5 ms·

There were 6 cases in China 2 months ago now its closing to 20k. Maybe that's why. SARS killed approx 800 in span of 1.5 year. There are over 300 confirmed d

There were 6 cases in China 2 months ago now its closing to 20k. Maybe that's why. SARS killed approx 800 in span of 1.5 year. There are over 300 confirmed deaths from Corona roughly after 2 months. The numbers are growing quickly and I for one am starting to feel a bit uncomfortable about this. Edit: Its 360 deaths, that pretty much half od SARS now :/

computerfriend 7y ago
Note that these are only the confirmed deaths, which is a lower bound. We know that the true number is much larger.
- seattle_spring 7y ago
  Probably true of SARS as well though, right?
- eightysixfour 7y ago
  Yes, but it is the same for total number infected. Outside estimates are that there are more than 100k infected. That would put the mortality rate ~= the flu.
  - wraithm112 7y ago
    You need to account for the delay to death in your model here. People don't die the second they're infected. Most of the people in that estimated infected number were infected in the last week. They couldn't possibly have died of the disease. I believe most epidemiological models have a infection to death delay factor to estimate death rate. Your mortality rate with ~300/100k~=flu is too low.
  - me_me_me 7y ago
    deaths due to flu are overestimated in western world as those are mainly due to flu striking after patient is going through some other illness and flu was the final blow. Pure flu deaths are very low.
  - computerfriend 7y ago
    Current estimates (based on official, massively undercounted figures) suggest that 2019-nCoV is both more infectious (higher R_0) and has a higher fatality rate. So not really, no. If your estimate is ~100k infected, don't assume that your number of deaths is the same either. Consider also that fatality rate depends on demographic and access to healthcare. That second factor is highly dependent on how stressed the health service is. So if you're lucky enough to live somewhere with both high quality healthcare and low infection rate, then your chances of dying will be lower. Not everyone is so lucky. This is why measuring fatality rates outside of China can be misleading as an indicator of what the true fatality rate might be.
  - ineedasername 7y ago
    That same outside estimate magnitude may apply to fatalities as well, meaning no change in death rate.
kenneth 7y ago
This has already killed more people in mainland China than SARS has.

computerfriend 7y ago

Note that these are only the confirmed deaths, which is a lower bound. We know that the true number is much larger.

seattle_spring 7y ago
Probably true of SARS as well though, right?
eightysixfour 7y ago
Yes, but it is the same for total number infected. Outside estimates are that there are more than 100k infected. That would put the mortality rate ~= the flu.
- wraithm112 7y ago
  You need to account for the delay to death in your model here. People don't die the second they're infected. Most of the people in that estimated infected number were infected in the last week. They couldn't possibly have died of the disease. I believe most epidemiological models have a infection to death delay factor to estimate death rate. Your mortality rate with ~300/100k~=flu is too low.
- me_me_me 7y ago
  deaths due to flu are overestimated in western world as those are mainly due to flu striking after patient is going through some other illness and flu was the final blow. Pure flu deaths are very low.
- computerfriend 7y ago
  Current estimates (based on official, massively undercounted figures) suggest that 2019-nCoV is both more infectious (higher R_0) and has a higher fatality rate. So not really, no. If your estimate is ~100k infected, don't assume that your number of deaths is the same either. Consider also that fatality rate depends on demographic and access to healthcare. That second factor is highly dependent on how stressed the health service is. So if you're lucky enough to live somewhere with both high quality healthcare and low infection rate, then your chances of dying will be lower. Not everyone is so lucky. This is why measuring fatality rates outside of China can be misleading as an indicator of what the true fatality rate might be.
- ineedasername 7y ago
  That same outside estimate magnitude may apply to fatalities as well, meaning no change in death rate.

kenneth 7y ago

This has already killed more people in mainland China than SARS has.