Thank you Daniel for your multi-angled and nuanced analysis, I am very confused by the pro-travel statement by the WHO, I was expecting something completely different in light of the epidemical analyses and clinical characteristics. I agree with your analysis, except from your remark about the mortality rate. There is no indication (except from hearsay) that this is anything less than the 9.5% of SARS; on the contrary. The exact mortality rate is in this stage unclear, but it seems to be more than 11%: 11% of the early 99 patients died, but only 31% is - as of today - discharged; 58% still remain in the hospital, so the casualties amongst this group could still increase the percentage. These numbers also depends on access to decently equipped Intensive Care Units (ICU) - which is very problematic with the number of already confirmed cases: now at 8163 in China, with an additional 12167 identified probable cases; more than 20.000 people. Add to that that the number of cases have doubled every 2 days till today - and that they can remain undetected for 10 days. A grim outlook. https://3g.dxy.cn/newh5/view/pneumonia About 75% of these people will get a double pneumonia and more than 10% will need mechanical ventilation for survival. Because of these enormous amount of infected people, the organisational constraints can make the mortality go up instead of down, some doctors believe it might become 30%. But it's hard to tell at this stage, there are also reasons why the mortality can go down (see next). The most comprehensive clinical study to date can be found here (The Lancet publishes updated versions regularly): https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30211-7/f... On a positive note, China is experimenting with a lot of different approved drugs which might be affective against this disease - this has the potential to reduce the mortality rate and is a sparkle of hope. Hopefully, we get lucky and will this lead to an optimised way to deal with infected people with a lesser need of ICU dependency. https://innophore.com/2019-ncov/ What would the people in Wuhan say if asked if there should have been quick and more drastic countermeasures? I believe we are getting in that situation now (but maybe it will take another week or even two to get into that situation). With respect to FOSDEM, we all know how crowded it can be. I do believe the individual risk of infection this weekend is still very low. But there needs to be only one person who picked it up, passing through Brussels Airport or from another international hub. Personally, I just prefer to be too cautious instead of otherwise, Jasper -- Jasper Nuyens Managing Director, Linux Belgium http://www.linuxbe.com Phone: +32 (0)2 747 47 01 Fax: +32 (0)2 747 47 10 GSM: +32 (0)478 978967 On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 9:16 PM Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro> wrote:
On 30/01/2020 15:34, hostilius wrote:
Hello Gerry,
thanks for your response.
Although there are no reported cases in Belgium yet, the general risk applies, some attendees traveling to Fosdem might have already caught the virus elsewhere, without knowing, without feeling unwell.
Currently the WHO is in a meeting, and will decide if it's necessary to declare a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC).
An announcement is expected later today (Thursday), at 19:30 Brussels time, hopefully they will provide updated recommendations.
I got some more information to share and please don't accuse me of spreading fake news or contradictions because it is already obvious to me that some of this is contradictory.
Different countries now have different attitudes to the virus. Russia is now discouraging public gatherings. Just as FOSDEM celebrates 20 years of freedom, McDonald's in Moscow was about to celebrate 30 years with free hamburgers. Their party is cancelled on the basis that a large public gathering is a health risk: https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-china-health-russia-mcdonald-s-corp/russia...
In the WHO press briefing tonight, they didn't mention Russia but they said countries who make restrictions on borders or trade need to make decisions based on facts rather than fear.
The main points from the WHO:
- there is now an official international emergency
- but they explicitly don't recommend any prohibition on travel and trade, in other words, they give FOSDEM organizers a clear GO! Beer night is GO! They repeated this point several times.
The stats, from various sources: the risk of death (2%) is actually a lot lower than SARS (10%), the bigger challenge is the rapid spread and the fact that people spread the virus without showing symptoms.
Some doctors are giving medical notes to people who want to cancel work-related travel, usually on the grounds that they don't want to use airports. If anybody doesn't trust the WHO, feel free to ask your doctor for a medical note.
Some speakers commented they will only check the news and decide before going to the airport (e.g. Friday 3pm) and if they cancel, devroom managers won't have a lot of time to replace them.
Looking at FOSDEM demographics, a lot of speakers are frequent travelers who use airports every week. What are the chances that 1 in 5,000 people contracted the virus in an airport in the last 7 days? Every conference is unique.
FOSDEM visitors use every hotel in Brussels. Even if just one hotel is quarantined (like the cruise ship in Italy and hotels in NYC and UK today), some of us will be impacted. Many of these appear to be false alarms but everybody still has to wait in quarantine for confirmation.
No Coronavirus there, but still a huge inconvenience. Some people may choose to stay away because of the risk that their hotel or aircraft will be accidentally quarantined for a day rather than risk of the virus itself.
Regards,
Daniel _______________________________________________ FOSDEM mailing list FOSDEM@lists.fosdem.org https://lists.fosdem.org/listinfo/fosdem