6 ms·

Here's a map with the latest coronavirus data: https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6 https://gisandd

Here's a map with the latest coronavirus data: https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6 https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.h...

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
jmnicolas 7y ago
According to your link the survivability rate is almost 98% (305 deaths for 14628 cases). (I'm trying to inject a bit of optimism here, people are so gloomy).
- norrius 7y ago
  Given what appears to be exponential growth, the calculation seems to ignore potential future deaths in the currently known cases. Pardon the morbidity and cynicism, but maybe some of these 14628 people haven't had the time to die yet? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to compare deaths (305) to the number of people successfully recovered (348 as per the same page)? This gives the survivability rate of 53%, which does sound scary (and I'd love to be proven wrong here).
  - jmnicolas 7y ago
    I'm pretty sure you die faster than you can recover from this thing. So we should see a better deaths / recoveries ratio in the coming weeks.
    - koheripbal 7y ago
      You are assuming that the data quality here isn't complete garbage.
  - learc83 7y ago
    In addition to recovery taking much longer, there are likely far more than 15k people who have been infected but haven't been to the hospital since the majority of cases aren't serious.
- ed_balls 7y ago
  I'd like to see some more granular status e.g. out of 15k cases 1000 are 25-35 years old males that were healthy. The survivability rate is X for that group.
- grey-area 7y ago
  It depends. NB there are only 300 confirmed recoveries as yet, and figures from China are likely underestimates. It’s probably too early to tell mortality in the initial wave and often viruses mutate as they spread and become more virulent. Still, hopefully mortality will be low and this will pass quickly, we are quite good at dealing with epidemics now. I suspect the economic impact may be important though if things worsen even a little and the lockdown continues.
- stapled_socks 7y ago
  My interpretation would be that the rate of survival is 53%; 348/(305+348). People don't die immediately, the ones currently infected can go either to the "Recovered" figure or the "Deaths" figure. From the link above: 14628 are currently infected(?) 305 were infected and died 348 were infected and recovered
  - jmnicolas 7y ago
    If this thing was killing half of the infected persons there would already be much more deaths than there is now. Unless most the infections occurred very recently which is pretty unlikely. I think my 98% is probably a bit too optimistic, but your 53% is way beyond pessimistic.
    - moralestapia 7y ago
      >there would already be much more deaths than there is now Why? People can be sick for quite some time (in this case, a month, maybe?) and then ultimately die from the disease, this is actually like ... the most common scenario ... I have been unpleasantly surprised by how much people struggle to understand this simple concept. Recovered / (recovered+death) is how you do it. It's common sense, come on ...
      - caconym_ 7y ago
        Since we are in early days and it probably takes longer to recover than to die of it, and the reporting of infections and recoveries and deaths coming out of China is likely undercounting all three due to different systematic factors, I think it's too early for the results of that formula to be taken at face value. In the end, when everything is tallied up, sure. But in the meantime, in the presence of so much uncertainty, "common sense" is only going to lead you astray.
        moralestapia 7y ago
        I agree with you that the correct answer is "we have to wait more".
- arein2 7y ago
  And I am guessing those who died were having already poor health
- Aperocky 7y ago
  Now, it's too early to say if survivability rate is as high, but here's an observation: In the rest of China, D/C count is 40/10000, however, in Wuhan, it is 240/4000. Which essentially means Wuhan patients are 12 times as likely to die. A simpler explanation would be Wuhan hospitals has been overwhelmed and there are actually ~12 times as many patients there.
  - koheripbal 7y ago
    It takes time to die. The patients in Wuhan have been sick for longer.
- pmorici 7y ago
  For anyone wanting an accurate perspective on the risks of This virus I'd highly recommend watching the Youtube videos MedCram is doing. Their first two esp explain the basics and they have been putting out a daily update. Citing the fatality rate really buries the lead. The issue is that in a high percentage of cases (~29%), including perfectly healthy people, the virus causes ARDS which is a serious condition that requires hospitalization and putting the patient on a ventilator. Combine that with the highly contagious nature and it isn't hard to imagine a scenario where the number of people that require intensive care overwhelms the healthcare system. There are also other concerning factors like people being contagious for several days before the onset of noticeable symptoms and this could be very serious if not taken seriously. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vMXSkKLg2I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vMXSkKLg2I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCG3xqtcL3c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCG3xqtcL3c
  - oska 7y ago
    These videos are very good. Thanks for the suggestion.
- GistNoesis 7y ago
  I have made a little reactive app to illustrate the fact that those curves number don't allow to infer much about the virus parameters, because there are quite a lot of freedom in other parameters we don't have good prior about. https://gistnoesis.github.io/nCoV/ https://gistnoesis.github.io/nCoV/ Please don't attach too much weight to it, as there is probably some bugs and I'm no epidemiologist.
- koheripbal 7y ago
  These data are likely a product of garbage in / garbage out. Hospitals are turning away patients - most patients aren't having samples sent for DNA verification - many patients are too afraid to go to the hospital - etc... We likely will not have a clear picture of survivability for some time.
  - marcosdumay 7y ago
    We will get a clear picture in a week or so, from the cases that appeared outside of China.
- himinlomax 7y ago
  Even assuming the numbers are right and the virus does not evolve, survival may be that high for people who can benefit from intensive care. What happens when the healthcare system is overflowing with patients?
- mrtksn 7y ago
  People don't die or survive at the time of infection confirmation, you need to put the time dimension into your calculations. From 14628 conformed cases, we only know that 305 died and 443 survived. For the 13880 people, the outcome is undefined. https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/efe83207-5eaa-4538-ad85-86676f06c172 https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/efe83207-5eaa-4538-ad85-86676f0... But you are right, no need to be gloomy. We have a lot of tools to deal with this, it would be alright eventually.
  - unishark 7y ago
    I think we can say with certainty that ultimately all 14628 of them will die.
- zelly 7y ago
  total recovered: 472. total deaths: 362. So there's roughly the same chance as recovery as dying.
- tim333 7y ago
  The vast majority of deaths have been over 50s with other health problems so the risks to a large chunk of the population are quite low.
- shard972 7y ago
  No because your comparing people who are currently infected and in the woods to people who ended up dead. Plenty of those 14k could still end up dead.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

jmnicolas 7y ago

According to your link the survivability rate is almost 98% (305 deaths for 14628 cases). (I'm trying to inject a bit of optimism here, people are so gloomy).

norrius 7y ago
Given what appears to be exponential growth, the calculation seems to ignore potential future deaths in the currently known cases. Pardon the morbidity and cynicism, but maybe some of these 14628 people haven't had the time to die yet? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to compare deaths (305) to the number of people successfully recovered (348 as per the same page)? This gives the survivability rate of 53%, which does sound scary (and I'd love to be proven wrong here).
- jmnicolas 7y ago
  I'm pretty sure you die faster than you can recover from this thing. So we should see a better deaths / recoveries ratio in the coming weeks.
  - koheripbal 7y ago
    You are assuming that the data quality here isn't complete garbage.
- learc83 7y ago
  In addition to recovery taking much longer, there are likely far more than 15k people who have been infected but haven't been to the hospital since the majority of cases aren't serious.
ed_balls 7y ago
I'd like to see some more granular status e.g. out of 15k cases 1000 are 25-35 years old males that were healthy. The survivability rate is X for that group.
grey-area 7y ago
It depends. NB there are only 300 confirmed recoveries as yet, and figures from China are likely underestimates. It’s probably too early to tell mortality in the initial wave and often viruses mutate as they spread and become more virulent. Still, hopefully mortality will be low and this will pass quickly, we are quite good at dealing with epidemics now. I suspect the economic impact may be important though if things worsen even a little and the lockdown continues.
stapled_socks 7y ago
My interpretation would be that the rate of survival is 53%; 348/(305+348). People don't die immediately, the ones currently infected can go either to the "Recovered" figure or the "Deaths" figure. From the link above: 14628 are currently infected(?) 305 were infected and died 348 were infected and recovered
- jmnicolas 7y ago
  If this thing was killing half of the infected persons there would already be much more deaths than there is now. Unless most the infections occurred very recently which is pretty unlikely. I think my 98% is probably a bit too optimistic, but your 53% is way beyond pessimistic.
  - moralestapia 7y ago
    >there would already be much more deaths than there is now Why? People can be sick for quite some time (in this case, a month, maybe?) and then ultimately die from the disease, this is actually like ... the most common scenario ... I have been unpleasantly surprised by how much people struggle to understand this simple concept. Recovered / (recovered+death) is how you do it. It's common sense, come on ...
    - caconym_ 7y ago
      Since we are in early days and it probably takes longer to recover than to die of it, and the reporting of infections and recoveries and deaths coming out of China is likely undercounting all three due to different systematic factors, I think it's too early for the results of that formula to be taken at face value. In the end, when everything is tallied up, sure. But in the meantime, in the presence of so much uncertainty, "common sense" is only going to lead you astray.
      - moralestapia 7y ago
        I agree with you that the correct answer is "we have to wait more".
arein2 7y ago
And I am guessing those who died were having already poor health
Aperocky 7y ago
Now, it's too early to say if survivability rate is as high, but here's an observation: In the rest of China, D/C count is 40/10000, however, in Wuhan, it is 240/4000. Which essentially means Wuhan patients are 12 times as likely to die. A simpler explanation would be Wuhan hospitals has been overwhelmed and there are actually ~12 times as many patients there.
- koheripbal 7y ago
  It takes time to die. The patients in Wuhan have been sick for longer.
pmorici 7y ago
For anyone wanting an accurate perspective on the risks of This virus I'd highly recommend watching the Youtube videos MedCram is doing. Their first two esp explain the basics and they have been putting out a daily update. Citing the fatality rate really buries the lead. The issue is that in a high percentage of cases (~29%), including perfectly healthy people, the virus causes ARDS which is a serious condition that requires hospitalization and putting the patient on a ventilator. Combine that with the highly contagious nature and it isn't hard to imagine a scenario where the number of people that require intensive care overwhelms the healthcare system. There are also other concerning factors like people being contagious for several days before the onset of noticeable symptoms and this could be very serious if not taken seriously. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vMXSkKLg2I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vMXSkKLg2I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCG3xqtcL3c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCG3xqtcL3c
- oska 7y ago
  These videos are very good. Thanks for the suggestion.
GistNoesis 7y ago
I have made a little reactive app to illustrate the fact that those curves number don't allow to infer much about the virus parameters, because there are quite a lot of freedom in other parameters we don't have good prior about. https://gistnoesis.github.io/nCoV/ https://gistnoesis.github.io/nCoV/ Please don't attach too much weight to it, as there is probably some bugs and I'm no epidemiologist.
koheripbal 7y ago
These data are likely a product of garbage in / garbage out. Hospitals are turning away patients - most patients aren't having samples sent for DNA verification - many patients are too afraid to go to the hospital - etc... We likely will not have a clear picture of survivability for some time.
- marcosdumay 7y ago
  We will get a clear picture in a week or so, from the cases that appeared outside of China.
himinlomax 7y ago
Even assuming the numbers are right and the virus does not evolve, survival may be that high for people who can benefit from intensive care. What happens when the healthcare system is overflowing with patients?
mrtksn 7y ago
People don't die or survive at the time of infection confirmation, you need to put the time dimension into your calculations. From 14628 conformed cases, we only know that 305 died and 443 survived. For the 13880 people, the outcome is undefined. https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/efe83207-5eaa-4538-ad85-86676f06c172 https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/efe83207-5eaa-4538-ad85-86676f0... But you are right, no need to be gloomy. We have a lot of tools to deal with this, it would be alright eventually.
- unishark 7y ago
  I think we can say with certainty that ultimately all 14628 of them will die.
zelly 7y ago
total recovered: 472. total deaths: 362. So there's roughly the same chance as recovery as dying.
tim333 7y ago
The vast majority of deaths have been over 50s with other health problems so the risks to a large chunk of the population are quite low.
shard972 7y ago
No because your comparing people who are currently infected and in the woods to people who ended up dead. Plenty of those 14k could still end up dead.