3 ms·
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0320_article https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0320_article "The case-fatality risks, when adjusted for a 13-
by Taek 7y ago
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0320_article https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0320_article
"The case-fatality risks, when adjusted for a 13-day lag time from reporting to death, were 3.5% in China; 0.8% in China, excluding Hubei Province; 4.2% in the group of 82 countries, territories, and areas; and 0.6% for the cruise ship (Table). Our result for China, excluding Hubei Province, is similar to a previous estimate of 0.9% (95% CI 0.6% - 1.3%) by using a time-delay adjusted case-fatality risk for the same area"
This is the only research data I could find. Do have other data? I have multiple sources citing the WHO estimating 3.5%, but I was unable to find any first hand material from the WHO that said 3.5%.
The information above - from the CDC, which I consider to be biased and underplaying the situation - has 0.6% as the lowest number, and 4.2% as the highest number.
But honestly none of the data I just went digging through felt comfortable.
Another thing to remember is that the case-fatality-rates we are seeing in most areas are because the hospital infrastructure can keep up with the number of infections. If the US gets over 1 million infections, the hospitals will not be able to keep up and mortality rates will spike significantly.
- _-___________-_ 7y agoWait, you're talking about case fatality rates. I thought the above discussion was about the real fatality rate. Obviously CFR is going to be higher because you're excluding all the infections that didn't become cases - which are also the infections least likely to lead to death.