General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe case fatality rate for COVID-19 is not "about 2%" - it's 3.4%
Based on tonight's numbers from https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ : Deaths 2804, Cases 82,183, the case fatality ratio is 3.41%
Not only that, but the fatality rate has been climbing steadily for the last two weeks:
12-Feb 2.13%
13-Feb 2.15%
14-Feb 2.27%
15-Feb 2.41%
16-Feb 2.49%
17-Feb 2.55%
18-Feb 2.67%
19-Feb 2.81%
20-Feb 2.93%
21-Feb 3.04%
22-Feb 3.13%
23-Feb 3.31%
24-Feb 3.37%
25-Feb 3.41%
26-Feb 3.41%
That climb could just be an artifact of slowing case growth, but maybe not. I'm no pandemiologist , but this behaviour of the data worries me. At the very least, the white coats and empty suits should be using more accurate numbers, in the interests of transparency.
PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,853 posts)because people are not very sick or asymptomatic altogether.
Also, in China they've changed the definition of who has the coronavirus at least twice, which makes statistics a bit tricky. But the overall death rate for those who get the virus is significantly less, given the many undiagnosed cases.
The_jackalope
(1,660 posts)Maybe there are 30x as many hidden as reported cases (and nobody is dying undiagnosed), and the eventual fatality rate will turn out to be just the same as the flu?
Or not.
PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,853 posts)this coronavirus is anywhere near the actual number, I beg to differ.
Especially in China. Or possibly in places like Iran.
The_jackalope
(1,660 posts)Would be to minimize the death rates, not the case rates. If the Chinese are jiggering any of the numbers, my money would be on death reporting.
wnylib
(21,438 posts)to under report cases in order to minimize the extent of its spread?
The_jackalope
(1,660 posts)Both to obscure the lethality, and also to make the reporting country look more effective at combating the disease itself, as opposed to just looking more effective at slowing its spread.
Under-reporting deaths tends to make the reporting country look better at managing cases, under-reporting cases makes the reporting country look better at managing the spread of the infection.
I have no idea if such intentional, politically motivated under-reporting is going on. We may get some better indications as the global case load rises. At the moment, the most likely thing is that asymptomatic cases are simply being missed.
wnylib
(21,438 posts)confirmed cases inside the US. But I just read on the BBC site that there are 60 cases in the US. Wonder why the discrepancy and where the BBC got its figure from.
The_jackalope
(1,660 posts)mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)Since you could say the same thing about most diseases I would think.
Sunsky
(1,737 posts)For example, the flu. Many people sick with the flu don't seek help. Most people nurse the flu at home. I would believe with the fanfare surrounding coronavirus more people will be inclined to seek help.
PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,853 posts)greenjar_01
(6,477 posts)I want to see a parallel case of a 3-4% mortality rate for a pulmonary virus. It would be unusual, at the very least.
Amishman
(5,557 posts)We are fortunate that this thing is actually much less deadly than its closest cousins
applegrove
(118,636 posts)mild cases and, have not been counted as having caught COVID-19. So the ratio is not as spot on as it was when this started.
The_jackalope
(1,660 posts)We still don't know how reliable the reports are, but I'm quite willing to entertain the idea that we're seeing something that has one foot in the H1N1 camp and one foot in Spanish Flu territory.
We'll see.
Lucky Luciano
(11,254 posts)Not the case here.
The_jackalope
(1,660 posts)but has a somewhat higher R-nought than SF? That's pretty cold comfort.
applegrove
(118,636 posts)work it back to the first carriers. So they knew geographically where to look for victims and carriers. So it was cleaner data. Now with it on every continent, those mild cases are much harder to track. So the stats are off. I hope.
The_jackalope
(1,660 posts)But of course I'm sure they wouldn't have played around with the death counts. Right? I mean, Xi is a totally transparent guy when the Chinese reputation is at stake. Right?
The point is that given all the uncertainty, our politicians are choosing to spin the numbers for public consumption by using dodgy data from a couple of weeks ago. Not surprising, but something to factor into one's thinking.
applegrove
(118,636 posts)then the fraction is off. If 20 people are carriers/mild/sick coronavirus and ten die of it, 10/20 is 50% you have a mortality rate of 50 percent.
But if you undercount the number of carriers/mild/sick coronavirus and say it is 15 instead of 20, and the number who died stays the same (they are easier to count) 10/15 the mortality rate goes up to 66%. That is 66.666%.
So if you undercount all the people who carry/mild/sick the coronavirus the mortality rate goes up.
The_jackalope
(1,660 posts)If I had money to bet, I'd say the Chinese authorities been under-reporting the deaths so as to keep the fatality rate low and not spook the horses. That may be getting harder to do as the case load grows, so the case fatality rate may be climbing as a consequence.
The situation easily could be worse than it appears. Only time and more transparent reporting from Western democracies will tell us what's really going on.
applegrove
(118,636 posts)the next scientist. I admit they were slow to react to the Dec 1 first cases of novel coronavirus. And did not react until january. But i doubt they are jigging the numbers now. I still think it is that the carriers/mildcases/sick are now undercounted as it is harder to do as the virus has spread. The people who die are easier to count.
The_jackalope
(1,660 posts)But "normal" politicians...
eta: the issue is not so much counting the dead, as reporting the count.
applegrove
(118,636 posts)for themselves. For instance canadian scientists looked at Iran's numbers and were able to say they are way undercounting how much the virus has spread there. By about 20,000.
Response to applegrove (Reply #16)
applegrove This message was self-deleted by its author.
Demonaut
(8,914 posts)The_jackalope
(1,660 posts)Luckily for them the American public tends toward innumeracy.
lunasun
(21,646 posts)Laffy Kat
(16,377 posts)So far, the known death rate for 0 to 9-year-olds is zero.
3catwoman3
(23,975 posts)...105 pediatric deaths attributed to influenza, compared to 41 last season.
Laffy Kat
(16,377 posts)It appears there's been a steady increase in pediatric influenza deaths over the last few seasons. It wasn't clear by the data I saw how many of those deaths were from non-vaccinated children. Regardless, I wonder if that trend will continue.
cstanleytech
(26,290 posts)advanced with the virus and thus weakened greatly before they were able to come up with a stronger treatment plan.
The real % should become more evident as we see what happens outside of China in countries like S Korea, Italy and others.
JCMach1
(27,556 posts)Really, really bad, but not Captain Trips
wnylib
(21,438 posts)possibility for an increase in death rates. Long incubation period, long lasting illness before an infected person recovers or dies. The death numbers lag behind the infection numbers, but increase as time goes on.
Wounded Bear
(58,648 posts)Does look concerning, especially with the transmissability being so high.
Ms. Toad
(34,066 posts)if you calculate today's deaths against the number of cases 2 weeks ago. (Using the number of cases 2 weeks ago gives you a better estimate, since it is about 2 weeks from symptoms to death. That means some of the brand new cases in your denominator will die in the next two weeks, so shouldn't be treated as resolved yet.)
Blues Heron
(5,931 posts)11 fatalities 1766 cases
That's a developed country with a big heads up on this outbreak, with the most cases outside China.
I'd pull back on the tin foil re. China hiding deaths - that's not really helpful.
Coventina
(27,115 posts)People are sick with it for a very long time.
The outbreak in S. Korea is very recent. Their death rate will climb.
beachbumbob
(9,263 posts)who are dying and it looks like the "low risk" ones are
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)Squinch
(50,949 posts)I do. So let me ask you a question.
There was that big jump in new cases in one day a while back. 15000 new cases in a day. The explanation was that they had been using a test that gave 50 to 70 percent false negatives, and they had changed to a new, more accurate test.
Prior to that, the new case line in the graph had a pretty steady slope.
Then, there's that one day where the slope gets very steep.
But then, in subsequent days, the slope of the new cases line goes back to pretty much the same as it was before they changed the test.
If they are using a new test that DOESN'T give the 50 to 70% false negatives, shouldn't that line have become much steeper and stayed steeper as the new test produced many fewer false negatives?
The_jackalope
(1,660 posts)Better tests should result in a steeper curve.
Something else may have been going on behind the scenes to cause that spike. If one were to be cynical, one might speculate that there was an accidental release of "true" data that couldn't be retracted. The data minders then made sure the leak was plugged. But that's just me being cynical. We don't know nearly enough yet.
onenote
(42,700 posts)If, as I understand to be the case, all 3700 people on board the Diamond Princess was tested, and around 700 were determined to have contracted the virus and five have died, that's a fatality rate of around 0.7 percent. That may be low, but it may be a more accurate indicator that a rate based on comparing fatalities to tested/confirmed cases when there is almost certainly a significant number of people who have contracted the virus but haven't been tested and recovered.