H5N1

Meteorological factors correlate with transmission of COVID-19: Proof of incidence of novel coronavirus pneumonia in Hubei Province, China

I've added medRxiv to the COVID-19 Links. It offers preprints, not yet peer-reviewed, and therefore they may be less reliable. But it's striking to see the flood of COVID-19 research coming out of China; it makes the surge of H7N9 literature back in 2013 look like a blip. Here's an example: Meteorological factors correlate with transmission of 2019-nCoV: Proof of incidence of novel coronavirus pneumonia in Hubei Province, China. The abstract:

Objective: many potential factors contribute to the outbreak of COVID-19. The aim of this study was to explore the effects of various meteorological factors on the incidence of COVID-19. 

Methods: Taking Hubei province of China as an example, where COVID-19 was first reported and there were the most cases, we collected 53 days of cases up to March 10(total 67773 confirmed cases). COVID-19 confirmed cases were retrieved from the official website of Hubei Health Commission. Ten meteorological parameters were provided by China meteorological administration,including average pressure (hPa), average temperature (°C), maximum temperature, minimum temperature (°C), average water vapor pressure (hPa), average relative humidity (%),etc. Cross correlation analysis and linear regression were used to judge the relationship of meteorological factors and increment of COVID-19 confirmed cases. 

Results: Under 95% CI, the increment of confirmed cases in Hubei were significantly correlated with four meteorological parameters of average pressure, average temperature, minimum temperature and average water vapor pressure (equivalent to absolute humidity).The average pressure was positively correlated with the increment (r=+0.358,p=0.010).The negative correlations included average temperature (r=-0.306,p=0.029), minimum air temperature (r=-0.347,p=0.013), average water vapor pressure (r=-0.326,p=0.020). 

The linear regression results show if minimum temperature increases by 1°C, the incremental confirmed cases in Hubei decreases by 72.470 units on average. 

Conclusion: The incidence of COVID-19 was significantly correlated with average pressure, average temperature, minimum temperature and average water vapor pressure. It is positively correlated with the average pressure and negatively correlated with the other three parameters. Compared with relative humidity, 2019-nCov is more sensitive to water vapor pressure. The reason why the epidemic situation in Hubei expanded rapidly is significantly related to the climate characteristics of low temperature and dryness of Hubei in winter.

Australia: Bushfire smoke linked to hundreds of deaths

Via Nature.com: Bush-fire smoke linked to hundreds of deaths. It would not be surprising if many smoke survivors are also vulnerable to COVID-19.

Researchers estimate that smoke pollution probably killed more than 400 people during the unprecedented bush fires across southeast Australia from November to February. Thirty-three people were killed in incidents directly related to the fires.  

Air-pollution researcher Fay Johnston at the University of Tasmania in Hobart led a team that collected data on the average number of emergency-department admissions, hospitalizations and deaths on any given day. The researchers mapped detailed data on air-pollution levels from 1 October to 10 February and modelled how these would have increased the emergency admissions. 

They found that there could have been around 417 additional deaths and 1,305 emergency-department admissions for asthma attacks over the period of the fires. An extra 3,151 people were also admitted to hospital for heart and respiratory problems.  

The results are reported in the 23 March edition of The Medical Journal of Australia, and are the first published estimate of the scale of the medical impact of the bush-fire smoke. Johnston estimates that the haze affected around 80% of Australia’s 25 million people, in some cases for many weeks at a time.  

“In terms of the extent and duration of the fires, and pollution in the air, this is off the chart for a single summer fire season,” she says. 

Research such as this, which estimates the true impact of smoke pollution on the population, is important, says Guy Marks, an epidemiologist who studies respiratory diseases at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia.  

“These deaths and hospitalizations would not have been recognized as being attributable to the fires and smoke at the time they occurred. Hence, they tend to have less attention paid to them,” adds Marks.

See also this comment in the same issue.

This pandemic could trigger a spiral of disasters – if we let it

Via The Globe and Mail, columnist Doug Saunders writes: This pandemic could trigger a spiral of disasters – if we let it. Excerpt:

What are the odds that this pandemic, and our response to it, could trigger a far larger global catastrophe? William Gibson, the sci-fi prophet of Vancouver, provides us with a possible scenario, one that unfolds in a world a lot like our own – an age known to its survivors as “the Jackpot.” It’s not a big bang, but rather a lethal spiral of preventable disasters abetted by incompetent leadership and economic contraction. 

“No comets crashing, nothing you could really call a nuclear war,” recalls a character in the next century, when there are a lot fewer of us, in his 2014 novel The Peripheral. “Just everything else, tangled in the changing climate: droughts, water shortages, crop failures … diseases that were never quite the one big pandemic but big enough to be historic events in themselves.” 

A disease outbreak or climate disaster during the Jackpot cost many lives, and destroyed the incomes and livelihoods of millions, making a recovery difficult and expensive. Afterward, many countries, led by small-minded figures who were too busy confronting one another, lacked the financial or organizational resources to restore health and ecological order and prevent the next disaster – and so it continued. 

It’s a lot easier to imagine a Jackpot scenario today than it was a couple weeks ago. But it’s also easier to imagine a way out.  

We could not have imagined a month ago that fighting a full-scale global pandemic would lead countries to shut down their economies and isolate populations immediately. And, more optimistically, we would not have believed that most citizens and corporations would willingly comply.  

The priority today is to do everything possible to prevent the disease from spreading at an exponential pace – and that means the extreme isolation and immobilization of populations. But a simultaneous challenge, equally important, is to prevent those efforts from unleashing a second crisis – the one that would occur if millions of jobs and homes were lost because spending stopped.  

A complete economic collapse – the sort that will occur if governments aren’t able to subsidize their citizens enough to keep them paying their bills and buying products – would make the postvirus recovery vastly more expensive and difficult. And that could indeed launch a spiral of crises.

COVD-19 ‘highly sensitive’ to high temperatures, but don’t bank on summer killing it off, studies say

Via the South China Morning Post: Coronavirus ‘highly sensitive’ to high temperatures, but don’t bank on summer killing it off, studies say. Excerpt:

The virus that causes Covid-19 may have a temperature sweet spot at which it spreads fastest, a new study has suggested, but experts say people should avoid falling into the trap of thinking it will react to seasonal changes in exactly the same way as other pathogens, like those that cause the common cold or influenza. 

The study, by a team from Sun Yat-sen University in Guangzhou, the capital of south China’s Guangdong province, sought to determine how the spread of the new coronavirus might be affected by changes in season and temperature. 

Published last month, though yet to be peer-reviewed, the report suggested heat had a significant role to play in how the virus behaves. 

“Temperature could significantly change Covid-19 transmission,” it said. “And there might be a best temperature for viral transmission.” 

The “virus is highly sensitive to high temperature”, which could prevent it from spreading in warmer countries, while the opposite appeared to be true in colder climes, the study said. 

As a result, it suggested that “countries and regions with a lower temperature adopt the strictest control measures”. 

Many national governments and health authorities are banking on the coronavirus losing some of its potency as the weather warms up, as is generally the case with similar viruses that cause the common cold and influenza.  

However, a separate study by a group of researchers including epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch from Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, found that sustained transmission of the coronavirus and the rapid growth in infections was possible in a range of humidity conditions – from cold and dry provinces in China to tropical locations, such as the Guangxi Zhuang autonomous region in the far south of the country and Singapore. 

“Weather alone, [such as an] increase of temperature and humidity as the spring and summer months arrive in the Northern Hemisphere, will not necessarily lead to declines in case counts without the implementation of extensive public health interventions,” said the study, which was published in February and is also awaiting scientific review.

The Guangzhou team based their study on every novel coronavirus case confirmed around the world between January 20 and February 4, including in more than 400 Chinese cities and regions. These were then modelled against official meteorological data for January from across China and the capital cities of each country affected. 

The analysis indicated that case numbers rose in line with average temperatures up to a peak of 8.72 degrees Celsius and then declined. 

“Temperature … has an impact on people’s living environments … [and] could play a significant role in public health in terms of epidemic development and control,” the study said. 

It said also that climate may have played a part in why the virus broke out in Wuhan, the central China city where it was first detected.

COVID-19 has temporarily reduced China’s CO2 emissions by a quarter

Via Carbon Brief: Analysis: Coronavirus has temporarily reduced China’s CO2 emissions by a quarter. Excerpt:

As China battles one of the most serious virus epidemics of the century, the impacts on the country’s energy demand and emissions are only beginning to be felt.  

Electricity demand and industrial output remain far below their usual levels across a range of indicators, many of which are at their lowest two-week average in several years. These include:  

• Coal use at power stations reporting daily data at a four-year low. 

• Oil refinery operating rates in Shandong province at the lowest level since 2015. 

• Output of key steel product lines at the lowest level for five years. 

• Levels of NO2 air pollution over China down 36% on the same period last year. 

• Domestic flights are down up to 70% compared to last month. 

All told, the measures to contain coronavirus have resulted in reductions of 15% to 40% in output across key industrial sectors. This is likely to have wiped out a quarter or more of the country’s CO2 emissions over the past two weeks, the period when activity would normally have resumed after the Chinese new-year holiday.

Over the same period in 2019, China released around 400m tonnes of CO2 (MtCO2), meaning the virus could have cut global emissions by 100MtCO2 to date. The key question is whether the impacts are sustained, or if they will be offset – or even reversed – by the government response to the crisis. 

Initial analysis from the International Energy Agency (IEA) and Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) suggests the repercussions of the outbreak could shave up to half a percent off global oil demand in January-September this year.  

However, the Chinese government’s coming stimulus measures in response to the disruption could outweigh these shorter-term impacts on energy and emissions, as it did after the global financial crisis and the 2015 domestic economic downturn.

Analysis: Coronavirus has temporarily reduced China’s CO2 emissions by a quarter

Via Carbon Brief, an eye-opener: Analysis: Coronavirus has temporarily reduced China’s CO2 emissions by a quarter. Excerpt (but read the whole thing), and then a comment:

As China battles one of the most serious virus epidemics of the century, the impacts on the country’s energy demand and emissions are only beginning to be felt.  

Electricity demand and industrial output remain far below their usual levels across a range of indicators, many of which are at their lowest two-week average in several years. These include:  

• Coal use at power stations reporting daily data at a four-year low. 

• Oil refinery operating rates in Shandong province at the lowest level since 2015. 

• Output of key steel product lines at the lowest level for five years. 

• Levels of NO2 air pollution over China down 36% on the same period last year. 

• Domestic flights are down up to 70% compared to last month. 

All told, the measures to contain coronavirus have resulted in reductions of 15% to 40% in output across key industrial sectors. This is likely to have wiped out a quarter or more of the country’s CO2 emissions over the past two weeks, the period when activity would normally have resumed after the Chinese new-year holiday.  

Over the same period in 2019, China released around 400m tonnes of CO2 (MtCO2), meaning the virus could have cut global emissions by 100MtCO2 to date. The key question is whether the impacts are sustained, or if they will be offset – or even reversed – by the government response to the crisis. 

Initial analysis from the International Energy Agency (IEA) and Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) suggests the repercussions of the outbreak could shave up to half a percent off global oil demand in January-September this year.  

However, the Chinese government’s coming stimulus measures in response to the disruption could outweigh these shorter-term impacts on energy and emissions, as it did after the global financial crisis and the 2015 domestic economic downturn.

Regardless, Bejiing's air quality index as of 7:00 a.m. Thursday morning, local time, is in the 170s and 180s (unhealthy).

Will warming weather kill off COVID-19? Scientists aren’t sure

Via Caixin Global: Will Warming Weather Kill Off Covid-19? Scientists Aren’t Sure.

Will the Covid-19 outbreak burn out in the summer as happened with the SARS epidemic in 2003? 

That’s what many are hoping for, including U.S. President Donald Trump. Some scientists also speculate that the new coronavirus won’t survive for long in warmer conditions. But whether the virus will disappear in warm weather is still uncertain. 

The number of new confirmed cases has shown signs of slowing for several days, and more patients have been released from hospitals every day. But a turning point at which the total number of infected people declines is still not in sight. 

Zhong Nanshan, a leading Chinese respiratory expert who became famous for his role in the 2003 SARS epidemic, said Monday that he expects the number of new cases to peak in late February, but whether that would be the turning point would depend on what effect the resumption of work would have on the spread of the disease. 

Wang Chen, a respiratory expert at the Chinese Academy of Engineering, told state broadcaster CCTV that appropriate quarantine measures combined with warm weather will help to curb the spread of the virus.  

Theoretically, the Covid-19 virus, a member of the coronavirus family which also includes SARS and MERS, is sensitive to temperature. All viruses are made up of a nucleic acid molecule inside a protein shell called a capsid. Some viruses, such as coronavirus, have an external membrane outside the shell. The envelope is relatively sensitive to heat.  

The Covid-19 virus stays stable at 4 degrees Celsius and can survive for several years at 60 degrees Celsius below zero, according to guidelines published by the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. In higher temperatures, the virus’s resistance power declines, but the temperature affects only the virus’s survival time, not its infectiousness, the guidelines say. 

Similar results were found with the SARS coronavirus. The SARS virus also stays stable at 4 degrees Celsius, but will lose its activeness in three days at 37 degrees Celsius and can survive for only 15 minutes at 70 degrees Celsius below zero, according to research by Bao Zuoyi and Liu Yongjian at China’s Academy of Military Medical Sciences. 

During the 2003 SARS outbreak, for every 1 degree Celsius of temperature rise in Hong Kong, where the virus killed almost 300 people, the number of confirmed cases declined by 3.6. The SARS outbreak lasted about eight months. Like Covid-19, the first SARS case was recorded late in the year. Then the number of confirmed cases peaked in April 2003, and no more patients were found in July. Scientists have never discovered a cure for SARS, and it’s widely believed it’s killed by warm weather. 

In the book “SARS: How a Global Epidemic Was Stopped” published in 2007 by Shigeru Omi, regional director of the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations health agency attributed the defeat of the epidemic to transparent reporting of cases, efforts by countries to control the flow of infected people and warm weather. 

But some differences between the SARS coronavirus and Covid-19 add uncertainties to predicting the endurance of the new disease. Unlike SARS, where only people with fever are infectious, people with Covid-19 can be contagious without any symptoms, making it much harder to prevent the spread of the illness.  

A recent study showed that Covid-19 is far more contagious than SARS. The study, published Feb. 15 by the medical research archive bioRxiv, was conducted by a team led by University of Texas researcher Jason McLellan, who for years has been studying different types of coronaviruses such as SARS and MERS.  

As temperatures rise, coronavirus either floating in the air or attached to surfaces can survive for a short time, but the infectiveness of the virus in a person’s body doesn’t diminish, said Ma Ke, a doctor at Wuhan Tongji Hospital.

Coal mines need miners amid COVID-19 travel restrictions

Via Caixin Global: Coal Mines Need Miners Amid Virus Travel Restrictions. Excerpt and then a comment:

China’s coal heartlands are still operating well below their gigantic capacity, government statistics show, even after the official return to work after an extended Lunar New Year holiday due to the coronavirus. 

Ordos, in North China’s Inner Mongolia autonomous region, has 333 coal mines and can produce more of the fossil fuel than any other city in China — 838 million tons a year. But as of Wednesday only 72 mines have resumed operations, representing a little more than two-fifths of the city’s total production capacity, according to the local energy administration.  

The situation in Ordos is replicated throughout the world’s largest coal producing nation. According to China’s top economic planner, the National Development and Reform Commission, only 57.8% of China’s coal mines had resumed work as of Monday, the first official work day after the government lengthened the normally week-long Lunar New Year break to curb the spread of the highly contagious coronavirus. 

 “This is because (coal mines are) short-handed, so they cannot run to full capacity,” said a person familiar with the industry in Northwest China’s Shaanxi province, a major coal mining region. Another coal industry analyst said some mines have had to reassign workers from production to safety-checking due to staffing issues, which has further depressed output.  

Travel restrictions that aim to keep the virus in check after it has infected tens of thousands of people and spread both around the country and world have prevented many miners — who are often migrant workers from other parts of the country — from traveling back to their workplaces after the Lunar New Year holiday. It’s still unclear when these restrictions will be lifted, an industry insider said.

It's some consolation that the outbreak is at least helping reduce CO2 emissions and air pollution.

Bushfires expose weaknesses in Australia's health system

Via The Lancet: Bushfires expose weaknesses in Australia's health system. Excerpt:

Australia is in the grip of unprecedented bushfires that have affected every state across the country. The threat to lives, homes, and wildlife has already resulted in more than 20 deaths and 2000 homes lost, millions of acres burned, and up to 1 billion animals dead. 

While Australia has one of the world's most robust health-care systems, the crisis has not only left doctors unprepared to deal with the health impacts of climate change, but it has also revealed that the health system was not fully equipped to handle the massive humanitarian impact such a crisis would have on communities. 

At the time of writing, dozens of fires continued to burn out of control across large swaths of the country, exposing people to toxic smoke and putting firefighters and rescue workers in grave danger of serious injury and death. For weeks on end, smoke haze has blanketed parts of the country, including Sydney and Canberra, where millions of people live. Air quality in Canberra—which made headlines around the world—reached more than 22 times the hazardous level set by WHO. In Sydney, some suburbs have experienced air quality more than ten times the hazardous limit. 

Arnagretta Hunter, a cardiologist in Canberra, told The Lancet she had seen an increase in patients, particularly those with respiratory problems and people with underlying lung and heart problems. She said there had also been an increase in infections including urinary tract infections and skin infections, likely to be attributed to fine particulate matter exposure. 

Hunter said she had been giving advice such as to stay inside and avoid physical activity, but that “I don't think we have any real idea” of the health impacts of such exposure. 

“In Australia, we are used to having clean air; air pollution is not an issue. Our health brains do not work like this”, she said. “We have a robust health system and we are good at providing high-level health to our population [but] the planning for the health impacts of climate change has been almost non-existent. Our system was not prepared for this. Hospitals are working in disaster mode. I think we will be able to measure the impact of this crisis in life expectancy in the next 12 months.” 

Her concern follows the Australian Medical Association (AMA) warning that prolonged exposure to toxic smoke could affect the health of many Australians. “The length and density of smoke exposure is a new and possibly fatal health risk”, AMA President Tony Bartone said in a statement. “With denser smoke haze and longer periods that people endure smoke inhalation, there is a much higher risk that previously healthy people will face developing serious illness.” 

Meanwhile, Ewen McPhee, immediate past president of the Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine and a general practitioner (GP) based in central Queensland, said a lack of preparation for the health impact of the bushfires was leaving rural communities vulnerable. “There was no preparation for impaired air quality, with the federal government only now releasing funds to source P2 masks in the millions for rural people”, he said.

Australia bushfires: Sydney air quality hits 1631

I can hardly believe the Oakdale Sydney South-west, Australia Air Pollution: Real-time Air Quality Index for 7:00 a.m. Tuesday, January 7:

"Hazardous" is defined as 300-500; this reading more than triples the theoretical worst. Long-term health consequences will be felt in southeast Australia for decades to come.