Tenwest Mandarin School


New Coronavirus

GoKunming (159 posts) • 0

***topic tidied up***

Hearsay and 'news' without sources is not welcome on the forum.

We are working on an article that will be updated live with VERIFIED news with regards to hospitals, transportation etc.

Thank you all for staying level headed and keep your chin up.

changiateam (3 posts) • 0

…some notes on the historical risks in Europe and for Europeans:

It looks, memories of many have faded. A few details may help provide perspective and ease European readers worries:

China and Hong Kong were 2002 /2003 affected by SARS with 7,082 cases and 648 deaths. That's 87% of all registered worldwide disease and 84% of global deaths. In clinical epidemiology (study of the spread of disease) we speak of lethality rates (or case-fatality- rates), which is the proportion of those infected in% involved in the disease die. For SARS in China and Hong Kong was this rate 9% .Figures for China and Hong Kong plus the neighboring countries and other countries in Southeast Asia (Vietnam, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, China, Hong Kong), add to 7738 cases, of whom died 725, that is 9% Overall, these patients make 96%. of all global cases of illness and 94% of all deaths.

Interesting and also important to look at 'our' (European) risk of transmission and 'our' mortality risk. In the pandemic 2003/2004 nine European countries (Germany, France, Italy, Ro-mania, Russia, Swe- den, Switzerland, Spain, United Kingdom) registered a total of 31 SARDS cases and one death. It proved 2002 / 2003 for a European dying of SARS was still considerably lower than the risk, be killed by lightning. The only European who died of SARS in Europe 2002/2003, was a 65 - year-old Frenchman, who was probably infected in Dubai,
In comparison, the German cause of death statistics for 20177 report 387 deaths from influenza and pneumonia. The flu season 2017/18 in Germany is reported to have cost up to 25,000 lives. World- wide, every year between 290,000 to 650,000 people die from influenza virus respiratory diseases.
So much for the facts and our 'risks.

Why then was Europe hit so low?
'In many countries of the [Asian]Region were poorly developed methods for infection control. The support staff, administrative staff and even the nurses and healthcare professionals knew little about how they should protect themselves from infectious diseases. Outside the main cities’ isolation procedures were quite primitive. There was little understanding of personal protective measures and patient rooms that were set up to limit set up to limit air- and fomite-borne spread. In most hospitals the basic equipment was missing. The "developed" countries of the region possessed the know-how, it proved however, difficult to be transferred to hospitals where the conditions were not optimal... '. (SARS: how a global epidemic was stopped. World Health Organization 2006).
In European countries with well-developed public health systems and good case finding and case management the spread of SARS was quickly and effectively curbed. And the clinical treatment of infections was very effective in the much better-equipped hospitals in the West. That explains much higher survival rates.

And why do I think, China will do better this time, despite all alarmist voices:
China 2003 and China 2020, these

are different worlds in time, there has been the greatest ‘leap forward’, any civilization has mastered, ever. Since 2004, China's weak public health system, including the Centers for Control of Communicable Diseases (CDC), was massively res-structured, expanded and improved. Billions were invested in health

care, hundreds of thousands of health workers trained. China did and is still collaborating closely with US, European and other continent’s CDC, academia and health care research institutions. Example: the Chinese early warning system has been improved from 2003- bad

to 2020 -> world-class and reached real-time reporting scores. According to World Health Organization criteria – the Chinese system scores now equal to Germany in international comparison. (The "International Health Regulations (IHR) Core Capacity Index" is a very good indicator for measuring the performance of national epi-demiological monitoring and control systems.

China is now regarded as one of the world's leading countries in the implementation of IHR and is on par with Germany with 99 out of 100 achievable points for 2010-2015)

rejected_goods (330 posts) • 0

the moderator may have to tell the members what constitutes the 'verifiable' sources? and how statistics sources are valuated? :) :)

GoKunming (159 posts) • 0

*** topic tidied up ***

Again: 'news' without any source whatsoever will not be allowed. News coming from dubious sources will also be deleted. This is up to the moderators' discretion.

If you have a question about moderation, shoot us a message through the contact form, thank you.

john-doe1983 (69 posts) • +1

Here’s a summary of what we now about the coronavirus outbreak so far on Tuesday:

106 people have died from coronavirus in China

China has more than 4,500 confirmed cases, with nearly 1,000 in a critical condition

China’s Health Commission says that the main transmission is through “respiratory droplets” (coughing) and then touch.

Incubation is generally 3-7 days, maximum 14 days, the commission says

The US has updated its travel advice to the highest level which means avoid all non-essential travel to China

Asian markets have fallen on concerns about the virus spreading

Germany has recorded its first case of the virus as has Sri Lanka

Australian state of NSW advises school children returning from summer break not to go back if they have been in China in past two weeks

Several countries are sending charter flights to evacuate their citizens

source: www.theguardian.com/[...]

Yi_Xiao (3 posts) • 0


This isn't a very active forum as you probably have noticed. I'm sure you can draw your own conclusions on why that is so.

At the same time, I will say that I, personally, like the way updates regarding this virus is handled here. Many forums allow users to post all manner of absolute nonsense regarding this situation and it's good to keep a level head in situations like this.

mihani (17 posts) • 0

Thank you GoKunming for the "live update" posting, and confirming Kunming's long-distance bus suspension.

I second the notion we shouldn't panic.

However, prematurely stating that "the mortality rate is low — as compared to SARS" may be conceptually misguided.

Permission to speak, and to correct a potential flaw.

Mortality rate for SARS is easy to measure because of no new cases. Relatively fixed and closed ended.

Whereas for 2019-nCoV, new confirmed cases are popping up continuously. This deflates mortality rates and dangerously masks the actual severity.

Allow me to explain.

If 2 new cases are confirmed for City X, where the city had none before. Mortality rate for City X would stand at zero, b/c patients have relatively begun their battle against the virus.

Damage to body takes Y period of time to worsen as virus permeate internally. Y is not instantaneous.

More accurate measurements of mortality rate would be focusing on cities that have the oldest data of greater sample size to fully account Y time variable.

That would be in Wuhan.

That being said, last night's data on Wuhan prior to the new cases reported overnight:


63 (deaths) / 698 (confirmed cases) = 0.09 = 9% mortality rate.

Thus, ~1% shy of SARS for City of Wuhan on Jan. 27th. This 9% mortality rate was yesterday.

However, hours later, 892 new confirmed cases were bumped for Wuhan. These 892 newly confirmed cases are relatively newer carriers showing diagnosed symptoms, as oppose those already in Wuhan being treated in quarantine.

As explained above, bodies' defense will fight the infection, vice versa. This takes time. Subsequently, the mortality rate was reduced to 5.3% (85 deaths/1590 confirmed) as of the moment for Wuhan.


Per above argument, if you continue to add new cases throughout Mainland and the World, the general mortality rate will further decrease. But only because of the relative recency factor discussed.

Thus, we shouldn't keep our guards down thinking this isn't serious because of deflated mortality rates.

Simple math and deduction.

Login to post Register to post