4 ms·

According to the estimates in the article -- predicted infections: 60% of 7.8 billion, current known fatality rate: 2.3% -- this virus is on track to kill rough

According to the estimates in the article -- predicted infections: 60% of 7.8 billion, current known fatality rate: 2.3% -- this virus is on track to kill roughly 108 million people. That's more than the Spanish flu of 1918 (high estimates put that at ~50 million).

war1025 7y ago
They are really expecting it to reach over half the population?
- ksdale 7y ago
  I believe there was a quote from the Twitter account of an epidemiologist in Hong Kong to the effect that if the disease was left unchecked it would reach that many people.
  - mlrtime 7y ago
    Under what scenario would this disease be left unchecked? Seems like a false hypothetical.
    - amylene 7y ago
      It’s a baseline to urge people to act.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
monkeynotes 7y ago
The article says > COVID-19 could infect 60 percent of the globe if left unchecked Clearly the outbreak is not unchecked. Many measures have been put in place already. I am pretty sure the global community isn't going to just standby and allow the virus to communicate freely.
- slowmovintarget 7y ago
  I certainly hope not, though that is what Japan and Singapore seem to have settled on.
  - skmurphy 7y ago
    Singapore has mounted an extremely effective response.
    - firethief 7y ago
      They've been vigilant in their testing and transparent in their results, and it's making their numbers look bad. It doesn't look like any other country will follow their lead.
      - varren 7y ago
        At least they are doing something (or probably the right thing to say is that they are the only country with competent measures) and because of transparency you can see what's going on almost in real time. I think their numbers look bad now, but the measures look solid and to be honest Singapore is probably the only country with adequate response. So if things go bad there, i'm pretty sure it will go bad everywhere. [1] https://www.channelnewsasia.com/image/12436712/0x0/3000/5883/7628b6d2e219adae25b4f4267a768e50/Za/singapore-coronavirus-cluster-infographic-feb-14.jpg https://www.channelnewsasia.com/image/12436712/0x0/3000/5883... [2] https://www.channelnewsasia.com/image/12455138/0x0/2316/3209/c1eedd2fabafe0efb415ab3b476086bd/mX/covid-19-discharged-as-of-feb-20.png https://www.channelnewsasia.com/image/12455138/0x0/2316/3209... [3] https://coconuts.co/singapore/news/covid-19-heres-every-novel-coronavirus-infection-in-singapore-on-a-map/ https://coconuts.co/singapore/news/covid-19-heres-every-nove... [4] https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=14y9TsLoO2Y6bLjKTwcpWjjseJ-8ysxTD&ll=1.347431955362178%2C103.80548579828701&z=12 https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=14y9TsLoO2Y6bLj...
        skmurphy 7y ago
        A lot of practical advice and experience in this Feb 20 article on lessons learned (so far) from Singapore's experience: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2761890 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2761890
skmurphy 7y ago
Many cases--perhaps 80-95%--in folks under 50 are hard to distinguish from cold, flu, or gastroenteritis. 2.3% rate is for those who develop more serious symptoms. See http://weekly.chinacdc.cn/en/article/id/e53946e2-c6c4-41e9-9a9b-fea8db1a8f51 http://weekly.chinacdc.cn/en/article/id/e53946e2-c6c4-41e9-9... or https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22372003 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22372003 for a summary table of serious cases.
- koheripbal 7y ago
  2.3% is still based on official Chinese data, which is likely totally bogus.
  - skmurphy 7y ago
    Real rates are probably more nuanced with many under 50 at very low risk and those above 60 at higher risk. A serious case can present as a viral pneumonia, if there is a break down in health care system and those who need oxygen on a temporary basis cannot get it or if they develop a secondary bacterial infection and antibiotics are not available then mortality will go higher among those cases. I think this year will be remembered by many as "the year my grandfather died of pneumonia."
Filligree 7y ago
That's inaccurate. The known case fatality rate is 2.3%, but that's of cases which presented to a hospital and were diagnosed. It's likely that 90% of the infections are asymptomatic, or close enough to be mistaken for a bad cold. That's bad, because such people are hard to quarantine, but it's good, because it means the true fatality rate may just be 0.2%. Not that 0.2% of five billion wouldn't still be a horrible tragedy.
- Someone 7y ago
  Also, world population in 1918 was about a quarter of what it is now. 50 million dead hit harder then than 100 million would hit now.
  - samatman 7y ago
    It's not always clear when to use absolute and when to use relative units. I would suggest that each dead person is mourned by approximately the same number of people, and therefore absolute units are more appropriate. Also, the world of 1918 was much less interconnected. It's not clear if that makes losing n% of the population better or worse, but I would bet on worse.
- burtonator 7y ago
  I agree.. we really really don't know much of what's going to happen here. We definitely need to stay on our toes and not get complacent here.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- koheripbal 7y ago
  Unfortunately, those errors exist on both the numerator and the denominator. Interviews of crematoriums in China claim that two thirds of the bodies they are picking up are from homes, not hospitals.
ValentineC 7y ago
According to the latest WHO sitrep [1], there are 3 deaths and 924 confirmed cases. That's a fatality rate of 0.325%. China is an outlier because their health system is overworked. [1] https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200219-sitrep-30-covid-19.pdf https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situati...
- jeromegv 7y ago
  LOTS of countries don't have a health system as advanced as China, this is where the risk is. You can't dismiss the risk based on the fact that China is overworked because it is likely that other countries could end up in that situation with sufficient amount of cases.
- mlrtime 7y ago
  Wouldn't all health care systems be overworked with this high of an infection rate?
- soperj 7y ago
  If this gets to where most of the people in the world are, ie: India/Bangladesh/Pakistan/Africa, do you think their health care system will be better than China currently or worse?
- baq 7y ago
  Dividing current deaths by current cases is just about the worst way of estimating CFR of a developing epidemic. Try current deaths vs cases from 5, 7, 10 days ago or deaths vs (deaths + recoveries).
- lubujackson 7y ago
  The death rate doesn't mean anything unless we are looking at the "infected and recovered" number... so the death rate should only go up from there.
- varren 7y ago
  8 out of 1073 = 1.34125% as of 20.02.2019 [1], looks like it rises 1% per day;p but we both know that it's false assumption. And numbers we have right now doesn't matter really because it is too early to tell. Half of the world doesn't even have a capacity to test for COVID-19. And impact on developing countries will be on completely different level [2] (or maybe not, because population is much younger there) [1] https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200220-sitrep-31-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=dfd11d24_2 https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situati... [2] https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-causes-of-death https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-...

war1025 7y ago

They are really expecting it to reach over half the population?

ksdale 7y ago
I believe there was a quote from the Twitter account of an epidemiologist in Hong Kong to the effect that if the disease was left unchecked it would reach that many people.
- mlrtime 7y ago
  Under what scenario would this disease be left unchecked? Seems like a false hypothetical.
  - amylene 7y ago
    It’s a baseline to urge people to act.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

monkeynotes 7y ago

The article says > COVID-19 could infect 60 percent of the globe if left unchecked Clearly the outbreak is not unchecked. Many measures have been put in place already. I am pretty sure the global community isn't going to just standby and allow the virus to communicate freely.

slowmovintarget 7y ago
I certainly hope not, though that is what Japan and Singapore seem to have settled on.
- skmurphy 7y ago
  Singapore has mounted an extremely effective response.
  - firethief 7y ago
    They've been vigilant in their testing and transparent in their results, and it's making their numbers look bad. It doesn't look like any other country will follow their lead.
    - varren 7y ago
      At least they are doing something (or probably the right thing to say is that they are the only country with competent measures) and because of transparency you can see what's going on almost in real time. I think their numbers look bad now, but the measures look solid and to be honest Singapore is probably the only country with adequate response. So if things go bad there, i'm pretty sure it will go bad everywhere. [1] https://www.channelnewsasia.com/image/12436712/0x0/3000/5883/7628b6d2e219adae25b4f4267a768e50/Za/singapore-coronavirus-cluster-infographic-feb-14.jpg https://www.channelnewsasia.com/image/12436712/0x0/3000/5883... [2] https://www.channelnewsasia.com/image/12455138/0x0/2316/3209/c1eedd2fabafe0efb415ab3b476086bd/mX/covid-19-discharged-as-of-feb-20.png https://www.channelnewsasia.com/image/12455138/0x0/2316/3209... [3] https://coconuts.co/singapore/news/covid-19-heres-every-novel-coronavirus-infection-in-singapore-on-a-map/ https://coconuts.co/singapore/news/covid-19-heres-every-nove... [4] https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=14y9TsLoO2Y6bLjKTwcpWjjseJ-8ysxTD&ll=1.347431955362178%2C103.80548579828701&z=12 https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=14y9TsLoO2Y6bLj...
      - skmurphy 7y ago
        A lot of practical advice and experience in this Feb 20 article on lessons learned (so far) from Singapore's experience: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2761890 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2761890

skmurphy 7y ago

Many cases--perhaps 80-95%--in folks under 50 are hard to distinguish from cold, flu, or gastroenteritis. 2.3% rate is for those who develop more serious symptoms. See http://weekly.chinacdc.cn/en/article/id/e53946e2-c6c4-41e9-9a9b-fea8db1a8f51 http://weekly.chinacdc.cn/en/article/id/e53946e2-c6c4-41e9-9... or https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22372003 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22372003 for a summary table of serious cases.

koheripbal 7y ago
2.3% is still based on official Chinese data, which is likely totally bogus.
- skmurphy 7y ago
  Real rates are probably more nuanced with many under 50 at very low risk and those above 60 at higher risk. A serious case can present as a viral pneumonia, if there is a break down in health care system and those who need oxygen on a temporary basis cannot get it or if they develop a secondary bacterial infection and antibiotics are not available then mortality will go higher among those cases. I think this year will be remembered by many as "the year my grandfather died of pneumonia."

Filligree 7y ago

That's inaccurate. The known case fatality rate is 2.3%, but that's of cases which presented to a hospital and were diagnosed. It's likely that 90% of the infections are asymptomatic, or close enough to be mistaken for a bad cold. That's bad, because such people are hard to quarantine, but it's good, because it means the true fatality rate may just be 0.2%. Not that 0.2% of five billion wouldn't still be a horrible tragedy.

Someone 7y ago
Also, world population in 1918 was about a quarter of what it is now. 50 million dead hit harder then than 100 million would hit now.
- samatman 7y ago
  It's not always clear when to use absolute and when to use relative units. I would suggest that each dead person is mourned by approximately the same number of people, and therefore absolute units are more appropriate. Also, the world of 1918 was much less interconnected. It's not clear if that makes losing n% of the population better or worse, but I would bet on worse.
burtonator 7y ago
I agree.. we really really don't know much of what's going to happen here. We definitely need to stay on our toes and not get complacent here.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
koheripbal 7y ago
Unfortunately, those errors exist on both the numerator and the denominator. Interviews of crematoriums in China claim that two thirds of the bodies they are picking up are from homes, not hospitals.

ValentineC 7y ago

According to the latest WHO sitrep [1], there are 3 deaths and 924 confirmed cases. That's a fatality rate of 0.325%. China is an outlier because their health system is overworked. [1] https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200219-sitrep-30-covid-19.pdf https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situati...

jeromegv 7y ago
LOTS of countries don't have a health system as advanced as China, this is where the risk is. You can't dismiss the risk based on the fact that China is overworked because it is likely that other countries could end up in that situation with sufficient amount of cases.
mlrtime 7y ago
Wouldn't all health care systems be overworked with this high of an infection rate?
soperj 7y ago
If this gets to where most of the people in the world are, ie: India/Bangladesh/Pakistan/Africa, do you think their health care system will be better than China currently or worse?
baq 7y ago
Dividing current deaths by current cases is just about the worst way of estimating CFR of a developing epidemic. Try current deaths vs cases from 5, 7, 10 days ago or deaths vs (deaths + recoveries).
lubujackson 7y ago
The death rate doesn't mean anything unless we are looking at the "infected and recovered" number... so the death rate should only go up from there.
varren 7y ago
8 out of 1073 = 1.34125% as of 20.02.2019 [1], looks like it rises 1% per day;p but we both know that it's false assumption. And numbers we have right now doesn't matter really because it is too early to tell. Half of the world doesn't even have a capacity to test for COVID-19. And impact on developing countries will be on completely different level [2] (or maybe not, because population is much younger there) [1] https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200220-sitrep-31-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=dfd11d24_2 https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situati... [2] https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-causes-of-death https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-...