4 ms·

The rates for Chinese provinces except for Hubei seem inconsistent with 20-56% mortality too. The ten provinces outside Hubei that have the most confirmed infe

The rates for Chinese provinces except for Hubei seem inconsistent with 20-56% mortality too. The ten provinces outside Hubei that have the most confirmed infections are: * Zhejiang: 428 confirmed; 0 deaths; 4 recovered * Guangdong: 354 confirmed; 0 deaths; 10 recovered * Henan: 278 confirmed; 2 deaths; 2 recovered * Hunan: 277 confirmed; 0 deaths; 2 recovered * Anhui: 200 confirmed; 0 deaths; 2 recovered * Chongqing: 182 confirmed; 0 deaths; 1 recovered * Jiangxi: 162 confirmed; 0 deaths; 5 recovered * Shandong; 158 confirmed; 0 deaths; 1 recovered * Sichuan: 142 confirmed; 1 deaths; 1 recovered * Jiangsu; 129 confirmed; 0 deaths; 1 recovered Although there's a clearly a lag between confirmed cases and death, there's likely to be less lag in outcomes between patients who recover and patients who die. On this admittedly small sample, we get 29 recovered and 3 deaths, or about a 10% death rate. That's still pretty high, but it's nowhere near the 20-56% death rate. If people go from being infected to dying more quickly than they go from being infected to being declared to have recovered, then that would lower the rate. The recovered rate seems to have been increasing faster than the death rate in the last couple of days, which might indicate this is the case. In addition, these cases obviously only include patients who present with symptoms. If some people are asymptomatic, that would also lower the death rate.

mrb 7y ago
That's a very good observation on these 10 provinces. But I would apply caution when interpreting a cherry-picked data subset. Nitpick: I don't claim "20-56%" death rate, but "9-56%", thus your observation of a 10% CFR is in line with my claim.
- mhandley 7y ago
  One other observation, for what it's worth. According to the John Hopkins site, between 29th Jan and 30th Jan updates (that's the data I happen to have access to), we have worldwide: * 29th: deaths 133, recovered 126 * 30th: deaths 171, recovered 143 But for Hubei, we get: * 29th: deaths 125, recovered 88 * 30th: deaths 162, recovered 90 Which looks like the death rate is going up in Hubei. Subtracting Hubei though, for the rest of the world (but mostly China) we get: * 29th: deaths 8, recovered 38 * 30th: deaths 9, recovered 53 * difference: deaths 1, recovered 15 Of course these numbers are too small to have real significance, but they're worth watching over the next day or two. It looks like outcomes are very different outside of Hubei from in Hubei.
  - oefrha 7y ago
    Not really surprising considering medical resources in Hubei are heavily strained, not all severe cases can be diagnosed timely and given enough attention afterwards, which is not true elsewhere. Edit: Oh you mentioned this yourself in another comment.
  - nostrademons 7y ago
    It's consistent with natural selection. Cases inside Hubei likely have fewer viral generations (= less mutation) than cases outside. Additionally, every case outside has a population bottleneck in that it was transmitted through a host that was well enough to travel. The most virulent cases would be expected to sicken their hosts and discourage travel or extensive social contact.
    - sudosysgen 7y ago
      Hubei is estimated as being max at the 5th generation, and genomes so far have indicated less than 0.02% genetic variance. I don't see evolution playing a succincts) significant role in this timescale.
    - mhandley 7y ago
      Surely all current cases have experienced roughly the same number of viral generations? A death outside Hubei today will be caused by a virus with roughly the same number of generations as a death inside Hubei. Yet a smaller fraction seems to be dying outside Hubei. Other possible explanations are that the healthcare system in Hubei is overwhelmed, so more patients die, or alternatively they're just too busy to accurately report recoveries.
  - mhandley 7y ago
    Just to update with the latest statistics, since 29th Jan, up to 30th Jan 9:30pm EST, for rest of world outside Hubei, there have now been 1 death and 33 recovered. So the trend seems to be that the death rate (calculated as deaths/recovered) outside Hubei is falling. Still early days and small numbers though.

mrb 7y ago

That's a very good observation on these 10 provinces. But I would apply caution when interpreting a cherry-picked data subset. Nitpick: I don't claim "20-56%" death rate, but "9-56%", thus your observation of a 10% CFR is in line with my claim.

mhandley 7y ago
One other observation, for what it's worth. According to the John Hopkins site, between 29th Jan and 30th Jan updates (that's the data I happen to have access to), we have worldwide: * 29th: deaths 133, recovered 126 * 30th: deaths 171, recovered 143 But for Hubei, we get: * 29th: deaths 125, recovered 88 * 30th: deaths 162, recovered 90 Which looks like the death rate is going up in Hubei. Subtracting Hubei though, for the rest of the world (but mostly China) we get: * 29th: deaths 8, recovered 38 * 30th: deaths 9, recovered 53 * difference: deaths 1, recovered 15 Of course these numbers are too small to have real significance, but they're worth watching over the next day or two. It looks like outcomes are very different outside of Hubei from in Hubei.
- oefrha 7y ago
  Not really surprising considering medical resources in Hubei are heavily strained, not all severe cases can be diagnosed timely and given enough attention afterwards, which is not true elsewhere. Edit: Oh you mentioned this yourself in another comment.
- nostrademons 7y ago
  It's consistent with natural selection. Cases inside Hubei likely have fewer viral generations (= less mutation) than cases outside. Additionally, every case outside has a population bottleneck in that it was transmitted through a host that was well enough to travel. The most virulent cases would be expected to sicken their hosts and discourage travel or extensive social contact.
  - sudosysgen 7y ago
    Hubei is estimated as being max at the 5th generation, and genomes so far have indicated less than 0.02% genetic variance. I don't see evolution playing a succincts) significant role in this timescale.
  - mhandley 7y ago
    Surely all current cases have experienced roughly the same number of viral generations? A death outside Hubei today will be caused by a virus with roughly the same number of generations as a death inside Hubei. Yet a smaller fraction seems to be dying outside Hubei. Other possible explanations are that the healthcare system in Hubei is overwhelmed, so more patients die, or alternatively they're just too busy to accurately report recoveries.
- mhandley 7y ago
  Just to update with the latest statistics, since 29th Jan, up to 30th Jan 9:30pm EST, for rest of world outside Hubei, there have now been 1 death and 33 recovered. So the trend seems to be that the death rate (calculated as deaths/recovered) outside Hubei is falling. Still early days and small numbers though.