea why.

Because you are stating untruths - why?

Here are some latest facts for you that are not made up:

More deaths in Hubei: A total of 105 people in mainland China were killed by the virus Sunday, China's National Health Commission said -- 100 of whom were in Hubei province, the epicenter of the outbreak. The global death toll is 1,775, including five people outside mainland China.

New cases: Thailand, Japan and South Korea announced new cases on Monday.

Where? Or do you dispute the reports in the New York Times?

The plural (many passengers instead of just one) and your comment about 'pandemic here we come' were not in the NYT piece, they were both yours.

OK - a slight exaggeration in my prescript. Don't forget however, that the Diamond Princess started from a single 80 year old passenger.

Basic point is that all cruises in the region should have been suspended at the outset.

Anyway, Richard, haven't you got sandbags to help deploy?

As George Useless MP says, you can't rely on the govt anymore. We are building a deregulated low tax sweatshop economy. It's each man for himself. If you can't afford sandbags, tough

Tentitatively things do seem to be improving in China now. Enough time has passed since the peak to say this with some conviction. The main risk will be international cases outside of china.

More "scare mongering" - this time from the UK  Times, instead of the New York Times - what tinfoil hat rags eh?

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/japan-facing-rapid-rise-in-coronavirus-cases-jq8pnxg87

"Japan is entering a new stage in the spread of coronavirus, experts say, as more cases emerge in isolated pockets across the country with no clear connection to its origins in China.

Although politicians and senior doctors still refuse to describe it as an epidemic, it is clear that the virus has established itself in several parts of the country and is spreading independently. Public health experts are advising the government to shift the emphasis away from attempts to keep the virus out and instead concentrate on slowing its spread and reducing deaths among those infected with the illness.

“We are just entering the accelerating stage,” said Shigeru Omi, a public health expert and former official of the World Health Organisation, who attended a meeting of health experts yesterday at the office of the prime minister, Shinzo Abe.

..."

P.S. Tokyo Olympics?

I prefer the ECDC assessment (their bold):

The risk associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection for people from the EU/EEA and UK is currently considered to be low. This assessment is based on the following factors:

• Since all cases reported in the EU/EEA have clearly established epidemiological links, the probability of transmission in the EU/EEA and the UK is considered to be very low.


• However, the impact of one or more infections resulting in sustained transmission in the EU/EEA would be moderate to high, especially for elderly populations with comorbidities, given that the reported case severity is high among these groups.

No. Your opening remarks were yours and were inaccurate.

Given your previous lamentable efforts to assume the worst and overreact about this I had hoped for something more measured and closer to reality.

When I was a young Tory my branch was drawing up plans to survive a global nuclear war by taking up residence in Dalby Forrest. The apocalypse seems to have a certain draw for some self-styled "young turks" on the right. Fortunately it fades along with the radicalism over the years. 

Don't say this, nuking local tory branches or infecting them with a nasty virus sounds like an attractive idea to many. 

Come off it Gandalf, that is absurd.

All I did was put something in plural, instead of singular.

That is hardly "overreacting"

I think my point is a cogent one - if containment of the spread of the virus is the paramount responsibility and concern of the WHO, it should have suspended all cruises in the Far East at the outset. The conditions on the Diamond Princess make that self evident.

The Covid-19 story continues - a couple of comments:
There are 2 disservices the social media can do to our understanding of a subject: distributing fake news and undermining reasoned discussion. As scientists, we will all accept questions and propositions as part of the critical path of investigation. We accept that all our Facts are conditional, and subject to change on improved understanding. It is unavoidable that posters will sometimes be exchanging derivative or unsubstantiated information in the quest for a better understanding, and I think that is what we have been seeing on TWO. An assertive or combative tone does not always help the discussions, but I have taken some pleasure in seeing non-biologists try to get to grips with the natural history of an infective organism - and I am not being patronising to them in saying that. They may have been a bit gung-ho [note appropriate term for the subject] and OTT at times, and plain wrong on occasions. However, scientific curiosity and enthusiasm are not yet a crime. Nor is being wrong. Sometimes being wrong is a very helpful start.

A lot of heat and discomfort could be avoided if posters were clearer about their sources so that readers could refer to the original material. These discussions are not a race to display our wisdom, as a baboon displays its bottom, but a sharing of ideas as we come across them and the evaluation of data as it emerges. We should probably be careful not to advise, especially as most of us are not qualified to do so. We should all be ready to at least question if news items are authentic and reliable and make sure that our own bright ideas and opinions are clearly flagged so they can be weighed and discussed appropriately.
I have been very appreciative of many of the comments made here - it's the privilege of a retired teacher to enjoy folks giving their subject a good thrashing. Thank you all for the input so far.
Roger

 Very well said Roger.

Indeed.

However, I did quote my sources (NYT and Times) and the only error I apparently made was to say infected person(s) (plural) identified from the Westerdam, when there is one confirmed case and one under observation (her husband). Those overreacting, are those overreacting to my original post on that topic.

P.S. More on the same topic:

https://apnews.com/9b2c6764d9368cffc6cf3e4e94ff48d7

As has been pointed out, you also concluded your post with the hysterical "so pandemic here we come!"