Coronavirus: Largest study suggests elderly and sick are most at risk • Hacker News Board

Re: Coronavirus: Largest study suggests elderly and sick are most at risk

#11

Post by blywi » Tue, Feb 18, 2020, 5:08 PM UTC

irq11 wrote: post #7

masayoshis_son wrote: post #3

The conclusions are of little informational value as the same is going to apply to practically any pathogen-borne disease (unless a vast group of the elderly had the chance to acquire prior immunity, as is the case with some strains of flu being similar to those from the past, in which case younger people are at a relative disadvantage). What is more important to realize about the virus is that (1) a death rate of 2%…

What is more important to realize is that the parameters you’re citing haven’t been borne out outside of Hubei, and that everywhere else it has emerged, it’s been...about as bad as the flu. You’re also citing numbers that every credible expert says are systematically inflated. The death rate in China is very likely exaggerated, because (as you say) the hospitals are overwhelmed with panicked locals (which tends to ha…

You are probably right that the numbers out of Hubei province are inflated and less severe cases are underrepresented. Unfortunately, according to some experts, the case fatality rate of ~2% seems to hold even for cases outside of China.

Statistical modeling of the case fatality rate using only cases and deaths reported from outside China was done by Christian L. Althaus (Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern), this estimates the CFR for COVID-19 at 2.1% although with a high uncertainty (95% confidence interval: 0.5%-5.4%). Data and R code for his modeling are available on Github: https://github.com/calthaus/ncov-cfr

A comment from Adam Kucharski (Associate Professor, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine) on Twitter: https://twitter.com/AdamJKucharski/status/122970801348691148...

"... The upshot: the widely quoted 2% fatality for China is calculated incorrectly, because it's based on data that is under-reported and doesn't account for delays. But, confusingly, these errors may actually cancel out, leading to an estimate that is right for the wrong reasons ..."

Re: Coronavirus: Largest study suggests elderly and sick are most at risk

#12

Post by irq11 » Tue, Feb 18, 2020, 5:28 PM UTC

blywi wrote: post #11

irq11 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is more important to realize is that the parameters you’re citing haven’t been borne out outside of Hubei, and that everywhere else it has emerged, it’s been...about as bad as the flu. You’re also citing numbers that every credible expert says are systematically inflated. The death rate in China is very likely exaggerated, because (as you say) the hospitals are overwhelmed with panicked locals (which tends to ha…

You are probably right that the numbers out of Hubei province are inflated and less severe cases are underrepresented. Unfortunately, according to some experts, the case fatality rate of ~2% seems to hold even for cases outside of China. Statistical modeling of the case fatality rate using only cases and deaths reported from outside China was done by Christian L. Althaus (Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine,…

You’re citing a cherry-picked study that supports your preconceptions.

Re: Coronavirus: Largest study suggests elderly and sick are most at risk

#13

Post by irq11 » Tue, Feb 18, 2020, 5:33 PM UTC

masayoshis_son wrote: post #10

irq11 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is more important to realize is that the parameters you’re citing haven’t been borne out outside of Hubei, and that everywhere else it has emerged, it’s been...about as bad as the flu. You’re also citing numbers that every credible expert says are systematically inflated. The death rate in China is very likely exaggerated, because (as you say) the hospitals are overwhelmed with panicked locals (which tends to ha…

Death rates will be lower than in Hubei if not a lot of people become infected at the same time elsewhere but is this really a safe assumption to make, given what we already know about the disease's high infectivity? Since deaths are trailing the onset of symptoms by as much as 20 days, what we are seeing now are the outcomes of people who became sick in the end of January. Even a death rate of "just" 1% (as you quot…

You cannot compare point estimates of “death rates”, as you’re trying to do. Taken together, the totality of evidence outside of Hubei suggests that this is a very mild illness, on par with the common cold, for non-vulnerable populations.

Stop fear-mongering.