3 ms·

Nah, the mortality rate is higher, around 9%, similar to SARS. Dividing total deaths by total cases is wrong. You need to divide by the sum of deaths plus total

by esturk 7y ago

Nah, the mortality rate is higher, around 9%, similar to SARS. Dividing total deaths by total cases is wrong. You need to divide by the sum of deaths plus total recovered cases. With that in mind it's already way higher.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
taneq 7y ago
That doesn't work either because the definition of 'recovered' is something like 'symptom free for 40 days' and most people dying are doing so within 1-2 weeks. What you really need to do is divide the total deaths by the total known cases two weeks ago (roughly when the most recent deaths would have been infected). Last time I did this it looked like the overall death rate would come out at ~4.5%, reporting methods have changed since then and now it's coming out as more like 4%.
- jrs235 7y ago
  Yes this is what people miss. There is a delay between known cases and deaths.
- pmoriarty 7y ago
  Even worse, we don't know how many people have actually been infected. The reported death rates aren't reliable either. All the estimates we're seeing are almost entirely from unreliable data coming out of China. So I'd take these estimates with a huge grain of salt for now. We should be in a much better position to have reliable estimates in a month or two.
  - taneq 7y ago
    True. On the plus side, the higher the actual number of infections, the lower the death rates that we should be expecting. There's a growing consensus that the virus can spread asymptomatically which (while not good for containment) means we're only seeing a small fraction of cases and the death rate is going to be much more like that of the flu (which isn't great but also hasn't destroyed civilization as we know it).
    - pmoriarty 7y ago
      While there may be asymptomatic spread (it's too early to be certain of that yet either), "asymptomatic transmission likely plays a minor role in the epidemic overall, WHO says. People who cough or sneeze are more likely to spread the virus, the agency wrote"[1] [1] - https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/02/paper-non-symptomatic-patient-transmitting-coronavirus-wrong https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/02/paper-non-symptomati...
      - taneq 7y ago
        Counterpoint: > US traders were particularly rattled by the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention confirming a COVID-19 infection in California in a person who apparently had no relevant travel history or exposure to another known patient. [1] One asymptomatic carrier may not infect many people but if they infect even one new person in an as-yet-uninfected population center they'll create a new outbreak. The only defense against this is universal testing, otherwise by the time you start seeing symptoms it's too late. [1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-28/asx-carried-away-in-worsening-coronavirus-share-rout/12009886 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-28/asx-carried-away-in-w...

by esturk 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

taneq 7y ago

That doesn't work either because the definition of 'recovered' is something like 'symptom free for 40 days' and most people dying are doing so within 1-2 weeks. What you really need to do is divide the total deaths by the total known cases two weeks ago (roughly when the most recent deaths would have been infected). Last time I did this it looked like the overall death rate would come out at ~4.5%, reporting methods have changed since then and now it's coming out as more like 4%.

jrs235 7y ago
Yes this is what people miss. There is a delay between known cases and deaths.
pmoriarty 7y ago
Even worse, we don't know how many people have actually been infected. The reported death rates aren't reliable either. All the estimates we're seeing are almost entirely from unreliable data coming out of China. So I'd take these estimates with a huge grain of salt for now. We should be in a much better position to have reliable estimates in a month or two.
- taneq 7y ago
  True. On the plus side, the higher the actual number of infections, the lower the death rates that we should be expecting. There's a growing consensus that the virus can spread asymptomatically which (while not good for containment) means we're only seeing a small fraction of cases and the death rate is going to be much more like that of the flu (which isn't great but also hasn't destroyed civilization as we know it).
  - pmoriarty 7y ago
    While there may be asymptomatic spread (it's too early to be certain of that yet either), "asymptomatic transmission likely plays a minor role in the epidemic overall, WHO says. People who cough or sneeze are more likely to spread the virus, the agency wrote"[1] [1] - https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/02/paper-non-symptomatic-patient-transmitting-coronavirus-wrong https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/02/paper-non-symptomati...
    - taneq 7y ago
      Counterpoint: > US traders were particularly rattled by the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention confirming a COVID-19 infection in California in a person who apparently had no relevant travel history or exposure to another known patient. [1] One asymptomatic carrier may not infect many people but if they infect even one new person in an as-yet-uninfected population center they'll create a new outbreak. The only defense against this is universal testing, otherwise by the time you start seeing symptoms it's too late. [1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-28/asx-carried-away-in-worsening-coronavirus-share-rout/12009886 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-28/asx-carried-away-in-w...