[HN Gopher] Wuhan scientists: What it's like to be on lockdown
___________________________________________________________________
Wuhan scientists: What it's like to be on lockdown
Author : bookofjoe
Score : 61 points
Date : 2020-01-25 18:47 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nature.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nature.com)
| nickgrosvenor wrote:
| I actually think China's done an admirable job containing this
| virus. I think what they've done will probably work to stop the
| spread.
|
| The most interesting part of this whole episode is the Orwellian
| efficiency communist China can control their population at will.
| Numberwang wrote:
| You are breathtakingly uninformed about what goes on in China.
| smallgovt wrote:
| I'd be interested in seeing those who are downvoting this
| comment refute its claims instead.
| fsh wrote:
| Pretty much any country has some form of martial law. For
| example, the US very quickly shut down one of their largest
| cities and all air travel in the country on 9/11.
| RealityVoid wrote:
| >> The most interesting part of this whole episode is the
| Orwellian efficiency communist China can control their
| population at will.
|
| Say what you will about authoritarian societies, but one of
| their advantages is the ability to impose a direction to their
| population. There are certain situations this can prove very
| useful.
| ycombonator wrote:
| Approximately 58 million in lockdown, this is apocalyptic.
|
| From South China Morning Post. Chaos in hospitals:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=22&v=CfcIHUdOI8w...
|
| https://www.zerohedge.com/political/56-million-chinese-lockd...
| dgellow wrote:
| In case people don't want to click on a zerohedge article, here
| is the actual source for the claim "China expands coronavirus
| outbreak lockdown to 56 million people", from Aljazeera:
| https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/01/china-expands-coronav...
| ropiwqefjnpoa wrote:
| I find ZeroHedge usually has links to the source articles and
| they are often "mainstream".
| jorblumesea wrote:
| The founder of ZeroHedge, Daniel Ivandjiiski, is a white
| collar criminal convicted of insider trading. It's hard to
| imagine a less reputable source.
| SolaceQuantum wrote:
| I don't mind that ZeroHedge as it often cites news that
| isn't picked up on MSM. However, I have a massive concern
| about the bias in ZeroHedge. I remember once reading an
| article in which the final lines are something bold and
| along the lines of "remember they hate you and are coming
| for you" type rhetoric. That was completely not cited. I
| find that extremely concerning.
|
| Also, similarly, they at one point ran an article about a
| John Hopkins doctor who is against gender affirmation
| treatment towards trans people. I googled more about their
| papers and the like, only to find that the doctor only
| published their work in religious-oriented research and has
| actually be disavowed by several medical practitioners who
| specialize in trans medical concerns. None of this was
| cited in the article.
|
| This has overall made me quite leery of the validity of
| ZeroHedge on anything but the links that ZeroHedge cites.
| cdiddy2 wrote:
| Generally with zerohedge I mostly stick to the financial
| stuff, since that is usually properly sourced, even if
| the site does have a bearish bias its still usually good
| info. There are definitely some heavily biased political
| articles though.
| datashow wrote:
| This YouTube channel has a few videos from Wuhan hospitals:
| https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCWquusYx1dLo9otmMLwuZFg
|
| Also see how locals block roads:
| https://mobile.twitter.com/search?q=%E5%B0%81%E8%B7%AF
| pvaldes wrote:
| > Approximately 58 million in lockdown, this is apocalyptic.
|
| Seem the right thing to do when you have 1.3 thousand millions
| of people. I wonder if bad air quality in China could have
| boosted the problem in any case. It seems that Wuhan area today
| ranks from 'moderate' to 'unhealthy for sensitive groups'.
|
| http://aqicn.org/map/wuhan/
|
| That is pretty good for Chinese standards, I suposse.
|
| https://aqicn.org/map/china/
|
| Thus the problem could quickly scalate if the coronavirus
| manages itself to reach the northern areas tagged in red or
| purple. International trade of chinese products could be hurt
| also. There is a lot at stake for the country.
| ggm wrote:
| If you want less hyperbolic information i recommend
| https://promedmail.org/
| draugadrotten wrote:
| Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding (Harvard): " 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..."
|
| https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1220919589623803905.html
| tempsy wrote:
| Obscene level of fear mongering based on data that was later
| revised down. I can't believe he thought that thread was a good
| idea.
| dilly_li wrote:
| Where is the updated version?
| dtolnay wrote:
| Revised down to 2.6:
|
| https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1221132573340061697.html
| myth_drannon wrote:
| Still very high.
| baby wrote:
| Can we please avoid this types of response without citing
| source?
| tempsy wrote:
| Spreading a tweet from a doctor who is acting like the
| world is about to end is a worse action than a rebuttal
| questioning his fear mongering that goes against both the
| WHO and CDC.
| allovernow wrote:
| >data that was later revised down
|
| Can we really trust reports that are coming out of China?
| From the CCP, no less?
| hazeii wrote:
| Reports I've seen suggest 1.4 to 2.5, but it's early days.
| Essentially if the R factor (number of people infected by a
| single case [0]) is less than 1, it'll die out, otherwise it'll
| grow.
|
| However, that's very simplistic; one would like to think the R
| factor would be lowered by better hygiene.
|
| Separately, it seems that (unlike say Spanish Flu) this tends
| to be worse for people who have pre-existing health issues.
|
| There is concern that possibly people who are asymptomatic
| could still be infectious.
|
| Time will tell. One number (that'll take quite some time to
| even have a stab at) is the mortality compared to, say, common
| flu.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| How do we know this won't be transmittable even after
| individuals recover?
| defertoreptar wrote:
| Thermonuclear pandemic bad? Isn't that R0 similar to many other
| diseases?
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number
| rst wrote:
| Other diseases are worse. Measles is a _lot_ worse, with an
| R0 estimated at between 12 and 18. But R0 is a measure of
| propagation rate in an _undefended_ population. For most
| highly infectious diseases with known R0 values, we have
| defenses, typically vaccination which leaves the population,
| as a whole, a lot less vulnerable. So, in those cases, R0 is
| a measure of how bad things can get. Not for this new thing
| -- there 's been no time to put defenses in place, so R0,
| whatever its actual value, is a measure of how bad things
| _are_.
| lukasm wrote:
| > An R0=3.8 means that it exceeds SARS's modest 0.49 viral
| attack rate by 7.75x
|
| but the wiki says SARS is 2-4
| Out_of_Characte wrote:
| Probaly alot of shorthand writing, anything with an R0 rating
| below 1 tends to die out. therefore you compare the sars
| rating of 1.49 and the novel corona virus of 3.8 by seeing
| how many times .49 fits in 2.8 which is around 5.7 times more
| infectious instead of 7.75 mentioned in his tweet (He probaly
| divided 3.8 by .49 instead of 2.8)
|
| Ratings are just approximations and i'm no expert in virology
| to say wether this means anything at all.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| Yeah an R0 of less than 1 would mean it fizzled out with not
| much effect.
| seizethecheese wrote:
| Here is a tweet thread suggesting this guy is being histrionic:
|
| https://twitter.com/ferrisjabr/status/1220963553911271424?s=...
|
| If the link i post is more correct, it's an interesting case of
| a science journalist correcting a Harvard public health
| scientist...
| yorwba wrote:
| The public health scientists wrote in his first tweet that
| he's "never seen an actual virality coefficient outside of
| Twitter", i.e. he's admitting to not being a subject-matter
| expert. So getting corrected by someone who's done their
| research is not that surprising.
| seizethecheese wrote:
| He had never seen one larger outside of Twitter. I think
| that's different than how you just represented it.
| yorwba wrote:
| It doesn't say "larger" in the tweet. Edit: or is
| "outside of Twitter" supposed to refer to a region in the
| space of possible coefficients that are past the values
| observed in the spread of viral information on Twitter?
| WillPostForFood wrote:
| He is an epidemiologist, you have to give the benefit of
| the doubt here that he has seen a virality coefficient
| before.
| ycombonator wrote:
| https://www.inkstonenews.com/health/chinas-coronavirus-outbr...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-01-25 23:01 UTC)