Languish.org

How well do you think your country's socio-economic system and it's politicians, especially the health system, will respond to an outbreak of the coronavirus (COVID-19) as compared to how Xi Jinping's communist China has so far?

I know it's not over or even peaked yet, but for a measure I suggest we use what's happened in China since 30/31st December when the first 8 or 9 cases were discovered to the point this week when the death toll topped 1,000 and cases numbered around 40,000, a period of six weeks, 42 days.

So if you country has an outbreak, say 6-12 cases, start the virtual clock running from there and let see how our different systems response of the follow 6 weeks as compared to China.

As it happens two days ago the UK announced there had been 8 cases, so it'll be interesting and scary to see what the situation is like in late March (22nd). Hopefully it won't be as bad as China and all of the official announcements are reassuring, but it is Johnson in charge and his cabinet of all the talents.  <_<

Given the degree on international co-operation and the efforts of WHO and many others, our government's shouldn't be going into a health crisis knowing very little.

May I suggest that you stockpile toilet paper. 

I think it's hard to judge China's response just yet.  Has the virus been so deadly because the healthcare system in China or Wuhan was so inept at handling it?  Or was it because the virus was truly a deadly threat unleashed?  In a new black death scenario, I think China's system has a lot going for it.  I don't see any Western nation being able to implement quarantine as effectively as China can.

Quote from: DGuller on February 12, 2020, 07:42:58 PM
I think it's hard to judge China's response just yet.  Has the virus been so deadly because the healthcare system in China or Wuhan was so inept at handling it?  Or was it because the virus was truly a deadly threat unleashed?  In a new black death scenario, I think China's system has a lot going for it.  I don't see any Western nation being able to implement quarantine as effectively as China can.

Indeed, which is why the question is to compare one's owns response to that of China's, a relative one,not an absolute one, as you rightly point out we don't really know just how danger this virus is.

But that's the problem;  we don't really know how dangerous the virus is.  If it's extremely dangerous, the West might deal with it no better than China has, and possibly worse due to the quarantine issues DGuller pointed out.  OTOH, if it's not really all that dangerous and has just been so bad because the Chinese haven't dealt with it well, we should expect the response to it in the West to be much better.

I can't see Spain being able to implement such stringent quarantine measures until it's too late. And I would say the same for most western nations.

On the other hand, there would have been no initial cover-up. So I'm going with more or less the same outcome.

I'm expecting this one to get out and kill millions; I hope I'm wrong. It will be interesting to find out how much damage will be done by the virus compared to the collateral effects of economic dislocation and social disorder. I think the social effects could be worse than the virus itself; we have grown used to high health security, unlike our forebears back in 1918/19.

Quote from: DGuller on February 12, 2020, 07:42:58 PM
I think it's hard to judge China's response just yet.  Has the virus been so deadly because the healthcare system in China or Wuhan was so inept at handling it?  Or was it because the virus was truly a deadly threat unleashed?  In a new black death scenario, I think China's system has a lot going for it.  I don't see any Western nation being able to implement quarantine as effectively as China can.

And there are some people who are very, very sceptical of the numbers being reported in China. There was a professor of epidemology on the radio recently noting that the only cases being reported out of Hubei are ones that are linked to Hubei. He thought the actual rate of infection could be a lot higher.

I also wonder if the virus may have been so deadly because authoritarian systems aren't necessarily great at reporting bad news upwards, so I wonder if there was an element of trying to keep this at a city/province level and deal with it until that became impossible at Chinese New Year.

Difficult to guess because I know nothing, but the LSTHM have said we're implementing the same measures as we did during the MERS outbreak and they should be reasonably effective. Who knows though? :mellow:

If this had began in Canada, the outcome would have been worst.  No way you can countain people home in New Years time and our ER are already under assault.  Besides, the Trudeau govt is inept at solving any kind of crisis.

Trump will go high and right.

It seems certain that the numbers are higher globally than is reported.
It's said that for most it will present as nothing more than a mild flu or less. Plenty of people won't see a doctor over this.

Quote from: viper37 on February 13, 2020, 06:06:35 PM
If this had began in Canada, the outcome would have been worst.  No way you can countain people home in New Years time and our ER are already under assault.  Besides, the Trudeau govt is inept at solving any kind of crisis.

But what are the odds of running into another Canadian on a given day?

I think the US has responded well, and seems to be keeping a handle on it. Some mandatory screenings at airports, working on vaccines and medicines for the virus, isolating those who have it. Working hard to keep on top of it.

Quote from: KRonn on February 14, 2020, 11:50:06 AM
I think the US has responded well, and seems to be keeping a handle on it. Some mandatory screenings at airports, working on vaccines and medicines for the virus, isolating those who have it. Working hard to keep on top of it.

I don't disagree, but we haven't had a large caseload here (at least not yet, let's hope it stays that way) and we still don't know how dangerous this virus actually is.

Prompted by Yi's comment in the Covid 19 thread:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 24, 2020, 04:49:26 PM
WHO announced virus has peaked in China.  Also government orders all wet markets closed. From NPR/BBC

Now South Korea and Italy get to answer monger's question.

Still to soon to tell, but not looking good for those two countries and especially Iran, where there's very little believable information coming out.

I think this virus is overblown, though I am not really paying close attention. Still though,  I'm more likely to be hit by a car.

Stop playing in traffic.  :P

The weekend looks set to herald the start for testing the world's various different types of health services.

Quote from: saskganesh on February 24, 2020, 06:04:17 PM
I think this virus is overblown, though I am not really paying close attention. Still though,  I'm more likely to be hit by a car.

Your chance of being hit by a car is stable.

Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 29, 2020, 09:46:58 PM

Quote from: saskganesh on February 24, 2020, 06:04:17 PM
I think this virus is overblown, though I am not really paying close attention. Still though,  I'm more likely to be hit by a car.

Your chance of being hit by a car is stable.

:huh:  There is no chance you are going to be hit by a car in a stable. Might get hit by a one-horsepower horse, though.

There is at least a small chance that a car could run into the stable and hit him as well.  :mad:

Quote from: Tonitrus on March 01, 2020, 05:33:16 AM
There is at least a small chance that a car could run into the stable and hit him as well.  :mad:

:yes: As an actuary who has often worked on property lines of insurance, I can confirm that vehicular collision with a building is a real thing.

Quote from: Tonitrus on March 01, 2020, 05:33:16 AM
There is at least a small chance that a car could run into the stable and hit him as well.  :mad:

But a stable with a massive hole in the wall isn't a true stable.  No true stable can have a moving car in it.

After the accident, the car probably isn't moving anymore.

Quote from: dps on March 01, 2020, 12:13:20 PM
After the accident, the car probably isn't moving anymore.

Exactly.  You can't be hit by a non-moving car (not even in a stable that is not a true stable).

No true stable would allow people inside it to be hit by a car.

This is the attitude of the man leading the UK through this possible crisis:

Quote
Prime Minister Boris Johnson said measures such as closing schools and banning big events "don't work as well perhaps as people think".

He told ITV's This Morning programme another way of responding to the virus would be to "take it on the chin" and allow it to "move through the population without really taking as many draconian measures".

"I think we need to strike a balance," he added.

Mr Johnson said it would be "business as usual" for the "overwhelming majority" of people in the UK.

:hmm:

He seems to think the tea towel slogan of 'Keep Calm and Carry On' is a serious response.

Full item here:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51749352 (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51749352)

Isn't it the point in this graphic:
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/053619e2b6a3e48ddc460d48c57ddbd1ce6260a1/0_0_736_633/master/736.jpg?width=620&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=b1750327cbef43bfcbbf393ccbe3f84c)

Basically you either let it spread naturally and peak early, because recovery will happen quicker - but with fewer measures like closing down schools, workplaces, cities etc. Or you take more social isoloation measures which delays the peak, which is lower, but you have the infection around for longer.

Those are options - UK policy is delay - but it'll be the medical/science people trying to work out what's the benefit against the social impact and then ministers making decisions. So who know where they'll actually land. I think Johnson has a higher risk appetite - he used to say his political hero was the Mayor in Jaws :ph34r:

There are good reasons for delay, though.

First, you don't want everyone showing up at the hospital at the same time - services would get overwhelmed and cease functioning well. Much better to spread it out, so services can cope.

Second, delay allows time for possible counter-measures. For example, a vaccine may be possible, but this takes time to develop. Delay may allow for that time, for a vaccine to inoculate the population before the illness peaks.

Third, the point of going the non-delay route would be to avoid the cost of social disruption (closing schools and transport, etc.). However, a peaking pandemic may create a panic that has the same effect. 

Yeah. The other benefit to delay according to the UK Chief Medical Officer is that there is a possibility that there's a seasonal element to coronavirus, like flu. I suppose even if there isn't a seasonal element to coronavirus, there is to demands on healthcare systems because of flu etc.

And UK policy is delay, which is apparently already started.

I don't think Johnson is saying he doesn't want delay, I think his point is there are two alternatives. At one extreme you let it peak and at the other you shut down cities (which has been discussed in the UK), but there's a balance to that which seems a fair point. Also there may be a bit of "pandemic theatre" a bit like "security theatre" at airports - I've seen footage from China of firetrucks disinfecting streets which I imagine isn't wildly effective but looks like you're doing something :lol:

Yes it is important to compromise, the spice must flow.

Not sure who voted for item 1.  Every country where we  have posters has cases of the virus.

Quote from: Tamas on March 05, 2020, 09:48:56 AM
Yes it is important to compromise, the spice must flow.

:lol: It's more that I think it's probably worth avoiding pandemic theatre. I think it'd be very easy to go "something must be done, this is something, therefore it must be done" for political benefit with limited actual medical benefit. And I think there's a risk the government will end up doing that.

Quote from: Sheilbh on March 05, 2020, 08:34:13 AM
Isn't it the point in this graphic:
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/053619e2b6a3e48ddc460d48c57ddbd1ce6260a1/0_0_736_633/master/736.jpg?width=620&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=b1750327cbef43bfcbbf393ccbe3f84c)

Basically you either let it spread naturally and peak early, because recovery will happen quicker - but with fewer measures like closing down schools, workplaces, cities etc. Or you take more social isoloation measures which delays the peak, which is lower, but you have the infection around for longer.

Those are options - UK policy is delay - but it'll be the medical/science people trying to work out what's the benefit against the social impact and then ministers making decisions. So who know where they'll actually land. I think Johnson has a higher risk appetite - he used to say his political hero was the Mayor in Jaws :ph34r:

I think that graphic may underestimate the benefits of delay. In a year's time we may have a vaccine of some sort. But it does get the main point across, with a lower peak health services and social order will be less stretched and there will be fewer total deaths.

I think the verdict is in.  Authoritarian, efficient states like China and Singapore are best equipped to respond.  Free, inefficient states like Italy are in the middle.  Authoritarian, fuck-up states like Iran are the worst.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 12, 2020, 05:07:04 PM
I think the verdict is in.  Authoritarian, efficient states like China and Singapore are best equipped to respond.  Free, inefficient states like Italy are in the middle.  Authoritarian, fuck-up states like Iran are the worst.

It's too soon to tell. Interesting if concerning points in the thread below (by an epidemiologist):
https://twitter.com/AdamJKucharski/status/1238152492178976769

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 12, 2020, 05:07:04 PM
I think the verdict is in.  Authoritarian, efficient states like China and Singapore are best equipped to respond.  Free, inefficient states like Italy are in the middle.  Authoritarian, fuck-up states like Iran are the worst.

I very much liked the graph our Shelf posted in the Covid19 thread; I'll go find it.

I find it somewhat reassuring that all or most of those line are concave.  That means we're not all characters in The Stand.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 12, 2020, 05:27:58 PM
I find it somewhat reassuring that all or most of those line are concave.  That means we're not all characters in The Stand.

Er that's a data visualisation choice. Explanation here, but basically it makes for comparisons easier:
https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1237748598051409921

A linear version of the same data (which is a little misleading because it looks like, say, the UK and US are fine:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ES1d2TGWkAA2Lam?format=png&name=small)

It was actually updated today :)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ES7biiVXgAENfJF?format=jpg&name=small)

If the x-axis is linear and the y-axis is logged, then straight line means an exponential growth.  Concave down means less than exponential growth (such as the latter stages of the logistic curve).  Straight line for a long time is bad, that basically means uncontained spread.

Quote from: DGuller on March 12, 2020, 05:50:17 PM
If the x-axis is linear and the y-axis is logged, then straight line means an exponential growth.  Concave down means less than exponential growth (such as the latter stages of the logistic curve).  Straight line for a long time is bad, that basically means uncontained spread.

That's what I thought.  Concave good, we live, hurray, right?

Shelf you ranty motherfucker.

:lol:

I think we are good. I am reassured by the steps to date taken by governments and businesses and by the medical establishment. My only concern is stupid people acting in chaotic and random ways. And that concern is significant.