Real Time Coronavirus Monitoring
Are we at the beginning of a science fiction horror movie? Is it time to stock up on emergency supplies?
If Doctor Eric Feigl-Ding, who “taught for 15 years at Harvard”, is right in his Twitter statements, it reinforces the theory that the Coronavirus was man made and can be catastrophic.
HOLY MOTHER OF GOD – the new coronavirus is a 3.8 !! How bad is that value of reproductive R0? It’s bad at the level of a thermonuclear pandemic – I’ve never seen such a real virality coefficient in my entire career. I’m not exaggerating … #WuhanCoronovirus
We estimate that the basic reproduction number of the infection (R_0) is 3.8 (95% confidence interval, 3.6-4.0), which indicates that between 72 and 75% of transmissions should be prevented by control measures so that infections stop increasing.
We estimate that only 5.1% (95% CI, 4.8-5.5) of Wuhan infections are identified, and as of January 21, a total of 11,341 people (prediction interval, 9,217-14,245) had been infected in Wuhan since the beginning of the year. Should the epidemic continue without diminishing in Wuhan?
We expect that the epidemic in Wuhan will be substantially greater by February 4 (191,529 infections; prediction interval, 132,751-273,649), the infection will be established in other Chinese cities and imports to other countries will be more frequent. Our model suggests that travel restrictions to and from the city of Wuhan are unlikely to be effective in stopping transmission throughout China; With an effective 99% reduction in travel, the size of the epidemic outside of Wuhan can only be reduced by 24.9% on February 4.
Keep going:
What does this mean for the world? We are now facing the most virulent virus, an epidemic that the world has never seen before. An R0 = 3.8 means that it exceeds the modest SARS viral attack rate of 0.49 by 7.75x – almost 8 times! A virus that spreads 8 times faster than SARS cannot be stopped just by containment. A 99% containment of Wuhan quarantine blockade will not reduce the spread of the epidemic even by a third in the next two weeks. Therefore, I really hate being the epidemiologist who has to admit this, but we are potentially facing a possible pandemic without control that the world has not seen since the Spanish Flu of 1918. Hopefully it does not reach that level, but now we live in a modern world, faster than in 1918.
@WHO and @CDCgov need to declare a public health emergency as soon as possible!
HOLY MOTHER OF GOD – the new coronavirus is a 3.8 !!! How bad is that reproductive R0 value? It is thermonuclear pandemic level bad – never seen an actual virality coefficient outside of Twitter in my entire career. I’m not exaggerating … #WuhanCoronovirus #CoronavirusOutbreak pic.twitter.com/6mmxIHL9Ue
– Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding (@DrEricDing) January 25, 2020
Let’s hope for the best, prepared for the worst
Some folks think I’m trying to incite fear. I’m not trying — I’m a scientist. Este #coronavirus #WuhanCoronovirus It is serious. Over 50 million people are quarantined + case counts will go up much more. Predict @QUIEN will declare emergency. Let’s hope for the best, prepared for worst. https://t.co/H3UcR9eAjs
– Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding (@DrEricDing) January 25, 2020
Another report with an even higher R0 of 3.3-5.4
It is not peer reviewed, but it shows a much higher R0 than other reports.
We estimate that the average of R0 ranges from 3.30 (95% CI: 2.73-3.96) to 5.47 (95% CI: 4.16-7.10) associated with a 0 to 2-fold increase in the reporting rate. With the increase in the notification rate, the average of R0 is likely to be below 5 but above 3. Conclusion: The average estimate of R0 for the 2019-nCoV ranges from 3.30 (95% CI: 2 , 73-3.96) and 5.47 (95% CI: 4.16-7.10), and is significantly greater than 1. Our findings indicate the potential of 2019-nCoV to cause outbreaks.
An update from Dr. Ding
UPDATE: Transmission of #coronoavirus estimated at 2.6 by another research group (lower than the 3.8 initial reports). But 2.6 is still extremely bad —each infected person will infect 2.6 others. Even the authors admit #CoronaOutbreak containment will be very difficult. Thread: pic.twitter.com/Gg2vyIevL4
– Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding (@DrEricDing) January 25, 2020
The R0 classification explained
It basically means how many people can be affected during the course of the infection period. The virus can stay there without the hosts recognizing the symptoms and will spread to another 3.8 people and then to another 3.8.etc. even before the symptoms manifest. The common flu and such has a rating of 1.4ish RO.
Is Dr. Feigl-Ding’s analysis correct or not?
Ferris Jabr, a scientific writer and contributor to the New York Times, said the following about Dr. Feigl-Ding’s analysis:
The viral thread cited below lacks essential context and contains numerous errors. It does not reflect the latest evidence.
An unspeakable exponential growth rate forecast
At the moment, the epidemic is developing strictly according to the predicted scenario of The End Times Forecaster. Most likely, this scenario is greatly underestimated, because to test for a new virus, special kits are needed and they are not in every hospital. In addition, authorities tend to always hide the whole picture.
As you can see, the incidence growth table ends on the magic figure on February 22nd, therefore, what will happen after February 22nd is somehow unknown.
However, the editors of The End Times Forecaster, were not too lazy and continued the above calculation based on the principles of exponential growth rate:
Thus, based solely on official and strictly scientific data, as of March 8, 2020, 7 billion 760,000 people should be ill. Not being afraid of the result, The End Times Forecaster continued their calculations:
In this table, the left margin is already empty, since only the number of fatalities can be considered. And these fatalities, according to strictly scientific data, will be 1 billion 694 239 367 people.
We don’t know if this forecast will be confirmed, but if the epidemic is not stopped now, then it will be so – the planet could lose a billion and a half people.
References: biorxiv.org
