4 ms·

Running the official numbers, mortality rate is less than 3%. If we plug in estimative models claiming 25000+ unrecorded infections, mortality is less than 1%.

Running the official numbers, mortality rate is less than 3%. If we plug in estimative models claiming 25000+ unrecorded infections, mortality is less than 1%. Unless you are in a sensitive age group or have other health problems, data suggests you're most likely to get over it as a regular flu. It's not all perfect and is worse than a regular flu, but especially now after the announcement some people may way over-stress themselves which doesn't do good to your immune system.

andrewflnr 7y ago
1% mortality would still be pretty substantial as these things go.
- goblin89 7y ago
  That's true. Still as someone with anxieties I find it a useful perspective to assess personal threat level. First reaction is "I need to avoid becoming infected at all costs". However, the costs are steep. An extreme plan to “sit at home with a month’s worth of supplies” seems plausible, but it would not be healthy to reduce movement so much and if everyone suddenly starts doing that there will be issues with food availability in the area (I live in HK). If I am statistically so unlikely to die from this infection, I am going to take measures that prevent me from spreading it to someone who isn’t, but I won’t e.g. panic and call police if someone without a mask is near me.
- bra4you 7y ago
  Yes. But not threatening for the human population at all.
ecneladis 7y ago
These calculations assume that no one else infected dies. Seems overly optimistic, especially given that ~1200 patients are in serious or critical condition.
- goblin89 7y ago
  I try to keep that in mind, but I also keep in mind that many people do not report to the hospital when sick.
- krageon 7y ago
  The hospital is where you go when you are dying for most people. I don't think it's a stretch to say that most dying people will be in the hospital.
munificent 7y ago
> If we plug in estimative models claiming 25000+ unrecorded infections Shouldn't you also plug in estimated unreported fatalities too?
- goblin89 7y ago
  Are you aware of any such estimates? Death is more difficult to hide than fever.
  - munificent 7y ago
    No, but in the absence of that, it seems strange to unpin the denominator while leaving the numerator fixed and then presume that that tells you anything useful.
    - goblin89 7y ago
      Setting number of infected humans at 30k, there can be as many as 300 deaths for mortality to be limited to 1%. Unfortunately, both numbers are fluid, but the assumption is that death count is less so. If the number of deaths is underreported by orders of magnitude then my argument would not stand of course. EDIT: I consider the number of deaths unlikely to be very underreported based on personal communication with folks in China and HK. There is a fair amount of panic on social media, but “someone I knew died, it seems related to the new virus and deaths may be underreported” so far seems not among the things people panic about. Most panic (some of which is being blown out of proportion for hype and metrics by less than scrupulous sources) appears to be fueled by other things: number of people admitted to the hospital, possible hospital staff infections, and others panicking.
klhjweoiru 7y ago
The 3% number is with severe cases (aparently 20% of the cases) treated in ICU. What happens when you ran out of ICU beds?
- goblin89 7y ago
  I am ready to change my position on this, but not until I see any proof that only deaths in ICUs are reported by China as part of the statistic.
saberdancer 7y ago
You cannot calculate mortality rate as most people haven't recovered fully. We have 3% mortality rate at the moment, but we do not know how many of those infected are still in early stages and what will be the final number of deaths. If we looked at deaths against reported recoveries than the rate is much higher (I am guessing a lot of recoveries are not reported).

andrewflnr 7y ago

1% mortality would still be pretty substantial as these things go.

goblin89 7y ago
That's true. Still as someone with anxieties I find it a useful perspective to assess personal threat level. First reaction is "I need to avoid becoming infected at all costs". However, the costs are steep. An extreme plan to “sit at home with a month’s worth of supplies” seems plausible, but it would not be healthy to reduce movement so much and if everyone suddenly starts doing that there will be issues with food availability in the area (I live in HK). If I am statistically so unlikely to die from this infection, I am going to take measures that prevent me from spreading it to someone who isn’t, but I won’t e.g. panic and call police if someone without a mask is near me.
bra4you 7y ago
Yes. But not threatening for the human population at all.

ecneladis 7y ago

These calculations assume that no one else infected dies. Seems overly optimistic, especially given that ~1200 patients are in serious or critical condition.

goblin89 7y ago
I try to keep that in mind, but I also keep in mind that many people do not report to the hospital when sick.
krageon 7y ago
The hospital is where you go when you are dying for most people. I don't think it's a stretch to say that most dying people will be in the hospital.

munificent 7y ago

> If we plug in estimative models claiming 25000+ unrecorded infections Shouldn't you also plug in estimated unreported fatalities too?

goblin89 7y ago
Are you aware of any such estimates? Death is more difficult to hide than fever.
- munificent 7y ago
  No, but in the absence of that, it seems strange to unpin the denominator while leaving the numerator fixed and then presume that that tells you anything useful.
  - goblin89 7y ago
    Setting number of infected humans at 30k, there can be as many as 300 deaths for mortality to be limited to 1%. Unfortunately, both numbers are fluid, but the assumption is that death count is less so. If the number of deaths is underreported by orders of magnitude then my argument would not stand of course. EDIT: I consider the number of deaths unlikely to be very underreported based on personal communication with folks in China and HK. There is a fair amount of panic on social media, but “someone I knew died, it seems related to the new virus and deaths may be underreported” so far seems not among the things people panic about. Most panic (some of which is being blown out of proportion for hype and metrics by less than scrupulous sources) appears to be fueled by other things: number of people admitted to the hospital, possible hospital staff infections, and others panicking.

klhjweoiru 7y ago

The 3% number is with severe cases (aparently 20% of the cases) treated in ICU. What happens when you ran out of ICU beds?

goblin89 7y ago
I am ready to change my position on this, but not until I see any proof that only deaths in ICUs are reported by China as part of the statistic.

saberdancer 7y ago

You cannot calculate mortality rate as most people haven't recovered fully. We have 3% mortality rate at the moment, but we do not know how many of those infected are still in early stages and what will be the final number of deaths. If we looked at deaths against reported recoveries than the rate is much higher (I am guessing a lot of recoveries are not reported).