
Second Travel-Related Case of 2019 Novel Coronavirus Detected in United States - lawrenceyan
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/p0124-second-travel-coronavirus.html
======
xvilka
If you are not a scientist this doesn't mean you can't help fighting this
particular or any other infectious and non-infectious disease. It is easy -
just help to improve the tools that scientists and laboratories use. For
example, something like BioJulia[1][2] and BioPython[3][4] - both have some
issues[5][6] that need help with or accepting donations[7]. There are many
other tools that are used, feel free to list them in the comments.

[1] [https://biojulia.net/](https://biojulia.net/)

[2] [https://github.com/BioJulia](https://github.com/BioJulia)

[3] [https://biopython.org/](https://biopython.org/)

[4] [https://github.com/biopython/](https://github.com/biopython/)

[5]
[https://github.com/BioJulia/BioSequences.jl/issues](https://github.com/BioJulia/BioSequences.jl/issues)

[6]
[https://github.com/biopython/biopython/issues?q=label%3A%22h...](https://github.com/biopython/biopython/issues?q=label%3A%22help+wanted%22+is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen)

[7]
[https://opencollective.com/biojulia#backer](https://opencollective.com/biojulia#backer)

~~~
bordercases
Are these tools really used by disease labs?

~~~
Fomite
Yes.

I run an infectious disease modeling lab - while I don't use these tools, I
know people who do.

In my lab, we use R, Numpy, SciPy, StochPy, etc.

You could also just see about donating directly to a lab at a nearby
university.

~~~
zhdc1
What are some of the R libraries that your team uses?

I wouldn't mind donating some time to help with bug fixes. I have no idea
though which R libraries/projects are being used.

~~~
Fomite
Lets see...

survival, parallel/snow, Amelia2, nlme,vioplot,ggplot2 and deSolve are the big
ones.

------
tempsy
The market seems to be reacting to this. Hard to tell how serious it really is
relative to the flu, but would not be surprised if China was underplaying the
numbers, both infected and deaths.

~~~
handedness
I would not be surprised by that at all.

Every Asia-focused analyst will tell you that the only aspect of China's
state-reported numbers you can assume with a high degree of confidence is that
they're heavily massaged for PR purposes.

~~~
yorwba
Sometimes it's also possible to draw inferences by observing how the numbers
were massaged. For example if you look at the red graph of confirmed cases at
[1], there's a very noticeable jump from 1-17 to 1-18. Coincidentally, the
third session of the 13th Hubei Provincial People's Congress concluded on
January 17. [2]

[1]
[https://3g.dxy.cn/newh5/view/pneumonia](https://3g.dxy.cn/newh5/view/pneumonia)

[2]
[http://en.hubei.gov.cn/news/newslist/202001/t20200119_200642...](http://en.hubei.gov.cn/news/newslist/202001/t20200119_2006424.shtml)

~~~
dis-sys
That jump was explained in details when it happened - test kits were made
available shortly before that date. To be more specific, first batch of test
kits were delivered to Wuhan on the 16th Jan [1].

[1]
[http://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_5588213](http://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_5588213)

~~~
yorwba
That explains why the speed of diagnosis increased, thanks. Do you have a
similarly good explanation for why the lab tests that, starting with 59 cases
of unknown origin on January 5 [1], had confirmed 41 cases of coronavirus by
January 11 [2] failed to detect any new cases until the better test kits
arrived?

[1]
[http://wjw.wuhan.gov.cn/front/web/showDetail/2020010509020](http://wjw.wuhan.gov.cn/front/web/showDetail/2020010509020)

[2]
[http://wjw.wuhan.gov.cn/front/web/showDetail/2020011109035](http://wjw.wuhan.gov.cn/front/web/showDetail/2020011109035)

------
secondo
Both to those making claims or asking about the severity of the Wuhan
coronavirus The Guardian offers a sober perspective of the current situation.

 _We don’t yet know how dangerous the new coronavirus is – and we won’t know
until more data comes in. Twenty-six deaths out of 800 reported cases would
mean a 3% mortality rate. However, this is likely to be a overestimate since
there may be a far larger pool of people who have been infected by the virus
but who have not suffered severe enough symptoms to attend hospital and so
have not been counted in the data. For comparison, seasonal flu typically has
a mortality rate below 1% and is thought to cause about 400,000 deaths each
year globally. Another key unknown, of which scientists should get a clearer
idea in the coming weeks, is how contagious the coronavirus is. A crucial
difference is that unlike flu, there is no vaccine for the new coronavirus,
which means it is more difficult for vulnerable members of the population –
elderly people or those with existing respiratory or immune problems – to
protect themselves. One sensible step to get the flu vaccine, which will
reduce the burden on health services if the outbreak turns into a wider
epidemic._

[https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/jan/24/what-is-
the-...](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/jan/24/what-is-the-
coronavirus-wuhan-china-virus-symptoms)

~~~
therightstef
Coronavirus is very bad news, especially if you are (a) older (<60), (b) male,
(c) diabetic, or (d) have preexisting respiratory issues.[0-2]

Most people are aware that CoV can cause pneumonia, but what really makes it
devastating is that it can also attack your immune system, bowel, or kidneys
depending on what cell surface receptors the strain can latch onto.[3-4]

There are some treatment options. Steroids are given to tamp down inflammation
and treat pneumonia in severe cases, but have a nasty side effect of
osteonecrosis (bone death). Ribavirin with interferons may or may not be
effective.[5-6]

[0]
[https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/159/3/229/79939](https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/159/3/229/79939)

[1]
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16759303](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16759303)

[2]
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5450662/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5450662/)

[3]
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24732781](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24732781)

[4]
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4072739/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4072739/)

[5]
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24493194](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24493194)

[6]
[https://academic.oup.com/jac/article/71/12/3340/2631297](https://academic.oup.com/jac/article/71/12/3340/2631297)

------
cozzyd
Hmm I wonder what hospital the patient is at. According to the email sent to
the uchicago community from the provost, she's not at uchicago medical. I
would guess northwestern or rush.

~~~
Fomite
Honestly, most hospitals in the Chicago area with an ICU can handle this.

~~~
core-questions
The problem is that you show up with minimal symptoms like someone who has a
cold, to an ER where people have serious wounds and problems. You get triaged
and end up sitting in the waiting room for hours, infecting potentially tens
of other people, who may have weakened immune systems, etc. and it goes on to
spread around the hospital.

What can the hospital even do to help you with this?

~~~
gvjddbnvdrbv
If you have travelled to the affected areas and have respiratory symptoms you
DON'T just go to hospital. You call ahead and then do what you are told.

~~~
newnewpdro
Only if you have the sense to do that. Have you met many Americans? I don't
know why, but the ER has become the default destination for anything medical
for many. There's no need to call ahead, they're open 24hrs! _sigh_

~~~
serf
>Only if you have the sense to do that. Have you met many Americans?

I don't know why this kind of 'American stereotyping' is okay.

That aside, myself and my family ('Americans' in 'America') have physicians
that we call when we have issues.

That physician is generally the one to tell us what to do.

Our situation isn't abnormal or unusual, either.

~~~
newnewpdro
It's backed up by the statistics, and if you go do some searches for
"emergency room unnecesary" and the like, you'll find plenty of articles on
the subject.

    
    
      Number of visits: 145.6 million
      Number of injury-related visits: 42.2 million
      Number of visits per 100 persons: 45.8
      Number of emergency department visits resulting in hospital admission: 12.6 million
      Number of emergency department visits resulting in admission to critical care unit: 2.2 million
      [0]
    
    

"71% of ED Visits Unnecessary, Avoidable" [1]

If you're not familiar with Americans going to ERs "just to be safe" for the
most frivolous reasons, because their insurance will pay for it, we're not
living in the same country.

With that sort of attitude being prevalent, it's easy to see how someone would
go directly to the ER and spread something like this without giving it any
thought.

[0] [https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/emergency-
department.htm](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/emergency-department.htm)

[1] [https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/patient-
flow/study-71-...](https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/patient-
flow/study-71-of-ed-visits-unnecessary-avoidable.html)

------
anotheryou
What is the best case scenario on how to get this under control?

~~~
netcan
The best case is hat it doesn't get worse because vaccine production and other
treatments scale/improve faster than the virus spreads. It's still hard to
predict the pace of either.

We also don't really know what the _current_ scenario is. How bad is it
already?

~~~
anotheryou
I read a vaccine takes at least a year, that's not a good outlook...

~~~
anotheryou
care to explain fellow down-voters?

------
wisdomdata
on currently published numbers the death rate is around one death per 30
infections. (25th January, 41 people dead from 1287 infections). According to
wikipedia the spanish flu had a death rate of 1 in 50 (although the numbers
may not be that reliable), so until more is known about transmission it should
prompt precautions.

~~~
YZF
We have no idea how many people have none to very light symptoms so these
numbers are quite meaningless. I think we'll learn quite a lot more over the
coming weeks from the cases in western countries. So far this doesn't seem too
concerning but we'll see how it develops...

------
jostmey
Exponential growth has a way of catching people off guard. Moore’s laws
continually surprised business. Viral spread will catch society off guard. It
is my opinion that we must, as a society, go to enormous lengths to stop this
virus, beyond quarantining millions in Wuhan.

~~~
Fomite
Epidemiology, as a field, has a harder time in infectious diseases _not_
representing things as exponential growth than it does being surprised by it.

~~~
Something1234
Please explain more? What do they represent it as instead?

~~~
Fomite
So the standard type of mathematical model that's used to describe early stage
epidemics (such as this one) basically _assume_ exponential growth.

It's hard to get the math to stop doing that when a disease reaches a non-
exponential stage. That's why you got some bonkers predictions for Ebola - if
you let an exponential model run for a year, it's always going to be bad.

------
so_jc
So is the entire biology community turning to face this or is that not a
thing? Because it should be.

Encountering the problem that a new disease is threatening a sizeable portion
of the world population?

Have every biologist looking at solving it. We have the technology. This
requires a modern solution.

~~~
mkl
Most biologists are not virologists. Besides, HIV, Hep. C, and even the normal
flus kill far more people, and threaten more of the world's population.

------
summm
Can't we just stop that traveling nightmare? Now it's not only going to
destroy our climate, but also bringing the Zombie Apocalypse.

~~~
dzhiurgis
> The global aviation industry produces around 2% of all human-induced carbon
> dioxide (CO2) emissions. Aviation is responsible for 12% of CO2 emissions
> from all transports sources, compared to 74% from road transport.

First result on Google...

~~~
zaroth
Human breathing produces about 2.5 billion tons of CO2 per year. Aviation is
just under 1 billion tons per year.

Aviation is one of the great wonders of the modern world. The carbon it
produces is essentially inconsequential.

Compared to the wealth, knowledge, peace, and prosperity that international
travel directly supports, calls to curtail plane travel in order to reduce CO2
IMO are seriously misguided.

~~~
cesarb
> Human breathing produces about 2.5 billion tons of CO2 per year.

The carbon emitted in human breathing came from the food, and the carbon in
the food came from the atmosphere. It's a closed cycle. It doesn't matter if
it's a billion or two, an identical amount of carbon had to be captured first.

~~~
zaroth
Well technically it’s _all_ a closed cycle. Humans consume carbon sinks,
whether it’s for glucose or joules, to survive.

The carbon sinks we consume to produce glucose do tend to be ones that pulled
their carbon from to atmosphere in the last couple years, rather than millions
of years ago.

And I agree, moving _fresh_ carbon between atmosphere, organisms, and back
into the atmosphere doesn’t have a net effect that builds up over time like
burning fossil fuels. So it wasn’t a great comparison.

