4 ms·

You're using bad data. Fatality rates in places other than Wuhan (which had many undiagnosed cases due to limited resources in the outbreak) have all been less

You're using bad data. Fatality rates in places other than Wuhan (which had many undiagnosed cases due to limited resources in the outbreak) have all been less than 1%.

inferiorhuman 7y ago
Fatality rates in places other than Wuhan (which had many undiagnosed cases due to limited resources in the outbreak) have all been less than 1%. At the low end (deaths / total cases) Italy is seeing a 4.25% CFR.
- nostromo 7y ago
  Italy has no idea how many total cases they have, which is why nobody is using their data to calculate a fatality rate.
  - inferiorhuman 7y ago
    Only numbers that meet your world view count? Got it. If you use the smaller number of ISS confirmed cases in Italy the numbers look much worse. Meanwhile Spain and Hong Kong are showing CFRs around 2%, France around 1.3%. The United States? About 5.4% so far. As for me, I'd trust the Italian numbers far more than anything coming out of China, especially after their reporting on the SARS-1 outbreak. It's not a minor, nothing-to-see here event.
int_19h 7y ago
Thing is, the lower later rates are for people who received proper care, even in the most serious cases - because China rapidly ramped up hospital bed availability, and other countries haven't yet had enough cases to overwhelm their hospitals. One of the reasons why Wuhan had such a high rate is because theirs got overwhelmed very early. But the numbers indicate that there's an order of magnitude difference between the number of available beds, and the number that will actually need them, in most developed countries. For those who will get inadequate treatment because of that, the fatality rates will be higher.
btilly 7y ago
The World Health Organization's official best estimate right now is 3.4% fatality. They may indeed be using bad data. However I trust their analysis of the data over a random internet commentator like you. I encourage anyone reading this conversation to do their own research and note the uncertainties before forming their own opinions.
- losvedir 7y ago
  No, you're misunderstanding that number. That's the crude case mortality rate, of deaths per confirmed cases. They say the infection mortality rate, which is deaths per infection, will be lower. edit: see, e.g. here https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200306-sitrep-46-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=96b04adf_2 https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situati...

You're using bad data. Fatality rates in places other than Wuhan (which had many undiagnosed cases due to limited resources in the outbreak) have all been less than 1%.

inferiorhuman 7y ago

Fatality rates in places other than Wuhan (which had many undiagnosed cases due to limited resources in the outbreak) have all been less than 1%. At the low end (deaths / total cases) Italy is seeing a 4.25% CFR.

nostromo 7y ago
Italy has no idea how many total cases they have, which is why nobody is using their data to calculate a fatality rate.
- inferiorhuman 7y ago
  Only numbers that meet your world view count? Got it. If you use the smaller number of ISS confirmed cases in Italy the numbers look much worse. Meanwhile Spain and Hong Kong are showing CFRs around 2%, France around 1.3%. The United States? About 5.4% so far. As for me, I'd trust the Italian numbers far more than anything coming out of China, especially after their reporting on the SARS-1 outbreak. It's not a minor, nothing-to-see here event.

int_19h 7y ago

Thing is, the lower later rates are for people who received proper care, even in the most serious cases - because China rapidly ramped up hospital bed availability, and other countries haven't yet had enough cases to overwhelm their hospitals. One of the reasons why Wuhan had such a high rate is because theirs got overwhelmed very early. But the numbers indicate that there's an order of magnitude difference between the number of available beds, and the number that will actually need them, in most developed countries. For those who will get inadequate treatment because of that, the fatality rates will be higher.

btilly 7y ago

The World Health Organization's official best estimate right now is 3.4% fatality. They may indeed be using bad data. However I trust their analysis of the data over a random internet commentator like you. I encourage anyone reading this conversation to do their own research and note the uncertainties before forming their own opinions.

losvedir 7y ago
No, you're misunderstanding that number. That's the crude case mortality rate, of deaths per confirmed cases. They say the infection mortality rate, which is deaths per infection, will be lower. edit: see, e.g. here https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200306-sitrep-46-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=96b04adf_2 https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situati...