Page 13 of 54 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 390 of 1607

Thread: Disease and pandemics thread (because it's science)

  1. #361
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    3,162
    How horrible 66 more positives on Japanese cruise. https://www.cnn.com/asia/live-news/c...hnk/index.html
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  2. #362
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,964
    Estimated fatality ratio for infections 1%

    Estimated CFR for travellers outside mainland China (mix severe & milder cases) 1%-5%

    Estimated CFR for detected cases in Hubei (severe cases) 18%
    https://www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-globa...n-coronavirus/

  3. #363
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    14,092
    Quote Originally Posted by LaurieAG View Post
    Jens, as per my previous post, the ratio of Infected/dead is decreasing and Recovered/dead is increasing and these trends have been consistent for at least the past few days.
    I saw that, but I donít think weíre looking at the same thing. The statistics you showed are about the virulence. I am trying to see how fast itís spreading. I chose to look at deaths rather than infections because I think the number of infections is probably unreliable but the number of deaths is pretty accurate. So what I meant is that the number of deaths is still increasing, but that the rate of increase seems to be slowing.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    As above, so below

  4. #364
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,613
    Some better material on the mortality rate has appeared on the Worldometers site.

    QUOTE:
    current deaths belong to a total case figure of the past, not to the current case figure in which the outcome (recovery or death) of a proportion (the most recent cases) hasn't yet been determined.

    The correct formula, therefore, would appear to be:

    CFR = deaths at day.x / cases at day.x-{T}
    (where T = average time period from case confirmation to death)

    This would constitute a fair attempt to use values for cases and deaths belonging to the same group of patients:


    How to correctly calculate the mortality rate during an outbreak

    One issue can be that of determining whether there is enough data to estimate T with any precision, but it is certainly not T = 0 (what is implicitly used when applying the formula current deaths / current cases to determine CFR during an ongoing outbreak).

    Let's take, for example, the data at the end of February 8, 2020: 813 deaths (cumulative total) and 37,552 cases (cumulative total) worldwide.

    If we use the flawed formula (deaths / cases) we get:

    813 / 37,552 = 2.2% CFR (flawed formula).

    Instead, even with a conservative estimate of T = 7 days as the average period from case confirmation to death, we would correct the above formula by using February 1 cumulative cases, which were 14,381, in the denominator:

    Feb. 8 deaths / Feb. 1 cases = 813 / 14,381 = 5.7% CFR (correct formula, and estimating T=7).

    UNQUOTE


    Now in this calculation they use T=7 days. On the same page it says:

    the median days from first symptom to death were 14

    So T would be better estimated as 14, not 7, days.

    Using T=14 we have 910 deaths/ 2801 cases 14 days previously. The CFR is then 32%. by this method.

    (However I would say it should be deaths on day x not cumulative deaths by day x, in which case we have 97/2801 = 3.5%)

  5. #365
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    14,092
    Quote Originally Posted by kzb View Post
    Now in this calculation they use T=7 days. On the same page it says:

    the median days from first symptom to death were 14

    So T would be better estimated as 14, not 7, days.

    Seven days may be a bit conservative, but 14 should be too long because there is usually a lag between the onset of symptoms and diagnosis. In the only case I remember clearly, Dr. Li, the time from diagnosis to his death was about seven days.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    As above, so below

  6. #366
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    14,092

    Disease and pandemics thread (because it's science)

    One other thing about the number of cases: I think there are people like me who tend to not go to the hospital even if they know they are sick with a flu-like illness as long as the symptoms seem normal for what you expect, because (a) youíll probably get better anyway, (b) there really isnít all that much that a hospital can do for you, (c) you risk catching other germs in a hospital, (d) you might infect other people in the hospital who are in bad shape with some other disease. So I tend to only go to the hospital when something bad happens, like I faint or canít Keep liquids down or whatever.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by Jens; 2020-Feb-10 at 12:13 PM.
    As above, so below

  7. #367
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    Seven days may be a bit conservative, but 14 should be too long because there is usually a lag between the onset of symptoms and diagnosis. In the only case I remember clearly, Dr. Li, the time from diagnosis to his death was about seven days.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    On the other hand, the other day I posted a link quoting a front-line doctor.
    He said it takes 14 days (from hospitalisation) to progress to either recovering or serious.
    If you are going to die it will most likely be in the third week, i.e between 14 and 21 days of being hospitalised.

    Dr Li was likely infected in late December or early January. He started coughing on 10 January, hospitalised 3 days later, diagnosed on 30 January and died on 06 Feb (or maybe 07 Feb).

    Time from hospitalisation to death 24-25 days.

  8. #368
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    One other thing about the number of cases: I think there are people like me who tend to not go to the hospital even if they know they are sick with a flu-like illness as long as the symptoms seem normal for what you expect, because (a) you’ll probably get better anyway, (b) there really isn’t all that much that a hospital can do for you, (c) you risk catching other germs in a hospital, (d) you might infect other people in the hospital who are in bad shape with some other disease. So I tend to only go to the hospital when something bad happens, like I faint or can’t Keep liquids down or whatever.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I bet most of us on here do the same as you. But I think it's fair to say we have a more scientific outlook than average.

  9. #369
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Clear Lake City, TX
    Posts
    12,862
    From Matador Travel Security:

    UPDATED February 10 2020: More countries in Asia-Pacific countries have added entry restrictions for travellers who have been in China within the last 14 days, however India has introduced restrictions for anyone having visited mainland China since January 15 2020 (see Latest developments below). The variance of such decrees within the region underscore the importance of travellers keeping up to date with travel restrictions and taking all necessary precautions.

    Measures introduced by the United States on February 2 remain in effect. Any U.S. citizen returning to the United States who has been to the Hubei province in the previous 14 days, will be subject to up to 14 days of mandatory quarantine. This applies only to U.S. citizens who have been in Hubei province in the past 14 days, prior to their attempted entry into the United States. Any U.S. citizen returning to the United States who has been in the rest of Mainland China within the previous 14 days will undergo proactive entry health screening at a select number of ports of entry, and up to 14 days of monitored self-quarantine. Additionally, the President has signed an act temporarily suspending the entry into the United States of foreign nationals who pose a risk of transmitting the 2019 novel coronavirus. As a result, foreign nationals – other than immediate family of U.S. citizens and permanent residents – who have travelled in China within the last 14 days, will be denied entry into the United States. Travellers who have concerns if this would apply to them should notify their supervisor/HR contact.

    Latest developments:
    * Confirmed infections and fatalities continue to increase. Thus far the virus has reportedly infected 40,195 people in China with 908 fatalities. Outside of China 378 cases with 2 fatalities have been reported in 27 countries: Australia, Belgium, Cambodia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong, India, Italy, Japan, Macau, Malaysia, Nepal, the Philippines, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, the UAE, United Kingdom, the United States and Vietnam. Updated figures can be found on Johns Hopkins University's coronavirus tracking map.
    * In the United Kingdom the coronavirus has been declared a "serious and imminent threat" to the public, giving the Government greater powers to fight the spread of the virus, in light of recent confirmed cases in Britain.
    * The U.S. government has expanded its advanced coronavirus screening efforts by adding four U.S. international airports to the list of those currently screening for the virus (John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK), New York; Chicago O’Hare International Airport (ORD); San Francisco International Airport (SFO); Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA); Daniel K. Inouye International Airport (HNL), Hawaii; Los Angeles International Airport (LAX); Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL). The additional airports are: Washington Dulles (IAD), Newark Liberty (EWR), Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW); and Detroit Metropolitan (DTW). The expansion follows the imposition of travel restrictions that took effect on Sunday, February 2 (see above). Foreign nationals who have recently traveled to China may experience visa issuance delays at U.S. consulates abroad.
    * Countries within Asia Pacific continue to expand their entry restrictions. …
    * Many airlines have announced the suspension or reduction of services to mainland China, including Beijing and Shanghai (see list below, airlines in bold indicate new as of on 9 February). The beginning and end dates of cancellations/suspensions vary from airline to airline. Further short-notice flight cancellations or adjustments in schedules can be expected and travellers should monitor the availability of commercial flight options on a daily basis. Most China-based airlines are operating to all international destinations. …
    * The Chinese government has extended the Lunar New Year holidays nationwide. However, provincial/city authorities may impose individual extensions, such as holidays have been extended in Shanghai, and Jiangsu and Zhejiang provinces until 9 February. Classes at educational institutions have been suspended in several locations for an extended period, including until 14 February in Shanghai, until at least 2 March in Hong Kong and until further notice in Macau. Certain jurisdictions within China are starting to inform workers in those cities to stay home for the time being (extending past February 10 in certain cases). More details will be provided when available.

    Based on currently available information we strongly recommend that all non-business critical travel to Greater China be deferred, including Hong Kong and Macau. As of February 7, 2020, this recommendation is in effect until the end February 2020, at which point we will reevaluate and update our guidance. ...
    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
    Isaac Asimov

    You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They donít alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit their views.
    Doctor Who

    Moderation will be in purple.
    Rules for Posting to This Board

  10. #370
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    13,120
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    Seven days may be a bit conservative, but 14 should be too long because there is usually a lag between the onset of symptoms and diagnosis. In the only case I remember clearly, Dr. Li, the time from diagnosis to his death was about seven days.
    I thought it might be interesting to look at comparing various time lags for the ratio of the # deaths per # serious cases. [From Wiki data]

    Deaths per Serious cases w time lag.jpg
    We know time flies, we just can't see its wings.

  11. #371
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    I saw that, but I don’t think we’re looking at the same thing. The statistics you showed are about the virulence. I am trying to see how fast it’s spreading. I chose to look at deaths rather than infections because I think the number of infections is probably unreliable but the number of deaths is pretty accurate. So what I meant is that the number of deaths is still increasing, but that the rate of increase seems to be slowing.
    The John Hopkins trend data shows the mainland Chinese Infections plateauing. Also 5 of Australia's 15 Infected have recovered with no deaths.

    Latest data: Infected 43,111, deaths 1018 and 4,065 Recovered. Ratio's of Infected/dead still decreasing and Recovered/dead still increasing.

  12. #372
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,613
    Quote Originally Posted by George View Post
    I thought it might be interesting to look at comparing various time lags for the ratio of the # deaths per # serious cases. [From Wiki data]

    Deaths per Serious cases w time lag.jpg
    Thanks for that George. I've been wanting to do something similar but no time.

    But I think we need" total cases as officially defined", not the "serious" cases as the denominator. The CFR will be eventually calculated as deaths/cases, not as deaths/serious cases.

    Imperial College estimating the Hubei CFR as 18%, with 95% confidence range 11-81%.

    https://www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-globa...n-coronavirus/

  13. #373
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,352
    Big Brother really IS watching you in China, whether you like it or not, because of the coronavirus.

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/10/asia/...hnk/index.html
    Do good work. óVirgil Ivan "Gus" Grissom

  14. #374
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    13,120
    Quote Originally Posted by kzb View Post
    Thanks for that George. I've been wanting to do something similar but no time.

    But I think we need" total cases as officially defined", not the "serious" cases as the denominator. The CFR will be eventually calculated as deaths/cases, not as deaths/serious cases.
    Agreed, but after looking at the reported CFR by region where that value varies by a factor up to 30x, then to me, a true novice in the medical field, it suggests either poor ability to do a complete diagnosis over all potential cases or of being overwhelmed, especially in the city (cough) of Wuhan, probably both are true. But the "serious" diagnosis might be more accurate for now, so I thought I would give it a try.

    Here is the latest CFR -- I look forward to getting a few moments later to check your much higher CFR link later.

    Although the latest CFR value has increased, the rate of deaths is holding steady at just under 12% increase per day, but the rate in the number of cases is dropping, hence the higher CFR value. This certainly hints at an expected time lag, but I'm not sure how to interpret this since I keep wondering how accurate the data is.

    I will see if I can find a little time soon to produce lags with confirmed cases as well.

    Wuhan Coronavirus CFR.jpg
    Wuhan Coronavirus rates.jpg
    We know time flies, we just can't see its wings.

  15. #375
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,613
    Quote Originally Posted by George View Post
    Agreed, but after looking at the reported CFR by region where that value varies by a factor up to 30x, then to me, a true novice in the medical field, it suggests either poor ability to do a complete diagnosis over all potential cases or of being overwhelmed, especially in the city (cough) of Wuhan, probably both are true. But the "serious" diagnosis might be more accurate for now, so I thought I would give it a try.

    Here is the latest CFR -- I look forward to getting a few moments later to check your much higher CFR link later.

    Although the latest CFR value has increased, the rate of deaths is holding steady at just under 12% increase per day, but the rate in the number of cases is dropping, hence the higher CFR value. This certainly hints at an expected time lag, but I'm not sure how to interpret this since I keep wondering how accurate the data is.

    I will see if I can find a little time soon to produce lags with confirmed cases as well.

    Wuhan Coronavirus CFR.jpg
    Wuhan Coronavirus rates.jpg
    The oft-quoted CFR = dead/(current cases) is clearly wrong. It is only correct at steady-state, and the outbreak is not at steady-state.

    This calculation will underestimate the CFR when the case number is increasing and there is a time lag between being classed as a case number and being classed as dead.

    There is also the question of being classed as a case. It's likely true there are lots of unreported infections. But for comparability purposes we need to use the same definition of a case as other outbreaks. Likely there were unreported infections of SARS also, but it was the reported number that was used to calculate the CFR.

    I also doubt we would have the extent of controls and special measures we are seeing for something with a 1 or 2% death rate, largely confined to old people. I don't need calculations to tell me the CFR is significantly higher than 1 or 2% (or at least it has been in Hubei). I just see the society reaction, and know it is more serious than that.

  16. #376
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    18,870
    Quote Originally Posted by kzb View Post
    I also doubt we would have the extent of controls and special measures we are seeing for something with a 1 or 2% death rate, largely confined to old people. I don't need calculations to tell me the CFR is significantly higher than 1 or 2% (or at least it has been in Hubei). I just see the society reaction, and know it is more serious than that.
    I think you can't judge China according to Western intuitions about civil liberties. At the start of this month, I was pretty sure the PLA would be walking the streets with firearms by now, so I'm actually encouraged by the societal response, given the fact the army seems largely to have been deployed in a logistic role so far.

    Grant Hutchison

  17. #377
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,613
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    I think you can't judge China according to Western intuitions about civil liberties. At the start of this month, I was pretty sure the PLA would be walking the streets with firearms by now, so I'm actually encouraged by the societal response, given the fact the army seems largely to have been deployed in a logistic role so far.

    Grant Hutchison
    I've seen a video of an armed squad in full protective gear. Two carrying automatic weapons.

  18. #378
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    13,120
    Quote Originally Posted by kzb View Post
    Thanks for that George. I've been wanting to do something similar but no time.

    But I think we need" total cases as officially defined", not the "serious" cases as the denominator. The CFR will be eventually calculated as deaths/cases, not as deaths/serious cases.
    Ok, here is a lag chart for the confirmed case count. There seems to be a convergence of around 3% or so, if that means anything.

    Lag for Confirmed Cases.jpg

    Imperial College estimating the Hubei CFR as 18%, with 95% confidence range 11-81%.

    https://www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-globa...n-coronavirus/
    Their data set seems to be very small (~ 40 deaths) and within a short no. of days. Is their estimate somehow reasonable to you?
    Last edited by George; 2020-Feb-11 at 06:41 PM.
    We know time flies, we just can't see its wings.

  19. #379
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    37,483
    Quote Originally Posted by kzb View Post
    I also doubt we would have the extent of controls and special measures we are seeing for something with a 1 or 2% death rate, largely confined to old people. I don't need calculations to tell me the CFR is significantly higher than 1 or 2% (or at least it has been in Hubei). I just see the society reaction, and know it is more serious than that.
    There's a flaw in your logic. Human responses to fears of death are not always rational or proportional. If they were, no one would drive on highways.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  20. #380
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    13,120
    Quote Originally Posted by kzb View Post
    The oft-quoted CFR = dead/(current cases) is clearly wrong. It is only correct at steady-state, and the outbreak is not at steady-state.
    Yes, but with time, there should be greater accuracy for confirmed and serious cases and the correct number of deaths, hopefully.

    This calculation will underestimate the CFR when the case number is increasing and there is a time lag between being classed as a case number and being classed as dead.
    Yes, that's is to be expected, but the lag chart above isn't very revealing, or am I wrong? I thought we would see one of those lag day differences produce a more steady value but I don't see it. Perhaps the data is too inaccurate at this point. [Worse would be if it's contrived.]

    There is also the question of being classed as a case. It's likely true there are lots of unreported infections. But for comparability purposes we need to use the same definition of a case as other outbreaks. Likely there were unreported infections of SARS also, but it was the reported number that was used to calculate the CFR.
    This seems likely given the number of cases, especially with a limited number of medical assistance in Wuhan. The number of deaths reported could be just as inaccurate as the number of cases, so then it becomes are they both equally inaccurate, IOW, could we come close to estimating an accuracy of both in a useful way? Probably not. Perhaps with the WHO entering into the picture improved accuracy for the data will come along but I think there's only a handful of personnel being allowed in at this time.

    I also doubt we would have the extent of controls and special measures we are seeing for something with a 1 or 2% death rate, largely confined to old people. I don't need calculations to tell me the CFR is significantly higher than 1 or 2% (or at least it has been in Hubei). I just see the society reaction, and know it is more serious than that.
    I would expect most agree that it will be > 2% but it may be well under the SARS value of around 9.5%. The R0 value may prove to be of greater than expected importance.
    Last edited by George; 2020-Feb-11 at 06:40 PM.
    We know time flies, we just can't see its wings.

  21. #381
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    18,870
    Quote Originally Posted by kzb View Post
    I've seen a video of an armed squad in full protective gear. Two carrying automatic weapons.
    Hence my use of the modifier "largely".

    Grant Hutchison

  22. #382
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,565
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    I think you can't judge China according to Western intuitions about civil liberties.
    All

    No foul yet, but let's no pursue this topic any further or we may run into rule 12 problems.

    Thanks,
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  23. #383
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,352
    Okay, I am confused. Did the coronavirus jump to humans from bats, pangolins, snakes, or yeti? Probably not yeti, but the confusion is confusing me.
    Do good work. óVirgil Ivan "Gus" Grissom

  24. #384
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    37,483
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger E. Moore View Post
    Okay, I am confused. Did the coronavirus jump to humans from bats, pangolins, snakes, or yeti? Probably not yeti, but the confusion is confusing me.
    https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019..._1580079137454

    2019-nCoV is a betacoronavirus, like MERS and SARs, both of which have their origins in bats. The sequences from U.S. patients are similar to the one that China initially posted, suggesting a likely single, recent emergence of this virus from an animal reservoir.

    Early on, many of the patients in the outbreak of respiratory illness caused by 2019-nCoV in Wuhan, China had some link to a large seafood and live animal market, suggesting animal-to-person spread. Later, a growing number of patients reportedly did not have exposure to animal markets, indicating person-to-person spread.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  25. #385
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,352
    So, from bats to X to humans, with the X possibly being pangolins, not likely snakes.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucele.../#288d38a618e5

    https://www.sciencenews.org/article/...outbreak-china
    Do good work. óVirgil Ivan "Gus" Grissom

  26. #386
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,980
    The uk mag. Private eye points out that the office of national statistics says in 2015 there were 787 UK deaths from falling down stairs plus 250,000 non fatal stair accidents hospitalised, including 58,000 children. And it’s increasing year on year. Where is the outcry? I’ll bet it’s similar in other countries. Perspective required.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  27. #387
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,827
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger E. Moore View Post
    So, from bats to X to humans, with the X possibly being pangolins, not likely snakes.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucele.../#288d38a618e5

    https://www.sciencenews.org/article/...outbreak-china
    I assume nobody is checking to see if a microorganism can be the X host.
    Are Micro-Eukaryotes definitely incapable of hosting/duplicating viruses?

  28. #388
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    13,120
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    The uk mag. Private eye points out that the office of national statistics says in 2015 there were 787 UK deaths from falling down stairs plus 250,000 non fatal stair accidents hospitalised, including 58,000 children. And it’s increasing year on year. Where is the outcry? I’ll bet it’s similar in other countries. Perspective required.
    It's a reasonable comparison, but there is a worry difference between the two - scary vs. stupid.

    Here's a list of about 90 films associated with pandemics.

    I did find one on falling down stairs... "Barefoot in the Park", a romantic comedy.

    Hollywood knows how to play off fears, even unreasonable ones. I still recall the impact, IMO, "The China Syndrome" had on the nuclear industry. [I'm not the only one with bad geography. ]
    We know time flies, we just can't see its wings.

  29. #389
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,964
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    The uk mag. Private eye points out that the office of national statistics says in 2015 there were 787 UK deaths from falling down stairs plus 250,000 non fatal stair accidents hospitalised, including 58,000 children. And it’s increasing year on year. Where is the outcry? I’ll bet it’s similar in other countries. Perspective required.
    The thing is, the effects of falling down stairs are well understood. The preventative measure are also understood (and, in some cases, encoded in building regulations, etc.)

    Faced with a new and unknown virus, the risks are unknown: severity, rates of transmission, etc. We have seen pandemics that have killed very large numbers of people. So it makes sense to take a precautionary approach.

    But, yes, perspective in terms of not panicking unduly about the current (and likely) scale of the outbreak.

  30. #390
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger E. Moore View Post
    Okay, I am confused. Did the coronavirus jump to humans from bats, pangolins, snakes, or yeti? Probably not yeti, but the confusion is confusing me.
    Bats also have mites like Rats have fleas. From Google:

    Bat mites, also known as bat bugs, are very similar to bed bugs in that they also consume the blood of a host. ... They can transfer to other hosts; and when they move from a bat to the rest of the home, they usually survive by feeding off of the blood of humans or pets.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •