snoo posted:

"The most frequently reported symptoms were 40 (98%) with fever, 31 (76%) with cough, and 18 (44%) with muscle aches and tiredness. Less frequent symptoms included coughing sputum or blood, headache and diarrhea." x

quote:

41 admitted hospital patients had been identified as having laboratory-confirmed 2019-nCoV infection. Most of the infected patients were men (30 [73%] of 41); less than half had underlying diseases (13 [32%]), including diabetes (eight [20%]), hypertension (six [15%]), and cardiovascular disease (six [15%]). Median age was 49·0 years (IQR 41·0–58·0). 27 (66%) of 41 patients had been exposed to Huanan seafood market. One family cluster was found. Common symptoms at onset of illness were fever (40 [98%] of 41 patients), cough (31 [76%]), and myalgia or fatigue (18 [44%]); less common symptoms were sputum production (11 [28%] of 39), headache (three [8%] of 38), haemoptysis (two [5%] of 39), and diarrhoea (one [3%] of 38). Dyspnoea developed in 22 (55%) of 40 patients (median time from illness onset to dyspnoea 8·0 days [IQR 5·0–13·0]). 26 (63%) of 41 patients had lymphopenia. All 41 patients had pneumonia with abnormal findings on chest CT. Complications included acute respiratory distress syndrome (12 [29%]), RNAaemia (six [15%]), acute cardiac injury (five [12%]) and secondary infection (four [10%]). 13 (32%) patients were admitted to an ICU and six (15%) died. Compared with non-ICU patients, ICU patients had higher plasma levels of IL2, IL7, IL10, GSCF, IP10, MCP1, MIP1A, and TNFα.

Grizzled Patriarch posted:

speaking of, weren't they saying that like every single one of the original batch of patients developed pneumonia? it doesn't sound like that happened with the latter cases. just bad info or is it too early in all the new cases or something?

Charlz Guybon posted:

Missed the most important part
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30183-5/fulltext

Grizzled Patriarch posted:

speaking of, weren't they saying that like every single one of the original batch of patients developed pneumonia? it doesn't sound like that happened with the latter cases. just bad info or is it too early in all the new cases or something?

Schnorkles posted:

there would be absolutely no way to know this.

Of a group of 59 hospitalizations of pneumonia, 41 of them had the Wuhan coronavirus. That's literally the study.

Charlz Guybon posted:

Missed the most important part
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30183-5/fulltext

Grizzled Patriarch posted:

haha ok that makes more sense then

snoo posted:

me, with cough, muscle aches, headache and diarrhea: oh boy

quote:

Coronaviruses are enveloped, positive-sense, singlestranded RNA viruses, capable of rapid mutation and
recombination. They are classified into alphacoronaviruses and betacoronaviruses, which both have their
gene source from bats and are mainly found in mammals such as bats, rodents, civets, and humans;

fits my needs posted:

https://twitter.com/PDChina/status/1221676349678485504?s=20

Feral Integral posted:

MarcusSA posted:

where is this new R0 of 5.7 coming from? Yesterday it was like 2.6 or something

Zotix posted:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.23.916395v1

quote:

With rising report rate, the mean R0 is likely to be below 5 but above 3. Conclusion: The mean estimate of R0 for the 2019-nCoV ranges from 3.30 (95%CI: 2.73-3.96) to 5.47 (95%CI: 4.16-7.10), and significantly larger than 1. Our findings indicate the potential of 2019-nCoV to cause outbreaks.

Charlz Guybon posted:

Missed the most important part
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30183-5/fulltext

Failson posted:

The field will kick in any minute now, and we will never hear of this again.

Ora Tzo posted:

Not only are the shifty mainlanders are attempting to deal with this flu crisis, but are "attempting" to use it to put down the HKers.

https://twitter.com/shiroihamusan/status/1221472216446947329?s=20

Homeless Friend posted:

https://twitter.com/ProMED_mail/status/1221638658123599873

quote:

These numbers fit very nicely to case data available as of January 22, 2020, but unfortunately, they are wrong. The abrupt surge in confirmed case counts (to 1423 cases as of January 26, 2020) is not compatible with the growth process described above, certainly not with a SARS-compatible generation time of 6-10 days. Indeed, the authors of the MRC model (3) noted in one of their earlier reports that the volume of observed exported cases in countries outside China suggested a much larger underlying epidemic than had been reported at that time, and this epidemic may have begun a month prior to the recognition of the market-associated outbreak, consistent with the reported timing of viral emergence based on phylogenetic analyses (5). The authors of several analyses cited above have incorporated the MRC estimates of under-reporting in order to fit their models (2, 3, 5). A second line of evidence suggesting undercounting of cases relates to the older age of cases (median 59 years in early reports), and the even older age of fatal cases (averaging around 75 years in the first 17 deaths) as contrasted with a median age of 37 or 38 years in China. Increased age in cases as compared to the population as a whole suggests that younger (likely milder) cases have been under-reported. As such, it would seem likely that at least part of the sudden apparent growth in case counts does not reflect changes in transmission, but rather increasing ascertainment of previously undercounted cases.