It this really was THE BIG ONE it would likely have the same effect on the living conditions of the worldwide proletariat - at least in the longer run - as the Black Death had on the European peasantry of the time. That is to say, it had a massively positive effect since the different flanks of the ruling class had to fight over a much diminished resource (human labour) which, in turn, caused the price of that resource to shoot up.
It is no coincidence that, following the Black death, the Saxon peasantry in the UK gained the right to travel and sell their labour without any longer needing permission from their Norman lord and that this freeing up of economic activity arguably led, eventually, to the Reformation and subsequent Enlightenement.
Every cloud has a silver lining don't you know....
Think I might just nip down the road to Aldi and Asda tomorrow
Noodles, multivits, dried veg and pulses. Already got loads of Camden tablets and Camden powder. We've got a river nearby. Plenty of scrap firewood in from my brother's roofing company stored out back.
Think I might just nip down the road to Aldi and Asda tomorrow
Noodles, multivits, dried veg and pulses. Already got loads of Camden tablets and Camden powder. We've got a river nearby. Plenty of scrap firewood in from my brother's roofing company stored out back.
830 infected according to latest estimates with 25 dead. So, that's about 3% mortality rate so far. If it turns out to be properly bad, then better to get it sooner rather than later while there are still plenty of medical resources on hand.
Death toll now 26, "at least ten cities under travel restrictions", Beijing has cancelled all large-scale new year events and Disneyland China shut down.
Either the Chinese are suddenly moving fast to get ahead of the curve, or the curve is suddenly out of sight. These restrictions won't work. The timing could not have been worse. 300,000 people left Wuhan before the first ban was in place.
Even if the virus' health implications are low, it's looking like the economic impact will be significant for China, just at a time when their economy is looking shaky, could this be a trigger for widespread economic disruption?
clv101 wrote:Even if the virus' health implications are low, it's looking like the economic impact will be significant for China, just at a time when their economy is looking shaky, could this be a trigger for widespread economic disruption?
If what is happening in China is repeated elsewhere then yes, very much so.
We estimate the basic reproductive number of the infection (��0) to be significantly greater than one. We estimate it to be between 3.6 and 4.0, indicating that 72-75% of transmissions must be prevented by control measures for infections to stop increasing.
We estimate that only 5.1% (95%CI, 4.8–5.5) of infections in Wuhan are identified, indicating a large number of infections in the community, and also reflecting the difficulty in detecting cases of this new disease. Surveillance for this novel pathogen has been launched very quickly by public health authorities in China, allowing for rapid assessment of the speed of increase of cases in Wuhan and other areas.
If no change in control or transmission happens, then we expect further outbreaks to occur in other Chinese cities, and that infections will continue to be exported to international destinations at an increasing rate. In 14 days’ time (4 February 2020), our model predicts the number of infected people in Wuhan to be greater than 250 thousand (prediction interval, 164,602 to 351,396). We predict the cities with the largest outbreaks elsewhere in China to be Shanghai, Beijing, Guangzhou, Chongqing and Chengdu. We also predict that by 4 Feb 2020, the countries or special administrative regions at greatest risk of importing infections through air travel are Thailand, Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and South Korea.
Our model suggests that travel restrictions from and to Wuhan city are unlikely to be effective in halting transmission across China; with a 99% effective reduction in travel, the size of the epidemic outside of Wuhan may only be reduced by 24.9% on 4 February
I suppose that we haven't imposed travel restrictions from China because it would "hit the economy badly" and it might annoy the Chinese with whom we are probably conducting negotiations for a trade treaty. The economy must always come first!!!
Even if it is not a good decision in the long term. But that economics and economists for you.
We estimate the basic reproductive number of the infection (��0) to be significantly greater than one. We estimate it to be between 3.6 and 4.0, indicating that 72-75% of transmissions must be prevented by control measures for infections to stop increasing.
We estimate that only 5.1% (95%CI, 4.8–5.5) of infections in Wuhan are identified, indicating a large number of infections in the community, and also reflecting the difficulty in detecting cases of this new disease. Surveillance for this novel pathogen has been launched very quickly by public health authorities in China, allowing for rapid assessment of the speed of increase of cases in Wuhan and other areas.
If no change in control or transmission happens, then we expect further outbreaks to occur in other Chinese cities, and that infections will continue to be exported to international destinations at an increasing rate. In 14 days’ time (4 February 2020), our model predicts the number of infected people in Wuhan to be greater than 250 thousand (prediction interval, 164,602 to 351,396). We predict the cities with the largest outbreaks elsewhere in China to be Shanghai, Beijing, Guangzhou, Chongqing and Chengdu. We also predict that by 4 Feb 2020, the countries or special administrative regions at greatest risk of importing infections through air travel are Thailand, Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and South Korea.
Our model suggests that travel restrictions from and to Wuhan city are unlikely to be effective in halting transmission across China; with a 99% effective reduction in travel, the size of the epidemic outside of Wuhan may only be reduced by 24.9% on 4 February
If only 5% of infections are known about, but only 25 deaths are known to have occurred from the disease, then the initial ball park figure of a 3% mortality rate needs adjusting down massively. That would be true even if we double or triple the number of deaths that are being reported.
Yes but not knowing what percentage of that unknown 95 percent of cases will also die makes that calculation impossible at present. It probably is lower then 3.5 percent of infections but it might in the end be higher. Until they have a group of people that have survived and fully recovered there just isn't data.
What they do know already is that it is bad enough to pull out all stops on efforts to control it. Having a more precise figure will not change that.
New York stock exchange now down 176 points and WTI oil down $1.64 a barrel. They are betting air travel will be restricted enough to drop crude demand and disrupt the economy. Not a panic as of yet but give it a couple of days and news releases.
The world economy is on the verge of going tits up anytime now anyway. If it is not this that triggers it, something else will come along to do so in due course.
