Correlation is not causation.
Previous studies indicate that relative humidity (RH) affects both influenza virus transmission (IVT) and influenza virus survival (IVS). Here, we reanalyze these data to explore the effects of absolute humidity on IVT and IVS. We find that absolute humidity (AH) constrains both transmission efficiency and IVS much more significantly than RH. In the studies presented, 50% of IVT variability and 90% of IVS variability are explained by AH, whereas, respectively, only 12% and 36% are explained by RH. In temperate regions, both outdoor and indoor AH possess a strong seasonal cycle that minimizes in winter. This seasonal cycle is consistent with a wintertime increase in IVS and IVT and may explain the seasonality of influenza. Thus, differences in AH provide a single, coherent, more physically sound explanation for the observed variability of IVS, IVT and influenza seasonality in temperate regions. This hypothesis can be further tested through future, additional laboratory, epidemiological and modeling studies.
In tropical and subtropical regions, patterns of influenza outbreaks are more diverse. While annual epidemics coinciding with the rainy season have been observed in many (sub)tropical locations, biannual incidence is the norm in some regions, and influenza activity occurs throughout the year in others
The authors concluded that, across temperate and tropical climates, two distinct types of climatic conditions are associated with influenza epidemics: cold/dry and humid/rainy
Yeah, no ****. I'm talking about peer reviewed scientific literature.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19204283
https://jvi.asm.org/content/88/14/7692
it's more complex in tropical regions where they don't have a low humidity/low temperature season, and the rainy season appears to be a driver there:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Death toll from coronavirus surpasses 1,100; US confirms 13th case <a href="https://t.co/mvbzymGSCH">https://t.co/mvbzymGSCH</a></p>— Detroit Free Press (@freep) <a href="https://twitter.com/freep/status/1227477950972428288?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 12, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Offically now 1100.
带出你的死人!
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Death toll from coronavirus surpasses 1,100; US confirms 13th case <a href="https://t.co/mvbzymGSCH">https://t.co/mvbzymGSCH</a></p>— Detroit Free Press (@freep) <a href="https://twitter.com/freep/status/1227477950972428288?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 12, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Offically now 1100.
带出你的死人!
Bad, for sure.
But to reach the US death toll rate for influenza, it would need about 100,000 deaths- I think it's been posted that the US is 10,000/330,000,000, and since China is about 10x larger than we are....
The real question, it seems, is what action to take to deal with people- for the news that we can actually get, it's the Diamond Princess passengers are still spreading it even with them all being confined to their cabins. (and I'm sure the environment is easily controlled if that would contribute to it ending). Perhaps that's the wrong action?
<img src="https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/1227237909226455041/LK6JRuZn?format=jpg&name=600x314" height=150>
What the hell is that in the picture?
I can’t tell if it’s lettuce or bodies.
Again, it’s bad not because of the raw numbers but the fact that it’s 100x more deadly the flu.
Is it? Or is that just relative to how many we actually know are sick? How many more are sick, but are not treated- some of the videos out of China suggest that there are MANY more sick people than are spaces for real treatment.
Time will truly tell if it's really that much more deadly. If it is, then that would be well over a million who may die in China, as it really appears that containment isn't working all that well, locally.
From what I know, basically if you get it, you're gonna die. Part of it is b/c China isn't reporting real numbers, and the other part of it is we have no clue how to friggin' treat it in time.
I don’t think that’s true at all. It’s not Ebola. Fatality rate is around 2%, death rates lag for weeks so it will be impossible to get hard data but as an epidemiology graduate student I have not heard anything close to “if you get it you die”
That’s not what you said. You said if you get it, you will die. There is just no factual basis for that.IF they catch it in time, sure, you're fine. That's the fine print. IF they catch it in time. They're still trying to figure out everything; symptoms, source, how it spreads, etc. That throws a wrench in things.
They are doing the right thing in the quarantines, etc. That's prob the best plan.
That’s not what you said. You said if you get it, you will die. There is just no factual basis for that.
They haven’t determined incubation period or all methods of transmission , so yes a lot of unknown- but saying things like everyone will has it will die spreads a lot of fear and panic
So incomplete information means it’s 100% fatality rate?
I’d use real epidemiology terms here to explain things but why bother.
What in the actual **** are you talking about?