7 ms·
The scary part is that of the official 8,200 or so people that have been confirmed to have the virus there's been 171 deaths, and 143 recoveries. So more peopl
by sliken 7y ago
The scary part is that of the official 8,200 or so people that have been confirmed to have the virus there's been 171 deaths, and 143 recoveries. So more people dead than recovered, does make one wonder about the 8,200.
Seems few believe the official numbers, people visit numerous hospitals without being able to seen, and even those that get seen have problems getting tested, and people who posts about the situation get the post pulled or pressured to pulled themselves.
Here's an article describing the censorship (pulled posts), arrests for "rumor mongering", difficulty in getting tested, etc:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-health-testing-insight/confusion-and-lost-time-how-testing-woes-slowed-chinas-coronavirus-response-idUSKBN1ZQ21K https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-health-testing-insi...
This one documents 15% of 41 people getting hospitalized dying:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30183-5/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
- bart_spoon 7y agoWell there is something to be said for both potential biases in those counts. First of all, those being hospitalized are obviously among the most severe cases. And presumably people with the mildest cases will potentially not even be diagnosed, so the mortality rates would be skewed higher. And secondly, that more people have died than have recovered doesn't say much other than that it takes longer to recover than to die. If you are going to die, it would appear that it would happen sooner rather than later. Whereas if you aren't going to die, you may take awhile before you've been officially cured. That isn't to say that is absolutely what is happening here. But both scenarios are fairly likely, and therefore should mediate some of the bleakness of those numbers for the time being.
- koheripbal 7y agoThe numbers we're getting out of China are a mess and almost entirely useless. There are reports of hospitals turning people away unless they a very sick, and also not testing every ill patient because they're overwhelmed. I've see death certificates posted online with "viral pneumonia" because they aren't able to test everyone - and certainly don't bother testing those who have already died. The errors are both ways and huge. The only thing we can conclude is that it's contagious, deadly, and more deadly than the seasonal flu.
- dchichkov 7y agoThere was one interesting number though. The Japanese had been evacuating 200 people from Wuhan and found 3 cases. Assume that a plane of evacuees like that is somewhat random sampling. And that evacuees have similar or better hygiene. This puts infection rate at 1% of the population. Official population of Wuhan is 11 million, it is possible that it is larger. This puts the number to 100k cases.
- zhte415 7y agoKorea evacuated 400 today, 1 couldn't board the plane because known infected, on arrival 4 were tested and found to be infected. This is consistent with the Japan flight from yesterday that you mention.
- pabl0rg 7y agoSo, you are infected? How does it compare to the flu? Are symptoms very different? Best wishes for your recovery!
- TotempaaltJ 7y agoGP didn't say anything about being infected.
- zhte415 7y ago1, not I. I think you mis-read.
- brigandish 7y agoOn top of that, 2 of the returnees refused to be tested. Who knows what they're up to… work? Seeing family? Hanging around in the park with a Strong Zero for a chat?
- mantap 7y agoIsn't taking the population of Wuhan as 11 million cherry picking? You could choose the population of central Wuhan and get a higher estimate or the population of Hubei province and get a lower estimate. Presumably the distribution of Japanese people evacuated does not match the distribution of people in Hubei province, since many will be tourists (more likely to be in the city centre). Moreover their chance of being infected will depend on where they were staying: there is an epicenter. But yes it does indicate that the real number is much higher than the confirmed cases. It's really hard to track an outbreak of this magnitude especially when many people are carriers showing mild symptoms. It's actually a good thing if cases are being severely underestimated as it implies a lower death rate (deaths are harder to fudge).
- fctorial 7y ago> The scary part is that of the official 8,200 or so people that have been confirmed to have the virus there's been 171 deaths, and 143 recoveries. It isn't that bad. It means that this virus won't kill more than 50% of population even if we were to shut down all research right now.
- rurp 7y agoUh, in what world is wiping out half a population not that bad??
- bearburger 7y agoThanos Did Nothing Wrong /s
- flukus 7y agoThe new world, post smallpox that wiped out up to 90% of the population. That's setting quite a low bar though, it would still be about on par with the black death.
- malka 7y agoIt would be good for the environment
- adventured 7y agoHumans are part of the environment. Every bit as much as a tree or a koala is. So it wouldn't be good for all of the environment.
- brigandish 7y agoI've noticed it's never people in a vulnerable group that talk this way.
- n0rbwah 7y agoIf they really believed in it, they could start by giving the example and hope others follow.
- explore 7y agoNew data, based 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...
- peteretep 7y agoInteresting, however: > Most patients were men, with a mean age of 55·5 years (SD 13·1; table 1). 50 (51%) patients had chronic diseases, including cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases, endocrine system disease [and some others] The findings conclude: > In general, the characteristics of patients who died were in line with the early warning model for predicting mortality in viral pneumonia Also the group was self-selecting of people who went to hospital before Jan 20th. In summary: old men with pre-existing health conditions are going to have a rough ride. Am yet to see this play out in 2020 Presidential Election odds though.
- bra4you 7y ago>50 years is not old. I don't know what is considered old but I know that >75y has a two magnitudes higher mortality rate with the flu. I doubt that the 50 years old Hospital doctor who died had any serious per-existing health condition. In fact, you could argue hat most doctors have a stronger immune system than average since they are exposed to more germs due to their profession. So this 50y old professional dropping dead is a bad sign! (and hands off to him for his bravery in doing his job). You could only argue that he cough the strain very early. A virus jumping into a new species is more aggressive at the beginning, later it adopts more to the new host and becomes less aggressive.
- smileybarry 7y ago"Old" might be the wrong word, but the gist of it is that, like the flu, it's potentially worse around the 50-60+ age group.
- 7y ago