Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Medicine China

WHO Declares Global Health Emergency as Wuhan Coronavirus Continues To Spread (gizmodo.com) 141

The World Health Organization on Thursday declared an international public health emergency over the deadly new coronavirus that has hit China hard. From a report: The announcement comes as nearly a hundred cases have been spotted in countries outside of China, including the first case of human-to-human transmission in the U.S., also reported on Thursday. The WHO's decision on the outbreak of virus, known as 2019-nCoV, was made following a lengthy discussion by experts assembled by the agency. Last week, the same committee deliberated for two days about whether to call for a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC), as it's officially known, but declined to do so. While China has reported a large surge of cases since then -- over 7,700 cases and 170 deaths as of early January 30 -- the move to now call for an international emergency was motivated by the worsening situation outside of China, according to WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. As of Thursday, there have been 98 cases reported outside of mainland China in at least 18 countries, but no deaths outside of China. "The main reason for this declaration is not because of what is happening in China, but because of what is happening in other countries," Tedros said at the press conference announcing the PHEIC today. "We don't know what sort of damage this virus could do if it were to spread in a country with a weaker health system. We must act now to help countries prepare for that possibility."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

WHO Declares Global Health Emergency as Wuhan Coronavirus Continues To Spread

Comments Filter:
  • by OffTheLip ( 636691 ) on Thursday January 30, 2020 @04:45PM (#59672100)
    Everyone in at risk from this with quarantine the easiest option for most countries. It will suck for many no doubt. World health officials are sounding the alarm but have nothing else to offer.
    • by LynnwoodRooster ( 966895 ) on Thursday January 30, 2020 @05:01PM (#59672184) Journal
      I am quarantined right now. I was in Taiwan for the past two weeks, got back just before the weekend. My company said all of us that were overseas in Asia have to work for home for the next 2 weeks. You know, maybe they will ALSO realize that I don't have to go into work every day to accomplish what I need to do!
    • by mark-t ( 151149 )

      There will be soon, I am sure.

      The genome for this virus has already been sequenced, and I'd be surprised if we don't have a vaccine out before the end of March, pehaps even much sooner.

      • by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Thursday January 30, 2020 @05:33PM (#59672368)

        There will be soon, I am sure.

        The genome for this virus has already been sequenced, and I'd be surprised if we don't have a vaccine out before the end of March, pehaps even much sooner.

        May still take a while. Remember they do this for the flu every year and it still takes several months.

      • by Zocalo ( 252965 ) on Thursday January 30, 2020 @06:24PM (#59672542) Homepage
        This was covered on the news in the UK today. They have a provisional vaccine already, which is apparently unprecedented, however even on an expedited timescale through the human trial stage to prove it actually works and understand any potential side-effects, the scientists who produced it still think it's going to be several *months* before it's going to be ready for large scale use.

        I suspect 2020 is not going to be a banner year for the tourism trade...
        • by dryeo ( 100693 )

          Assuming it doesn't mutate by the time the vaccine is ready. Unluckily this seems to be one of those viruses that does readily mutate.

        • We can assume China will be testing this vaccine on the Uyghurs and Falun Gong very soon, if they aren't already.
          • One has to be american in order to believe that bullshit.

            • by zidium ( 2550286 )

              Is that the equivalent of saying someone has to be a Ukranian to believe Hitler had death camps?

              • It is the equivalent of saying you must be american too. The whole western hemisphere suffers from it but nobody is indoctrinated like the Americans. The terrorist scare, the Russian scare, the Chinese scare, it's just a product being turned out 24/7. People who don't buy the product get labeled fake news disseminators, Russian stooges, or when ordinary stupid is not enough, holocaust deniers.

                • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

                  So why were european pundits screeching the "russian scare" over the last 4 years with every election including with brexit?

                  • Because they are in the US periphery and the information goes downstream. Do you really want to know?

                    AFAIK nobody gets a public voice if they are not pro NATO. Most journalists have to get approval from the German Marshall Fund to have a career in international politics. The GMF and similar NATO thinktanks select the right journalists and connects them to people. Gives them a career.

                    Obama still put the brakes on the anti Russia campaign but since he left it's gone all out. The British are a major driver beh

      • by hey! ( 33014 ) on Thursday January 30, 2020 @07:14PM (#59672688) Homepage Journal

        I've seen estimates of an adapted SARS vaccine being ready for Phase 1 clinical trials on this coronavirus by some time in April. From a technological standpoint that is outstanding, but even if everything goes well it'll be months after that before we're able to manufacture and distribute it in quantity.

        There is a parameter in epidemiology called "R0" (pronounced "R naught"). It's the average number of new infections that result from a single new infection. If R0 is less than one, an epidemic will burn itself out with no intervention. If R0 is greater than one, then the epidemic will grow at an exponential rate . Current R0 estimates for this virus range from 1.4 all the way up to 5.5. For now the consensus is between 2 and 3: every new infection will in turn infect at least two more people.

        If that parameter isn't significantly reduced, then we could be looking at a situation where we just can't manufacture vaccine fast enough. Mathematically, it's almost like an epidemic has momentum. The faster it is growing, the harder it is to stop.

        • Mathematically, it's almost like an epidemic has momentum. The faster it is growing, the harder it is to stop.

          positive feedback loop.

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      What they actually have to offer is early warning. If the world can reduce the infection-rate enough, this will just fizzle out. If not, many people will get a shot at the 2.5% mortality. Of course, there may be oodles of undetected light cases, but if so the mortality will be far lower as well. Also, the longer this goes, the better treatment will get and the lower the mortality. Just remember that the flu kills a lot of people every year. Of course, there is a usually effective vaccine for the flu as well

      • It's a bit like that. Almost all the cases are in China and they are not worrying about that because China will get it under control. But the fact that it takes organized effort to get it under control and that means there are a lot of countries at risk.

  • This is bad (Score:5, Funny)

    by 110010001000 ( 697113 ) on Thursday January 30, 2020 @04:45PM (#59672102) Homepage Journal

    With most of the human population wiped out by the SARS epidemic I am expecting this new virus to wipe out the rest. Shame. The human race had so much potential.

    • "With most of the human population wiped out by the SARS epidemic I am expecting this new virus to wipe out the rest."

      I still have a full box of face masks from the SARS scare, I'm going to make a fortune. :-)

      • But do they protect the eyes?! Didn't you see the news? This flu is transmitted through the eyes! The face masks do NOTHING!!!
        (In point of fact the "eye" transmission was caused by one of the doctors touching an infected surface and then rubbing his eyes or the patient coughing/sneezing and the particles getting in through the eyes - like every other cold or flu virus. But what great click baiting!)

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward
          I have a box full of solar glasses from the last Solar Eclipse that came across the US in 2017... These paper glasses really protect the eyes. I'm going to make a FORTUNE!
        • by mark-t ( 151149 )
          Fundamentally, the problem is that masks do not protect you anywhere remotely close to as well against colds and flu than good hand hygiene. A correlation to mask use is only found one you consider that it is generally the case that the type of person who might wear a mask under the belief that it will mitigate exposure is more likely to also be practicing good hygeine in the first place.
          • by gweihir ( 88907 )

            Actually masks on other people protect you to some degree if they sneeze. But, yes, wash your hands, keep your hands away from your eyes and face when out and about and that is basically it. A virus does not survive (well stay active, really, as they are not living things) outside of the body.

            • by mark-t ( 151149 )
              It's true that while masks won't generally stop you from getting sick, they *do* apparently strongly mitigate transmitting it to others. However, if you are sick enough that you feel you might pose a health risk to other people by going out without a face mask, then unless you are going to see a medical professional for diagnosis and/or treatment, you should probably just stay home.
              • by gweihir ( 88907 )

                Indeed.

              • Re:This is bad (Score:5, Informative)

                by Xylantiel ( 177496 ) on Thursday January 30, 2020 @06:37PM (#59672578)
                Asians always wore masks to keep from infecting others. It is a western misunderstanding that one wears a mask mainly to protect oneself. In Asia it is also a polite way to indicate "I'm sick, keep some distance." And while some sick people may have the luxury of only going out to the doctor, many have to do other things as well despite being sick.
              • [masks] *do* apparently strongly mitigate transmitting it to others.

                Only as long as the masks are dry. If they are wet from catching sneezes and nose mucus, they are worse than wearing no mask because they help aerosolizing infectious fluids whenever you cough. In practice, this means you have to replace the mask after half an hour.

                • by Megol ( 3135005 )

                  Double layer mask with antimicrobial treatment perhaps? Don't think it'd work to stop transmission but maybe for earning some cash.

          • Wonder nobody has invented a silver or copper particle laced face mask yet.. I sense a niche wanting to be filled

    • by Way Smarter Than You ( 6157664 ) on Thursday January 30, 2020 @04:59PM (#59672178)
      I was killed by the SARS virus, you unfeeling bastard!
    • Re: This is bad (Score:5, Insightful)

      by e3m4n ( 947977 ) on Thursday January 30, 2020 @06:59PM (#59672634)

      Tell me about it. For the 2017-2018 flu season, just in the USA there were 980,000 hospitalizations and 80,000 deaths. In feb of 18 there were 4000 deaths per week. Oh noes.. coronavirus killed 150 people. Oh noes!! Pandemic everyone. It might even spread from people to people. Thats worse than flu i tell ya.

      • by twocows ( 1216842 ) on Friday January 31, 2020 @09:09AM (#59674372)
        The Wuhan coronavirus only recently came onto the scene, whereas influenza has already had time to ramp up and infect a great deal of people. Additionally, there are concerted (and at least reasonably effective) measures in place to stop or slow the spread of Wuhan coronavirus, whereas the spread of the flu is not controlled in the same way. The main check on the flu is the flu vaccine, and this season's flu vaccine was ineffective against one of the prevalent strains (I've heard it's a good match for this year's A strain but not the B strain). There is no vaccine for Wuhan coronavirus -- your only way to avoid it is to avoid exposure. Finally, influenza has a very low mortality rate -- other comments here have put it at less than 1%, compared to the Wuhan coronavirus' 3% or so. While some of that may be because coronavirus is hitting dense Chinese cities that may be strained trying to care for that many people, some degree of it is likely because it's a more severe illness.

        There's no reason to panic about it if you're not in one of the heavily hit areas, as ongoing efforts to halt or slow the disease's spread have been at least reasonably effective so far. But dismissing it because the number of people it has killed in the small handful of cities where it is widespread doesn't match the number of people killed by an illness whose scope is currently global -- that just demonstrates your ignorance.
        • Go pedal your propaganda elsewhere. Unless you are old as shit with comorbidities you are not going to die. Unlike the flu that can kill you all by itself.

          Update - Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)

          Colleagues:

          As you are aware, a novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originally identified in Wuhan, China, continues to circulate, with over 7,700 confirmed cases in China and 68 cases in 18 other countries.

          To date, 170 deaths have been reported (2% mortality rate) and appear to have occurred primarily in the elderly popula

    • by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Thursday January 30, 2020 @07:19PM (#59672710)
      The potential severity of a disease epidemic is measured by its case-fatality rate. What percentage of people who get an illness die from it. A 2% case-fatality rate is considered the top of the pandemic index scale [wikipedia.org]. The 1918 Spanish Flu had a case-fatality rate of about 2.5% (other deaths were caused by lingering pneumonia after recovering from the flu, and inadequate care due to overwhelmed medial services).

      SARS had a case-fatality rate of 11%-15%. It was completely off the charts compared to past infections diseases. Probability-wise, there's about a 3%-5% chance that you're alive today because WHO, the medical community, and governments took decisive steps to contain SARS before it could become a pandemic. If they hadn't acted in time, humanity probably would have experienced the worst mass die-off since the Black Plague. You're making jokes thinking it was all an exaggeration, when the reason it didn't blow up was because they succeeded in saving your lives.

      And FYI, this Wuhan coronavirus initially had a 3% case-fatality rate. Though the latest stats (released today - 171 deaths in 8200 cases) put it at 2.1%. That's why they're being so cautious about it. It's not as bad as SARS, but has the potential to become another Spanish Flu. (Ebola is about 50%, but it kills so quickly it inhibits its own ability to spread itself.)
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        The potential severity of a disease epidemic is measured by its case-fatality rate. What percentage of people who get an illness die from it. A 2% case-fatality rate is considered the top of the pandemic index scale. ...
        And FYI, this Wuhan coronavirus initially had a 3% case-fatality rate. Though the latest stats (released today - 171 deaths in 8200 cases) put it at 2.1%. That's why they're being so cautious about it. It's not as bad as SARS, but has the potential to become another Spanish Flu. (Ebola is about 50%, but it kills so quickly it inhibits its own ability to spread itself.)

        Official "confirmed" figures are pure nonsense disconnected from any resemblance of reality. Using these as a metric for determining fatality rates yields commensurately nonsensical results.

      • 171 deaths in 8200 cases put it at 2.1%

        I don't think this is the right way to calculate the fatality rate in this case. Many of those 8200 people are still in the process of either dying to or recovering from this coronavirus. The latest stats also give the recovered count at 143 -- in other words, of the 8200 cases, the final outcome of 96.2% of them is still undecided, and you can't assume that every single one of those people will survive.

        Of the 3.8% of cases with an outcome, 54% got over it by dying.

        I don't think that percentage is comparabl

      • I think this kind of thing is true of many problems. If you do a really good job of dealing with the issue most people think you did nothing at all and don't see why you are needed and maybe money could be saved by cutting back. Y2K would have been a disaster would massive work. Most sysadmins are never recognized for what they prevent. The CDC and WHO prevent MANY pandemics and get almost no credit for it.

        It is such a strange thing where the better you do your job the less useful people think your job is b

        • It is true that people deduce from the lack of pandemic that there was no problem in the first place. Either -because the measures worked. Corona in China could turn out to be such a case though it's still possible that it causes devastation in other parts of the world
          - because of the false sense of safety derived from surviving a game of russian roulette. As with our nuclear weapons

          But yes, the millenium bug may have been underrated afterwards because of all the fixes, but it was vastly exaggerated beforeh

    • The Black Death wiped out half of Europe's population in about a four year period, and from a modern public health standpoint plague is no big deal. It's endemic in the Western United States, bit nobody worries about visiting Arizona or talks about quarantining New Mexico.

      If you don't have the scientific knowledge or organizational capacity to control plague, it's a hellish nightmare. If you do it's an obscure historical footnote..

      The fact that SARS didn't kill millions of people like the 1918 flu doesn't

  • Imagine if it had 3% mortality but caused infertility in 50% of cases. Crazy idea? So was the mumps.
  • by Mark of the North ( 19760 ) on Thursday January 30, 2020 @04:54PM (#59672162)

    "We don't know what sort of damage this virus could do if it were to spread in a country with a weaker health system."

    A weaker health system? Than China's? That's a pretty high bar.

    Don't get me wrong. You can buy good healthcare in China, but you have to both seek it out and pay a pretty penny. But the healthcare for your average mainland Chinese citizen is best described as medieval. One would hope that there are few countries that are less fortunate than mainland China.

    • by Cajun Hell ( 725246 ) on Thursday January 30, 2020 @05:08PM (#59672260) Homepage Journal
      Well, "weakness" can be non-obvious. As it happens, the US is along the northern border of the country where Corona is brewed, and I suspect we import a lot more of it than China does. But no matter where you are, if you're ever over at someone's house and they have fresh limes, you should at least be cautious, since they may have been exposed.
    • One would hope that there are few countries that are less fortunate than mainland China.

      You're talking about a country which none the less has a healthcare system. Remember a poor person getting sick is not a problem for the "system". All your poor people getting sick is a problem for the "system" and as such it gets a response, wealth of the person is irrelevant.

      The relevant part here is the wealth of a nation as the determining factor of the ability to respond to a sick nation. In that regard China's medical system is damn good compared to many countries around the world. If this broke out i

      • by Kjella ( 173770 )

        You're talking about a country which none the less has a healthcare system. Remember a poor person getting sick is not a problem for the "system". All your poor people getting sick is a problem for the "system" and as such it gets a response, wealth of the person is irrelevant.

        The world bank puts them at 1.8 [worldbank.org] doctors per capita compared to a world average of 1.25, maybe the biggest clue that China has decent healthcare is their one(-ish) child policy that's been active for 40 years, of course the health of that child is a huge priority. Maybe it's not world leading healthcare but they're probably a better pick than 70%-80% of the countries on earth. Plus being an authoritarian regime has its advantages if you legitimately need to lock down the country, could you imagine if the CDC

    • by sjames ( 1099 ) on Thursday January 30, 2020 @05:21PM (#59672326) Homepage Journal

      Well, there's the U.S. Here, if you can't afford the expensive healthcare, the medieval health care option is illegal so you have to settle for caveman healthcare (that is, hope it gets better on it's own).

      • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        Well, there's the U.S. Here, if you can't afford the expensive healthcare, the medieval health care option is illegal so you have to settle for caveman healthcare (that is, hope it gets better on it's own).

        Well, the US does allow free emergency room care. Which is both smart and stupid, because those that cannot afford healthcare have to use the ER, and ER care is the most expensive around - a poor person using the ER costs more than if they were given preventative care for months. And of course, because of

        • by sjames ( 1099 )

          Of course, in this case, by the time your coronavirus infection gets bad enough to go to the ER, you've had time to infect plenty of other people including the entire waiting room (which is much more populated than that of a typical doctor's office.

          Combine that with having no paid sick days and quite possibly a policy of show up sick or you're fired and it's a problem waiting to happen.

          Of course, you still get dunned for the ER bills even if you can't possibly pay, so even though they have to treat you, man

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • by sjames ( 1099 )

          As you point out, a lot of people who can't afford healthcare make 'too much' for Medicaid. Medicare needs supplemental insurance to work out, but I can tell you,, having recently helped my Mom with getting supplemental insurance for her Medicare, I wish I had Medicare. It's a much better deal than I can get.

          Either way, the lack of good healthcare options for so many combined with culture and workplace policies that encourage working while sick make the U.S vastly more vulnerable to a coronavirus outbreak.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      Ridiculous attitude frozen in the Cold War. China built so many brand new hospitals in the last decade. All equipped with brand new imported equipment. And it's cheap, too. You can get a CT scan for about $50. Anyone can walk in to a hospital and see a doctor in about 30-60 minutes. Blood tests, prescriptions, you name it.

      Before Trump's trade war you never got these ignorant racist screeds. But then we know ignorance and racism are natural partners, though. :(

      • No. My attitude is informed by Chinese expatriates, recent ones.

        For your average mainland Chinese citizen, $50 is not affordable, not even close.

    • A weaker health system? Than China's? That's a pretty high bar.

      Eh. It's not that great, but there's lots way worse. China's doctors per capita is middling; one source I found online gives it as 1.51 per 1000. This is notably worse than the US at 2.3 per 1000, but is massively better than a lot of places. Subsaharan Africa clocks in at a bit over 0.1 per 1000; Chad and Liberia are both at 0.03 per 1000 and Tanzania is at 0.02. South and southeast Asia are better than Africa but still mostly worse than C

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      My wife and her family are from mainland China. Not particularly well off and not living in one of the bigger cities.

      Healthcare as they and I have experienced it in China is not "medieval". It's not unaffordable either. In fact my brother in law just went back there to get some treatment because the waiting time in the UK is so long.

    • I'm a frequent visitor to China. I have experienced the health system multiple times. It's really good with almost no waiting time. You can decide if you want a very experienced doctor or one just graduated. You pay 2-20 USD, more experienced cost more and might give you an hour wait.

      And the quality of treatment has surpassed my expectations, compared to my home country. Way more advanced and agile.

      Have you ever been to a Chinese hospital?

      • For some reason people think China is still back in the 1980's with poor services and no healthcare.

        Living in bubbles is fantastic.

    • China certainly has their problems [youtube.com] but about 95% of the populace has at least basic healthcare.

      The trouble with the US system is it's more like 91.5% [nbcnews.com]. And that's before we talk about the under insured (which to be fair China might suffer from).

      Herd Immunity [wikipedia.org] is valuable, but it only really works when everyone has access to healthcare.
  • They both start with T, end with "OS", have 6 letters, and apparently half of the population dying is within their purview...
  • I did! (Score:4, Funny)

    by BAReFO0t ( 6240524 ) on Thursday January 30, 2020 @05:13PM (#59672290)

    Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all night!
    And you too. Since the doors are locked!
    Try the long pig,... err, veal!

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • by presidenteloco ( 659168 ) on Thursday January 30, 2020 @05:49PM (#59672424)
      You are confusing total mortality with mortality rate.

      Mortality rate is number of deaths divided by number of disease cases. CDC estimate of mortality rate for influenza since 2010 looks to be around 0.14% https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html

      Mortality rate for Wuhan novel coronavirus is still difficult to estimate due just being in the middle of early infected peoples' progression of the disease.

      W H O has an early estimate of 2% https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-rate/
    • by rldp ( 6381096 )

      Automobile accidents kill more people than plane crashes.. So how is the 737 MAX a big deal that Boeing has to ground all the planes?

    • by Daetrin ( 576516 )
      "CDC estimates that so far this season there have been at least 15 million flu illnesses, 140,000 hospitalizations and 8,200 deaths from flu." (Source: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly... [cdc.gov])

      That means that about 0.055% of the people who get the flu die, and that about 5.8% of those hospitalized die.

      If you believe the numbers coming out of China about 2% of the people who catch the coronavirus die.

      That's a somewhat big if. It assumes that they're accurately reporting the numbers. It assumes they're accura
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Official numbers are being limited by testing capacity and people coming forward. There isn't any good faith estimate of true number of infected being advertised by Chinese government.

    While capacity is being ramped up some US CDC people believe there could be up to two orders of magnitude more that have not been "officially" counted.

    The official death rate is slightly above 2%... average yearly for Flu deaths per year over the last decade is 37k DEAD out of 29m infected from CDC data which works out to a b

  • Followed by a complete overreaction and near mass hysteria. TB will kill about 2 million people this year and next year and every year for the foreseeable future and that is the least dangerous top 10 killer disease.

    https://www.who.int/news-room/... [who.int]

    • Do we need to point out the elephant in the room? TB doesn't kill rich people or even poor people in wealthy countries. TB is effectively an economic problem these days not a medical one. Corona Virus on the other hand is scary because at the moment there is no 100% effective treatment and no Vaccination. Combined with the long incubation period it is very difficult to prevent the spread so extreme action is need or else rich people will die. Once we start getting vaccines or effective treatments then we c
  • Wait 'til it gets to the slums of India. You might as well add a 0 to the end of that fatality percentage.
  • by kbahey ( 102895 ) on Thursday January 30, 2020 @07:23PM (#59672720) Homepage

    First, there has been no fatalities from 2019 Coronovirus outside of China. So that is a good sign.

    Despite more people have now been infected in China than during the SARS outbreak in the early 2000s [2019 Coronavirus is more contagious than SARS], but the death toll so far remains lower [Coronavirus is less fatal than SARS].Â

    SARS, also a coronavirus, caused the deaths of 774 people worldwide.

    Source: BBC [bbc.com].

    Genetic sequence of the virus was published by China, publicly, and a US lab already developed a vaccine, but will not be available before summer. Source: BBC [bbc.com].

"Why can't we ever attempt to solve a problem in this country without having a 'War' on it?" -- Rich Thomson, talk.politics.misc

Working...