Planet Rugby Forum

New China virus: Cases triple as infection spreads to Beijing and Shanghai

The number of people infected with a new virus in China tripled over the weekend, with the outbreak spreading from Wuhan to other major cities.

There are now more than 200 cases, mostly in Wuhan, though the respiratory illness has also been detected in Beijing, Shanghai and Shenzhen.

Three people have died. Japan, Thailand and South Korea have reported cases.

The new strain of coronavirus, which causes a type of pneumonia, can pass from person to person, China confirmed.

Respiratory expert Zhong Nanshan, who heads the health commission team investigating the virus, said 14 medical workers had caught it while treating patients, state media reported.

The sharp rise comes as millions of Chinese prepare to travel for the Lunar New Year holidays.

Although the outbreak is believed to have originated from a market, officials and scientists are yet to determine exactly how it has been spreading.

The outbreak has revived memories of the Sars virus - also a coronavirus - that killed 774 people in the early 2000s across dozens of countries, mostly in Asia. Analysis of the genetic code of the new virus shows it is more closely related to Sars than any other human coronavirus.

Experts in the UK told the BBC the number of people infected could still be far greater than official figures suggest, with estimates closer to 1,700.

6.Jones wrote:But one day a bug will evolve with the right stats that beats our defences.

Caley_Red wrote:

6.Jones wrote:But one day a bug will evolve with the right stats that beats our defences.

Put down your copy of "The Stand".

6.Jones wrote:

Caley_Red wrote:

6.Jones wrote:But one day a bug will evolve with the right stats that beats our defences.

Put down your copy of "The Stand".

An underrated book.

Thomas wrote:

6.Jones wrote:

Caley_Red wrote:

6.Jones wrote:But one day a bug will evolve with the right stats that beats our defences.

Put down your copy of "The Stand".

An underrated book.

Underrated? By whom?

It's in my top 3 (It is also there). Even the updated version with an extra 200 pages of filler.

J Man wrote:The world already has too many people. I say bring the killer flu on.

J Man wrote:The world already has too many people. I say bring the killer flu on.

guy smiley wrote:There's a confirmed case in Brisbane, a guy who recently travelled to China is currently confined to home for treatment.

We're still waiting for the big one. Like the Y2k bug, there's widespread scepticism that it's a real thing. But one day a bug will evolve with the right stats that beats our defences.

I pretty much expect something like that. Our defenses are weakened through our reliance on antibiotics and 'easy' medicine... our options are narrowing and there's a possibility of older viruses escaping into the wild through permafrost thaw and the like.

Sensible Stephen wrote:

guy smiley wrote:There's a confirmed case in Brisbane, a guy who recently travelled to China is currently confined to home for treatment.

We're still waiting for the big one. Like the Y2k bug, there's widespread scepticism that it's a real thing. But one day a bug will evolve with the right stats that beats our defences.

I pretty much expect something like that. Our defenses are weakened through our reliance on antibiotics and 'easy' medicine... our options are narrowing and there's a possibility of older viruses escaping into the wild through permafrost thaw and the like.

I am more optimistic. The post-antibiotics world is a bit like peak oil. Its always just around the corner. They don't develop new antibiotics as there's no money in it. If a bug comes along that is resistant to everything and starts spreading through the population, they will develop something to kill it. Sure might take a while and millions might die, but.. yeah.

As for a virus? Yeah bit scarier. Pop that tamiflu asap.

6.Jones wrote:Sensible Stephen is right. The likely worst case is lots of dead people. They were going to die anyway. It's hard to imagine a virus that wipes out our species, unless it is engineered to do so.

From a brutal, species preservation point of view, wiping out half of us now wouldn't be such a bad thing. The remaining half would put a lot less load on the planet.

Gwenno wrote:

6.Jones wrote:Sensible Stephen is right. The likely worst case is lots of dead people. They were going to die anyway. It's hard to imagine a virus that wipes out our species, unless it is engineered to do so.

From a brutal, species preservation point of view, wiping out half of us now wouldn't be such a bad thing. The remaining half would put a lot less load on the planet.

It would certainly provide a climate change bailout, but would we then just not change?

6.Jones wrote:
We're still waiting for the big one. Like the Y2k bug, there's widespread scepticism that it's a real thing. But one day a bug will evolve with the right stats that beats our defences.

pjm1 wrote:Some people on this thread have been watching too much Infinity War and V Wars.

deadduck wrote:

6.Jones wrote:
We're still waiting for the big one. Like the Y2k bug, there's widespread scepticism that it's a real thing. But one day a bug will evolve with the right stats that beats our defences.

The nature of epidemics in the modern world mean that something infectious enough to spread to a significant amount of the population without governments intervening early is likely to have a lethality too low to cause a big death toll

6.Jones wrote:Sensible Stephen is right. The likely worst case is lots of dead people. They were going to die anyway. It's hard to imagine a virus that wipes out our species, unless it is engineered to do so.

From a brutal, species preservation point of view, wiping out half of us now wouldn't be such a bad thing. The remaining half would put a lot less load on the planet.

Flyin Ryan wrote:

deadduck wrote:

6.Jones wrote:
We're still waiting for the big one. Like the Y2k bug, there's widespread scepticism that it's a real thing. But one day a bug will evolve with the right stats that beats our defences.

The nature of epidemics in the modern world mean that something infectious enough to spread to a significant amount of the population without governments intervening early is likely to have a lethality too low to cause a big death toll

Something that kills people quickly with a short incubation time should stay regionalized (people get too sick before they have a chance to travel far and spread it around). The real danger is anything that has a longer incubation time, because it would've spread by the time any kind of quarantine was put in place.

bimboman wrote:

6.Jones wrote:Sensible Stephen is right. The likely worst case is lots of dead people. They were going to die anyway. It's hard to imagine a virus that wipes out our species, unless it is engineered to do so.

From a brutal, species preservation point of view, wiping out half of us now wouldn't be such a bad thing. The remaining half would put a lot less load on the planet.

That’s a tremendously worrying view. Well done,

6.Jones wrote:

bimboman wrote:

6.Jones wrote:Sensible Stephen is right. The likely worst case is lots of dead people. They were going to die anyway. It's hard to imagine a virus that wipes out our species, unless it is engineered to do so.

From a brutal, species preservation point of view, wiping out half of us now wouldn't be such a bad thing. The remaining half would put a lot less load on the planet.

That’s a tremendously worrying view. Well done,

It means we last longer.

Gwenno wrote:BBC page says 300 cases, 6 deaths! If 2% mortality is maintained when the number of cases multiplies......shit!

Gwenno wrote:

Gwenno wrote:BBC page says 300 cases, 6 deaths! If 2% mortality is maintained when the number of cases multiplies......shit!

Just googled mortality for Spanish flu - 20%, killing about 3% of the world in 1919 - so we're not facing a rerun of 'survivors' quite yet.

c69 wrote:I've got and IPC meeting today and will have a chat with our Microbiologist about this.
Better get shares in FFP3 mask manufacturers.

A5D5E5 wrote:

c69 wrote:I've got and IPC meeting today and will have a chat with our Microbiologist about this.
Better get shares in FFP3 mask manufacturers.

Better yet, buy the shares of companies with big pension deficits.

c69 wrote:

A5D5E5 wrote:

c69 wrote:I've got and IPC meeting today and will have a chat with our Microbiologist about this.
Better get shares in FFP3 mask manufacturers.

Better yet, buy the shares of companies with big pension deficits.

Hmm good idea, the most worrying thing for me is a lot of health professionals treating these human petri dishes have died.
Hmm must look at job plan.

Gwenno wrote:I've been reading that in the three decades following Spanish flu, 50% of cases of Parkinson's disease were in those flu survivors that had brain damage (encephalitis). Post encephalitic Parkinson's used to have chapters of their own in textbooks, it was so common. It still exists as an entity, but because we haven't had any flu epidemic of the magnitude of Spanish flu, less talked about. I read that Spanish flu easily outstripped war deaths.

A5D5E5 wrote:

Gwenno wrote:I've been reading that in the three decades following Spanish flu, 50% of cases of Parkinson's disease were in those flu survivors that had brain damage (encephalitis). Post encephalitic Parkinson's used to have chapters of their own in textbooks, it was so common. It still exists as an entity, but because we haven't had any flu epidemic of the magnitude of Spanish flu, less talked about. I read that Spanish flu easily outstripped war deaths.

I find it strange that there isn't more cultural memory of the Spanish flu outbreak. I know we know about it, but it seems to have less significance in our collective consciousness than an event of that magnitude deserves. Particularly given what it tells us about the real risks from infectious diseases. It must have been a massive deal 100 years ago. I wonder if it just got/gets "drowned out" by WWI?

6.Jones wrote:

bimboman wrote:

6.Jones wrote:Sensible Stephen is right. The likely worst case is lots of dead people. They were going to die anyway. It's hard to imagine a virus that wipes out our species, unless it is engineered to do so.

From a brutal, species preservation point of view, wiping out half of us now wouldn't be such a bad thing. The remaining half would put a lot less load on the planet.

That’s a tremendously worrying view. Well done,

It means we last longer.