4 ms·

Also, 2% is very dubious. Italy is at 7%. The Philippines at 8%. I mean, sure these figures are out of people who were tested, but 2% is looking awfully optimis

Also, 2% is very dubious. Italy is at 7%. The Philippines at 8%. I mean, sure these figures are out of people who were tested, but 2% is looking awfully optimistic at this point. So the potential for death reduction is even greater than the intentionally unassailable 1% figure you picked.

rocha 7y ago
Note that in both cases there is a selection bias, due poor testing, and having the majority of initial reported cases being severe enough to reach hospitals. In my opinion, South Korea has better data, due to massive testing, and not having a completely overwhelmed health system. The rate there is 0.6%, which is still significant.
- JamesBarney 7y ago
  0.6%-1% is what we would be looking at when everyone gets the medical care they need. But many people are suggesting that instead of shutting down a large portion of the economy we let this thing rip through our population. And if we do that, a very small percentage of the population will get the healthcare they need. So the rate we should use when considering the "rip the bandaid" off approach should be closer to 6% than 0.6%.
  - ardy42 7y ago
    > And if we do that, a very small percentage of the population will get the healthcare they need. So the rate we should use when considering the "rip the bandaid" off approach should be closer to 6% than 0.6%. And if you take the "rip the bandaid off" approach, you can't restrict your analysis to just CoVID-19 deaths. The strain on the medical system will mean there will be an increase in deaths from other causes that didn't get the treatment they need.
easytiger 7y ago
Those tested represent a tiny fraction of those likely infected.
- marvin 7y ago
  Yes. But South Korea is still at 0.6%, and they've tested everyone and their dog, and provided top care to everyone.
  - easytiger 7y ago
    This is incorrect. As of the weekend gone past South Korea had tested 248,000 people out of a population of 50,000,000, with 8,086 +ve cases and 72 deaths. <300k is not "and they've tested everyone and their dog" There is a lot of memetic nonsense flying around about this online and this is part of it
    - marvin 7y ago
      Hm, ok. That would make it in the region of 1%. Thought my numbers were out of date since I heard 0.6% somewhere else.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - easytiger 7y ago
        1% of what?
        marvin 7y ago
        8000-ish cases. 70-ish deaths => ~0.9% fatality rate. Very thorough testing, so 0.9% is likely to be a reasonable estimate of the real fatality rate. Granted, 250k-ish of 50 million is a small sample, but you've got to assume that they haven't tested randomly but tested people who have been in touch with known cases.
        easytiger 7y ago
        You are almost there. > but you've got to assume that they haven't tested randomly but tested people who have been in touch with known cases Yes. Well with symptoms etc. So of the people who got tested they are much more likely to test +ve. I agree. Which means real cases are massively more widespread than those tested. It is believed here in the UK that this has been fairly rife for a while now, but those who got it are not statistically counted anywhere. The real fatality rate is way less than 0.9
michaelt 7y ago
In terms of fatality, the Diamond Princess cruise ship [1] has the helpful property that everyone on board was tested. Nobody recovering/asymptomatic not getting tested, nobody being refused a test. The wikipedia page lists 700 infections and 7 deaths. Of course there are still certain biases: on one hand it happened early, when hospitals weren't overloaded; on the other, cruise ships tend to have more older people. And as I don't speak Japanese I haven't traced those numbers to primary sources. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_outbreak_on_cruise_ships#Diamond_Princess https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_outbreak_on_c...
- altoidaltoid 7y ago
  WHO Sitreps have the aggregated data. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/situation-reports https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2...
  - irq-1 7y ago
    From: Situation report - 55, 15 March 2020 3.5% mortality worldwide (there are totals at the end of country listings)
- djsumdog 7y ago
  ..and they were trapped on that ship for days. Amesh Adalja (infectious disease MD at John Hopkins) has been in a few interviews where he commented, SARS-Cov2 is similar to other viruses where the initial dosage does impact the severity of the infection.

rocha 7y ago

Note that in both cases there is a selection bias, due poor testing, and having the majority of initial reported cases being severe enough to reach hospitals. In my opinion, South Korea has better data, due to massive testing, and not having a completely overwhelmed health system. The rate there is 0.6%, which is still significant.

JamesBarney 7y ago
0.6%-1% is what we would be looking at when everyone gets the medical care they need. But many people are suggesting that instead of shutting down a large portion of the economy we let this thing rip through our population. And if we do that, a very small percentage of the population will get the healthcare they need. So the rate we should use when considering the "rip the bandaid" off approach should be closer to 6% than 0.6%.
- ardy42 7y ago
  > And if we do that, a very small percentage of the population will get the healthcare they need. So the rate we should use when considering the "rip the bandaid" off approach should be closer to 6% than 0.6%. And if you take the "rip the bandaid off" approach, you can't restrict your analysis to just CoVID-19 deaths. The strain on the medical system will mean there will be an increase in deaths from other causes that didn't get the treatment they need.

easytiger 7y ago

Those tested represent a tiny fraction of those likely infected.

marvin 7y ago
Yes. But South Korea is still at 0.6%, and they've tested everyone and their dog, and provided top care to everyone.
- easytiger 7y ago
  This is incorrect. As of the weekend gone past South Korea had tested 248,000 people out of a population of 50,000,000, with 8,086 +ve cases and 72 deaths. <300k is not "and they've tested everyone and their dog" There is a lot of memetic nonsense flying around about this online and this is part of it
  - marvin 7y ago
    Hm, ok. That would make it in the region of 1%. Thought my numbers were out of date since I heard 0.6% somewhere else.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - easytiger 7y ago
      1% of what?
      - marvin 7y ago
        8000-ish cases. 70-ish deaths => ~0.9% fatality rate. Very thorough testing, so 0.9% is likely to be a reasonable estimate of the real fatality rate. Granted, 250k-ish of 50 million is a small sample, but you've got to assume that they haven't tested randomly but tested people who have been in touch with known cases.
        easytiger 7y ago
        You are almost there. > but you've got to assume that they haven't tested randomly but tested people who have been in touch with known cases Yes. Well with symptoms etc. So of the people who got tested they are much more likely to test +ve. I agree. Which means real cases are massively more widespread than those tested. It is believed here in the UK that this has been fairly rife for a while now, but those who got it are not statistically counted anywhere. The real fatality rate is way less than 0.9

michaelt 7y ago

In terms of fatality, the Diamond Princess cruise ship [1] has the helpful property that everyone on board was tested. Nobody recovering/asymptomatic not getting tested, nobody being refused a test. The wikipedia page lists 700 infections and 7 deaths. Of course there are still certain biases: on one hand it happened early, when hospitals weren't overloaded; on the other, cruise ships tend to have more older people. And as I don't speak Japanese I haven't traced those numbers to primary sources. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_outbreak_on_cruise_ships#Diamond_Princess https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_outbreak_on_c...

altoidaltoid 7y ago
WHO Sitreps have the aggregated data. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/situation-reports https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2...
- irq-1 7y ago
  From: Situation report - 55, 15 March 2020 3.5% mortality worldwide (there are totals at the end of country listings)
djsumdog 7y ago
..and they were trapped on that ship for days. Amesh Adalja (infectious disease MD at John Hopkins) has been in a few interviews where he commented, SARS-Cov2 is similar to other viruses where the initial dosage does impact the severity of the infection.