Celebrity Travel Advisory Important update

[markeb]

1 hour ago, az_tchr said:

However, disagree that a 2% fatality rate is not high. The "flu" has a rate of about .1%. And yes we all probably have some partial immunity to the flu.

 

I hate to be pedantic, and I'm not minimizing the current COVID-19 situation, but this is where words matter.

 

The 2% rate is a Case Fatality Rate. That's generally 2% of people symptomatic for COVID-19 and PCR positive for SARS-COV-2 (the current name of the actual virus). The "generally" is that parts of China used a case definition without laboratory confirmation. But they were an actual "case", and for the most part required hospital admission. The last time I looked at a WHO summary, the Case Fatality Rate was dropping as the outbreak moved away from the epicenter, although transmission is definitely occuring. Asymptomatic positives are probably not being counted as cases; not sure about those not requiring hospitalization. If definitions change, it gets very difficult to compare numbers.

 

The 0.1% looks like roughly the mortality in all estimated illness from influenza in the US (35M in 2018-19). Global mortality has been reported be as high as 600,000  people a year across the world but the actual case fatality rate, which isn't reported much in influenza due to co-infections, etc., under the same criteria will be higher than 0.1%. CDC and WHO have all gone to reporting "burden of disease" for influenza, so a quick look this morning out of curiosity couldn't find that number.

 

If you do the math off of CDC's burden of disease numbers, they estimate 34,200 deaths out of 490,600 hospitalizations in the United States during the 2018-19 flu season; that's almost a 7% case fatality rate based on similar criteria from the initial reporting out of China. That drops, obviously if you include the vast majority of flu cases that didn't require hospitalization, but the same would be true of COVID-19.

[tomcruiser1234]

1 hour ago, markeb said:

 

I hate to be pedantic, and I'm not minimizing the current COVID-19 situation, but this is where words matter.

 

The 2% rate is a Case Fatality Rate. That's generally 2% of people symptomatic for COVID-19 and PCR positive for SARS-COV-2 (the current name of the actual virus). The "generally" is that parts of China used a case definition without laboratory confirmation. But they were an actual "case", and for the most part required hospital admission. The last time I looked at a WHO summary, the Case Fatality Rate was dropping as the outbreak moved away from the epicenter, although transmission is definitely occuring. Asymptomatic positives are probably not being counted as cases; not sure about those not requiring hospitalization. If definitions change, it gets very difficult to compare numbers.

 

The 0.1% looks like roughly the mortality in all estimated illness from influenza in the US (35M in 2018-19). Global mortality has been reported be as high as 600,000  people a year across the world but the actual case fatality rate, which isn't reported much in influenza due to co-infections, etc., under the same criteria will be higher than 0.1%. CDC and WHO have all gone to reporting "burden of disease" for influenza, so a quick look this morning out of curiosity couldn't find that number.

 

If you do the math off of CDC's burden of disease numbers, they estimate 34,200 deaths out of 490,600 hospitalizations in the United States during the 2018-19 flu season; that's almost a 7% case fatality rate based on similar criteria from the initial reporting out of China. That drops, obviously if you include the vast majority of flu cases that didn't require hospitalization, but the same would be true of COVID-19.

Interesting angle Markeb. Numbers can be misleading if you do not consider how you calculate from a starting baseline.  

[clskinsfan]

1 hour ago, markeb said:

 

I hate to be pedantic, and I'm not minimizing the current COVID-19 situation, but this is where words matter.

 

The 2% rate is a Case Fatality Rate. That's generally 2% of people symptomatic for COVID-19 and PCR positive for SARS-COV-2 (the current name of the actual virus). The "generally" is that parts of China used a case definition without laboratory confirmation. But they were an actual "case", and for the most part required hospital admission. The last time I looked at a WHO summary, the Case Fatality Rate was dropping as the outbreak moved away from the epicenter, although transmission is definitely occuring. Asymptomatic positives are probably not being counted as cases; not sure about those not requiring hospitalization. If definitions change, it gets very difficult to compare numbers.

 

The 0.1% looks like roughly the mortality in all estimated illness from influenza in the US (35M in 2018-19). Global mortality has been reported be as high as 600,000  people a year across the world but the actual case fatality rate, which isn't reported much in influenza due to co-infections, etc., under the same criteria will be higher than 0.1%. CDC and WHO have all gone to reporting "burden of disease" for influenza, so a quick look this morning out of curiosity couldn't find that number.

 

If you do the math off of CDC's burden of disease numbers, they estimate 34,200 deaths out of 490,600 hospitalizations in the United States during the 2018-19 flu season; that's almost a 7% case fatality rate based on similar criteria from the initial reporting out of China. That drops, obviously if you include the vast majority of flu cases that didn't require hospitalization, but the same would be true of COVID-19.

Good post. The numbers I have been looking at are the resolved cases and number of people in critical condition. In the resolved cases group 8% have died from the virus. And 92% have recovered. There are roughly 9000 people in critical condition from it. And 40000 with mild symptoms. So that tells us that of those that seek medical help 20-25% of them will end up critical. And of that 20- 25%, 8% will die. Imagine 45 million people get infected, the high end of how many are infected in the US every year with influenza, Using the above statistics you would expect roughly 900,000 people to die from COVID-19. And ELEVEN MILLION people to be in critical condition. Influenza with the same number of infected would kill roughly 60,000 people. So yeah. That really puts into perspective what we could be dealing with. You also need to take into account the fact that eleven million critical patients would be impossible to care for. That would most likely lead to even more deaths. 

 

Governments, the CDC and the WHO are freaking out for a reason. IF the statistics China is providing us are correct, we are facing something that humanity has not seen since 1918. And if China is lying about the stats we are facing something possibly even worse than 1918.

[az_tchr]

1 hour ago, markeb said:

 

I hate to be pedantic, and I'm not minimizing the current COVID-19 situation, but this is where words matter.

 

The 2% rate is a Case Fatality Rate. That's generally 2% of people symptomatic for COVID-19 and PCR positive for SARS-COV-2 (the current name of the actual virus). The "generally" is that parts of China used a case definition without laboratory confirmation. But they were an actual "case", and for the most part required hospital admission. The last time I looked at a WHO summary, the Case Fatality Rate was dropping as the outbreak moved away from the epicenter, although transmission is definitely occuring. Asymptomatic positives are probably not being counted as cases; not sure about those not requiring hospitalization. If definitions change, it gets very difficult to compare numbers.

 

The 0.1% looks like roughly the mortality in all estimated illness from influenza in the US (35M in 2018-19). Global mortality has been reported be as high as 600,000  people a year across the world but the actual case fatality rate, which isn't reported much in influenza due to co-infections, etc., under the same criteria will be higher than 0.1%. CDC and WHO have all gone to reporting "burden of disease" for influenza, so a quick look this morning out of curiosity couldn't find that number.

 

If you do the math off of CDC's burden of disease numbers, they estimate 34,200 deaths out of 490,600 hospitalizations in the United States during the 2018-19 flu season; that's almost a 7% case fatality rate based on similar criteria from the initial reporting out of China. That drops, obviously if you include the vast majority of flu cases that didn't require hospitalization, but the same would be true of COVID-19.

The problem here is every case of Corona is listed. Every single case diagnosed.  Many not hospitalized. You can make numbers skew to almost anything. Bottom line is those that are healthy with good immune systems have little to worry about from either virus. COVID has a total using reported cases that are diagnosed about a 2% fatality rate. Yes, we all agree not all are formally diagnosed. Influenza has a fatality rate of about .01% per the CDC. Most cases of flu are not diagnosed. In my community of 1 Million there have been an estimated 30000 flu cases but under 100 diagnosed and about 10 deaths. Your numbers are skewed.

And yes I agree the flu is serious and often ignored, but put a couple of Corona carriers in a setting like a business conference and you would have hundreds to thousands of cases very rapidly. With flu - just a few. Under 1 in 100 requires hospitalization. COVID rate so far much higher.

[markeb]

22 minutes ago, az_tchr said:

The problem here is every case of Corona is listed. Every single case diagnosed.  Many not hospitalized. You can make numbers skew to almost anything. Bottom line is those that are healthy with good immune systems have little to worry about from either virus. COVID has a total using reported cases that are diagnosed about a 2% fatality rate. Yes, we all agree not all are formally diagnosed. Influenza has a fatality rate of about .01% per the CDC. Most cases of flu are not diagnosed. In my community of 1 Million there have been an estimated 30000 flu cases but under 100 diagnosed and about 10 deaths. Your numbers are skewed.

And yes I agree the flu is serious and often ignored, but put a couple of Corona carriers in a setting like a business conference and you would have hundreds to thousands of cases very rapidly. With flu - just a few. Under 1 in 100 requires hospitalization. COVID rate so far much higher.

 

I hate it when they do that! WHO did open the original aperture on a "confirmed case" in their guidance at the end of January and most epidemiologists would consider a lab result in the absence of symptoms an exposure or an infection, not a case, but there they go. Missed that one. Denominators matter and they've changed the denominator. Which confuses everything from that point on. The rate at least appears lower outside of China from the most recent WHO sitrep, although it also looks worse than 2% in China, but that's mostly driven by Hubei. I don't know how they're accounting for cases before they had a routine test.

 

With flu, you also have historical data on testing, which is part of why the CDC numbers are higher than the the actual 100 diagnosed cases you're seeing. They fudge it based on how many would have been tested and diagnosed, apparently. No historical norms here yet for COVID-19, and with any luck there won't be.

[Pushka]

The Governments and WHO are freaking out for a reason. Thus far I haven’t been convinced as to the reason why. It is the closure of activities etc that seem to be having the most impact thus far, rather than the illness itself. 

[Georgia_Peaches]

5 minutes ago, Pushka said:

It is the closure of activities

This.  It's the slow down and even potential stop of the flow of goods and services that have governments in a tail spin...  It's only a matter of time, IMO before people swarm the stores for groceries and other necessities with the panic and alarmist tactics posed by some media outlets.  By all accounts the WHO and CDC have both said that the worst thing people can do is panic and the best thing people can do is wash hands frequently and stay home if sick.  

[az_tchr]

4 minutes ago, markeb said:

 

I hate it when they do that! WHO did open the original aperture on a "confirmed case" in their guidance at the end of January and most epidemiologists would consider a lab result in the absence of symptoms an exposure or an infection, not a case, but there they go. Missed that one. Denominators matter and they've changed the denominator. Which confuses everything from that point on. The rate at least appears lower outside of China from the most recent WHO sitrep, although it also looks worse than 2% in China, but that's mostly driven by Hubei. I don't know how they're accounting for cases before they had a routine test.

 

With flu, you also have historical data on testing, which is part of why the CDC numbers are higher than the the actual 100 diagnosed cases you're seeing. They fudge it based on how many would have been tested and diagnosed, apparently. No historical norms here yet for COVID-19, and with any luck there won't be.

Actually there were 94 cases of flu tested and diagnosed in my county last flu season. The number of flu cases Was estimated at about 30K cases. The difference is people do not get flu cases tested in an expensive test, they go to the doctor or 98% take some Nyquil. EVERY suspected case of COVID is isolated and/or tested. Only those confirmed are counted. My son in law returned Monday from Milan. Is self isolating and will be tested if symptomatic. At this point he Is not counted.

Very different way of handling from flu where they estimate cases using a mathematical formula. How one gets 30K from 94 I have no idea and neither does out county health dept. The estimate came from - TA DA!!! - Washington DC.

[cruiserchuck]

Celebrity has an updated travel advisory on its website dated today.  I am not sure what, if anything, has changed.

[luv2cruisemore]

1 hour ago, cruiserchuck said:

Celebrity has an updated travel advisory on its website dated today.  I am not sure what, if anything, has changed.

I’m not sure, but had it said anyone with a passport from mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, Iran and South Korea would be denied boarding? Now it says if they had been there in the last 15 days.

 

I’m concerned that the 15-day incubation period may be outdated as well. 

[Hllb]

The biggest difference I see in the Celebrity notice (based solely on my admittedly poor memory) is that they put a time frame on the advisory - projected for the next 30 days.

[az_tchr]

Just now, Hllb said:

The biggest difference I see in the Celebrity notice (based solely on my admittedly poor memory) is that they put a time frame on the advisory - projected for the next 30 days.

The added travel thru Singapore for additional screening. Am guessing more areas will be added over time.

Agree the 14 day time frame seems inadequate.

[BandZloves5]

It is about comfort level.  I could not enjoy myself wondering if we would be quarantined 2 weeks on a ship and 2 weeks upon return to the USA.  I lost a little money but so worth my peace of mind. 

[az_tchr]

58 minutes ago, BandZloves5 said:

It is about comfort level.  I could not enjoy myself wondering if we would be quarantined 2 weeks on a ship and 2 weeks upon return to the USA.  I lost a little money but so worth my peace of mind. 

Think of it as a double transatlantic cruise!

While my DW is concerned about the spread of Corona, she is not concerned about being quarantined for 2 weeks aboard ship. That made the Diamond Princess an wonderful place for diseases to grow and spread. Japan said they were wrong. Cancelled cruises - absolutely. Some ports closed - yup. Quarantine on board - not again.