8 ms·
The coronavirus pandemic in five powerful charts
- mmcconnell1618 7y agoThe significant reduction in emissions worldwide is an opportunity to gather some interesting data that would have been difficult to estimate at other times. What other interesting science could be done now that might bring some positive from the pandemic?
- THE_PUN_STOPS 7y agoA tangent from science towards ethics, but if we’re lucky, this pandemic will finally be the level of impetus needed to end the trade of live exotic animals for consumption. Thousands of species spared to save our own. As a group of scientists wrote in 2007 [1]: “The presence of a large reservoir of SARS-CoV-like viruses in horseshoe bats, together with the culture of eating exotic mammals in southern China, is a time bomb. The possibility of the reemergence of SARS and other novel viruses from animals or laboratories and therefore the need for preparedness should not be ignored” [1]: https://cmr.asm.org/content/cmr/20/4/660.full.pdf https://cmr.asm.org/content/cmr/20/4/660.full.pdf
- lonelappde 7y agoHow does exterminating bats as vermin instead of cultivating and eating them spare them?
- THE_PUN_STOPS 7y agoI don’t get your point. Just don’t exterminate them from their natural habitat?
- alexandercrohde 7y agoMen's average sperm-count levels go down about 3% a year, and have been consistently for over 30 years. No cause is known, but pollutants are the best hypothesis. I'd love to know if we see any sort of "rebound" in the quarantine period.
- ant6n 7y agoI’m doing research on mobility, and the pandemic is screwing up my data.
- netsharc 7y agoSuch a clickbaity title. Those charts don't look that powerful to me.
- nablaoperator 7y agoWhy do people plot exponential curves on a non-logarithmic scale?
- kevin1894 7y agoI think to non-scientists, or at least people who don't work with log scales, the use of linear scales makes the graph easier to understand. While I wouldn't expect to see this in Nature, this article reads like it is intended for a general audience.
- lonelappde 7y agoEasier to misunderstand, yes. If the motivation is to simplify, they should plot 2 graphs, with a second graph being log plot or a zoom on the low scale part to show its not linear
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- pdm55 7y agoBecause you need to get the attention of (1) the man in the street, and (2) politicians. And if the politicians aren't taking notice, they will get a quick wake-up call from their electorate.
- pdm55 7y agoAustralian news outlet uses a log plot. It certainly has a benefit, as you can clearly compare different countries. Is your growth rate more like Italy's, or more like Japan's? We, in Australia, certainly need to do better. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-26/coronavirus-covid19-global-spread-data-explained/12089028 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-26/coronavirus-covid19-g...
- joppy 7y agoA linear scale for that graph is completely appropriate: it’s showing how one data series has flattened out and the other continues to grow at an increasing rate. I would also argue that since one of those data series is clearly not exponential (it’s more of a sideways S-shape) it would be harder to interpret what that series actually looked like on a log scale. If you choose to plot things on a logarithmic scale, you open a whole can of worms with expecting your target audience to be educated numerically and understand the implications of a line on a log-scale (which looks far less dire than an exponential on a linear scale).
- themark 7y agoLooking at the timeline. From what I have read, it seems like human to human transmission could have been confirmed much sooner.
- lonelappde 7y ago"could have" with the benefit of hindsight and ignoring communication latency. The fact is authorities don't treat every local outbreak of illness as a contagious pandemic when it's almost always food poisoning.
- pjc50 7y agoIn some places food poisoning gets a surprisingly thorough response, with full batch tracing of the affected food. Here's what the CDC was doing last year: https://www.cdc.gov/ecoli/2018/o157h7-11-18/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/ecoli/2018/o157h7-11-18/index.html
- ABeeSea 7y agoFood poisoning that results in more that one case almost always gets taken very very seriously. At least in the US.
- misja111 7y agoIs anybody able to explain why there are so few new Corona cases in China? I mean, I know that the Wuhan area was locked down and that this way the outbreak was contained there. But China is far greater than Wuhan alone, and just like the virus was able to spread from Wuhan to the rest of the world, it must have spread to the rest of China as well. And during the recent month it must even have been spreading back from over the border into China. How come that there are nevertheless only between 40 and 50 new cases per day?
- pdm55 7y agoMeasures in Nanjing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfsdJGj3-jM&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfsdJGj3-jM&feature=youtu.be Procedures at Zhejiang Hospital (zero fatalities) https://video-intl.alicdn.com/Handbook%20of%20COVID-19%20Prevention%20and%20Treatment.pdf?spm=a3c0i.14138300.8102420620.download.5da1647fUkZuXY&file=Handbook%20of%20COVID-19%20Prevention%20and%20Treatment.pdf https://video-intl.alicdn.com/Handbook%20of%20COVID-19%20Pre...
- Juliate 7y agoGiven how widely differently active cases are asserted (different methods of testing, different capacity of testing, different politics towards testing), and how widely they are also well asserted, this figure has little meaning but for local forecasts; not for comparison between countries. On the other hand, ICU cases, and deaths cases seem more relevant.
- ekr 7y agoVery good question, I would too like to hear thoughts on this. My first impression was that the data was simply not being updated anymore. The change was too abrupt, simply doesn't seem natural. Is it likely that the Chinese are giving false data / simply not testing as thoroughly anymore?
- ceejayoz 7y agoThere's every indication that a strict, extensive test and quarantine process can work to limit the spread of the virus, and China's been doing exactly that. I'd expect pockets to crop up here and there, but they know how to shut them down once detected, and have the oppressive infrastructure in place to do so.
- Mary-Jane 7y agoThere two comparisons to other diseases appear to contradict each other. First: COVID-19 is both less communicable and less fatal than SARS. Second: it has spread faster and killed more people than SARS. I would like to understand how both can be true.
- loopz 7y agoMore deadly viruses tend to kill its victim faster, before disease can be transmitted. Also, despite being Novel, COVID-19 could be mistaken for flu or be invisible, so could go undetected for longer periods. Countries grew fatigue from the scares of earlier epidemics like swine flu and avian flu, so waited until danger was "evidently on their doorstep". With better testing, this could've been nipped in the bud worldwide. Also, with proper pandemic preparations and alertness, countries wouldn't need to shut down. Shutting down proactive measures to save small amounts of money, costs much, much more in the longer run. You will witness every decent country hit by unconstrained exponential contagion, shutting down. When it's too late, or people can't be bothered, they become Italy, Spain and Worse.
- slv77 7y agoSARS made people very sick very fast so it was easy to identify and quarantine patients. With extensive contact tracking it was able to be contained. With covid19 many patients are able to continue their lives and infect others without being obviously sick themselves. This limited the ability to contain outbreaks without extensive testing.
- abdullahkhalids 7y agoI would like a bit more clarity on this chart [1] comparing R_0 and case fatality rate of COVID-19 with other similar diseases. I am trying to understand why Ebola did not kill as many people as COVID-19 has. My understanding is that R_0 just depends somehow only on the virus itself, while there is another factor R = a R_0, which determines the actual reproduction number "in practice", taking into account isolation measures and such. So for Ebola R was much lower than R_0, so a lot fewer people died compared to COVID-19. Is this correct? [1] https://media.nature.com/lw800/magazine-assets/d41586-020-00758-2/d41586-020-00758-2_17810952.png https://media.nature.com/lw800/magazine-assets/d41586-020-00...
- lifeformed 7y agoI think Ebola killed people too fast, so it didn't have time to spread as far.
- evgen 7y agoDiseases that kill people fast are also much easier to track. They become very obvious and the short incubation period means that it is easier to track the contacts of people who were exposed to the victim.
- abdullahkhalids 7y agoI get that, I am trying to understand the math and model behind this. Let me clarify the paradox: Say Ebola has a R_0=4. That means one person infects 4 people under some circumstances. It doesn't matter if Ebola kills someone in 3 weeks or in 5 seconds, under some circumstances one person must be infecting 4. What are those circumstances, and how are they different from the actual circumstances which led to the Ebola epidemic stopping.
- watwut 7y agoThose circumstances are that we dont know Ebola is spreading. Actual circumstances are quarantine, disinfection and other intentional measures to stop the spread.
- howmayiannoyyou 7y agoThe R0 number they tout isn't supported by data from Italy or NY. R0 is density dependent.
- cjhopman 7y agoR0 is not a biological constant for a pathogen as it is also affected by other factors such as environmental conditions and the behaviour of the infected population. R0 being different in different places is expected. It's especially expected to change as measures are taken to control spread. Even in the absence of such measures, different cultures, even at the same population density, will often have different R0.
- newcrobuzon 7y agoDoes anyone have a good source for spanish flu CFR? I found many estimates ranging from 2%-10%...
- ngcc_hk 7y agoI more worry about China get away with it. It have started SARS and now this. Both by eating wild animal. I do not believe it is biological weapon but more an accidental leak of virus during their research. But it is not that part that is lethal. But the part that there are so many wild animal market those virus can go and spread in stage 1. Then stage 2 punish everyone who said it and let it spread. The saying that it is not known is NOT true in China. The news were spread by doctors among themselves first in WuHan case and in SARS case one doctor bring it to HK and kill 300. And whilst the guy dare to say were punished, the systems (like wild market and no freedom of speech) continue. These two factors should be remember! Otherwise we will end up like twitter. They can use it to spread news (like American release the virus) even though they cannot even use twitter in China. If we forget and let them run WHO and PR war, ... good luck humanity.
- bArray 7y agoOn that coronavirus timeline it would be good to see: * Wuhan throw a party to celebrate the lunar year * Almost the entirety of China goes on holiday for the lunar year * New Year holiday * Border lock downs of various Countries within that timeline
- davvolun 7y agoI would be VERY interested to see these charts updated, as this data is a week old.