Mortality rate in Wuhan is 5.8% of cases. An epidemic with a 5.8% mortality rate and an R0 > 2 is sure going to be bring your local society to a screeching halt.
People *would* flee if they could, but China has shut the place down and confined everyone to their apartments. I'm sure a few people on the edges of Hubei snuck out of their houses at night and crossed the border, but if you're in Wuhan, forget it. You can't take a train or bus or plane out of the place. Even if you tried to ride your bike ou
5.8% of the people who got it AND where identified as having it.
Wikipedia tells me there are 11 million people who live in Wuhan. If you look worldwide, the number of cases is 112.000 Even if everybody lived in Wuhan, that would be 1%.
So the mortality rate is NOT 5.8% of all people, but of those identified as having the virus.In other places the numbers are way lower. To me that shows that in Wuhan there are more people who have NOT been identified and showing only mild symptoms.
Many people with mild cases likely don't even go to the hospital. So they aren't counted.
Hospitals are full of sick people and are not healthy places. There not much doctors can do for someone with COVID. There is no cure or treatment. So unless you have a severe case and need supplemental oxygen, you are better off just keeping quiet and staying home.
He's not saying it's *actually* mild, he's saying that the so-called "mild cases" recorded in China include it. Which means that with this degree of "mildness", they're less likely to evade notice than you're suggesting. Not to mention that they obviously *are* counted. Together with some other things [slashdot.org] it seems unlikely that a substantial portion of the population is simultaneously infected and unaccounted for. "Substantial" meaning "sufficient to bring fatality rate to significantly lower levels", that is f
No one is arguing this. Heath indicators are standard world-wide, otherwise no one would be able to communicate anything meaningful. The mortality rate of a disease is usually given as a percentage of detected cases. The prevalence and incidence of a disease is usually given as a number of cases per 100,000 population. Epidemiology has already been invented. Also 5.8% seems a bit high from what I've read. JAMA seems to be going with 2.3% or so. Considering that over 60% of detected cases have actually prese
he said that.. he said 5.8% of cases. but the bigger thing he was pointing out was the R0 > 2. In other words... 5.8% of people infected die... and on average each infected person infects more than 2 people... if the disease's R0 stays as high as it is... that means everyone will eventually be infected. (obviously that's the point of the attempted quarantines, lock downs etc... is to try to bring the R0 down).
One thing to avoid doing is to hang too much significance on the possibility most of the cases haven't been identified. Epidemiologists are not dummies; they realize that there are cases that don't get reported. The work from the data they have because otherwise you're working from speculation.
If, as you suggest, the number of people infected were significantly higher, sure; knowing that would decrease your estimate of the disease's mortality rate. But it would also increase your estimate of the diseases
One thing to avoid doing is to hang too much significance on the possibility most of the cases haven't been identified. Epidemiologists are not dummies; they realize that there are cases that don't get reported. The work from the data they have because otherwise you're working from speculation.
If, as you suggest, the number of people infected were significantly higher, sure; knowing that would decrease your estimate of the disease's mortality rate. But it would also increase your estimate of the diseases *transmissibilty*.
We're still in the early stages of this thing, and if its transmissibilty were much higher than we thought, that'd be worse news than the case fatality rate being higher.
Are there people still alive there? (Score:-1)
Re: (Score:-1)
I thought that was where the Coronavirus started? I'm surprised anyone that didn't get taken out with that first wave remained around.
Just an FYI, the Coronavirus started in China, not North Korea.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Mortality rate in Wuhan is 5.8% of cases. An epidemic with a 5.8% mortality rate and an R0 > 2 is sure going to be bring your local society to a screeching halt.
People *would* flee if they could, but China has shut the place down and confined everyone to their apartments. I'm sure a few people on the edges of Hubei snuck out of their houses at night and crossed the border, but if you're in Wuhan, forget it. You can't take a train or bus or plane out of the place. Even if you tried to ride your bike ou
Re: (Score:2)
Below just for clarification
5.8% of the people who got it AND where identified as having it.
Wikipedia tells me there are 11 million people who live in Wuhan. If you look worldwide, the number of cases is 112.000 Even if everybody lived in Wuhan, that would be 1%.
So the mortality rate is NOT 5.8% of all people, but of those identified as having the virus.In other places the numbers are way lower. To me that shows that in Wuhan there are more people who have NOT been identified and showing only mild symptoms.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He *did* say "5.8% of cases".
Many people with mild cases likely don't even go to the hospital. So they aren't counted.
Hospitals are full of sick people and are not healthy places. There not much doctors can do for someone with COVID. There is no cure or treatment. So unless you have a severe case and need supplemental oxygen, you are better off just keeping quiet and staying home.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Mild cases" in this outbreak includes everything up to full-blown pneumonia. [twitter.com]
"Full-blown pneumonia" is not mild, even if some guy on Twitter says it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
So the mortality rate is NOT 5.8% of all people
No one is arguing this. Heath indicators are standard world-wide, otherwise no one would be able to communicate anything meaningful. The mortality rate of a disease is usually given as a percentage of detected cases. The prevalence and incidence of a disease is usually given as a number of cases per 100,000 population. Epidemiology has already been invented. Also 5.8% seems a bit high from what I've read. JAMA seems to be going with 2.3% or so. Considering that over 60% of detected cases have actually prese
Re: (Score:2)
I expect over time estimates of case mortality rate to go down in most areas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One thing to avoid doing is to hang too much significance on the possibility most of the cases haven't been identified. Epidemiologists are not dummies; they realize that there are cases that don't get reported. The work from the data they have because otherwise you're working from speculation.
If, as you suggest, the number of people infected were significantly higher, sure; knowing that would decrease your estimate of the disease's mortality rate. But it would also increase your estimate of the diseases
Re: (Score:2)
One thing to avoid doing is to hang too much significance on the possibility most of the cases haven't been identified. Epidemiologists are not dummies; they realize that there are cases that don't get reported. The work from the data they have because otherwise you're working from speculation.
If, as you suggest, the number of people infected were significantly higher, sure; knowing that would decrease your estimate of the disease's mortality rate. But it would also increase your estimate of the diseases *transmissibilty*.
We're still in the early stages of this thing, and if its transmissibilty were much higher than we thought, that'd be worse news than the case fatality rate being higher.
SPOT ON
Re: (Score:1)
Chinese fathers have been forced to stay home and entertain their children.
How will they entertain the kids? By reading selected passages from Mao's Little Red Book?
Re: (Score:2)
From Adam Smith.