The number of people now fully recovered from the virus is growing much faster than the number of new cases.
Update from Johns Hopkins: https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps ... 7b48e9ecf6
Over the last 24 hours:
1,350 new cases confirmed (82,541 - 81,191)
42 deaths (2,810 - 2,768) < Only 76 of the total deaths are outside of Mainland China.
2,931 people that have now totally recovered (33,212 - 30,281)
This means that the number of "Active Cases" is on decline. Down from 48,142 yesterday to 46,519 today.
PS: The number of people that die from the seasonal flu each year is ~400,000, so why is COVID-19 being hyped by the media?
Take a look at this chart for SARS: https://www.who.int/csr/sarsepicurve/20 ... ndex2.html
COVID-19 is very close to SARS, just another mutating coronavirus. SARS hit the news in February, 2003 and was gone by the end of June, 2003. It too created mass FEAR mongering in the media. The MERS "epidemic" also lasted just six months. Today we have more advanced medical teams working on COVID-19 and we are already seeing a sharp increase in the number of people recovering from COVID-19.
What happened with SARS?
The severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak, which happened in 2002-2003, is caused by a coronavirus. But the way things unfolded then is partly why that outbreak was an alarming event, experts say.
The first case is thought to have been reported on Nov. 16, 2002. Health officials didn’t know what it was, and SARS was categorized by its symptoms, which were similar to pneumonia. It took several months for the outbreak to be reported to the World Health Organization (WHO) on Feb. 14, 2003, when there were already more than 300 cases. At that time, Chinese officials were not sure what caused the illness. By March 21, there were cases in 13 countries and 10 deaths.
The entire SARS outbreak lasted about six months, resulting in more than 8,000 cases and killing 774 people. It took months for the virus to be identified as the cause of the illness, and the genome sequence was published in April 2003. Granted that technology for sequencing has advanced since 2003 allowing for faster work, this still means that it took a few months from the first knowledge of the outbreak.
The MERS outbreaks
Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) is caused by a coronavirus, named MERS-CoV. It was first identified in Saudi Arabia in Sep. 2012, and about 35 percent of infected patients die from the virus, according to WHO. MERS-CoV doesn’t pass easily from person to person unless there is close contact like physical touch.
By June 2013, there were 55 laboratory-confirmed cases reported to WHO. Cases were reported in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates and some infected travelers were reported in the United Kingdom, Italy, France and Tunisia.
In 2015, there was a separate outbreak of MERS-CoV in South Korea. The first patient of the outbreak developed symptoms on May 11, 2015. WHO and the South Korean government estimated that the outbreak ended in July 2015, after about two months. By the end, there were 186 confirmed cases and 38 deaths.
COViD-19 Virus Update - Feb 27
COViD-19 Virus Update - Feb 27
Last edited by dan_s on Thu Feb 27, 2020 1:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dan Steffens
Energy Prospectus Group
Energy Prospectus Group
Re: COViD-19 Virus Update - Feb 27
Coronavirus Has Oil Demand Forecasters ‘Shooting Blind’ As Futures Trade 20% Below 2020 Peak
in Oil & Companies News 27/02/2020
Just a matter of weeks ago, the coronavirus was being described as an outbreak in China. That subsequently morphed into a regional epidemic and has now either become, or about to become, a global pandemic with cases being reported from Italy to Japan, U.S. to Kuwait and much else in between.
Primary impact is being felt in China which could see at least one or two fiscal quarters of lackluster growth and that may well push the country’s headline growth below 5% for 2020. Engulfed in a prolonged trade tiff with the U.S. accompanied by a correction in its economy, China posted a headline growth rate of 6.1% in 2019; already the weakest on record for nearly 30 years. So the thought that the current year could be even worse than the year before is a pretty jittery one for oil demand forecasters.
A possible dip, however temporary, in China’s average call of 14 million barrels per day (bpd) on the global oil market, is the primary worry for demand forecasters. Additionally, the country’s intricate presence in global supply chains and its macroeconomic clout provides a secondary woe.
And with towns and cities in countries as near to China as South Korea, and as far away as Italy being in lockdown, a worldwide pandemic tipping the global economy into a negative quarter if not a full-blown recession remains a realistic prospect.
So by how much is oil demand growth going fall? If a word is what you seek – I’d describe it as unprecedented given 2020 was not looking particularly healthy to me in any case. Prior to the outbreak, global demand growth forecasts were in the region of 800,000 bpd to 1.4 million bpd, and I was leaning towards the lower end of the range.
With the coronavirus spread, 2020 may yet be the year of considerably lower demand growth, negligible demand growth or even a possible decline. So market forecasts have begun trickling in triggering much debate on Tuesday (February 25) at the International Petroleum Week (IPWeek) in London; an annual industry fixture that appears much toned down this year, with the notable absence of many Asian crude and petrochemical buyers, and several Big Oil bosses.
Oil giant BP, whose new boss Bernard Looney is around unlike many of his peers, says 2020’s global demand growth could be 300,000-500,000 bpd lower than its internal 2020 projection of 1.2 million bpd. Several others have pitched in too in recent weeks.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), demand growth for the year could be around 1.03 million bpd, a downward revision of 370,000 bpd. If OPEC forecasts are your thing, then the oil exporters’ group reckons the figure is likely to even lower at 990,000 bpd (-230,000 bpd from its last forecast).
And not to be outdone, the International Energy Agency (IEA) reckons it could be around 825,000 bpd, a downward revision of 365,000 bpd. But where is this all going? For instance, much of the IEA’s downward revision is predicated on a Q1 2020 demand contraction of 435,000 bpd (bpd), according to its Executive Director Fatih Birol.
If proven, that would point to the first quarterly decrease since the global financial crisis, and the IEA’s downward revisions might not be done yet. “We are not ruling out a further downward revision. There is no escaping a scenario [coronavirus’ impact] – however temporary – that could result in the lowest oil demand growth in a decade,” Birol adds.
Problem is pinpointing or guesstimating where we might end up come the end of the year. Right now avoiding complacency while not appearing to be too alarmist is the forecasters’ dilemma.
Polling 10 analysts and consultants unscientifically, spread over practically the entire first day at IPWeek points to downward revisions on average of 500,000 bpd, on a median average demand growth forecast of 1.2 million bpd that they had prior to the coronavirus outbreak.
The prediction is closer to the upper range of demand revisions made by the likes of BP rather than OPEC, EIA and IEA, and also chimes with my thinking that many forecasters are being too conservative in their revisions. It could also drive oil prices down to $30 per barrel, should OPEC and its 10 non-OPEC partners fail to cut output further.
Yet, for what it is worth in this evolving scenario, can any of the forecasters really be on the money until first data emerge or the dust appears to settle? I think not. So for want of a better expression, and to cite a decades-old industry contact, we’re all “shooting blind.” Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise!
Source: Forbes
in Oil & Companies News 27/02/2020
Just a matter of weeks ago, the coronavirus was being described as an outbreak in China. That subsequently morphed into a regional epidemic and has now either become, or about to become, a global pandemic with cases being reported from Italy to Japan, U.S. to Kuwait and much else in between.
Primary impact is being felt in China which could see at least one or two fiscal quarters of lackluster growth and that may well push the country’s headline growth below 5% for 2020. Engulfed in a prolonged trade tiff with the U.S. accompanied by a correction in its economy, China posted a headline growth rate of 6.1% in 2019; already the weakest on record for nearly 30 years. So the thought that the current year could be even worse than the year before is a pretty jittery one for oil demand forecasters.
A possible dip, however temporary, in China’s average call of 14 million barrels per day (bpd) on the global oil market, is the primary worry for demand forecasters. Additionally, the country’s intricate presence in global supply chains and its macroeconomic clout provides a secondary woe.
And with towns and cities in countries as near to China as South Korea, and as far away as Italy being in lockdown, a worldwide pandemic tipping the global economy into a negative quarter if not a full-blown recession remains a realistic prospect.
So by how much is oil demand growth going fall? If a word is what you seek – I’d describe it as unprecedented given 2020 was not looking particularly healthy to me in any case. Prior to the outbreak, global demand growth forecasts were in the region of 800,000 bpd to 1.4 million bpd, and I was leaning towards the lower end of the range.
With the coronavirus spread, 2020 may yet be the year of considerably lower demand growth, negligible demand growth or even a possible decline. So market forecasts have begun trickling in triggering much debate on Tuesday (February 25) at the International Petroleum Week (IPWeek) in London; an annual industry fixture that appears much toned down this year, with the notable absence of many Asian crude and petrochemical buyers, and several Big Oil bosses.
Oil giant BP, whose new boss Bernard Looney is around unlike many of his peers, says 2020’s global demand growth could be 300,000-500,000 bpd lower than its internal 2020 projection of 1.2 million bpd. Several others have pitched in too in recent weeks.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), demand growth for the year could be around 1.03 million bpd, a downward revision of 370,000 bpd. If OPEC forecasts are your thing, then the oil exporters’ group reckons the figure is likely to even lower at 990,000 bpd (-230,000 bpd from its last forecast).
And not to be outdone, the International Energy Agency (IEA) reckons it could be around 825,000 bpd, a downward revision of 365,000 bpd. But where is this all going? For instance, much of the IEA’s downward revision is predicated on a Q1 2020 demand contraction of 435,000 bpd (bpd), according to its Executive Director Fatih Birol.
If proven, that would point to the first quarterly decrease since the global financial crisis, and the IEA’s downward revisions might not be done yet. “We are not ruling out a further downward revision. There is no escaping a scenario [coronavirus’ impact] – however temporary – that could result in the lowest oil demand growth in a decade,” Birol adds.
Problem is pinpointing or guesstimating where we might end up come the end of the year. Right now avoiding complacency while not appearing to be too alarmist is the forecasters’ dilemma.
Polling 10 analysts and consultants unscientifically, spread over practically the entire first day at IPWeek points to downward revisions on average of 500,000 bpd, on a median average demand growth forecast of 1.2 million bpd that they had prior to the coronavirus outbreak.
The prediction is closer to the upper range of demand revisions made by the likes of BP rather than OPEC, EIA and IEA, and also chimes with my thinking that many forecasters are being too conservative in their revisions. It could also drive oil prices down to $30 per barrel, should OPEC and its 10 non-OPEC partners fail to cut output further.
Yet, for what it is worth in this evolving scenario, can any of the forecasters really be on the money until first data emerge or the dust appears to settle? I think not. So for want of a better expression, and to cite a decades-old industry contact, we’re all “shooting blind.” Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise!
Source: Forbes
Dan Steffens
Energy Prospectus Group
Energy Prospectus Group