- The incubation period of a virus is the amount of time it takes for a person to show symptoms after infection.
- A new study examined 181 cases of SARS-CoV-2 in China, finding that the mean incubation period is 5.1 days.
- The results suggest that a quarantine period of 14 days is reasonable.
It takes an average of 5.1 days for a person infected with the new coronavirus to show symptoms, according to recent research from Johns Hopkins University. Fortunately, an average incubation period of 5.1 days means that a 14-day quarantine period, which is used by the U.S. and other nations, is an appropriate amount of time to monitor people for the development of COVID-19.
"Based on our analysis of publicly available data, the current recommendation of 14 days for active monitoring or quarantine is reasonable," epidemiologist Justin Lessler from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health told Johns Hopkins University's HUB.
That's the good news. But the findings, published March 10 in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine, also highlight one of the most pernicious aspects of the novel coronavirus: It can take days for people to realize they're infected and contagious.
U.S Citizens Evacuated From Quarantined Cruise Ship In Japan
Carl Court / Staff
The study estimated that the median incubation period of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus is 5.1 days, and that 97.5 percent of people who develop symptoms will do so within 11.5 days. However, approximately 2.5 percent of people with the virus seem to develop symptoms after 11.5 days. That means a 14-day quarantine might not be 100 percent effective. In other words, for every 10,000 people quarantined, about 101 would develop symptoms after being released, according to the researchers.
"Whether this rate is acceptable depends on the expected risk for infection in the population being monitored and considered judgment about the cost of missing cases," the researchers wrote. "Combining these judgments with the estimates presented here can help public health officials to set rational and evidence-based COVID-19 control policies."
Concern In South Korea As The Wuhan Covid-19 Spreads
Chung Sung-Jun / Staff
The study was based on 181 cases of COVID-19 reported in China before February 24. To create a model of incubation period distribution, the researchers looked at metrics like probable time of exposure, symptom onset, fever onset, and detection by authorities. The results showed that the incubation period of SARS-CoV-2 roughly matches that of past infectious diseases like SARS and MERS, but is a bit longer than the incubation period of the flu, which is one to four days.
Public health officials use estimates like these to determine the length of quarantines, which help to contain and track the spread of a virus. One of the most important functions of a quarantine — or really any social distancing measure — is that it helps to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed by sick and infected patients.
If you only learn one thing about #COVID19 today make it this: everyone's job is to help FLATTEN THE CURVE. With th… https://t.co/7kEDRf1ffp— Dr Siouxsie Wiles (@Dr Siouxsie Wiles)1583692285.0
"From a US standpoint, you want to prevent any place from becoming the next Wuhan," Tom Frieden, who led the CDC under President Barack Obama, told Vox. "What that means is even if we're not able to prevent widespread transmission, we want to prevent explosive transmission and anything that overwhelms the health care system."
Slowing the spread of a virus is also referred to as flattening the curve. As Dr. Siouxsie Wiles posted on Twitter, flattening the curve is a responsibility that falls not only on government, but also on individuals. So, be sure to brush up on the best ways to prevent the contraction of the new coronavirus, and learn how it spreads from person to person.
- How likely are you to die from coronavirus? - Big Think ›
- Coronavirus: Viral video graph omits crucial information - Big Think ›
- Why public health officials sound more worried about the ... ›
- Track the coronavirus spread with this world map tool - Big Think ›
- Study: Older Americans know more about COVID than you - Big Think ›
- Study: Older Americans more knowledgeable about COVID-19 - Big Think ›
- Study: Older Americans more knowledgeable about COVID-19 - Big Think ›
- Who should get coronavirus treatment? - Big Think ›
A close up of Bathynomus raksasa
Humanity knows surprisingly little about the ocean depths. An often-repeated bit of evidence for this is the fact that humanity has done a better job mapping the surface of Mars than the bottom of the sea. The creatures we find lurking in the watery abyss often surprise even the most dedicated researchers with their unique features and bizarre behavior.
A recent expedition off the coast of Java discovered a new isopod species remarkable for its size and resemblance to Darth Vader.
The ocean depths are home to many creatures that some consider to be unnatural.
Bathynomus raksasa specimen (left) next to a closely related supergiant isopod, B. giganteus (right)
Sidabalok CM, Wong HP-S, Ng PKL (ZooKeys 2020)
According to LiveScience, the Bathynomus genus is sometimes referred to as "Darth Vader of the Seas" because the crustaceans are shaped like the character's menacing helmet. Deemed Bathynomus raksasa ("raksasa" meaning "giant" in Indonesian), this cockroach-like creature can grow to over 30 cm (12 inches). It is one of several known species of giant ocean-going isopod. Like the other members of its order, it has compound eyes, seven body segments, two pairs of antennae, and four sets of jaws.
The incredible size of this species is likely a result of deep-sea gigantism. This is the tendency for creatures that inhabit deeper parts of the ocean to be much larger than closely related species that live in shallower waters. B. raksasa appears to make its home between 950 and 1,260 meters (3,117 and 4,134 ft) below sea level.
Perhaps fittingly for a creature so creepy looking, that is the lower sections of what is commonly called The Twilight Zone, named for the lack of light available at such depths.
It isn't the only giant isopod, far from it. Other species of ocean-going isopod can get up to 50 cm long (20 inches) and also look like they came out of a nightmare. These are the unusual ones, though. Most of the time, isopods stay at much more reasonable sizes.
The discovery of this new species was published in ZooKeys. The remainder of the specimens from the trip are still being analyzed. The full report will be published shortly.
What benefit does this find have for science? And is it as evil as it looks?
The discovery of a new species is always a cause for celebration in zoology. That this is the discovery of an animal that inhabits the deeps of the sea, one of the least explored areas humans can get to, is the icing on the cake.
Helen Wong of the National University of Singapore, who co-authored the species' description, explained the importance of the discovery:
"The identification of this new species is an indication of just how little we know about the oceans. There is certainly more for us to explore in terms of biodiversity in the deep sea of our region."
The animal's visual similarity to Darth Vader is a result of its compound eyes and the curious shape of its head. However, given the location of its discovery, the bottom of the remote seas, it may be associated with all manner of horrifically evil Elder Things and Great Old Ones.
On May 12, 2021, the Republican governor of Ohio, Mike DeWine, announced five US$1 million lottery prizes for those who are vaccinated. Meanwhile, in West Virginia, younger citizens are being enticed to get the shot with $100 savings bonds, and a state university in North Carolina is offering students who get vaccinated a chance to win the cost of housing. Many companies are paying vaccinated employees more money through bonuses or extra paid time off.
The push to get as many people vaccinated as possible is laudable and may well work. But leading behavioral scientists are worried that paying people to vaccinate could backfire if it makes people more skeptical of the shots. And ethicists have argued that it would be wrong, citing concerns over fairness and equity.
As a behavioral scientist and ethicist, I draw on an extensive body of research to help answer these questions. It suggests that incentives might work to save lives and, if properly structured, need not trample individual rights or be a huge expense for the government.
In the United States, incentives and disincentives are already used in health care. The U.S. system of privatized health insurance exposes patients to substantial deductibles and copays, not only to cover costs but to cut down on what could be deemed as wasteful health care – the thinking being that putting a cost to an emergency room visit, for example, might deter those who aren't really in need of that level of care.
In practice, this means patients are encouraged to decline both emergency and more routine care, since both are exposed to costs.
Paying for health behaviors
In the case of COVID-19, the vaccines are already free to consumers, which has undoubtedly encouraged people to be immunized. Studies have shown that reducing out-of-pocket costs can improve adherence to life-sustaining drugs, whether to prevent heart attacks or to manage diabetes.
A payment to take a drug goes one step further than simply reducing costs. And if properly designed, such incentives can change health behaviors.
Payments and cash prizes have been shown effective in encouraging blood donations, adherence to blood thinner drugs, blood glucose monitoring, physical activity and smoking cessation.
And for vaccination in particular, payments have been successful for human papillomavirus (HPV) in England; hepatitis B in the United States and the United Kingdom; and tetanus toxoid in Nigeria. The effects can be substantial: For example, for one group in the HPV study, the vaccination rate more than doubled with an incentive.
For COVID-19, there are no field studies to date, but several survey experiments, including one my group conducted with 1,000 Americans, find that incentives are likely to work. In our case, the incentive of a tax break was enough to encourage those hesitant about vaccinations to say they would take the shot.
Coercion concerns
Even if incentives will save lives by increasing vaccinations, there are still other ethical considerations. A key concern is protecting the autonomous choices of people to decide what they put into their own bodies. This may be especially important for the COVID-19 vaccines, which – although authorized as likely safe and effective – are not yet fully approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
But already people are often paid to participate in clinical trials for drugs that have not yet been approved by the FDA. Ethicists have worried that such payments may be “coercive" if the money is so attractive as to override a person's free choices or make them worse off overall.
One can quibble about whether the term “coercion" applies to offers of payment. But even if offers were coercive, payments may still be reasonable to save lives in a pandemic if they succeed in greater levels of immunization.
During the smallpox epidemic nearly 100 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the power of states to mandate vaccines. Compared with mandating vaccination, the incentives to encourage vaccines seem innocuous.
Exploitation and paternalism
Yet some still worry. Bioethicists Emily Largent and Franklin Miller wrote in a recent paper that a payment might “unfairly" exploit “those U.S. residents who have lost jobs … or slipped into poverty during the pandemic," which could leave them feeling as if they have “no choice but to be vaccinated for cash." Others have noted that vaccine hesitancy is higher in nonwhite communities, where incomes tend to be lower, as is trust in the medical establishment.
Ethicists and policymakers should indeed focus on the poorest members of our community and seek to minimize racial disparities in both health outcomes and wealth. But there is no evidence that offering money is actually detrimental to such populations. Receiving money is a good thing. To suggest that we have to protect adults by denying them offers of money may come across as paternalism.
Some ethicists also argue that the money is better spent elsewhere to increase participation. States could spend the money making sure vaccines are convenient to everyone, for example, by bringing them to community events and churches. Money could also support various efforts to fight misinformation and communicate the importance of getting the shot.
The cost of incentives
Financial incentives could be expensive as a policy solution. As in Ohio, lottery drawings are one way to cap the overall cost of incentives while giving millions of people an additional reason to get their shot.
The tax code could also allow for a no-cost incentive for vaccination. Tax deductions and credits are often designed to encourage behaviors, such as savings or home ownership. Some states now have big budget surpluses and are considering tax relief measures. If a state announced now that such payments would be conditional on being vaccinated, then each person declining the shot would save the government money.
Ultimately, a well-designed vaccination incentive can help save lives and need not keep the ethicists up at night.
Christopher Robertson, Professor of Law, Boston University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
