3 ms·

Just wanted to call out that I think calculating death rate as "deaths / infections" works for past infections but is wildly inaccurate today because the majori

Just wanted to call out that I think calculating death rate as "deaths / infections" works for past infections but is wildly inaccurate today because the majority of infections have no resolution yet. I'd say "deaths / recoveries" or maybe "deaths / (deaths + recoveries)" is probably better, with the caveat that it is likely much higher than the final number it's going to settle at as more people recover. I've been using recovery numbers from https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6 https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.h... .

datashow 7y ago
Great work. But I don't see "deaths / recoveries" or "deaths / (deaths + recoveries)" on your webpage.
- inferiorhuman 7y ago
  That's because most reputable sources don't have enough information to make a reasonable estimate of the case fatality rate. The JHU map only shows raw numbers. If you're using deaths as a proportion of known outcomes, Hubei has come down to about 35%. Other provinces are reporting, at most, six deaths. I don't believe the numbers coming from China for one bit. Yes, Hubei is overwhelmed, but it really wouldn't take much to overwhelm most health care networks (in- or outside China). Dutch wire service BNO News is reporting that a Japanese national who died in Wuhan was believed to be infected with the coronavirus but not included in the official coronavirus death count.