
The Korean Clusters: How coronavirus cases exploded in Korean churches/hospitals - lawrenceyan
https://graphics.reuters.com/CHINA-HEALTH-SOUTHKOREA-CLUSTERS/0100B5G33SB/index.html
======
asdfasgasdgasdg
It's crazy to think that SK might have stamped this thing out if it weren't
for the selfish and shortsighted actions of one person. It reminds me of a
book series I read called the Second Apocalypse by R. Scott Bakker. One of the
themes of the series is how (at least in his story) history often turns on the
seemingly minor, self-interested actions of important people. I don't know if
that's generally true in the real world, but it certainly seems true in this
case.

~~~
tpmx
I don't think they could avoided the virus, realistically speaking. What this
one person did was to bring mass contagion in SK maybe 3-4 weeks closer in
time.

Mass contagion is inevitable at a global scale at this point.

~~~
skmurphy
experience in Singapore with a similar level of active surveillance argues
that they would have been able to contain it except for getting unlucky with
"patient 31."

~~~
tpmx
Singapore is excellent at this game. Most western (or asian) countries aren't
even in the same league.

~~~
34679
That's because they'll tie you up and beat you with a stick if you don't obey
the rules.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_in_Singapore](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_in_Singapore)

------
mikekchar
Something seems strange. The woman was in a traffic accident on the 6th. She
attended church services on the 9th and 16th. On the 17th she was confirmed to
have the virus. Then "days later" "hundreds of people" become ill at the
church. I'm under the impression that the virus has a long incubation period.
As it isn't clear where _she_ got the virus, isn't it likely that she _isn 't_
the original carrier, but contracted it from some other connection to the
church? I mean it seems like the first opportunity to infect people was the
9th and something like 10 days later hundreds of people are ill.

~~~
Erikun
Median incubation time 4 days and interquartile range 2-7 in this study in the
New England Journal of Medicine,
[https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2002032](https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2002032)

------
ookblah
Just some context too, that church isn't really representative of the
"average" church there, but like a cult.

Look up shincheonji.

I feel their beliefs + how they conduct mass is contributing to this crazy
increase. Something like 80% of the new cases today are linked to their
members... and they have like 200k of them.

------
mmastrac
Take this with a _huge_ grain of salt, but this article neglects to discuss
the role of the Shincheonji followers - who have an interesting view on
diseases and illness - in potentially spreading this disease.

[https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/02/27/coronavirus-south-
korea...](https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/02/27/coronavirus-south-korea-cults-
conservatives-china/)

------
droithomme
How do you infect 600 people during a 2 hr service if it's only transmitted
through droplets and prolonged close contact.

~~~
drclau
Transmission doesn’t occur only via droplets. The virus is supposed to survive
for up to 9 days on surfaces/objects in normal conditions, and for up to 28-29
days at low temperatures:

“Droplets transmitting coronaviruses only stay suspended in the air for a
short time. Details for SARS-CoV-2 are not available as of 26 February 2020,
and it is assumed that they are similar to other coronaviruses,[64] which may
stay viable and contagious on a metal, glass or plastic surface for up to nine
days at room temperature.[65] Disinfection of surfaces is possible with
substances such as 62–71% ethanol applied for one minute.[65]“ — source:
Wikipedia [0]

What sort of rituals do these people follow? Do they have mass? Do they share
maybe something like a spoon? Or touch the same objects on entering or leaving
the place of prayer?

References: [0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_ou...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_outbreak)

------
brenden2
I just opened the NYTimes front page and counted the number of occurrences of
"coronavirus". I counted 15 total.

The biggest winners from coronavirus are going to be those who sell fear
(i.e., mainstream media). I also suppose anyone who was astute enough to open
a large short position against the market in the past week or two will profit.
I think we're only going to see an increase in panic and fear before things
settle down. What real impact there will be on the world remains to be seen, I
think it's too early to tell.

Worst case, it seems like the virus will mostly harm those who are at risk of
death, but healthy people will probably be okay.

~~~
simonh
> Worst case, it seems like the virus will mostly harm those who are at risk
> of death, but healthy people will probably be okay.

Plenty of healthy people have died, and it seems the disease is so aggressive
that it can cause significant organ damage in survivors. Most healthy people
are likely to be ok, but not all.

~~~
irq11
There has been no credible evidence of “organ damage” in survivors.

These are unsubstantiated rumors. Stop repeating them.

~~~
simonh
I’m glad you asked, skepticism can be a healthy attitude in moderations and
there is a lot of FUD around, but here’s an article from the Lancet. These
were 99 patients, 11 of whom ultimately died. That means from the stats below
a significant number of the patients with organ damage, possibly most of them,
must have survived. Also the stats below were on admission, it’s likely even
more of the patients may have suffered organ damage by the time they were
discharged.

[https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736...](https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736\(20\)30211-7.pdf)

>Many patients presented with organ function damage, including 17 (17%) with
ARDS, eight (8%) with acute respiratory injury, three (3%) with acute renal
injury, four (4%) with septic shock, and one (1%) with venti­
lator­associatedpneumonia(table2).

~~~
irq11
These conditions are listed as “comorbidities”, which means that they’re
illnesses they already had, _in addition_ to the virus.

In no way is this paper saying that the virus _caused_ the listed conditions.

~~~
simonh
If you know what comorbidity means, you must know perfectly well that it
includes secondary conditions, such as organ function damage, caused by the
primary condition.

At these levels of prevalence, I think that comfortably clears the bar for
having some pretty credible evidence.

