Science desk
< February 29	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 2 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 1[edit]

Coronavirus concern[edit]

The world is in panic about the Coronavirus. Scientifically speaking, why should the world should be very concerned about the Coronavirus epidemic if the fatality rate is about 2% [1] [2]? And especially if young and healthy kids and millennials get it if the fatality rate is not existent for these groups? Other kinds of viruses have higher fatality rates than the Coronavirus. Scientifically speaking, help me understand why the Coronavirus is of grave concern. 2600:1006:B050:FEA4:ACC5:C31D:DCF3:63A3 (talk) 08:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish flu had a similar mortality rate, and killed around 50 million people (from a substantially smaller global population with much less global traffic). Whether that's of "grave concern" to you personally is up to you, of course, and may depend on your relative evaluation of pensioners and millenials. Henry ^Flower 08:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish flu had a 8-20% mortality rate based on Wikipedia article. A far cry from 2% or even a fair bit lower if there are many asymptomatic/weakly symptomatic cases which would explain the numerous outbreaks. 89.172.75.199 (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of the article are you reading? The Mortality section says The World Health Organization estimates that 2–3% of those who were infected died. Henry ^Flower 09:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The intro says 40-100 million out of 500 million infected. 40-100 million was more than 2-3% of the entire planet's population at that time, let alone the number of infected, so WHO must've been working with different death figures. 93.136.1.34 (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True. Looking at the talk page, there's been a bit of discussion about the discrepancy, going back at least ten years. I'm not reading all that, but the upshot seems to be that nobody was really counting at the time, so guesses vary wildly. Henry ^Flower 22:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian did a recent piece entitled Yes, it is worse than the flu: busting the coronavirus myths. I don't know how accurate the points in at are, but at least it's a reasonably reliable source. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the viral load is relatively high, then the virus may kill even young persons, that's why Li Wenliang, for example, died at just 33 years. But, perhaps more importantly, infected persons may spread the virus to people with weak immune systems, including elder persons (potentially someone's grandparents, etc). And that's not good. These projected scenarios may be of interest. Brandmeister^talk 09:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing is done to slow down the spreading, health and sanitation systems will be overwhelmed and dead bodies will be lying in the streets of major cities, like happened with the 1918 influenza pandemic and earlier this year in Wuhan. Not only is the death rate of infected people maybe 20 times that of seasonal influenza, but the World's population has virtually no immunity of any kind against the novel coronavirus – unlike for most kinds of influenza viruses. The pro capita mortality would therefore be much higher. On the other hand, only drastic or even draconic measures will cause a significant slow-down, but these also have a dramatic effect on the economic productivity. --Lambiam 14:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed on "dead bodies will be lying in the streets of major cities, like happened with the 1918 influenza pandemic and earlier this year in Wuhan": Corpses of Wuhan Coronavirus Patients Dumped on Roads? Fake Alert 93.136.1.34 (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The OP's "only" 2 percent sounds like General Turgidson: "I'm not saying we won't get our hair mussed..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I asked because I saw the stats, but I don’t know much about the Coronavirus. 2600:1006:B050:FEA4:ACC5:C31D:DCF3:63A3 (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nor does hardly anyone else, and that feeds the "panic". The flu is bad, but it's a known quantity. This thing still has too many question marks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"if young and healthy kids and millennials get it if the fatality rate is not existent for these groups". Large numbers of people are not "young and healthy kids and millennials". I'm not sure why so many people seem to think that a disease that kills people who are already ill, and the elderly/middle-aged, is no big deal. And in a worst case scenario of 100% contagion, that means killing off 2% of the Silent Generation, Boomers, Gen X, and unhealthy millenials and kids, which is a huge number of deaths, with every family losing people. Iapetus (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that it's not a big deal, it's that many things have a disproportionate mortality on those groups, including the flu, other coronaviruses, and other respiratory illnesses. Although deaths in those groups are a tragedy, they're not unexpected, even without some specific trigger. Deaths to otherwise healthy young adults is a) unexpected b) a greater burden on the economy and c) a greater burden on the healthcare system, both because higher numbers of people need treatment and because more of the staff will be directly affected. Matt Deres (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out here::

"The danger posed to society from this disease doesn't come from the mortality rate, rather from the potential to make large fraction of the population ill. Unlike the flu virus, this virus is a new virus to which we have no immunity.

About 10% of the infected people requires hospital treatment, which is a lot higher than in case of flu. The death rate of the order of 1% is achieved thanks to excellent hospital treatment. With a far larger fraction of the population infected with this virus compared to the flu and a far larger fraction of the infected people requiring hospital treatment compared to flu, the available hospital capacity to give everyone the treatment they need can be easily exhausted. The death rate due to the virus will then increase.

Also, people who need treatment for other reasons can then also fail to get prompt medical attention. People suffering a heart attack who would have survived under normal circumstances thanks to getting prompt medical attention, may now end up dying too." Count Iblis (talk) 01:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you back up a bit and look at media representation, you get a different view. Why is the coronovirus all over world media? Because it gets attentiona and that attention sells advertising. If you present it just right, you can get a lot of play out of the coronovirus. Include pictures of land sharks with rabies and I bet you can get more play out of it. This doesn't mean that the coronovirus is not a threat. It means that the threat of it and the media coverage of it are not necessarily related to one another. Terrible things have gone uncovered. Benign things have been covered ad nauseam. 135.84.167.41 (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The coronavirus is not "benign". And it's too early to say with certainty how big of a threat it is or what its mortality rate will turn out to be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the media because it currently has a 2000% higher kill rate than the flu, (COVID-19 has about a 20 per 1000 kill rate, where as the flu has about a 1 per 1000 kill rate) and the flu already kills a lot of people. --Jayron 32 18:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are comparing the death rate for those diagnosed in a medical facility with COVID19 to the death rate of all people estimated to get a flu infection - including those who show little to no symptoms. If you increase the COVID19 denominator to all those infected who show little to no symptoms, the death rate will be far lower - and sell less advertising if you were producing a media segment. 135.84.167.41 (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have fun living in your little world where diseases don't matter and bury your head in the sand. Have fun with that. Me, I'm going to wash my hands and try to stay away from people actively sneezing on me. --Jayron 32 18:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

World War 2 had a global 3% mortality rate. 2-3% might be a rounding error as far as survival of the human species is concerned, but it is not exactly painless or without a large societal impact. Even if the outbreak stopped tomorrow, the 2020 Hubei lockdowns have already had a major event in Chinese (and world) history; take your pick between "demonstrates the necessity of a strong central power" and "scalability testing for Nineteen Eighty-Four". Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2% of the U.S. population is in excess of 6 million people. If that were a city, it would be the second most populous city in the country. According to List of sovereign states and dependent territories by mortality rate, the U.S. has a death rate of 0.8%. A sudden increase in the death rate by a factor of about 2.5x is going to put a strain on any country's resources. 2% is quite large for such a disease. --Jayron 32 17:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you believe around 6 millions people will die. This specific strand of coronovirus was found in China. 2% of the population of China is over 27 million. Yet, the total deaths in China is less than 3,000 and the infection rate has plumetted over the last two weeks. How does discussing 2% of the population of a country relate to the observed death rate of a virus? 135.84.167.41 (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can't make any assumptions. Before they started dying, the death rate was 0. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course, that's why the authorities in various countries around the world are doing something. Your argument that authorities, the media, and people should just ignore the disease and carry on as though nothing bad could happen, and that no preventative action should be taken, is unwise given the potential problems. The fact that these problems will happen if we do nothing is why we are doing something. The reason why death rates are decreasing is not because China did absolutely nothing and pretended like the disease would just take care of itself, which is what you are arguing the world should do. It is decreasing because effective measures are being taken. --Jayron 32 12:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please show where I made the claim that nobody should do anything at all? I made the claim that the media is covering COVID19 because it sells advertising. If it didn't sell advertising, they wouldn't cover it. I also made the claim that the death rate of the COVID19 that you used is based on a denominator of people diagnosed with COVID19 in a heatlh facility (as reported by the WHO). The flu death rate you used is based on a denominator of 70% of the population that we assume will come in contact with the virus (as reported by the WHO). You cannot compare those death rates to one another because they are not measured the same way. You have made a strawman argument. You are arguing against something that I did not say in any way. What should people do? Wash your damn hands. The primary method of transmission is by getting the virus on your hands and then rubbing it all over your face. If you wash your hands, you will hinder the primary method of transmission. Is it 100% guaranteed? No. Absolutely not. But, running around screaming that the sky is falling isn't going to help in any way. Making claims that 2% of the U.S. population is going to die doesn't help. Making up strawmen to argue against doesn't help. I assume you intend to help and have the energy to do so. So, I strongly suggest that you repeat the WHO's information: Wash your hands. Don't buy facemasks (they don't help). If you can isolate yourself, do so. If you feel sick, make every attempt to isolate yourself. Don't ignore doctor's warnings and go to a party, travelling across state lines and sneezing all over everyone you meet along the way. All in all, don't panic. Wash your hands. Don't be an ass. 135.84.167.41 (talk) 12:50, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The ass is not a method of transmission. I believe it is mostly through the facial area instead (mouth, nose, eyes, etc.) --Jayron 32 13:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Were you saying the same kind of thing in the 1980s when the AIDS panic was in the news? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good example of my point. In the 70s, AIDS was not covered in the media because it didn't sell ads. In the 80s, it did sell ads. So, it was covered extensively. It isn't because AIDS became more of a threat in the 80s. It is because it sold ads. When the ad sales died off, media covered died off. It isn't because AIDS became less of a threat. It is because advertising sales declined. I personally do not see why it is difficult to consider the motivation of media coverage as separate from the threat of the disease. The longer you live, the more "!!!WE ALL GONNA DIE!!!" media cycles you live through. Instead of panicing and doing nothing, protect yourself. Wash your hands. Isolate yourself if you can. AIDS was similar. Instead of a panic, don't use dirtly needles and don't have unprotected sex. Still, nobody is discussing how to protect against rabies infected land sharks. They have a death rate of 100% (and the death rate was zero before it started). 135.84.167.41 (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In my country, at least, some media outlets cover this but do not sell any advertising at all. Bazza (talk) 14:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We get BBC World News on PBS in New York (I don't know about PBS in other cities). That is my preferred news source. They aren't blatantly trying to stir up emotions and they don't try to twist every news story into some form of anti-Trump rant. I get enough of that just riding the subway (Sure, Trump is the reason that seat on the subway is broken. Yes, Trump is the reason your coffee is cold.) and I'm simply too old to care what the Democrats and Republicans are pissing about this week. Back to topic: Each day for the last few weeks, our version of BBC World News has had a report from the World Health Organization. So, you hear the same message over and over: Wash your hands. Isolate yourself. You don't hear panic. 135.84.167.41 (talk) 15:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PBS and NPR have very minimal advertising. The IP complaining about disease hype being used to sell ads is a straw man argument. On commercial tv, everything is about selling ads. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]