You do only have insults to offer. But that's not what I was doing.

I was calling you a hypocrite, not to insult you, but to throw a question to your sincerity. I am not, nor ever have been, in a 'bunker'. What I have done are sensible, evidence based, precautions. I still work, I still go out of the house, I still buy perishable groceries. 

 

And yes obviously 'bunker' is also mockery for its own sake. But even when you take away the satire the suggestion that I am doing anything extreme in my precautions is simply not true.

 

---

So does any cruise ship, which is the basic point I have been making all along. Unbelievable that cruises in the region have not been suspended even now (they should have been suspended on WHO recommendation weeks ago).

 

---

Sorry, you are being absurd.  

You have the cheek to question my sincerity?  F**k off, I've had enough of this nonsense.

---

I prefer to keep an open mind. You sound almost convinced that the chinese data is dodgy; perhaps it is, but we'd probably have heard more noises from the WHO and the various CDCs.

 

I am to be honest, I'd be amazed if they weren't fiddling the numbers in some way. The Chinese are desperate to get their economy up and running again its taking a huge hit at the moment.  There's still plenty we don't know about this virus just how contagious is it? and the death rate is still not clear. But you only have to look at the quarantining methods the Chinese have used in Hubei province to know that they think its a very dangerous disease indeed.

---

I think it’s important to focus on the death rate and recovery rate outside of China. We can be pretty sure that the figures are correct and if so then the death rate is low and the recovery rate is high. We still need a lot more data before we can sure but so far so good.

I’m yet to feel the need to change my jogging route and isolate myself from social occasions.....;)

---

---

I don't really understand how China would benefit from fabricating data downwards  in this instance. If anything it is in their interests to overstate the number of people infected. That makes it easier to justify draconian action and also puts a bigger responsibility on the rest of the world to try and restrict the spread of the virus.  

---

This is a good video to watch. Very informative.

 

---

That seems entirely logical to me, Brian, if looked at from a medical perspective. I can only conclude they are anxious about creating panic in an already worried population. Either that or their testing regime is flawed. I find that hard to believe in the light of international scrutiny. The undercurrents of self interest and unknown agendas in China's politics are another mystery. Roger

---

Nothing new in there about viruses in general.  I noted that he made claims that he didn't and cannot substantiate in alleging that China is under reporting the figures.

Whatever his expertise he undermined his credibility with such comments.

If there isn't a leap in infections in the next 2-3 weeks I wonder if he will admit to having used unjustified pessimism.

---

On his about it says he is an A and E nurse based in England yet apparently he is a Dr. I don't follow really. Does he have a PhD in a non medical discipline?  

---

New large sample size paper from China with some results:

• No super spreading events detected


• Cases may be declining but predict a resurgence possible due to complacency


• High fatality rate for those that are 50 YO or older especially amongst men


• Possible multiple animal->human transmissions but human->human dominating from very early on

---

Oh right I see the skeptism is reserved for the author of a summary style video rather than a communist dictatorship.

 

---

I would imagine he's retired, his videos generally calculate various aspects using the Chinese official figures which by their own admission cannot account for every case. The prospects are bad enough without assuming actual figures are probably considerably worse.

---

So, as usual, nothing sensible to add; just more pathetic and failed point scoring.

Bonus marks for consistency.

Now run back to your little bunker.

---

Oh right, so the reporting of the pre and published lit constitutes 'nothing useful to add'?

What exactly are your contributions exactly?

---

Strange how this thread is pretty much divided along Brexit lines....

I was pro-virus early on, but then the facts changed my mind  

BBC quoting a large scale survey from China's epidemiological institute. This won't help those who believe the Chinese are fiddling the figures, of course. It's not clear (and indeed could it be?) about the number who catch the virus and show no or minimal symptoms.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-51540981 (scroll down to get past the personal interest stuff)

Some of the conclusions reached include the following:

• Some 80.9% of infections are classified as mild, 13.8% as severe and only 4.7% as critical.


• The highest fatality rate is for people aged 80 and older, at 14.8%.


• For children up to 9, there have been no fatalities and up to the age of 39, the death rate remains low at 0.2%.


• For the next age groups, the fatality rates increase gradually: For people in their 40s it is 0.4%, in their 50s it is 1.3%, in their 60s it is 3.6% and their 70s it is 8%.


• Looking at the sex ratio, men are more likely to die (2.8%) than women (1.7%).


• Identifying which existing illnesses put patients at risk, the study finds cardiovascular disease at number one, followed by diabetes, chronic respiratory disease and hypertension

---

That (comprehensive) study estimates a mortality rate of 2.9% in Wuhan, but just 0.4% for the rest of China.

Still too early to say, but it sounds like Quantum was completely wrong.

Yes, odd isn’t it.

Something about ignoring or misinterpreting the evidence perhaps?

---

Currently 895 confirmed cases outside of China and still only 5 deaths

---

Well, I am avoiding flying for the time being, but this is taking matters too far:

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51527042

 

---

A bit of biology for you. Let's reflect on how a relatively mild infectious agent reaches a balance with its host(s) and achieves a more or less stable relationship. It's got to keep itself going somehow. Now think of what we need to know in order to understand what is going on. We need to do discover how many humans are symptomatic and how many are not. This is difficult to do, as there is overlap of symptoms between diseases, the common cold, influenza and covid-19 for example, and of course a proportion of people may host a virus but without symptoms.

I am about to fill in my weekly form for "Flusurvey" to assist with surveillance of 'flu-like diseases in the UK. This will indicate the % of people without symptoms - a very important statistic - versus those who have one or more of a list of indicative symptoms. I have been doing this for years and mentioning it on TWO for some time. If I were a betting man I would hazard a guess that the most vocal posters on this thread are the least likely to be participating in this simple but useful exercise. I only know a few here who do. Do tell me I am wrong! I'll be pleased.

If you do not yet contribute to the survey - why not sign up before you do another post - words are cheap, data is useful.
https://flusurvey.net/

Roger

---