Actualité Covid-19

[Tramp]

En même temps, l’OMS reconnaît la médecine chinoise. L’OMS c’est de la grosse daube. 

[Rübezahl]

eh, il y a docteur justice qui travaille à l'OMS !

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docteur_Justice

 

[Pegase]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7947003/6-000-trapped-cruise-ship-Italy-two-people-board-tested-coronavirus.html?ito=social-twitter_mailonline

 

En espérant que ce soit une fausse alerte, sinon c'est inquiétant.

[Freezbee]

Différence de traitement :

 

Les Australiens doivent payer 1000 $ par personne pour passer 14 jours dans un centre de détention :

 

 

Les français seront logés deux semaines dans un centre de vacances :

 

[Freezbee]

Le directeur de l'OMS vient de déclarer que le coronavirus est désormais une urgence de santé publique de portée internationale (public health emergency of international concern) :

 

 

 

[Freezbee]

 

[RaHaN]

Il y a 23 heures, Freezbee a dit :

Bien vu ?

Trop !

[biwi]

c'est vraiment folklo ..l'OMS qui commence à bouger son cul...le maire de la commune qui a pas eu son mot à dire et qui l'a appris au dernier moment (sachant qu'une énorme fête est prévue ce week end ) et que le staff municipal et les habitants craignent que cette histoire va faire fuir les touristes ..

un médecin est contaminé , il a ausculté une chinoise qui depuis est repartie au pays ....on est a 6 cas de contamination, allez j'ouvre les paris ...avec cet afflux de potentiels contaminés français + le personnel qui les encadre + les gendarmes qui les surveillent + tous les intermédiaires qui vont graviter autour .....dans une ou deux semaines on va double voir tripler le nombre de porteurs ....

 

c'est beau la France , c'est beau tous ces décideurs qui ne mettent pas en péril les habitants et connaissent sur le bout des doigts les impératifs sanitaires .

[Tramp]

Il y a 19 heures, Freezbee a dit :

Différence de traitement :

 

Les Australiens doivent payer 1000 $ par personne pour passer 14 jours dans un centre de détention :

 

 

Les français seront logés deux semaines dans un centre de vacances :

 

 

Avec soutien psychologique...

[biwi]

et c'est nous qui allons payer leurs vacances à carry-le-rouet? le financement il vient d'ou ....c'est hallucinant ce truc

[biwi]

et ça commence

 

https://www.20minutes.fr/sante/2707927-20200131-coronavirus-comment-organise-quarantaine-200-francais-wuhan

[Neomatix]

Ce matin la news tombe : deux cas confirmés de Coronavirus au UK.

 

Vers 10h, je vais à la parapharmacie (Boots) pour acheter de l'exfoliant. Je passe devant le rayon désinfectant pour les mains : presque vide, il reste 3 bouteilles. Au moment où je me penche pour prendre une photo (ci-dessous), une femme arrive au pas de course, plonge ses bras dans le rayon pour attraper les 3 bouteilles, me regarde d'un air menaçant, tourne les talons et s'en va payer comme elle est arrivée.

 

Arrivé aux caisses avec mon exfoliant, je vois une longue file de gens les bras chargés de désinfectant (dont une personne avec facilement 6-8 bouteilles).

 

Tout ça pour 200 morts de l'autre côté de la planète.

 

Les gens sont tous tarés.

 

 

 

il y a 7 minutes, biwi a dit :

et ça commence

 

https://www.20minutes.fr/sante/2707927-20200131-coronavirus-comment-organise-quarantaine-200-francais-wuhan

[Marlenus]

8 hours ago, biwi said:

c'est vraiment folklo ..l'OMS qui commence à bouger son cul...le maire de la commune qui a pas eu son mot à dire et qui l'a appris au dernier moment (sachant qu'une énorme fête est prévue ce week end ) et que le staff municipal et les habitants craignent que cette histoire va faire fuir les touristes ..

un médecin est contaminé , il a ausculté une chinoise qui depuis est repartie au pays ....on est a 6 cas de contamination, allez j'ouvre les paris ...avec cet afflux de potentiels contaminés français + le personnel qui les encadre + les gendarmes qui les surveillent + tous les intermédiaires qui vont graviter autour .....dans une ou deux semaines on va double voir tripler le nombre de porteurs ....

 

 

Donc au pire on sera à 18 porteurs.

 

Alors qu'il y a déjà largement plus de mort par la seule grippe cette année.

 

Intéressant...

[NoName]

Le problème n'est pas le nombre de porteurs mais la propagation. 

 

Le virus est 10 fois plus letal que la grippe et 40 fois plus contagieux iirc. Ce qui veut dire que le potentiel de mort est *beaucoup* plus élevé. Lorsque le nCov sera aussi répandu que la grippe, on aura un nombre de mort bien plus important. C'est justement ça le nerf de la guerre: éviter la dispersion.

 

Btw, même en cas de survie, j'ai vu qu'il peu y avoir des séquelles 

[Freezbee]

il y a une heure, NoName a dit :

Le virus est 10 fois plus letal que la grippe et 40 fois plus contagieux iirc.

 

Ça, nous ne le savons pas avec certitude. Ça dépend des chiffres transmis par les Chinois, et il se peut que les cas avec des symptômes modérés soient sous-reportés (ce qui ferait alors baisser drastiquement la létalité). Quant à la transmissibilité, c'est pareil : difficile de modéliser une épidémie au début.

[GilliB]

il y a 5 minutes, Freezbee a dit :

 

Ça, nous ne le savons pas avec certitude. Ça dépend des chiffres transmis par les Chinois, et il se peut que les cas avec des symptômes modérés soient sous-reportés (ce qui ferait alors baisser drastiquement la létalité). Quant à la transmissibilité, c'est pareil : difficile de modéliser une épidémie au début.

Je crois me souvenir qu'au début de la grippe H1N1, au Mexique, on avait un taux de mortalité supérieur à 1% et quand la Californie a été touché les taux de mortalité on chuté, pour être inférieurs à 1/1000.

Le SRAS a été d'emblée bcp plus virulent.

[Freezbee]

Il y a 1 heure, NoName a dit :

Le virus est 10 fois plus letal que la grippe et 40 fois plus contagieux iirc.

 

D'après cette étude publiée aujourd'hui dans le Lancet, le R0 serait de 2,68 (intervalle de confiance entre 2,47 et 2,86) et 75 815 personnes auraient été infectées jusqu'au 25 janvier.

 

Ensuite, il ne suffit pas de connaître le R0 : il faut attendre de voir si les mesures prises par les autorités portent leurs fruits (diminution de la susceptibilité). Se reporter à cette page : Modèles compartimentaux en épidémiologie

 

 

[NoName]

il y a une heure, Freezbee a dit :

 

Ça, nous ne le savons pas avec certitude. Ça dépend des chiffres transmis par les Chinois, et il se peut que les cas avec des symptômes modérés soient sous-reportés (ce qui ferait alors baisser drastiquement la létalité). Quant à la transmissibilité, c'est pareil : difficile de modéliser une épidémie au début.

 

C'est probablement vrai, cependant je pense que ça ne change pas le point essentiel de mon message: comparer le nCov à la grippe est naïf et s'il convient de ne pas paniquer, il serait aussi bien d'éviter de faire preuve de trop de désinvolture

[biwi]

Il y a 4 heures, Marlenus a dit :

Donc au pire on sera à 18 porteurs.

 

Alors qu'il y a déjà largement plus de mort par la seule grippe cette année.

 

Intéressant...

tu as parfaitement compris le sens de mon message ..le nombre cité importe peu , ça va juste aller en s'aggravant 

[Freezbee]

 

[Hugh]

Encore sans panique, mais: https://www.bfmtv.com/international/chine-decouverte-d-une-nouvelle-epidemie-de-grippe-aviaire-h5n1-1851290.html

 

"Chine: découverte d'une nouvelle épidémie de grippe aviaire H5N1"

 

Citation

Principalement transmissible entre volailles, aucun humain n'aurait été contaminé par le virus H5N1 à ce jour.

 

[RaHaN]

Le 26/01/2020 à 12:19, RaHaN a dit :

 

Quelqu'un a fait le lien avec le réchauffement climatique et la montée des eaux, ou faut attendre encore ?

Voilà !

 

Coronavirus : Le réchauffement climatique et la déforestation favorisent l'émergence de nouveaux virus

[Gilles]

il y a 12 minutes, RaHaN a dit :

Voilà !

 

Coronavirus : Le réchauffement climatique et la déforestation favorisent l'émergence de nouveaux virus

 

ah ben ça tombe bien alors, vu que la Chine est la principale responsable de la reforestation massive que connaît la Terre depuis 20 ans. 

[Azref]

Il y a 5 heures, RaHaN a dit :

Voilà !

 

Coronavirus : Le réchauffement climatique et la déforestation favorisent l'émergence de nouveaux virus

C'est incroyable, le réchauffement climatique est en train de détrôner le libéralisme dans les trucs à toujours relier comme étant la cause profonde sur tous les sujets.

[cedric.org]

1 hour ago, Azref said:

C'est incroyable, le réchauffement climatique est en train de détrôner le libéralisme dans les trucs à toujours relier comme étant la cause profonde sur tous les sujets.

Tutut. Et à quoi est dû le réchauffement ? Bingo !

[Azref]

il y a 2 minutes, cedric.org a dit :

Tutut. Et à quoi est dû le réchauffement ? Bingo !

Ha ha, la boucle est bouclée!

[Freezbee]

 

[Freezbee]

Citation

Experts envision two scenarios if the new coronavirus isn’t contained

February 4, 2020

 

Révélation

With the new coronavirus spreading from person to person (possibly including from people without symptoms), reaching four continents, and traveling faster than SARS, driving it out of existence is looking increasingly unlikely.

 

It’s still possible that quarantines and travel bans will first halt the outbreak and then eradicate the microbe, and the world will never see 2019-nCoV again, as epidemiologist Dr. Mike Ryan, head of health emergencies at the World Health Organization, told STAT on Saturday. That’s what happened with SARS in 2003.

 

Many experts, however, view that happy outcome as increasingly unlikely. “Independent self-sustaining outbreaks [of 2019-nCoV] in major cities globally could become inevitable because of substantial exportation of pre-symptomatic cases,” scientists at the University of Hong Kong concluded in a paper published in The Lancet last week.

 

Researchers are therefore asking what seems like a defeatist question but whose answer has huge implications for public policy: What will a world with endemic 2019-nCoV — circulating permanently in the human population — be like?

 

“It’s not too soon to talk about this,” said Dr. Amesh Adalja, an infectious disease specialist at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. “We know that respiratory viruses are especially difficult to control, so I think it’s very possible that the current outbreak ends with the virus becoming endemic.”

 

Experts see two possibilities, each with unique consequences:

Just another coronavirus

2019-nCoV joins the four coronaviruses now circulating in people. “I can imagine a scenario where this becomes a fifth endemic human coronavirus,” said Stephen Morse of Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, an epidemiologist and expert on emerging infectious diseases. “We don’t pay much attention to them because they’re so mundane,” especially compared to seasonal flu.

 

Although little-known outside health care and virology circles, the current four “are already part of the winter-spring seasonal landscape of respiratory disease,” Adalja said. Two of them, OC43 and 229E, were discovered in the 1960s but had circulated in cows and bats, respectively, for centuries. The others, HKU1 and NL63, were discovered after the 2003-2004 SARS outbreak, also after circulating in animals. It’s not known how long they’d existed in people before scientists noticed, but since they jumped from animals to people before the era of virology, it isn’t known whether that initial jump triggered widespread disease.

 

OC43 and 229E are more prevalent than other endemic human coronaviruses, especially in children and the elderly. Together, the four are responsible for an estimated one-quarter of all colds. “For the most part they cause common-cold-type symptoms,” said Richard Webby, an influenza expert at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. “Maybe that is the most likely end scenario if this thing becomes entrenched.”

 

All four, in particular HKU1, can cause pneumonia, and sometimes death. It is rare enough that researchers do not have good estimates of its prevalence or virulence, but two of the others have been better studied. In one of the few close looks at OC43 and 229E, researchers measured their infection rates during four winters (1999-2003) in Rochester, N.Y., among 2,897 healthy outpatients, adults with cardiopulmonary disease, and patients hospitalized with acute respiratory illnesses.

 

They identified 398 coronavirus infections (four people had both OC43 or 229E). Infection rates ran from 0.5% among healthy elderly adults to 15% among healthy young adults (where “healthy” means they had no viral symptoms), with the highest rates coming in the winter of 2000-2001, for no obvious reason — suggesting that coronavirus infection rates will rise and fall unpredictably, much like seasonal flu, and that its consequences will also be similar: some serious illness, some mild, and a lot of asymptomatic infections.

 

The most common symptoms were runny nose, cough, and congestion, for about 10 days; no one even ran a fever. All told, 35% of infections with 229E and 18% with OC43 were asymptomatic. “Asymptomatic infection … [meaning] without respiratory symptoms was fairly common,” the authors concluded.

 

But sometimes symptoms were nothing to sneeze at. There were 96 coronavirus infections among the 1,388 hospitalized patients. OC43 caused more severe disease than 229E, requiring intensive care for 15% of those infected. About one-third of the patients admitted to the hospital with either coronavirus developed pneumonia; one of the 229E patients and two of the OC43 patients died.

 

On the bright side, if a coronavirus infects enough people regularly there will be greater business incentive to develop a vaccine and other countermeasures. That never happened with SARS because it died out, leaving no market for such products.

 

On the decidedly darker side, a fifth endemic coronavirus means more sickness and death from respiratory infections.

 

Odds: Moderate. “I think there is a reasonable probability that this becomes the fifth community-acquired coronavirus,” Adalja said, something he expanded on in his blog. Webby agreed: “I have a little bit of hope that, OK, we’ll put up with a couple of years of heightened [2019-nCoV] activity before settling down to something like the other four coronaviruses.”

2019-nCoV returns repeatedly like seasonal flu

The “seasonal” reflects the fact that viruses can’t tolerate high heat and humidity, preferring the cool and dry conditions of winter and spring, Webby said. That’s why flu, as well as the four coronaviruses, are less prevalent in warm, humid months. If the new coronavirus follows suit, then containment efforts plus the arrival of summer should drive infections to near zero.

 

But also like flu viruses, that doesn’t mean it’s gone.

 

The “bad” reflects the fact that the number of 2019-nCoV cases and deaths so far suggests that the new coronavirus has a fatality rate around 2%. That’s almost certainly an overestimate, since mild cases aren’t all being counted. But even 2% is less than SARS’ 10% and nowhere near the 37%  of MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus). On the other hand, seasonal flu kills fewer than 0.1% of those it infects, though that’s still tens of thousands of deaths a year just in the U.S. The global disaster that was the 1917 “Spanish flu” pandemic killed 2.5%.

 

“One scenario is that we go through a pandemic,” as the current outbreak may become, said Columbia’s Morse. “Then, depending what the virus does, it could quite possibly settle down into a respiratory illness that comes back seasonally.”

 

The toll that would take depends on how many people it infects and how virulent it is. Virulence reflects the viruses’ genetics.

 

The genome of the novel coronavirus consists of a single stand of RNA. Microbes with that kind of genome mutate “notoriously quickly,” said biologist Michael Farzan of Scripps Research, who in 2005 was part of the team that identified the structure of the “spike protein” by which SARS enters human cells.

 

But SARS has a molecular proofreading system that reduces its mutation rate, and the new coronavirus’s similarity to SARS at the genomic level suggests it does, too. “That makes the mutation rate much, much lower than for flu or HIV,” Farzan said. That lowers the chance that the virus will evolve in some catastrophic way to, say, become significantly more lethal.

 

The coronavirus “may not change [genetically] at all” in a way that alters function, said biologist Andrew Rambaut of the University of Edinburgh, who has been analyzing the genomes of the 2019-nCoV’s from dozens of patients. “It is transmitting quite well already so it may not have to ‘evolve’ to be endemic.”

 

Any evolution that does take place in an endemic coronavirus, including one that spikes seasonally, might well be toward less virulence. “It doesn’t want to kill you before you transmit it,” Farzan said. “One would therefore expect a slow attenuation” of virulence if the virus becomes like seasonal flu. Dead people don’t transmit viruses, “and even people sitting in their beds and shivering” because they are seriously ill “don’t transmit that well,” he said.

 

The toll of a seasonal-flu-like coronavirus also depends on immunity — which is also scientifically uncertain. Exposure to the four endemic coronaviruses produces immunity that lasts longer than that to influenza, Webby said, but not permanent immunity. Like respiratory syncytial virus, which can re-infect adults who had it in childhood, coronavirus immunity wanes.

 

“Everyone, by the time they reach adulthood, should have some immunity to some coronavirus,” said Tim Sheahan, a coronavirus researcher at University of North Carolina’s Gillings School of Global Public Health. But because it doesn’t last, older people can get reinfected. The elderly also have a higher death rate from coronaviruses such as SARS and MERS, a pattern 2019-nCoV is following.

 

“There is some evidence that people can be reinfected with the four coronaviruses and that there is no long-lasting immunity,” Dr. Susan Kline, an infectious disease specialist at of the University of Minnesota. “Like rhinoviruses [which cause the common cold], you could be infected multiple times over your life. You can mount an antibody response, but it wanes, so on subsequent exposure you don’t have protection.” Subsequent infections often produce milder illness, however.

 

The common-cold-causing coronaviruses are different enough that an infection from one won’t produce immunity to another. But the novel coronavirus overlaps enough with SARS that survivors of the 2002-3003 outbreak might have some immunity to the new arrival,  Sheahan said: “Is it enough to prevent infection? I don’t know.”

 

How widespread even limited immunity would be, and therefore how many people would become ill from the next go-round of 2019-nCoV, also “depends on how many people get infected the first time around,” Webby said. That number is certainly higher than the more than 20,000 identified cases, since people with no or mild symptoms escape the attention of health care systems.

 

Since 2019-nCoV is new, “this first wave will be particularly bad because we have an immunologically naïve population,” Adalja said. Future waves should pass by people who were exposed (but not necessarily sickened) this time around, Morse said, “but that assumes this virus doesn’t develop the tricks of flu,” which famously tweaks the surface molecules that the immune system can see, making itself invisible to antibodies from previous exposures.

 

Odds: Pretty good. What we may be seeing “is the emergence of a new coronavirus … that could very well become another seasonal pathogen that causes pneumonia,” said infectious disease expert Michael Osterholm of the University of Minnesota. It would be “more than a cold” and less than SARS: “The only other pathogen I can compare it to is seasonal influenza.”

 

 

[Freezbee]

Citation

Data suggests virus infections under-reported, exaggerating fatality rate

 

BEIJING (Reuters) - Fatalities from the coronavirus epidemic are overwhelmingly concentrated in central China’s Wuhan city, which accounts for over 73% of deaths despite having only one-third the number of confirmed infections.

 

In Wuhan, the epicenter of the disease, one person has died for every 23 infections reported. That number drops to one on 50 nationally, and outside mainland China, one death has been recorded per 114 confirmed cases.

 

Experts say the discrepancy is mainly due to under-reporting of milder virus cases in Wuhan and other parts of Hubei province that are grappling with shortages in testing equipment and beds.

 

“In an outbreak your really have to interpret fatality rates with a very skeptical eye, because often it’s only the very severe cases that are coming to people’s attention,” said Amesh Adalja, an expert in pandemic preparedness at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore.

 

“It’s very hard to say those numbers represent anything like the true burden of infection” said Adalja, who estimates current fatality rates are likely below 1%.

As of Tuesday, 24,551 cases have been confirmed globally. A 1% fatality rate would put total cases at over 49,000, based on the current death toll of 492.

 

Gauden Galea, the World Health Organisation (WHO) representative for China, told Reuters on Sunday that a “crude calculation” done by dividing total cases by deaths put the rate at 2% and said the rate was generally falling.

 

“Trying to really demystify those fatality numbers by including mildly symptomatic cases will help people to better understand the risk,” said Adalja.

CLUSTER OF DEATHS

In Wuhan, some patients with milder symptoms have been turned away from hospitals in recent weeks because of the strain on resources, several people in the city told Reuters. Others have opted to self-isolate.

 

Wuhan resident Meiping Wang said she and her sister both believe they have mild cases of the virus after their mother tested positive, but have not been tested.

“There is no use going to the hospital because there is no treatment,” Wang, 31, said in a telephone interview.

 

Under-reporting mild cases - which increases fatality rates - could have a negative social and economic impact as global health authorities race to contain the disease.

“It’s good to remember that when H1N1 influenza came out in 2009, estimates of case fatality were 10 percent,” said David Fisman, an epidemiologist at the University of Toronto, who was working in public health at the time. “That turned out to be incredibly wrong.”

 

“As the denominator is growing in terms of case numbers, and case fatality goes down and down... you start to realize it’s everywhere,” he said.

 

The global response to the coronavirus epidemic has been swift and fierce. Several countries have implemented partial or full travel bans on Chinese travelers.

 

“There are many actions going on all over the world that really are premised on the idea that this is a very severe illness,” said Johns Hopkins’ Adalja.

 

WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said on Monday that the bans were an unnecessary interruption to travel and trade.

 

[Azref]

 

Citation

 

https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3871594

...

On late Saturday evening (Feb. 1), the Tencent webpage showed confirmed cases of the Wuhan virus in China as standing at 154,023, 10 times the official figure at the time. It listed the number of suspected cases as 79,808, four times the official figure.

The number of cured cases was only 269, well below the official number that day of 300. Most ominously, the death toll listed was 24,589, vastly higher than the 300 officially listed that day.

Moments later, Tencent updated the numbers to reflect the government's "official" numbers that day. Netizens noticed that Tencent has on at least three occasions posted extremely high numbers, only to quickly lower them to government-approved statistics.

...

Although some are chalking up the images to users tampering with their browsers, the 154,023 infections on Feb. 1 are remarkably close to the estimate predicted on that date by a scientific modeling study carried out by the University of Hong Kong (HKU) and published on The Lancet website.

...
Another strange phenomenon that netizens have noticed is the mortality rate, as the government death tolls are routinely maintaining an exact percentile for days on end. Many noticed that in the early days of reporting, the government put the death rate at 3.1 percent.

Jan. 22: 17 deaths / 542 infections = 3.1 percent
Jan. 23: 26 deaths / 830 infections = 3.1 percent
Jan. 24: 41 deaths / 1,287 infections = 3.1 percent

 

On continue avec l'URSS 2.0...