I wonder how accurate this is...

This is really a bombshell. Naval University of Engineering in #Wuhan, one of the five comprehensive military universities of PLA (official info: bit.ly/2URmJ5x) issued a lockdown notice on Jan. 2, 18 days BEFORE the gov. admitted there was an epidemic, 21 days BEFORE..
...the city was locked down. Did the army know something beforehand that we didn't know?


https://twitter.com/jenniferatntd/st...369644544?s=21

As a dad with a daughter in health care this caught my attention.

The Chinese are openly discussing whether it makes sense to risk 1700 infected doctors and nurses, which is where they’re at right now in Wuhan, to save a few hundred old people. Very few are reported cured once hospitalized.

The CCP seems to be going into salvage mode now, IMO. What can we preserve?

If I was playing the game Civilization, I’d save the doctors, let the burdensome old people die, and build a sports arena to distract the populous<couphTaiwan>.

Xi has all but admitted this. Beijing replaced the Wuhan P4 bug farm leadership with a PLA biowarfare general, passed a new biosecurity law this week to tighten up procedures and penalties following leaks, etc. and is in general grooming the center to take the fall. Thankfully they aren’t going down the “America did it!” trail like they looked to be doing for a while.

EricV,

This makes some Sense if the Wuhan lab had a “contagion alert” in the timeframe of late / mid December, and finally had to act in January. It also explains why Major General Chen Wei was “officially”placed in command of the situation, especially if an “event”occurred in HER laboratory ………(which is the way I am currently thinking).

SnT

Compared to some other epidemics & diseases
 

Brief article comparing R0, Mortality Rate, Latent Period with other diseases.

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/924319
...
Seasonal flu, for example, has an R0 of around 1.5.
The Spanish influenza of 1918-1919 had an R0 as high as 2. Fatality to 10%.
Chickenpox, which is fairly infectious, has an R0 of around 5.
...
HIV before treatment was available, with an R0 of around 6 globally and a near 100% mortality rate.
Smallpox, with an R0 of 5 and a mortality rate of 30% in the unvaccinated.
Bubonic plague: R0 of 3, untreated mortality rate of 60%.
...
For the new coronavirus, LATENT PERIOD appears to be around 5 days—not too long.

Disease is "COVID-19" but virus is "SARS-CoV-2"
 

They won't use the actual name of the virus because it accurately tells people it is related to SARS:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020...ate-confusion?
>
COVID-19 is a name for the disease, not for the virus that causes it, which until now had a temporary moniker, 2019-nCoV, signifying it was a novel coronavirus that emerged last year.

But the pathogen also got a new designation, which arrived before Tedros had even finished his press conference, by way of a preprint posted on bioRxiv by the body charged with classifying and naming viruses. The Coronavirus Study Group (CSG) of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses, the paper noted, had decided that the virus is a variant of the coronavirus that caused an outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2002–03. So, it named the new pathogen severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2, or SARS-CoV-2.

But that’s not a name WHO is happy with, and the agency isn’t planning on adopting it. “From a risk communications perspective, using the name SARS can have unintended consequences in terms of creating unnecessary fear for some populations, especially in Asia which was worst affected by the SARS outbreak in 2003,” a WHO spokesperson wrote in an email to Science. “For that reason and others, in public communications WHO will refer to 'the virus responsible for COVID-19' or 'the COVID-19 virus,' but neither of these designations is intended as replacements for the official name of the virus" that the study group has picked.
>

The Berlin Model
 

http://rocs.hu-berlin.de/corona/
>
Event Horizon - COVID-19
2019 Novel Coronavirus Global Risk Assessment

This site compiles results obtained from a computational / mathematical model for the expected global spread of the novel coronavirus that originated in the Chinese province of Hubei in December 2019. The foundation of the model is the worldwide air transporation network that connects over 4000 airports with more than 50000 flight routes.
>

Article on Berlin & other models
 

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020...l-hard-predict

>
So, how seriously should this model, and the dozens of other computer simulations of the outbreak, be taken? Scientists studying the 2019-nCoV outbreak are getting plenty of data to groundtruth and tweak their models.

A modeling study by a different group DATED 2FEB20

REF TO : https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....31.20019901v1

used the data to assess transmission dynamics, concluding that once a place has three cases, there is more than a 50% chance the virus can become established in the population.
...

The real question from a population standpoint is what is the probability with an Ro of, say, 2.2, that there will be sustained transmission of the virus? With this new virus, Thompson calculates there’s a 54.5% chance of sustained spread starting from a single infected person if nothing, for example a vaccine, prevents transmission.
...

In the lingo of modelers, what matters most is not the unchanging “basic” reproduction number of Ro, but what they somewhat unimaginatively refer to as the reproduction number, or R, that factors in these other variables. R is constantly in flux. Here’s an example of R, expressed as a percentage: Thompson calculates that if 50% of infected symptomatic people are isolated and 20% are asymptomatic, then the risk of sustained transmission is 24.2%.

The take home message from this R analysis is that countries other than China still have a good chance of containing 2019-nCoV.
...

He points to calculations by an international team of scientists that the Wuhan travel restrictions, which those researchers described as the largest quarantine in human history, delayed spread to other cities in China by just 2.91 days. “Keeping Wuhan locked down now would not make a difference for [epidemiological] curves for other cities in China now,” Wu says. “Now, social distancing there is essential.”

Hong Kong, which has 24 confirmed cases to date, waited until today to close its own borders to people from mainland China. “The public had asked the government to reduce the flow from the mainland, and the government had different reasons for not wanting to do that,” Wu says. “Public health is a priority, but the economy is also a major concern. If it cuts people flow, it can also cut the supply chain of necessary products to Hong Kong.”

So the balance between public health and politics factor in to 2019-nCoV’s spread—which means a refined understanding of Ro and R, incubation time, the serial interval, and other variables can only sharpen a model’s predictive powers to a point. As most every honest modeling paper cautions, “There are limits to this analysis.”
>

You are absolutely correct.
N95
There is NO data on this field expedient stuff.

N95 or Surgical N95 compliant?

Additionally, does the EU & UK use the same NIOSH-Approved Particulate Filtering Facepiece Respirators standards?

Aksing for my kids in the UK.

If you work in Health Care, below is the CDC's interim guidance*for personnel with potential exposure. Check out the table at the bottom of the link. If the outbreak of this virus occurs here in large numbers, I can see total decimation of ED staffing. Either that or depletion of PPE since the demand for PPE will outpace the supply. Hopefully I'm wrong. If 6-10 cases turn up positive, after admission, our department would probably be wiped out within 3-4 weeks and all of us would be on a 14 day isolation.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...7pEQ38u-LmS3Bs

Looked into it. Total fabrication by the news service. It’s not even in Phase I, it’s in preclinical animals trials only.

CDC is being pretty forthright throughout all this, and they say “12-18 months at best” because there are a lot of doubts about developing an effective vaccine at all. “We can put a man on the moon but we can’t cure the common cold” because the common cold is a coronavirus, and coronaviruses are really, really good at evading and degrading our immune system. Failed CV vaccines they’ve come up with in the past have tended to fade very quickly.

I have seen that happen with the Ebola scare a few years ago.
ALL the PPE gets bought up, then prices soar (kind of like ammo did a few years ago) and it is scarce.

It is interesting that physicians in Italy wore PPE, to include masks, during the Black Plague
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plague_doctor

I'm thinking the mask looks almost like some of Louis Pasteur's swan neck bottles that began our understanding of germ theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease

Latest from the Johns Hopkins dashboard.

You just Know it's bad
 

when they're robbing you for toilet paper!!

Armed gang steals lavatory rolls as panic-buying hits Hong Kong
The city has been hit by shortages of key household items since the coronavirus started spreading

By
Agence France-Presse
17 February 2020 • 2:17pm

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...hit-hong-kong/