3 ms·
The official figures in China are 8,163 cases 171 deaths which is 2% right now, but take these with a big grain of salt. I wouldn't even go that far. I've be
by inferiorhuman 7y ago
The official figures in China are 8,163 cases 171 deaths which is 2% right now, but take these with a big grain of salt.
I wouldn't even go that far. I've been using this as an excuse to figure out the D3 v5 API using the Johns Hopkins data. Most provinces outside of Hubei are not reporting deaths yet. It's possible nobody's died outside of Hubei, but that seems suspect to me. There is almost certainly strong federal and local pressure to under report deaths, but this sort of thing is much harder to hide in Hubei because it's the epicenter.
I don't believe for a moment that China would've attempted to quarantine 60 million people so quickly if the case fatality rate were only 2%. 2% is bad but SARS saw around 15% in many countries and things weren't locked down this tightly.
More to the point, Hubei is reporting 204 deaths and 5,806 confirmed cases which works out to about 3.5%. This is compared to 76 deaths and 1,423 confirmed three days ago (or 5%). If you'd like to look at death compared to known outcomes you're looking at about 64% of the outcomes being death (204 deaths, 116 recoveries). It's not clear which part of the equation is lagging more in Hubei.
- bosie 7y ago> I don't believe for a moment that China would've attempted to quarantine 60 million people so quickly if the case fatality rate were only 2%. 2% is bad but SARS saw around 15% in many countries and things weren't locked down this tightly. presumably fatality is only one of many factors here. 15% of 100 infections is a different beast than 2% of 1M. And if it takes up to 14 days to see symptoms...
- inferiorhuman 7y ago15% of 100 infections is a different beast than 2% of 1M. There were roughly 8,000 SARS infections and currently about 10,000 nCoV infections so the comparisons aren't quite as absurd.