Another few weeks have passed since contributing my mandatory post about nCoV and I’ve since been following its inevitable spread very closely. Spreading from country to country, it was quickly elevated in status by the WHO. I’m not going to dwell on the lack of transparency, origin or similar speculation about the virus. Instead, I wanted to reflect on an interesting thought that was mentioned to me, perhaps the Wuhan originating virus is here to stay. The WHO recognises the virus as a rapidly spreading epidemic that has scientists on their toes. Detectible symptoms, mutation and even being airborne, it seems that the virus has all the traits that make containment harder and harder at every step.
Billionaires, organizations, governments and many others are dedicating resources to accelerate mitigation efforts. At this point, damage control is priority. Multiple publications point to vaccine production and other forms of treatment to kick this virus to the curb, but another side of this exercise is assessment of its true mortality rate. Cases are starting to show decline in China but it’s not clear how far our novel coronavirus has to travel. Having listened to a few podcasts about virus statistics, just how damaging has the virus been. With reports of a patient contracting the virus twice, once after recovering, it seems there are twists and turns to come. Yet with higher data collection about the virus, scientists are putting forward the case as to whether this will be the next coronavirus to stick around.
If mortality rate is deemed to be relatively low, the severity of the virus would eventually be treated in a similar manner to the four main viruses that have stuck around in society. While discussion of a vaccine is highlighted across the board with acceleration and innovation called in to help deal with the epidemic, some scientists are waiting to see the bigger picture and to realise whether a vaccine would be efficient and worth the time and resource investment. Vaccine development takes time, money and the former is something that probably isn’t going to be reduced significantly. If a mortality rate below 2% is realised as the virus spreads across a larger sample size and the fatalities considered in context with existing medical conditions, outlook and treatment of the virus could very well be changed entirely. Could be an excuse to let the virus rage on with dire consequence? How reliable is the data thus far? It all remains to be seen but it’s clear that as the virus spreads, research and understanding will begin to flow from all corners of the globe and the true pathway in dealing with this novel virus will establish itself.
