Yes the WHO report is very clear : mortality in Wuhan is 6% because they were overwhelmed by the number of cases.

The lack of decisiveness in the west worries me. It's like they wait for the hospitals to be full before they decide quarantine might be in order.

> The lack of decisiveness in the west worries me.

From a cynical point of view, the governments in the west might see this disease as a god-send. It mostly kills the old and sick. So if you let it run its course through the whole population, the strain on pension and public health systems will (eventually) be reduced -- "sozialverträgliches Frühableben" as one German top medic once called it. A disease that mostly leaves the young and productive part of the population intact might thus be welcomed as a solution to the demographic problems in the west.

Note, I don't agree with this point of view, but it might help explain the timid response in the west.

This is good news for stocks in 2021.

People think it's harmless, which makes them not worry about it at all, which in turns makes it much more dangerous than it would be if we took basic decisions.

Everyone in my office could work from home, but we're not allowed because "it's not that bad" yet. One of my colleague is coughing for a week and still coming in and everyone is making joke about "aha he could be patient 0 here".

I can't speak for all western countries but in my country (France) if the government tried to impose quarantine on the same level as China, I'd expect riots.

People here aren't as docile as Chinese people and don't fear their government. If a city was quarantined like Wuhan with the situation turning to shit, many people would take to the street to protest instead of staying nicely confined at home.

And if the government's repression got too harsh there, you'd get protests all around the country in support.

That's why I haven't heard anything from my government about potential large-scale quarantine. They know that here it probably would make the situation worse.

> People here aren't as docile as Chinese people and don't fear their government

Don't underestimate the sense of doing what's good for the community and the patriotism of the Chinese people (and I'm sure many others).

I think they understood what was at stake and what had to be done, and did it but not because they are "docile" or because they "fear their government".

Yes, people here aren't that eager to make sacrifices for the greater good. Unless it's other people doing the sacrificing.

1) martial law will deal with eventual riots.

2) i wouldn't be so sure that quarantine measures would be such universally disliked. it'll take a couple deaths and a few tv interviews with medical personnel with an overwhelmed hospital in the background to sway the public emotion in the containment direction. it better be executed well, though, or riots become a serious proposition.

This is France we're talking about. There's already been a recent series of riots where a number of people have suffered debilitating injuries from the heavy riot control tactics - 24 people lost eyes!

Where do you escalate from that? Machine-gunning people in the streets?

I hope by 'docile' you mean wise and responsible.

Ah yes the famous french protests just about anything they don't like on a given day. It would be supremely stupid and arrogant to go to mass protests when facing such quarantine due to deadly virus like this one, but I have no doubt that's exactly how it would unroll en France.

IMO, this virus isn't as deadly as that. It was reasonable for China to implement such measures because 1) at the time they didn't know how bad it was and 2) their people are actually quite compliant with what their government asks them.

But now, we know this virus isn't ebola's death rate combined with measle's R0. Large scale quarantine like in China is probably overkill and quite risky if your population isn't as docile as populations in authoritarians regimes.

Closing schools, cancelling mass events and asking people to work from home if they can is a more measured approach. Even without that, the apocalypse isn't coming anytime soon.

Yep. Early detection makes for better outcomes and smaller fatality rate.

How come, I thought there was no cure?

Early detection does two things: 1. Allows you to isolate the person before they spread it further. 2. Allows you to be ready to treat their pneumonia which increases their survival chances.

You said early detection leads to better outcomes - so point 1 doesn't apply. Treating pheumonia is last stage process, early detection does nothing to help help here as well.

It’s possible to contain a small outbreak, much more difficult to contain a large one. Think of it like a California brush fire:

- If someone is witness to the start of the fire, they’re going to call the fire department who will mobilize all resources available to a small area -> fire is contained quickly and with minimal loss of life or property

- If the fire starts in a remote area with nobody around for miles, it will get bigger and avoid detection until it becomes an imminent risk to people. At that point, the same resources will be spread across a larger area. As the wildfire grows, the wind caries embers and sparks other fires miles away, making the situation worse.

Good question. Since once someone is infected, how can early detection and being under quarantine help in recovery?

The answer is that with early detection, and keeping the virus numbers low, the health care network can be kept free for caring for the cases that do come through.

And ICU level care cannot cure the virus but can reduce fatalities.

Early detection means up to 100x more people overloading hospitals, doesn't it? It's much better to just stop as much as possible for 2 weeks - work from home etc.

successful containment yields lower peak cases which means medical infrastructure can cope better. there's no cure but there are worthwhile treatments.

"containment" doesn't mean "early detection". You can yield better "containment" by issuing strong recommendation to work from home and maximize staying at home for two weeks or so.

um, i agree.

The deaths tend to be from secondary effects, not covid-19 directly, i.e. the exacerbating pre-existing conditions such as lung problems or just being old or otherwise infirm. Early detection makes catching and managing those complications easier so the patient has a better chance of riding out covid-19 itself.

The SARS in SARS-CoV-2 stands for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome. It's the primary infection that kills, such as by directly causing pneumonia.[1] By contrast, seasonal influenza deaths are usually by secondary infections, mostly bacterial pneumonia. The H1N1 influenza strain was more like SARSr-CoV in that deaths were usually from primary viral pneumonia.[2]

Obviously if you suffer from preexisting health issues, especially cardiopulmonary issues, you're far more likely to develop pneumonia, primary or secondary, or otherwise succumb.

[1] This page equivocates Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome with pneumonia: https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/007192.htm

[2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S120197121...

There's no silver bullet "cure", but it turns out that ventilating people while their immune system deals with it allows a lot of people to recover.

What does it mean to "ventilate" a person?