Death Toll Tops 1,000; Mortality Estimate at 1%: Virus Update

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

(Bloomberg) -- The death toll from the coronavirus climbed above 1,000, as the Chinese province at the epicenter of the outbreak reported its highest number of fatalities yet.

Hubei province added 103 more deaths, up from 91 a day earlier. At the same time, it also reported the lowest number of new cases since Feb. 1, an encouraging sign as health officials look for the outbreak to peak.

The mortality rate from the coronavirus in China is estimated at 1%, according to a new report that attempts to account for mild cases as well as severe ones. That compares with a 9.5% fatality rate for SARS, and as much as 0.4% for the 2009 H1N1 “swine flu” pandemic.

China Death Toll at 1,016 (8:17 a.m. HK)

The death toll in China from the coronavirus rose to 1,016, with the addition of 108 fatalities for Feb. 10, according to the National Health Commission. Hubei, the province at the center of the outbreak, reported 103 more deaths.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/death-toll-tops-1000-mortality-estimate-at-1percent-virus-update/ar-BBZRomJ?li=BBnb7Kz

[berni_mccoy]

1. That estimate is complete bullshit. It's more like 20-25%.

The current number of deaths lags the infection rate. If you look at the deaths over time, they are accelerating proportionately to the infection rate... as is the recovery rate.

[Turbineguy]

2. But mortality is related

to medical care capacity in relating to the number infected.

[berni_mccoy]

4. There are 40+k infected now with 1k dead.

The death and recovery rate lags the current infected rate by 3 weeks.

EVEN SO... today there are over 1000 dead. That’s a death rate of 2.5% and there are people who are confirmed infected today that will die within 3 weeks.

So 1% is extremely below any reasonable estimate.

[herding cats]

7. The total reported cases is extremely underreported at this point.

Many, perhaps even most, mild cases who recovered on their own aren't in the tally.

Early stages of an outbreak are problematic to effectively tally. It will eventually take antibody tests of the population to actually know the numbers.

[berni_mccoy]

10. That could be true for the reported deaths as well.. though I agree

That reported infections will be more likely to be misreported.

It is hard to trust the data if the assumption is that many infected are unreported.

[herding cats]

13. Look at the data outside of the epicenter of the outbreak.

Where medical staff and hospitals are overloaded. Patients are suffering, and most probably dying at rates they shouldn't be.

Quality of care is yet one more mitigating factor. Also, stigmatizing of the sick (being subjected to quarantine and later subsequently rounded up, and even threatened with death for not reporting) will hide even more minor cases who might have sought care.

Like I said. I'm willing to go long game and see if either your model of 20-25% fatality, or mine of 1-4% is closer. I feel extremely confident.

[herding cats]

5. No, it's not. It's not even close to 20% let alone 25%.

No mathematical model even comes close to supporting such.

If one ignores the mild cases (which are not being tallied effectively), the worst case models are not even over 4%. That's without bringing into the equation the mild unreported cases.

Keep in mind the 1918 influenza was about 2% modern influenza is around .14-.15%. 1% is actually very bad.

It's math. I know it's not popular, but watch and see if your model or mine wins out.

Let's not fear monger for no reason, ok?

[berni_mccoy]

6. I've modeled these things before

Yes, I am a mathematician.

And yes, it’s worse than SARS from an infection rate as well as sudden onset severity rate. It’s mortality rate will be worse.

[herding cats]

8. It appears to be more infectious than SARS.

It spreads more like influenza. Beyond that, you're not in your lane.

[berni_mccoy]

9. The main concern I have is that the death-to-recovery rate is settling

It started off 2:1 and is now 1:4. But in the last week it’s moved from 1:3... indicating that as time goes on we are approaching the actual rate of death to recovery. This is why I believe the mortality rate will be high.

In these models that involve multiple-week incubations, especially with 1-2 week asymptomatic transferrance with an R factor of 2-3, it takes about 6-8 weeks to reach the appropriate data to make any determinations. We are there now. And if the death-to-recovery rate does not improve significantly in 2 weeks, then the overall mortality rate will be much greater than 9%.

[herding cats]

11. You're working off erroneous data.

There's zero, let me repeat that, zero evidence, of 1-2 week asymptotic period. The German model was false, and has been retracted. The person had mild symptoms before the meetings. The persons making the claim failed to interview patient zero. It was knee jerk analysis. Which did way more harm than good. Let's not be spreading falsehoods.

Your data wouldn't hold up to peer review. You're ignoring the minor cases which are not in the official tallies to date. While actual epidemiologist are trying to incorporate those into models, but they don't have enough data yet to predict effectively. They're going to need antibody tests before factual data is in hand. Again, this isn't your lane.

[berni_mccoy]

15. The NEJM was not the only source for the asymptomatic evidence

Regardless, the decrease in rate of infection is attributed to the extreme reaction to the virus. China’s shutting down of transportation and enforcing strict curfew and containment, the WHO declaring a world emergency response, travel bans and quarantines all have an impact on the rate of infection. I do agree that quality of care matters as well to the survivability. That said, measuring the growth of the infection out of the country reveals that it too is spreading at faster than linear rate despite all these efforts.

[herding cats]

19. Source me.

I'm all eyes.

I actually know epidemiologists activity working on this virus. I'd love to share your data with them. Somehow they've missed the massive news of a confirmation of "multiple-week incubations, especially with 1-2 week asymptomatic transferrance (sic).

[Ms. Toad]

20. If the numbers reported are accurate,

It's been getting closer to linear (at least on average) the last few days. Prior to that it was spreading faster than linear (at a rate of abou 1.2/day)

[58Sunliner]

21. There are still too many questions to make any assumptions.

The doctor who was the whistle-blower of this virus, was hospitalized Jan 12 (symptomatic), and did not test positive till the end of the month, just days before he died. Which strikes me as really odd as I read the patient reports I could find and there has not been any lag, per se, between onset of symptoms and positive testing. I read the initial report on the findings of the virus, the anti-bodies it generates. Unless they were messing with him. Some experts have been theorizing that the infection rate is at least ten times higher. This virus, which is like SARS, it attaches at the same cell site as SARS as well, but SARS took 4+ months to infect @ 322 people. Supposedly animal to human, mutation, human to human. This virus, by all accounts, infects hundreds, thousands, in one month. The SARS virus was initially reported as 305 cases, 5 deaths. Initial death rate @ 1.6%. The death rate, 3 months later, would be revised upward and vary significantly with age. Both viruses can cause bi-lateral pneumonia, and ARDS.

As for SARS transmission-"Scientists in the WHO network of collaborating laboratories report that the SARS virus can survive after drying on plastic surfaces for up to 48 hours; that it can survive in feces for at least 2 days, and in urine for at least 24 hours; and that the virus could survive for 4 days in feces taken from patients suffering from diarrhea (WHO Update 47)."
http://sarsreference.com/sarsref/timeline.htm

[Azathoth]

12. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about nt

[berni_mccoy]

16. Informative response...

Not.

[greymalkin415]

3. Why haven't we heard anything about

the death and recovery rates of those infected in the US? Most of them have gone past the two week marker by now

[58Sunliner]

14. US has 13 cases according to John Hopkins. And per the CDC-

Last edited Tue Feb 11, 2020, 02:00 AM - Edit history (1)

Positive 12
Negative 318
Pending§ 68
Total 398
You would think they would give us the outcomes of the patients. The one patient was given the anti-viral (Remdesivir) that they tried for Ebola, and the patient quickly recovered. So hopefully that will be the treatment in combination with a second drug, or alone. It's made by an American company. China is testing it now.

[Ms. Toad]

18. Last I could track anything down specifically,

The Washington patient had recovered, but the other (then 10) were still in the hospital.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/1st-patient-diagnosed-coronavirus-u-s-released-hospital-n1129201

About 3 days after he was declared recovered in at least one article I read, he showed up on the recovery list for the Johns Hopkins site.

[Ms. Toad]

17. That's a significantly lower mortality rate than the estimates I'm seeing -

which run in the 3-5% range.

As ot today, just dividing deaths by confirmed cases, the death rate is 2.3%. That is likely to be a low estimate given the size of the population that is likely to have ben ill long enough to die.

If you divide deaths today by the confirmec dases a week ago (for example), the death rate is 4.9%. That calculation accounts for a low estimate of time between diagnosis and death. It doesn't account for infections that aren't documented (which would drive it in the other direction). But no source I trust estimates it at as low as 1%.