11 ms·
Any idea what the rates are for the corona virus?
by hanniabu 7y ago
Any idea what the rates are for the corona virus?
- cheeseblubber 7y agoIt seems to be too early to tell. There are most likely a lot of undocumented infected cases as well as the incubation period for the virus might be different than the flu. Which can move mortality rate both ways.
- yelnatz 7y agoWell 170/~7000 is ~2.4% which is about 8x deadlier.
- Waterluvian 7y agoI think you're off by a few orders.
- postalrat 7y agoLike one order? You might be more wrong than him.
- Waterluvian 7y agoIsn't it like 0.09% of deaths vs 2% of deaths? I certainly could be misunderstanding the data!
- sudosysgen 7y ago0.1 vs 2 is slightly over one order of magnitude.
- Waterluvian 7y agoOh my. Yes. My bad.
- ryanwaggoner 7y agoIt’s actually about 27x - 80x deadlier than 0.03% - 0.09%
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- twelvechairs 7y agoThe official figures in China are 8,163 cases 171 deaths which is 2% right now, but take these with a big grain of salt. They could go up (some of those confirmed cases will be very recent and may get worse) or down (more cases might have happened but be unreported). Its really hard to tell what it will look like in a month or two.
- nabla9 7y agoThat 2% is only among those confirmed. When most people get sick they just stay home, then get better and never visit hospital or get into confirmed cases. Those who die usually have some other disease as well.
- Roritharr 7y agoI recommend everyone to watch this on-site commentary from the chinese human rights lawyer Chen Qiushi: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AI3R41dGnU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AI3R41dGnU Any numbers we've seen so far seem very tame to me, compared to the pictures out of Wuhan.
- netsharc 7y agoTL;DW/DR the subtitles: he saw a lot of chaos in Wuhan's hospitals. Not enough testing kits, not enough government-requisitioned emergency taxis. Taxi drivers were already talking to each other in December saying "avoid the market". If you don't want to read subtitles for 26 minutes here's all the subtitles copy-pasted from the video: https://pastebin.com/6hJ4h4rm https://pastebin.com/6hJ4h4rm (You can hit the "..." above the red subscribe button and select "open transcript", but it shows up in a tiny window). I suppose the WHO saying they're very impressed with how China is handling the situation is because they felt the pressure to save China's face.
- mantap 7y agoThe way the central government is handling this is impressive, quarantining a city of that size is unprecedented and has bought the world extra time to prepare. Yes the WHO are playing politics when they focus on the good things China is doing and ignore the bad. But personally I think they are closer to the truth than those who present an entirely negative version of events. China's response has been 70% good :)
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- 2019-nCoV 7y agoIt's currently 171 deaths, 8,288 confirmed infected, which is 2% dead. However, what needs to be taken into consideration is that infected individuals don't die the day they are confirmed infected, there is a lag of several days. Assuming the average time from symptom onset and diagnosis to death is 7 days, we're looking at at 20% death rate (830 confirmed infected 1 week ago). Even a 5 day lag between symptom onset to death is a ~9% death rate (1,975 confirmed infected 5 days ago). This is exactly how the fatality rate of SARS played out.
- jcfrei 7y agoI'm not an expert on viruses by any means but that seems unnecessarily pessimistic. The number of infections is likely much much higher than the confirmed cases (laboratories have only so many test kits available per day) but most people stay asymptomatic. This would reduce the actual mortality rate, not increase it.
- btilly 7y agoThe number of infections is likely much much higher than the confirmed cases (laboratories have only so many test kits available per day) but most people stay asymptomatic. Do you have evidence of that in this case? Viruses vary widely on how many are asymptomatic. My understanding is that having people be infectious and asymptomatic only happens with diseases that are well-adapted to their hosts. Which this one, having recently crossed a species barrier, isn't. (Its fatality rate is also high for the same reason.) However that is a general understanding and I don't have data to base it on on this case. Do you?
- jcfrei 7y agoThere have been quite a few cases covered in the press about patients which carried the virus but didn't show any symptoms. Most recently: https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Coronavirus-outbreak/Three-Japanese-evacuees-from-Wuhan-test-positive-for-coronavirus https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Coronavirus-outbreak/Three...
- mrb 7y agoIgnore the people telling you it's 2-3%. The case fatality ratio is between 9 and 56% according to proper epidemiological methods, such as using the formula "deaths / (deaths + recoveries)": https://mobile.twitter.com/zorinaq/status/1222427708723879936 https://mobile.twitter.com/zorinaq/status/122242770872387993... Disclosure: no I'm not an epidemiologist. But for a reference to a paper by actual epidemiologists see https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ebf2/48c9fc0a1a23d1778b94083319aa995e34f4.pdf https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ebf2/48c9fc0a1a23d1778b9408... section Simple Estimators, specifically this formula: e₂(s)=D(s)/{D(s)+R(s)} which is: deaths / (deaths + recoveries) The paper concludes: "The second simple estimate based on the ratio of deaths of those for whom the outcome is known, e₂, is reasonable at most points in the epidemic" ie. produces a good estimate of the eventual observed case fatality rate (in fact in their example it slightly underestimates the actual case fatality rate)
- baq 7y agocouldn't believe these numbers, read the link. correctness is obvious in retrospect, numbers are trivial to calculate by hand by just looking at daily data. still can't believe them.
- mrb 7y ago"Just looking at daily data" is your mistake. Essentially, it takes N days for the virus to kill, so deaths will lag confirmed cases by N days, and thus the calculated case fatality rate using this method is incorrect. This is why epidemiologists call it a "naïve esimator" (see section 3.1 in https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4540071/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4540071/).
- colinmegill 7y agoThat's you touting your own feed, and you don't appear to be an epi scientist
- mrb 7y agoI'm just applying the work of epi scientists. I'd love to get feedback from one. Your comment isn't useful.
- therealmarv 7y agoNCOV (new corona) 2%, SARS (2012) around 10%, yearly normal flu around 0.01%-0.05% and Ebola 50-90%
- jansan 7y agoDuring the SARS outbreak in April 2003 the reported rate was around 3.5% (58 deaths on 1622 "probable cases"). Source: https://www.who.int/csr/sars/press2003_04_01/en/ https://www.who.int/csr/sars/press2003_04_01/en/
- zik 7y agoThat SEARS really was the department store of illnesses.
- dang 7y agoPlease don't do this here. We've fixed the typo in the GP comment.
- _-___________-_ 7y agoWhat's your point? I don't think it obviously follows that the NCOV fatality rate is under-reported just because the SARS fatality rate was.
- mrtksn 7y agoPeople mistakenly calculate %2 and %50 simultaneously because they assume that when a case is confirmed the death or cured status is also determined at that moment. In reality, though, people who are going to die don't die at the moment of infection confirmation and people who are going to live do lag in the log because it takes time to confirm if someone has recovered and virus-free. Some will suggest to simply compare the deaths to the confirmed case from a week? ago but this assumes that the patients are admitted at the same stage of their infection and all cases at the time are accounted for(deaths are probably much better tracked than the infection and the publicity has a huge impact on the reporting). It would be a guesstimate at best. I would say, let's stick to official numbers since the calculation requires each patients timeline. Surely an educated guess can be constructed by modelling the patient prognosis and virus behaviour but that also requires much more data than what the public has.
- mrb 7y ago«assume that when a case is confirmed the death or cured status is also determined at that moment» This is why epidemiologists (ref: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ebf2/48c9fc0a1a23d1778b94083319aa995e34f4.pdf https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ebf2/48c9fc0a1a23d1778b9408... or https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22195827 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22195827 for my comment on the paper) prefer instead this formula which only counts patients for which the eventual outcome is already known: deaths / (deaths + recoveries) With this formula, there is no need to guess the "patient timeline". If you do the math right now for the largest case study known to date (published yesterday: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30211-7/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... covering 99 patients, 11 dead, 31 recovered) you get: 11 / (11 + 31) = 26% case fatality rate If you do the math on ALL data from mainland China (170 deads, 124 recovered as of 2020-01-29 http://www.nhc.gov.cn/xcs/yqtb/202001/e71bd2e7a0824ca69f87bbf1bef2a3c9.shtml http://www.nhc.gov.cn/xcs/yqtb/202001/e71bd2e7a0824ca69f87bb... or in english: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2019%E2%80%9320_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2019%E2%80%932...), you get: 170 / (170 + 124) = 58% case fatality rate This formula gives a pretty good estimate of the eventual observed CFR according to the paper I referenced above. Of course, there are caveats, for one deaths or recoveries may not be properly tracked: there could be many patients with mild cases that are not even detected/confirmed and end up recovering on their own. PS: I am not stating the lower bound CFR is 26%! Another method I applied (described in twitter thread https://twitter.com/zorinaq/status/1222427708723879936 https://twitter.com/zorinaq/status/1222427708723879936) suggest it could be as low as 9%.
- avip 7y agoShort answer: seasonal flu << ncov < SARS. Long answer: wait a week or two.
- yibg 7y agoEven this we don’t know yet. Could be worse than SARS, although most likely not lower than flu. Not enough data to tell yet.
- threatripper 7y agoWe don't know. We don't know how many people are infected. We only have numbers of confirmed cases and those numbers are heavily skewed because 1) people don't know they are sick 2) stay at home or 3) are not diagnosed properly. Those diagnosed in China are probably severe cases with a multiple not being diagnosed. Also, it is unclear how good the reporting is. We don't know how many of those who are infected will die and how many will recover. We only know of deaths of confirmed patients in the hospital. Of roughly 10000 confirmed cases 200 are dead, 200 are recovered and 9600 are yet to be determined. From that you could deduce 2% or 50%, less than 2% or more than 50% or anything else. Right now we don't have good data. Also we don't know how long it takes to die or to recover and on most patients we will probably lose track. Since the infection takes about 2 weeks, we have to wait a few weeks until the smoke starts clearing.
- explore 7y agoBased on "all confirmed cases of 2019-nCoV in Wuhan Jinyintan Hospital from Jan 1 to Jan 20, 2020": 11% "died of multiple organ failure" and 23% are in intensive care unit https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30211-7/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
- zhte415 7y agoNot being flippant, as you've had good answers already, I can tell you the rate of fear of this novel coronavirus: 100% Streets are deserted. The few that go out all wear a mask. Restaurants, museums, cafes, bars have been demanded shut across the country, ostensibly until the end of the weekend but I can see this being extended. The first working day after the Chinese New Year was supposed to be February 3rd, but the city I'm in have extended this to February 9th - offices have been told not to open. Shops are open, there is food, and new fresh vegetables, fruits, meats are being stocked.