You should worry a lot more about the Flu.

[Leongsam]

How Does the Flu Actually Kill People?
Every year the common virus is lethal to many. What happens inside the body that results in death?

• By Ferris Jabr on December 18, 2017

Influenza virus. Credit: BSIP Getty Images
One Sunday in November 20-year-old Alani Murrieta of Phoenix began to feel sick and left work early. She had no preexisting medical conditions but her health declined at a frighteningly rapid pace, as detailed by her family and friends in local media and on BuzzFeed News. The next day she went to an urgent care clinic, where she was diagnosed with the flu and prescribed the antiviral medication Tamiflu. But by Tuesday morning she was having trouble breathing and was spitting up blood. Her family took her to the hospital, where x-rays revealed pneumonia: inflammation in the lungs that can be caused by a viral or bacterial infection, or both. Doctors gave Murrieta intravenous antibiotics and were transferring her to the intensive care unit when her heart stopped; they resuscitated her but her heart stopped again. At 3:25 P.M. on Tuesday, November 28—one day after being diagnosed with the flu—Murrieta was declared dead.

FEATURED EBOOK

INDEPTH FLU COVERAGEA Deep Dive into the Science of Influenza5.99 View Details

Worldwide, the flu results in three million to five million cases of severe illness and 291,000 to 646,000 deaths annually, according to the World Health Organization and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the totals vary greatly from one year to the next. The CDC estimates that between 1976 and 2005 the annual number of flu-related deaths in the U.S. ranged from a low of 3,000 to a high of 49,000. Between 2010 and 2016 yearly flu-related deaths in the U.S. ranged from 12,000 to 56,000.

But what exactly is a “flu-related death”? How does the flu kill? The short and morbid answer is that in most cases the body kills itself by trying to heal itself. “Dying from the flu is not like dying from a bullet or a black widow spider bite,” says Amesh Adalja, an infectious disease physician at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security. “The presence of the virus itself isn't going to be what kills you. An infectious disease always has a complex interaction with its host.”

After entering someone's body—usually via the eyes, nose or mouth—the influenza virus begins hijacking human cells in the nose and throat to make copies of itself. The overwhelming viral hoard triggers a strong response from the immune system, which sends battalions of white blood cells, antibodies and inflammatory molecules to eliminate the threat. T cells attack and destroy tissue harboring the virus, particularly in the respiratory tract and lungs where the virus tends to take hold. In most healthy adults this process works, and they recover within days or weeks. But sometimes the immune system's reaction is too strong, destroying so much tissue in the lungs that they can no longer deliver enough oxygen to the blood, resulting in hypoxia and death.

In other cases it is not the flu virus itself that triggers an overwhelming and potentially fatal immune response but rather a secondary infection that takes advantage of a taxed immune system. Typically, bacteria—often a species of Streptococcus or Staphylococcus—infect the lungs. A bacterial infection in the respiratory tract can potentially spread to other parts of the body and the blood, even leading to septic shock: a life-threatening, body-wide, aggressive inflammatory response that damages multiple organs. Based on autopsy studies, Kathleen Sullivan, chief of the Division of Allergy and Immunology at The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, estimates about one third of people who die from flu-related causes expire because the virus overwhelms the immune system; another third die from the immune response to secondary bacterial infections, usually in the lungs; and the remaining third perish due to the failure of one or more other organs.

Apart from a bacterial pneumonia, the secondary complications of the flu are numerous and range from the relatively mild, such as sinus and ear infections, to the much more severe, such as inflammation of the heart (myocarditis), brain (encephalitis) or muscles (myositis and rhabdomyolysis). They can also include Reye’s syndrome, a mysterious brain illness that usually begins after a viral infection, and Guillain–Barr syndrome, another virus-triggered ailment in which the immune system attacks the peripheral nervous system. Sometimes Guillain–Barr leads to a period of partial or near-total paralysis, which in turn requires mechanical ventilation to keep a sufferer breathing. These complications are less common, but can be fatal.

The number of people who die from an immune response to the initial viral infection versus a secondary bacterial infection depends, in part, on the viral strain and the cleanliness of the spaces in which the sick are housed. Some studies suggest that during the infamous 1918 global flu pandemic, most people died from subsequent bacterial infections. But more virulent strains such as those that cause avian flu are more likely to overwhelm the immune system on their own. “The hypothesis is that virulent strains trigger a stronger inflammatory response,” Adalja says. “It also depends on the age group getting attacked. During the H1N1 2009 pandemic, the age group mostly affected was young adults, and we saw a lot of primary viral pneumonia.”

In a typical season most flu-related deaths occur among children and the elderly, both of whom are uniquely vulnerable. The immune system is an adaptive network of organs that learns how best to recognize and respond to threats over time. Because the immune systems of children are relatively naive, they may not respond optimally. In contrast the immune systems of the elderly are often weakened by a combination of age and underlying illness. Both the very young and very old may also be less able to tolerate and recover from the immune system's self-attack. Apart from children between six and 59 months and individuals older than 65 years, those at the greatest risk of developing potentially fatal complications are pregnant women, health care workers and people with certain chronic medical conditions, such as HIV/AIDS, asthma, and heart or lung diseases, according to the World Health Organization.

 

[sweetiepie]

KNN time for sinkie to go for flu vaccine KNN be 60% insured KNN

 

[Leongsam]

The Wuhan coronavirus seems to have a low fatality rate, and most patients make full recoveries. Experts reveal why it’s causing panic anyway.

captionA passenger’s temperature is checked at the Xianning North station in Xianning, China.sourceREUTERS/Martin Pollard

• The outbreak of a novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China, has sparked fear and anxiety around the world despite the virus’ low fatality rate.
• People’s psychological reactions to infectious diseases can sometimes be overblown and do more harm than good, some experts say.
• Still, preventative measures like increased handwashing and not touching your face protect against coronavirus and other illnesses.
• Visit Business Insider’s homepage for more stories.

The outbreak of a new coronavirus has sparked fear and anxiety around the world.

The pneumonialike virus, which originated in Wuhan, China, has infected more than 8,100 people and killed 170.

So far, the virus does not seem to be as deadly as SARS, which killed 774 people from 2002 to 2003. SARS had a mortality rate of 9.6%, whereas about 2% of people infected with the new coronavirus have died. But the number of people infected after one month has already surpassed the SARS outbreak’s eight-month total.
Many patients with coronavirus have already made full recoveries. According to Chinese officials, most of those who’ve died were elderly or had other ailments that compromised their immune systems.

Experts say that for the most part, global panic over the Wuhan coronavirus is unproductive and unwarranted: The public should take precautions to avoid getting sick, but the most effective preventative measures are everyday actions like increased handwashing and not touching your face.

An expert also said fear would not stop the spread of the virus and could cause negative social impacts.

“There’s the spread of infectious disease, then there’s the spread of panic,” Amira Roess, a professor of global health and epidemiology at George Mason University, told Business Insider. “They have very different mechanisms.”

In the early stages of an infectious-disease outbreak, Roess added, much of the panic is “fear of the unknown.”

The spread of disease and the spread of fear

Psychological research shows novel threats raise anxiety levels more than familiar threats and that people tend to underreact to familiar threats.

For example, there’s about a one-in-seven chance that heart disease will be the cause of an American’s death, whereas the chance they will die at the hands of a foreign-born terrorist is one in 45,808. But according to a 2016 Chapman University survey of American fears, “terrorist attack on nation” and “victim of terrorism” both ranked among the top five worries of the respondents.

This dynamic played out during the Ebola outbreak in West Africa from 2014 to 2016, according to Paul Slovic, a psychologist and the president of the nonprofit Decision Research.

“What happened was quite consistent with what we know about risk perception,” Slovic wrote in an article for the American Psychology Association. “The minute the Ebola threat was communicated, it hit all of the hot buttons: It can be fatal, it’s invisible and hard to protect against, exposure is involuntary, and it’s not clear that the authorities are in control of the situation.”

captionA health worker and medical staff at the MSF Ebola treatment center in Goma, Democratic Republic of the Congo.sourceReuters

Past outbreaks of Ebola, however, had much higher death rates than SARS and the new coronavirus: 25 to 90%. Worldwide, Ebola has killed more than 33,000 people since 1976.

Racist consequences of panic

Nationals of Asian descent in France, Canada, and the US are reporting incidents of racism because of public fears of the Wuhan coronavirus.
The Guardian reported nearly 9,000 parents near Toronto have signed a petition to prevent students who had traveled to China in the past 17 days from attending school.
“This has to stop. Stop eating wild animals and then infecting everyone around you,” one petition signer wrote. “Stop the spread and quarantine yourselves or go back.”
The New York Times reported that businesses throughout Hong Kong, South Korea, and Vietnam have posted signs telling customers from mainland China they are not welcome.

Asian students at Arizona State University, meanwhile – where a US case of coronavirus was confirmed – said they were facing jokes, stares, and isolation on campus.
“I cough in class and everybody looks at me,” a Vietnamese American freshman at ASU told Business Insider’s Bryan Pietsch.
Misinformation about the coronavirus has spread as well – no, oregano oil will not cure it, nor will drinking bleach.

Reasons for hope during this coronavirus outbreak

Experts say a few factors should ease fears about the coronavirus: First, it was identified and determined to be a new virus more quickly than ever before. A week after it was discovered, Chinese authorities had already sequenced the virus and shared it with labs around the world.

“Something that’s remarkable here is that within a week, the RNA sequences of the virus are available on the internet, and many can look at it and begin to understand it,” Richard Martinello, an associate professor of infectious disease at the Yale School of Medicine, told Business Insider. “That’s something that’s never been done before.”

Second, a variety of advancements in medical technology since coronaviruses were discovered in the 1960s have allowed clinical labs and virologists to conduct more in-depth research into the way these zoonotic viruses work.

captionThe crown shape of the coronavirus gives it its name.sourceBSIP/UIG Via Getty Images

For example, though scientists knew coronaviruses could infect humans because they’re a cause of the common cold, the SARS outbreak marked the first time a coronavirus was traced back to animals. (It’s possible, however, that coronaviruses from animals have made people sick in the past, Martinello said.)

Martinello also said people in the US were far more likely to catch the seasonal flu than the Wuhan coronavirus. The preventative measures for both are the same: handwashing, avoiding face touching, and steering clear of contact with anyone who’s sick.

Martinello hopes that the widespread worry about the coronavirus will lead to lower rates of seasonal flu this year as people take better precautions.

 

[glockman]

Good info. I hope more people would know this and just calm the fuck down.

Then the demand for masks and hand sanitizers would drop. And I can quickly go stock up!

 

[ChanRasjid]

Leongsam has been posting this misinformation a few times - for whatever reasons. What he claims is like saying we should never have had worried about the 2002 SARS outbreak; the Wuhan virus is similar to SARS. We should never ever need to worry about the flu. Don't even contemplate going for any flu vaccine, but worry about the Wuhan virus.

His arguments comparing the seriousness of nCoV with the common flu is just way off. The official figures current about mortality rate is :
SARS - 10%
nCoV - 2%
commmon flu - 0.02%.

In subtropical Hong Kong, deaths from underlying pneumonia and influenza attributable to influenza were estimated to be 4.1/100,000 population per year (6), higher than the rate (3.1/100,000) reported in the United States.

When 2 out of 100 would die on contracting the Wuhan virus, I would be very afraid of the Wuhan virus.

When 2 out of 10,000 would die from the common flu, I don't care much. Further, only those elderly, very young or those with underlying health conditions would die of influenza.

The Chinese doctor who was the first whistleblower died after contracting the Wuhan virus. He was 31 and presumably fit and healthy.

Chan Rasjid.
Singapore.

"Chemical Analysis Of Plain Distilled Water May Refute Mass-Energy Conservation Of E=mc²"
"The Neutrino Is A Myth"
"The Relativistic Mechanics of E=mc² Fails"; E=mc² is wrong.
"Is Mass Spectrometry Accurate"; Penning trap cannot measure atomic mass.
"Coulomb Electric Gravity"; gravity is all Coulomb electric.
http://www.emc2fails.com

 

[Leongsam]

The Wuhan virus mortality rate is way below 2% because the majority of those who catch it have such mild symptoms that they don't even bother to seek medical treatment.

I was sick last week and it was probably the Wuhan virus because I had dinner with a sick friend who works at the airport. He meets thousands of mainland Chinese who file through the airport on a daily basis.

I had a slight fever and a cough and after a couple of days I felt better. He took about a week to recover.

Neither of us went to the doctor so we are not countered under the "confirmed cases" category.

The 2% figure is based upon those who have ended up seeking treatment because their symptoms are severe. This skews the figures considerably.

Leongsam has been posting this misinformation a few times - for whatever reasons. What he claims is like saying we should never have had worried about the 2002 SARS outbreak; the Wuhan virus is similar to SARS. We should never ever need to worry about the flu. Don't even contemplate going for any flu vaccine, but worry about the Wuhan virus.

His arguments comparing the seriousness of nCoV with the common flu is just way off. The official figures current about mortality rate is :
SARS - 10%
nCoV - 2%
commmon flu - 0.02%.



When 2 out of 100 would die on contracting the Wuhan virus, I would be very afraid of the Wuhan virus.

When 2 out of 10,000 would die from the common flu, I don't care much. Further, only those elderly, very young or those with underlying health conditions would die of influenza.

The Chinese doctor who was the first whistleblower died after contracting the Wuhan virus. He was 31 and presumably fit and healthy.

Chan Rasjid.
Singapore.

"Chemical Analysis Of Plain Distilled Water May Refute Mass-Energy Conservation Of E=mc²"
"The Neutrino Is A Myth"
"The Relativistic Mechanics of E=mc² Fails"; E=mc² is wrong.
"Is Mass Spectrometry Accurate"; Penning trap cannot measure atomic mass.
"Coulomb Electric Gravity"; gravity is all Coulomb electric.
http://www.emc2fails.com

 

[Leongsam]

How Much Should You Actually Worry About This New Coronavirus?

Tara C. Smith, Ph.D.
SelfFebruary 6, 2020

As an epidemiologist who has followed news of emerging viruses for 20 years, I’ve come to expect a few things during an outbreak of a disease like the new coronavirus that was first identified in the city of Wuhan, China. Namely: Fear, misinformation, and hype are always rampant in the early stages of an outbreak. That’s precisely what I’m seeing right now as news spreads about this new coronavirus. This fear already has real-world implications beyond contributing to misinformation about the illness—it’s also fueling racism and xenophobia against people of Asian descent. Getting the facts right is important.

On January 27, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued recommendations to avoid nonessential travel to China, and a few days later the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services classified the new coronavirus as a public health emergency. Those are both unnerving developments, but this doesn’t necessarily mean you need to worry about coronavirus for your own personal safety (or that of your community). In an attempt to sort out fact from fiction and speculation from confirmed science, here’s what experts know so far—along with a reminder that, in the United States, at least, the flu is still a much bigger threat to our health than the new coronavirus.

Here’s what the new coronavirus actually is.

First, it’s important to know that there are actually many coronaviruses, according to the CDC. The one you’re seeing all over the news right now is formally known as the 2019 Novel Coronavirus, or 2019-nCoV, because this is the first time experts have seen this new form of the virus. SARS is another coronavirus you’ve probably heard of before. Some coronaviruses can even cause the common cold, according to the CDC.

This new coronavirus emerged in Wuhan, China, in late 2019. Transmission of many of the early cases was linked to a wet market (a place where items like seafood and live animals can be bought and sold), so it was initially thought that the virus likely originated from that market. Now it appears as though some people who picked up the new coronavirus may have been exposed elsewhere at an earlier point in time, the CDC explains.

In any case, the biological makeup of the new coronavirus looks most similar to bat coronaviruses, so the hypothesis is that bats (or possibly an intermediate species that got infected by bats) transmitted the illness to humans at some point in early winter.

The virus seems to be transmitted relatively easily between people in close proximity (within six feet) via respiratory droplets, though we don’t know yet whether casual contact (like sharing a few minutes in close quarters on a subway or bus) can spread the virus, or if more sustained contact (such as living with someone) is necessary.

The virus can cause symptoms similar to the flu, like fever, coughing, shortness of breath, and serious complications like pneumonia, the CDC says. Although not everyone shows symptoms, if someone does develop signs of the illness, it typically happens between 2 and 14 days after transmission. At this point, treatment comes down to addressing symptoms, as there are no specific antiviral medications for this new coronavirus (nor a vaccine).

One big unknown aspect of this illness is if someone needs to have symptoms to spread the virus, or if it can spread when someone is still in the incubation period (while the virus is replicating in their body, but they don’t yet feel sick).

In a January 31 press conference, Nancy Messionnier, M.D., the director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said, “At this time, CDC does not have direct evidence that asymptomatic individuals are transmitting this virus.” Transmission during the incubation period didn’t seem to contribute to the spread of other serious human coronavirus infections like SARS, but with the new virus, we just don’t know yet. Only time will tell, and my infectious disease colleagues and I are anxiously monitoring the situation.

Clearly, experts are still working out a lot of these details. A lot remains to be known, including the actual impact the illness will ultimately have.

We don’t yet know how widespread or harmful the new coronavirus will be.

Before we go further, keep in mind that during an epidemic, the general public typically only hears about the most serious cases. It’s easy to overlook milder cases—involving people who report to their doctors and hospitals for treatment or simply stay home and recover—in favor of the more alarming stories. That’s not to say we shouldn’t care about the potential threat of serious illness and death in these situations, but that it’s also important to have the adequate context to avoid unnecessary fear.

With that said, the new coronavirus is currently spreading very quickly. At press time, more than 24,554 global cases of the illness have been confirmed, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), with 24,363 of those taking place in China. Very much worth noting: Only around 13% of the confirmed new coronavirus cases in China have been deemed severe, according to the WHO.

As people who contracted the new coronavirus in China have traveled, the virus has spread from China to at least 27 other countries and territories. In the United States, we currently have 11 confirmed cases of infection, in California, Arizona, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Washington. Most of these cases have been associated with people who had recently been in China, but on January 30 the CDC announced that the first U.S. case of person-to-person new coronavirus transmission had happened in Illinois. On February 2 another instance of U.S. person-to-person transmission was confirmed in California. Both cases of transmission happened when someone who had recently been to China spread the illness to someone they lived with in the U.S.

At press time, 492 people have died from complications of the illness (like pneumonia), with all but one of those deaths occurring in China (the only other death happened in the Philippines). Based on the number of confirmed cases, that’s a death rate of about 2%. (The fatality rate for the SARS outbreak in 2002 to 2003 was around 10%.) As the epidemic proceeds, many more people will become infected, with outcomes we can’t predict right now. In a January Issues in Science and Technology article, Harvard epidemiologist Maimuna S. Majumder expounded on that idea, explaining that determining the true fatality rate of an infectious disease is difficult and changes over time as more populations are involved and mild cases are identified, which can lead to a lower death rate overall.

Based on what we know about new coronavirus so far, older individuals are most at risk of contracting and dying from it. A January study in The New England Journal of Medicine looked at demographic information of the first 425 people confirmed to have the disease in Wuhan, finding that nearly half of the infections were in people 60 and older. A recent The Lancet analysis of the demographic and health information of 41 people hospitalized with the infection found that a third were above the age of 60, and many had preexisting conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease. Being older and having these kinds of conditions both tend to put people at higher risk of all types of respiratory infections, so it’s not surprising that these demographics would be the hardest-hit from this coronavirus as well. Interestingly, there have been very few reported cases of children and teens with the infection. This illness seems to be primarily striking (or at least causing noticeable symptoms in) adults, at least from current data.

Right now, the flu is a bigger threat in the U.S. than the new coronavirus.

We don’t yet know the trajectory of the new coronavirus, which understandably invokes fear. But don’t let all the buzz make you forget about a different virus circulating in the United States right now with a much larger impact than the new coronavirus. It’s killed between 10,000 and 25,000 people in this country between just October 1 and January 25, according to the CDC, and has caused up to 26 million illnesses and 310,000 hospitalizations in that time as well. Schools in several states have closed due to high levels of this illness in their student bodies. We even have a vaccine available to help prevent it. Yes, I’m talking about the flu.

Imagine if the new coronavirus had the same public health impact in the U.S. as the flu. People would (rightfully) be incredibly concerned. Because influenza is so familiar, many forget just how harmful and even deadly the flu can be—and how important it is to get vaccinated against it.

Many people see the new coronavirus as being worse than the flu because it has killed a higher percentage of infected people than the flu, which had a 0.1% mortality rate in 2018 to 2019 flu season and a .14% mortality rate in the previous flu season, according to preliminary CDC data. Although that’s lower than the current estimated mortality rate from the new coronavirus, those living in the United States are still at far greater risk of coming into contact with the flu than with the new coronavirus.

As I’ve written before, the influenza vaccine is not perfect. But even an imperfect flu vaccine can prevent millions of infections, reduce the risk of severe disease and intensive care admission, reduce the risk of death in children who are infected, and protect both mothers and their infants if the vaccine is given during pregnancy. According to the CDC, flu activity is high right now in most states and moderate in a handful of the rest. Protecting yourself (and others in your community who could be at risk if you carry the virus) is essential.

Luckily, many actions that will help prevent you from getting or spreading the flu can also help make coronavirus infection less likely should it become widespread in the United States. Wash your hands regularly, avoid touching your face and eyes, cover your mouth and nose when coughing or sneezing, avoid close contact with people who are sick, and, if at all possible, stay home from school or work if you are ill. If you’re in contact with people who are confirmed to have either illness (or who are showing symptoms), or if you have symptoms yourself, consider wearing a face mask, the CDC says. It’s also not too late to get your influenza vaccine if you haven’t yet for the 2019 to 2020 season. Flu season typically lasts until late spring, so you still have time.

Fear and confusion can spread just like a virus. By taking simple steps to prevent the flu and understand the new coronavirus, you can work to minimize outbreaks of both infectious diseases as well as alarm and misinformation.

 

[Leongsam]

Coronavirus outbreak: Number of infected under-reported and fatality rates exaggerated, data suggests

Reuters Feb 06, 2020 09:20 AM IST

Fatalities from the coronavirus epidemic are overwhelmingly concentrated in central China’s Wuhan city, which accounts for over 73 percent 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, you 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 percent.

Funeral staff in protective suits help a colleague with disinfection after they transferred a body at a hospital. This follows the outbreak of a new coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Image: China Daily via Reuters

As of Tuesday, 4 February, 24,551 cases have been confirmed globally. A 1 percent 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 percent 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.

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.

Updated Date: Feb 06, 2020 09:20:09 IST
Tags : China Virus Outbreak, Coronavirus, Coronavirus FAQ, Coronavirus In India, Coronavirus Kerala, Coronavirus Outbreak, MERS, Novel Coronavirus, SARS, Wuhan China, Wuhan Virus

 

[Valium]

Retired accountant cum JB house buyer Very Kind Lady is hiding inside @ginfreely's black hole.

 

[syed putra]

This is why everyone panic

Patients lie in an influenza ward at a U.S. Army camp hospital in Aix-les-Baines, France, during World War I.
PHOTOGRAPH BY CORBIS
1918 Flu Pandemic That Killed 50 Million Originated in China, Historians Say
Chinese laborers transported across Canada thought to be source.
6 MINUTE READ




BY DAN VERGANO, NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC

PUBLISHED JANUARY 24, 2014



THE GLOBAL FLU outbreak of 1918 killed 50 million people worldwide, ranking as one of the deadliest epidemics in history.
TODAY’SPOPULAR STORIES
SCIENCE
New coronavirus can spread between humans—but it started in a wildlife market

ANIMALS
More Chinese push to end wildlife markets as WHO declares coronavirus emergency

HISTORY
This cheer squad is caught between two worlds—divided by a border

For decades, scientists have debated where in the world the pandemic started, variously pinpointing its origins in France, China, the American Midwest, and beyond. Without a clear location, scientists have lacked a complete picture of the conditions that bred the disease and factors that might lead to similar outbreaks in the future.

The deadly "Spanish flu" claimed more lives than World War I, which ended the same year the pandemic struck. Now, new research is placing the flu's emergence in a forgotten episode of World War I: the shipment of Chinese laborers across Canada in sealed train cars.
Historian Mark Humphries of Canada's Memorial University of Newfoundland says that newly unearthed records confirm that one of the side stories of the war—the mobilization of 96,000 Chinese laborers to work behind the British and French lines on World War I's Western Front—may have been the source of the pandemic.



Writing in the January issue of the journal War in History, Humphries acknowledges that his hypothesis awaits confirmation by viral samples from flu victims. Such evidence would tie the disease's origin to one location.
But some other historians already find his argument convincing.
"This is about as close to a smoking gun as a historian is going to get," says historian James Higgins, who lectures at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, and who has researched the 1918 spread of the pandemic in the United States. "These records answer a lot of questions about the pandemic."
Last of the Great Plagues
The 1918 flu pandemic struck in three waves across the globe, starting in the spring of that year, and is tied to a strain of H1N1 influenza ancestral to ones still virulent today.
The outbreak killed even the young and healthy, turning their strong immune systems against them in a way that's unusual for flu. Adding to the catastrophic loss of lives during World War I, the epidemic may have played a role in ending the war.

"The 1918 flu was the last of the great plagues that struck humanity, and it followed in the tracks of a global conflict," says Humphries.
Even as the pandemic's origins have remained a mystery, the Chinese laborers have previously been suggested as a source of the disease.
Historian Christopher Langford has shown that China suffered a lower mortality rate from the Spanish flu than other nations did, suggesting some immunity was at large in the population because of earlier exposure to the virus.
In the new report, Humphries finds archival evidence that a respiratory illness that struck northern China in November 1917 was identified a year later by Chinese health officials as identical to the Spanish flu.
He also found medical records indicating that more than 3,000 of the 25,000 Chinese Labor Corps workers who were transported across Canada en route to Europe starting in 1917 ended up in medical quarantine, many with flu-like symptoms.
Origins Debated
The Spanish flu reached its height in autumn 1918 but raged until 1920, initially gaining its nickname from wartime censorship rules that allowed for reporting on the disease's ravages in neutral Spain.
Physicians began debating the origin of the pandemic almost as soon as it appeared, Higgins says, with historians soon joining them.
France's wartime trenches, ridden with filth, disease, and death, were originally seen as the flu's breeding ground. The flu's tendency to strike young adults was explained as the disease targeting itself to young soldiers in trenches. The theory also purported to explain how the illness spread from Europe to cities such as Boston and Philadelphia by pointing a finger at returning troop ships.
A decade after the war, Kansas was identified as another possible breeding ground, due to reports of an influenza outbreak there that spread to a nearby Army camp in March 1918, killing 48 doughboys.

But in his study, Humphries reports that an outbreak of respiratory infections, which at the time were dubbed an endemic "winter sickness" by local health officials, were causing dozens of deaths a day in villages along China's Great Wall. The illness spread 300 miles (500 kilometers) in six weeks' time in late 1917.
At first thought to be pneumonic plague, the disease killed at a far lower rate than is typical for that disease.
Humphries discovered that a British legation official in China wrote that the disease was actually influenza, in a 1918 report. Humphries made the findings in searches of Canadian and British historical archives that contain the wartime records of the Chinese Labor Corps and the British legation in Beijing.
Sealed Railcars
At the time of the outbreak, British and French officials were forming the Chinese Labor Corps, which eventually shipped some 94,000 laborers from northern China to southern England and France during the war.
"The idea was to free up soldiers to head to the front at a time when they were desperate for manpower," Humphries says.
Shipping the laborers around Africa was too time-consuming and tied up too much shipping, so British officials turned to shipping the laborers to Vancouver on the Canadian West Coast and sending them by train to Halifax on the East Coast, from which they could be sent to Europe.
So desperate was the need for labor that on March 2, 1918, a ship loaded with 1,899 Chinese Labor Corps men left the Chinese port of Wehaiwei for Vancouver despite "plague" stopping the recruiting for workers there.
In reaction to anti-Chinese feelings rife in western Canada at the time, the trains that carried the workers from Vancouver were sealed, Humphries says. Special Railway Service Guards watched the laborers, who were kept in camps surrounded by barbed wire. Newspapers were banned from reporting on their movement.
Roughly 3,000 of the workers ended up in medical quarantine, their illnesses often blamed on their "lazy" natures by Canadian doctors, Humphries said: "They had very stereotypical, racist views of the Chinese."

Doctors treated sore throats with castor oil and sent the Chinese back to their camps.
The Chinese laborers arrived in southern England by January 1918 and were sent to France, where the Chinese Hospital at Noyelles-sur-Mer recorded hundreds of their deaths from respiratory illness.
Historians have suggested that the Spanish influenza mutated and became most deadly in spring 1918, spreading from Europe to ports as far apart as Boston and Freetown, Sierra Leone.
By the height of the global pandemic that autumn, however, no more such cases were reported among the Chinese laborers in Europe.
Medical Evidence
Humphries concedes that a final answer to the mystery of the Spanish flu's origins is still a ways off.
"What we really need is a sample of the virus preserved in a burial for the medical experts to uncover," Humphries says. "That would have the best chances of settling the debate."
For the last decade, experts such as Jeffery Taubenberger, of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, have sought burial samples across continents, seeking to find preserved samples of the virus in victims of the outbreak.
Taubenberger led a team in 2011 that looked at flu virus samples taken from autopsies of 32 victims of the 1918 outbreak.
The earliest sample found so far was from a U.S. soldier who died on May 11, 1918, at Camp Dodge, Iowa, but the team is looking for earlier cases.
A broad number of samples from flu victims before and after the pandemic might finally narrow down its origins. Essentially, scientists would need a genetically identified sample of the influenza's H1N1 virus taken from a victim who died before the first widespread outbreak of the pandemic in spring 1918 to point to a time and place as the likely origin point of the pandemic.
One from China in 1917, for example, would fill the bill.

"I'm not sure if this question can ever be fully answered," Taubenberger cautions, noting that even the origin of a smaller flu pandemic in 2009 still eludes certainty.
Ultimately, "these kinds of [historical] analyses cannot definitively reveal the origins and patterns of spread of emerging pathogens, especially at the early stages of the outbreak," Taubenberger said, of the new historical report.
In the end, however, knowing the origin of the disease might provide information that could help stop a future pandemic, making the search worthwhile.
"I would say that the takeaway message of all of this is to keep your eye on China" as a source of emerging diseases, Higgins says. He points to concerns about avian flu and the SARS virus, both arising from Asia in the last decade

 

[ChanRasjid]

This is why everyone panic

Patients lie in an influenza ward at a U.S. Army camp hospital in Aix-les-Baines, France, during World War I.
PHOTOGRAPH BY CORBIS
1918 Flu Pandemic That Killed 50 Million Originated in China, Historians Say
Chinese laborers transported across Canada thought to be source.
6 MINUTE READ
BY DAN VERGANO, NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC

PUBLISHED JANUARY 24, 2014



THE GLOBAL FLU outbreak of 1918 killed 50 million people worldwide, ranking as one of the deadliest epidemics in history.
TODAY’SPOPULAR STORIES
SCIENCE
New coronavirus can spread between humans—but it started in a wildlife market

ANIMALS
More Chinese push to end wildlife markets as WHO declares coronavirus emergency

HISTORY
This cheer squad is caught between two worlds—divided by a border

For decades, scientists have debated where in the world the pandemic started, variously pinpointing its origins in France, China, the American Midwest, and beyond. Without a clear location, scientists have lacked a complete picture of the conditions that bred the disease and factors that might lead to similar outbreaks in the future.

The deadly "Spanish flu" claimed more lives than World War I, which ended the same year the pandemic struck. Now, new research is placing the flu's emergence in a forgotten episode of World War I: the shipment of Chinese laborers across Canada in sealed train cars.
Historian Mark Humphries of Canada's Memorial University of Newfoundland says that newly unearthed records confirm that one of the side stories of the war—the mobilization of 96,000 Chinese laborers to work behind the British and French lines on World War I's Western Front—may have been the source of the pandemic.



Writing in the January issue of the journal War in History, Humphries acknowledges that his hypothesis awaits confirmation by viral samples from flu victims. Such evidence would tie the disease's origin to one location.
But some other historians already find his argument convincing.
"This is about as close to a smoking gun as a historian is going to get," says historian James Higgins, who lectures at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, and who has researched the 1918 spread of the pandemic in the United States. "These records answer a lot of questions about the pandemic."
Last of the Great Plagues
The 1918 flu pandemic struck in three waves across the globe, starting in the spring of that year, and is tied to a strain of H1N1 influenza ancestral to ones still virulent today.
The outbreak killed even the young and healthy, turning their strong immune systems against them in a way that's unusual for flu. Adding to the catastrophic loss of lives during World War I, the epidemic may have played a role in ending the war.

"The 1918 flu was the last of the great plagues that struck humanity, and it followed in the tracks of a global conflict," says Humphries.
Even as the pandemic's origins have remained a mystery, the Chinese laborers have previously been suggested as a source of the disease.
Historian Christopher Langford has shown that China suffered a lower mortality rate from the Spanish flu than other nations did, suggesting some immunity was at large in the population because of earlier exposure to the virus.
In the new report, Humphries finds archival evidence that a respiratory illness that struck northern China in November 1917 was identified a year later by Chinese health officials as identical to the Spanish flu.
He also found medical records indicating that more than 3,000 of the 25,000 Chinese Labor Corps workers who were transported across Canada en route to Europe starting in 1917 ended up in medical quarantine, many with flu-like symptoms.
Origins Debated
The Spanish flu reached its height in autumn 1918 but raged until 1920, initially gaining its nickname from wartime censorship rules that allowed for reporting on the disease's ravages in neutral Spain.
Physicians began debating the origin of the pandemic almost as soon as it appeared, Higgins says, with historians soon joining them.
France's wartime trenches, ridden with filth, disease, and death, were originally seen as the flu's breeding ground. The flu's tendency to strike young adults was explained as the disease targeting itself to young soldiers in trenches. The theory also purported to explain how the illness spread from Europe to cities such as Boston and Philadelphia by pointing a finger at returning troop ships.
A decade after the war, Kansas was identified as another possible breeding ground, due to reports of an influenza outbreak there that spread to a nearby Army camp in March 1918, killing 48 doughboys.

But in his study, Humphries reports that an outbreak of respiratory infections, which at the time were dubbed an endemic "winter sickness" by local health officials, were causing dozens of deaths a day in villages along China's Great Wall. The illness spread 300 miles (500 kilometers) in six weeks' time in late 1917.
At first thought to be pneumonic plague, the disease killed at a far lower rate than is typical for that disease.
Humphries discovered that a British legation official in China wrote that the disease was actually influenza, in a 1918 report. Humphries made the findings in searches of Canadian and British historical archives that contain the wartime records of the Chinese Labor Corps and the British legation in Beijing.
Sealed Railcars
At the time of the outbreak, British and French officials were forming the Chinese Labor Corps, which eventually shipped some 94,000 laborers from northern China to southern England and France during the war.
"The idea was to free up soldiers to head to the front at a time when they were desperate for manpower," Humphries says.
Shipping the laborers around Africa was too time-consuming and tied up too much shipping, so British officials turned to shipping the laborers to Vancouver on the Canadian West Coast and sending them by train to Halifax on the East Coast, from which they could be sent to Europe.
So desperate was the need for labor that on March 2, 1918, a ship loaded with 1,899 Chinese Labor Corps men left the Chinese port of Wehaiwei for Vancouver despite "plague" stopping the recruiting for workers there.
In reaction to anti-Chinese feelings rife in western Canada at the time, the trains that carried the workers from Vancouver were sealed, Humphries says. Special Railway Service Guards watched the laborers, who were kept in camps surrounded by barbed wire. Newspapers were banned from reporting on their movement.
Roughly 3,000 of the workers ended up in medical quarantine, their illnesses often blamed on their "lazy" natures by Canadian doctors, Humphries said: "They had very stereotypical, racist views of the Chinese."

Doctors treated sore throats with castor oil and sent the Chinese back to their camps.
The Chinese laborers arrived in southern England by January 1918 and were sent to France, where the Chinese Hospital at Noyelles-sur-Mer recorded hundreds of their deaths from respiratory illness.
Historians have suggested that the Spanish influenza mutated and became most deadly in spring 1918, spreading from Europe to ports as far apart as Boston and Freetown, Sierra Leone.
By the height of the global pandemic that autumn, however, no more such cases were reported among the Chinese laborers in Europe.
Medical Evidence
Humphries concedes that a final answer to the mystery of the Spanish flu's origins is still a ways off.
"What we really need is a sample of the virus preserved in a burial for the medical experts to uncover," Humphries says. "That would have the best chances of settling the debate."
For the last decade, experts such as Jeffery Taubenberger, of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, have sought burial samples across continents, seeking to find preserved samples of the virus in victims of the outbreak.
Taubenberger led a team in 2011 that looked at flu virus samples taken from autopsies of 32 victims of the 1918 outbreak.
The earliest sample found so far was from a U.S. soldier who died on May 11, 1918, at Camp Dodge, Iowa, but the team is looking for earlier cases.
A broad number of samples from flu victims before and after the pandemic might finally narrow down its origins. Essentially, scientists would need a genetically identified sample of the influenza's H1N1 virus taken from a victim who died before the first widespread outbreak of the pandemic in spring 1918 to point to a time and place as the likely origin point of the pandemic.
One from China in 1917, for example, would fill the bill.

"I'm not sure if this question can ever be fully answered," Taubenberger cautions, noting that even the origin of a smaller flu pandemic in 2009 still eludes certainty.
Ultimately, "these kinds of [historical] analyses cannot definitively reveal the origins and patterns of spread of emerging pathogens, especially at the early stages of the outbreak," Taubenberger said, of the new historical report.
In the end, however, knowing the origin of the disease might provide information that could help stop a future pandemic, making the search worthwhile.
"I would say that the takeaway message of all of this is to keep your eye on China" as a source of emerging diseases, Higgins says. He points to concerns about avian flu and the SARS virus, both arising from Asia in the last decade

Spanish flu of 1918 is not our strain of common flu, very high mortality rate.

Rasjid.

 

[sweetiepie]

Spanish flu of 1918 is not our strain of common flu, very high mortality rate.

Rasjid.

Datuk Chan any idea is the current flu vaccine fluarix tetra 2019-2020 effective for all those 1918 Spanish flu ? KNN

According to the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the flu vaccine reduced the risk of infection in adults by roughly 45% to 47% in 2018-2019. In children 6 months to 17 years old, the vaccine waseffective in 61% to 62% of children.Nov 5, 2019

 

[Leongsam]

I hardly ever get sick. If you want to hedge your bets like I do perform these simple risk reducing steps....

1. Keep your hands away from your face.

2. Wash your hands and clean your phone regularly.

 

[ChanRasjid]

The Wuhan virus mortality rate is way below 2% because the majority of those who catch it have such mild symptoms that they don't even bother to seek medical treatment.

I was sick last week and it was probably the Wuhan virus because I had dinner with a sick friend who works at the airport. He meets thousands of mainland Chinese who file through the airport on a daily basis.

I had a slight fever and a cough and after a couple of days I felt better. He took about a week to recover.

Neither of us went to the doctor so we are not countered under the "confirmed cases" category.

The 2% figure is based upon those who have ended up seeking treatment because their symptoms are severe. This skews the figures considerably.

The critical piece of information is the true mortality rate. I believe the Chinese government is not that dumb to lockdown China if they do not have a good grasp of the seriousness of the epidemic and about the virus.

Your much below 2% may be speculation. There may be many(?) people infected with serious symptoms but not wanting to go to the hospitals and left to die! They died at home, got incinerated but not counted reducing the mortality rate.

My speculation is as good as yours!

Rasjid.

 

[laksaboy]

2.1% fatality rate. Very consistent.

 

[cocobobo]

The Wuhan coronavirus seems to have a low fatality rate, and most patients make full recoveries. Experts reveal why it’s causing panic anyway.

rational people are not worried about the deaths. Its about the pneumonia. Its a viral pneumonia outbreak.
While you live, bilateral pneumonia is not a nice thing to endure.

also, can our system treat, say, 50,000 additional penumonia victims simultaneously?

 

[zeebjii]

I've read for years the common flu kills hundreds of people every year.

Honestly, does anyone here personally know of ANYONE who died of flu? Meaning on the death cert the cause is stated as "flu" or "influenza".

 

[ChanRasjid]

I've read for years the common flu kills hundreds of people every year.

Honestly, does anyone here personally know of ANYONE who died of flu? Meaning on the death cert the cause is stated as "flu" or "influenza".

My conspiracy theory.

In US, the official mortality rate for flu is very high, way way higher than reported in China. I vaguely remember someone said the number of death per year in China from flu is about 450. In US, way way higher. The reason a Chinese doctor gives is that in China, when a person with a serious underlying health condition dies after getting the flu, the cause of death may be recorded as the underlying illness, not the flu. This is reasonable. What if you are aged 80, seriously ill and catch a cold and die? Do we record the death as due to the common cold?

In the US, there is such a thing call lobbying - collusion between big pharm, medical academia and other regulatory agencies. So when a person dies after contracting the flu, the cause of death is always recorded as flu irrespective if you have six other underlying illnesses! This is good for selling the flu vaccine. Slogan:
"You can die of the flu!"

I am 70. Since many years back, every single visit to the doctor will have them selling me the flu vaccine. At one time, I remember it costs about 70 dollars! That's very lucrative business! So there are big money selling the crashing Boeing 737 Max 8, selling flu vaccines, selling Lehman Brothers and now bitcoin.

This is the real world.

Chan Rasjid.

 

[ChanRasjid]

How Much Should You Actually Worry About This New Coronavirus?

Tara C. Smith, Ph.D.
SelfFebruary 6, 2020

As an epidemiologist who has followed news of emerging viruses for 20 years, I’ve come to expect a few things during an outbreak of a disease like the new coronavirus that was first identified in the city of Wuhan, China. Namely: Fear, misinformation, and hype are always rampant in the early stages of an outbreak. That’s precisely what I’m seeing right now as news spreads about this new coronavirus. This fear already has real-world implications beyond contributing to misinformation about the illness—it’s also fueling racism and xenophobia against people of Asian descent. Getting the facts right is important.

On January 27, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued recommendations to avoid nonessential travel to China, and a few days later the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services classified the new coronavirus as a public health emergency. Those are both unnerving developments, but this doesn’t necessarily mean you need to worry about coronavirus for your own personal safety (or that of your community). In an attempt to sort out fact from fiction and speculation from confirmed science, here’s what experts know so far—along with a reminder that, in the United States, at least, the flu is still a much bigger threat to our health than the new coronavirus.

Here’s what the new coronavirus actually is.

First, it’s important to know that there are actually many coronaviruses, according to the CDC. The one you’re seeing all over the news right now is formally known as the 2019 Novel Coronavirus, or 2019-nCoV, because this is the first time experts have seen this new form of the virus. SARS is another coronavirus you’ve probably heard of before. Some coronaviruses can even cause the common cold, according to the CDC.

This new coronavirus emerged in Wuhan, China, in late 2019. Transmission of many of the early cases was linked to a wet market (a place where items like seafood and live animals can be bought and sold), so it was initially thought that the virus likely originated from that market. Now it appears as though some people who picked up the new coronavirus may have been exposed elsewhere at an earlier point in time, the CDC explains.

In any case, the biological makeup of the new coronavirus looks most similar to bat coronaviruses, so the hypothesis is that bats (or possibly an intermediate species that got infected by bats) transmitted the illness to humans at some point in early winter.

The virus seems to be transmitted relatively easily between people in close proximity (within six feet) via respiratory droplets, though we don’t know yet whether casual contact (like sharing a few minutes in close quarters on a subway or bus) can spread the virus, or if more sustained contact (such as living with someone) is necessary.

The virus can cause symptoms similar to the flu, like fever, coughing, shortness of breath, and serious complications like pneumonia, the CDC says. Although not everyone shows symptoms, if someone does develop signs of the illness, it typically happens between 2 and 14 days after transmission. At this point, treatment comes down to addressing symptoms, as there are no specific antiviral medications for this new coronavirus (nor a vaccine).

One big unknown aspect of this illness is if someone needs to have symptoms to spread the virus, or if it can spread when someone is still in the incubation period (while the virus is replicating in their body, but they don’t yet feel sick).

In a January 31 press conference, Nancy Messionnier, M.D., the director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said, “At this time, CDC does not have direct evidence that asymptomatic individuals are transmitting this virus.” Transmission during the incubation period didn’t seem to contribute to the spread of other serious human coronavirus infections like SARS, but with the new virus, we just don’t know yet. Only time will tell, and my infectious disease colleagues and I are anxiously monitoring the situation.

Clearly, experts are still working out a lot of these details. A lot remains to be known, including the actual impact the illness will ultimately have.

We don’t yet know how widespread or harmful the new coronavirus will be.

Before we go further, keep in mind that during an epidemic, the general public typically only hears about the most serious cases. It’s easy to overlook milder cases—involving people who report to their doctors and hospitals for treatment or simply stay home and recover—in favor of the more alarming stories. That’s not to say we shouldn’t care about the potential threat of serious illness and death in these situations, but that it’s also important to have the adequate context to avoid unnecessary fear.

With that said, the new coronavirus is currently spreading very quickly. At press time, more than 24,554 global cases of the illness have been confirmed, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), with 24,363 of those taking place in China. Very much worth noting: Only around 13% of the confirmed new coronavirus cases in China have been deemed severe, according to the WHO.

As people who contracted the new coronavirus in China have traveled, the virus has spread from China to at least 27 other countries and territories. In the United States, we currently have 11 confirmed cases of infection, in California, Arizona, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Washington. Most of these cases have been associated with people who had recently been in China, but on January 30 the CDC announced that the first U.S. case of person-to-person new coronavirus transmission had happened in Illinois. On February 2 another instance of U.S. person-to-person transmission was confirmed in California. Both cases of transmission happened when someone who had recently been to China spread the illness to someone they lived with in the U.S.

At press time, 492 people have died from complications of the illness (like pneumonia), with all but one of those deaths occurring in China (the only other death happened in the Philippines). Based on the number of confirmed cases, that’s a death rate of about 2%. (The fatality rate for the SARS outbreak in 2002 to 2003 was around 10%.) As the epidemic proceeds, many more people will become infected, with outcomes we can’t predict right now. In a January Issues in Science and Technology article, Harvard epidemiologist Maimuna S. Majumder expounded on that idea, explaining that determining the true fatality rate of an infectious disease is difficult and changes over time as more populations are involved and mild cases are identified, which can lead to a lower death rate overall.

Based on what we know about new coronavirus so far, older individuals are most at risk of contracting and dying from it. A January study in The New England Journal of Medicine looked at demographic information of the first 425 people confirmed to have the disease in Wuhan, finding that nearly half of the infections were in people 60 and older. A recent The Lancet analysis of the demographic and health information of 41 people hospitalized with the infection found that a third were above the age of 60, and many had preexisting conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease. Being older and having these kinds of conditions both tend to put people at higher risk of all types of respiratory infections, so it’s not surprising that these demographics would be the hardest-hit from this coronavirus as well. Interestingly, there have been very few reported cases of children and teens with the infection. This illness seems to be primarily striking (or at least causing noticeable symptoms in) adults, at least from current data.

Right now, the flu is a bigger threat in the U.S. than the new coronavirus.

We don’t yet know the trajectory of the new coronavirus, which understandably invokes fear. But don’t let all the buzz make you forget about a different virus circulating in the United States right now with a much larger impact than the new coronavirus. It’s killed between 10,000 and 25,000 people in this country between just October 1 and January 25, according to the CDC, and has caused up to 26 million illnesses and 310,000 hospitalizations in that time as well. Schools in several states have closed due to high levels of this illness in their student bodies. We even have a vaccine available to help prevent it. Yes, I’m talking about the flu.

Imagine if the new coronavirus had the same public health impact in the U.S. as the flu. People would (rightfully) be incredibly concerned. Because influenza is so familiar, many forget just how harmful and even deadly the flu can be—and how important it is to get vaccinated against it.

Many people see the new coronavirus as being worse than the flu because it has killed a higher percentage of infected people than the flu, which had a 0.1% mortality rate in 2018 to 2019 flu season and a .14% mortality rate in the previous flu season, according to preliminary CDC data. Although that’s lower than the current estimated mortality rate from the new coronavirus, those living in the United States are still at far greater risk of coming into contact with the flu than with the new coronavirus.

As I’ve written before, the influenza vaccine is not perfect. But even an imperfect flu vaccine can prevent millions of infections, reduce the risk of severe disease and intensive care admission, reduce the risk of death in children who are infected, and protect both mothers and their infants if the vaccine is given during pregnancy. According to the CDC, flu activity is high right now in most states and moderate in a handful of the rest. Protecting yourself (and others in your community who could be at risk if you carry the virus) is essential.

Luckily, many actions that will help prevent you from getting or spreading the flu can also help make coronavirus infection less likely should it become widespread in the United States. Wash your hands regularly, avoid touching your face and eyes, cover your mouth and nose when coughing or sneezing, avoid close contact with people who are sick, and, if at all possible, stay home from school or work if you are ill. If you’re in contact with people who are confirmed to have either illness (or who are showing symptoms), or if you have symptoms yourself, consider wearing a face mask, the CDC says. It’s also not too late to get your influenza vaccine if you haven’t yet for the 2019 to 2020 season. Flu season typically lasts until late spring, so you still have time.

Fear and confusion can spread just like a virus. By taking simple steps to prevent the flu and understand the new coronavirus, you can work to minimize outbreaks of both infectious diseases as well as alarm and misinformation.

Tara C. Smith, Ph.D:

As an epidemiologist who has followed news of emerging viruses for 20 years, I’ve come to expect a few things during an outbreak of a disease like the new coronavirus...

Right now, the flu is a bigger threat in the U.S. than the new coronavirus.

Remember, in the US many of these academics, doctors, Ph.D and commentators could have been bought over by big pharmacy.

In Hong Kong, there is 1 death out of 25 infected; mortality rate 1/25 = 4%

In US, there is zero death out of 12 infected, 0/12 = 0% mortality. Very very low mortality rate!

Chan Rasjid.

 

[ChanRasjid]

There is also big money now selling shares in Elon Musk's Tesla company when the company has almost never ever turned in a profit in all its existence.

This is the real world.

Chan Rasjid.