Wuhan Coronavirus in the News

The number of cases of Wuhan coronavirus that have been diagnosed to data has now exceeded, 6,100 worldwide—more than the SARS virus. From CNBC:

The total number of cases of the coronavirus reached more than 6,100 worldwide with 132 deaths in China, Chinese and international health authorities said Wednesday. Since the first patient was identified in Wuhan on Dec. 31, the number of coronavirus cases in China has mushroomed to more than 6,060, exceeding the total number of SARS cases in that country during the 2002-2003 epidemic. There were 5,327 SARS cases in China and 8,000 across the world between Nov. 1, 2002, and July 31, 2003, according to the World Health Organization.

Meanwhile, this op-ed in the Wall Street Journal from Luciana Borio and Scott Gottlieb rubbed me the wrong way for some reason:

The novel coronavirus now epidemic in China has features that may make it very difficult to control. If public-health authorities don’t interrupt the spread soon, the virus could infect many thousands more around the globe, disrupt air travel, overwhelm health-care systems, and, worst of all, claim more lives. The good news: There’s still an opening to prevent a grim outcome.

China failed to contain the virus early. More cases in the U.S. are inevitable. Experience with the 2009 H1N1 flu pandemic suggests that emergency measures such as school closures and border screening—in place at 20 U.S. airports—can at most buy time. Several traits of the virus make border surveillance less effective. It results in a respiratory illness that looks like many other diseases. Some infected people won’t show symptoms while they’re traveling. Checkpoints don’t have tests that can diagnose the virus rapidly.

The U.S. government’s actions to prevent the virus from entering the country are valuable, and there aren’t many good options in such early stages of crisis response. But it’s time for additional measures. As more U.S. cases develop, the strategy needs to incorporate another goal: preventing transmission of the coronavirus within the U.S. Four important steps now could help.

The four steps they list are:

• Identify and isolate cases to halt the spread
• Focus on the flu
• Hospitals need to prepare for an influx of patients who will need to be isolated
• Develop a vaccine

The article struck me as an uncomfortable combination of alarmist, nonsensical, and too little, too late.

If they had acted earlier it might have been possible for the Chinese authorities to halt the spread. Other than ending all air travel to or from China or quarantining everyone who arrived from China recently, what could authorities outside of China have done? I’m sorry but I just don’t see it.

As far as focusing on the flu is concerned, that’s blithe but unrealistic. It’s too early to tell right now but the flu vaccine that was used this year may be as little as 9% effective. Either the flu vaccine is being oversold or, since this is the second consecutive year in which the efficacy of the vaccine has been dubious, it sounds to me as though something basic is wrong with the process.

Do hospitals really have that ability? In 1975 we had a million and a half hospital beds in this country. Now we have 980,000. And there are half again as many people now in the U. S. now as there were then. Efficiency and changes in the practice of medicine have their costs and one of them is reflected in the number of beds available. Need I add that the real price of a hospital stay is much, much more expensive than it was in 1975?

Finally, we should be prepared for the eventuality that no vaccine will ever be found. People die of the common cold every year—there’s no vaccine for that. That’s not for a lack of trying.