Age, Sex, Existing Conditions of Covid-19 Cases and Deaths • Hacker News Board

Re: Age, Sex, Existing Conditions of Covid-19 Cases and Deaths

#291

Post by mrb » Thu, Feb 27, 2020, 4:45 PM UTC

nik_s wrote: post #57

The general issue with this measure of mortality (dead/(infected + dead)) is that you're assuming that the infected won't die. In a disease that is exponentially growing, a better approximation of evaluating your survival chances is to look at the death to recovery rate (dead / (recovered + dead)). Based on the available data [1], we are closer to 7.8% than 2% mortality, which is closer to the final mortality rate of…

You are exactly correct. With the formulas you described:

naïve CFR = deaths / cases

resolved CFR = deaths / (deaths + recoveries)

It can be shown pretty dramatically in outbreak simulations how more accurate the resolved CFR is than the naïve CFR. See for example the chart https://blog.zorinaq.com/assets/outbreak2.svg In that specific example, the naïve CFR underestimates by 5x, while the resolved CFR is only off by ~1.3x. I ran this simulation as part of my blog post on how to estimate the Case Fatality Ratio of the coronavirus: https://blog.zorinaq.com/case-fatality-ratio-ncov/

Re: Age, Sex, Existing Conditions of Covid-19 Cases and Deaths

#292

Post by jaynetics » Thu, Feb 27, 2020, 4:45 PM UTC

zebrafish wrote: post #78

i know it's passe to rail on the media, but i think the hyperconnectedness of everyone is causing the amount of panic i'm sensing out there to significantly outweigh the risks wrt covid-19.

“I am an old man and have known a great many troubles, but most of them never happened.” Attributed to Mark Twain in Reader's Digest, Apr. 1934

On the other hand, I'm fairly happy that many people wash their hands more, stay out of current hotspots like Lombardy, and do other things that make this less deadly. You wouldn't get this effect without significant coverage.

Re: Age, Sex, Existing Conditions of Covid-19 Cases and Deaths

#293

Post by ggreer » Thu, Feb 27, 2020, 4:46 PM UTC

oefrha wrote: post #263

ggreer wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's look at China's flu death stats to get an idea of how honest the government tends to be. From a 2018 article in a CCP-owned newspaper[1]: > The total number of flu deaths last year was 144, compared with 56 in 2016 and 41 in 2017. A recent article in The Global Times (a tabloid owned by the CCP's official newspaper) gives similar figures.[2] So China lies about flu deaths by 2-3 orders of magnitude . Who knows…

Can’t you see the word “reported” next to the stats? Most flu hospitalizations and deaths aren’t reported. I encourage you to read U.S. CDC’s explanations on how they estimate flu hospitalizations and deaths. Only a small percentage is ever reported even in the U.S. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/how-cdc-estimates.htm

In the same article about 144 reported flu deaths, they cite the comparable Hong Kong flu stats (226 dead) despite Hong Kong having 0.5% of the population of China. Nowhere in that article do they mention differences in methodologies of reported vs estimated.

My point is that if the China CDC is counting covid-19 cases the way they count flu cases, that means the actual numbers are much worse. They underreport the number of flu cases by a factor of 50. eg: They claim 700,000 cases in 2018, which is less than 0.1% of the population. (In developed countries, around 5% of the population gets the flu each year.) Then they juke the stats to claim fewer flu deaths than there actually are (144 deaths instead of 150,000).

I don't think the numbers for covid-19 are off by two orders of magnitude, but my point is that the China CDC loves to publish numbers that amount to outright lies.

Re: Age, Sex, Existing Conditions of Covid-19 Cases and Deaths

#294

Post by scarmig » Thu, Feb 27, 2020, 4:48 PM UTC

ekianjo wrote: post #257

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is in the healthcare capacities. I live in a country with ~2mio people. If you're patient zero here, you get a comfy private room, your own bed, 5 doctors, 10 nurses, whole research teams, respirators, priority with all the tests, examinations, etc. Same for patient 1, 2, 3. If 200k people get infected (10% of population), and only 10% of those need extra medical care, that's 20.000 people. We don't have…

Spot on. Medical facilities are not up to support in times of widespread epidemics. Which means most people would not get any treatment and you should expect mortality rate to increase over time as it becomes more widespread.

You can see this in provincial level mortality rates: at low infection concentrations, it's a more deadly than flu but nothing insane. But once resources are swamped (e.g. in Hubei), the mortality jumps an order of magnitude.

Re: Age, Sex, Existing Conditions of Covid-19 Cases and Deaths

#295

Post by oefrha » Thu, Feb 27, 2020, 4:52 PM UTC

ggreer wrote: post #293

oefrha wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can’t you see the word “reported” next to the stats? Most flu hospitalizations and deaths aren’t reported. I encourage you to read U.S. CDC’s explanations on how they estimate flu hospitalizations and deaths. Only a small percentage is ever reported even in the U.S. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/how-cdc-estimates.htm

In the same article about 144 reported flu deaths, they cite the comparable Hong Kong flu stats (226 dead) despite Hong Kong having 0.5% of the population of China. Nowhere in that article do they mention differences in methodologies of reported vs estimated. My point is that if the China CDC is counting covid-19 cases the way they count flu cases, that means the actual numbers are much worse. They underreport the nu…

> Yes, my point is blah blah

Yes, and that’s a ridiculous “point” however you interpret it.

Re: Age, Sex, Existing Conditions of Covid-19 Cases and Deaths

#296

Post by 52-6F-62 » Thu, Feb 27, 2020, 4:53 PM UTC

Loughla wrote: post #183

ableal wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few days ago I looked up the numbers for the 1918 flu - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu - world population: 1800 million - infected: 500 million - dead: 50 million I did not know it had been that bad.

There's this weird social media thirst for this to become the next spanish flu. My family (midwest conservatives) fall into one of two camps: 1. This was sent by Jesus and is a prelude to the rapture, literally. 2. The spanish flu happened 100 years ago, and 100 is a big round number, so this is going to do the same things. It's very strange and surreal around the home town right now. Many elderly are openly embracin…

> 1. This was sent by Jesus and is a prelude to the rapture, literally.

This one has me concerned. There's a lot of overlap between that group and the preppers with itchy trigger fingers.

I've seen remarks from some about believing the virus is the case ("pestilence, floods") with others responding "Yes, praise God. It's time to make your peace".

Re: Age, Sex, Existing Conditions of Covid-19 Cases and Deaths

#297

Post by scarmig » Thu, Feb 27, 2020, 4:53 PM UTC

learc83 wrote: post #255

zaroth wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO it’s one of the best data points we have. As I understand it, everyone on the ship was exposed, everyone was tested, we know exactly how many people became infected, and under close to ideal treatment conditions, there have been (so far) 4 fatalities of elderly patients. Yes, this doesn’t tell you what happens with less than ideal care (higher fatality rates), or under different populations (lower fatality rates)…

>but it’s a world of difference from the 10% fatality rates being tossed around elsewhere in this thread. I agree. I misspoke when I said very little. I was taking issue with the OPs assertion that 0.5% was a best case mortality rate. I should have said it's closer to an upper bound assuming ideal treatment, since it looks like this is much worse for the elderly.

Best case was ambiguous phrasing, but I intended it to mean "in the case of the best possible treatment."

Re: Age, Sex, Existing Conditions of Covid-19 Cases and Deaths

#298

Post by ggreer » Thu, Feb 27, 2020, 4:54 PM UTC

oefrha wrote: post #295

ggreer wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the same article about 144 reported flu deaths, they cite the comparable Hong Kong flu stats (226 dead) despite Hong Kong having 0.5% of the population of China. Nowhere in that article do they mention differences in methodologies of reported vs estimated. My point is that if the China CDC is counting covid-19 cases the way they count flu cases, that means the actual numbers are much worse. They underreport the nu…

> Yes, my point is blah blah Yes, and that’s a ridiculous “point” however you interpret it.

Please don't use quote tags if it's not a quote.

Also it's clear by your mockery that you don't want to discuss this in good faith.

Re: Age, Sex, Existing Conditions of Covid-19 Cases and Deaths

#299

Post by gdy » Thu, Feb 27, 2020, 4:54 PM UTC

mattkrause wrote: post #54

ericb wrote: post #12

Does anyone have a system for keeping on top of the latest studies and preprints? I get study links second-hand on social media sites, but I'd like to watch them closer.

Most new biology papers (in general, not just for coronavirus) are posted to bioarXiv. Bear in mind that these are unreviewed and, given the importance (and trendiness) many of them have been rushed out. There are also strong career incentives to make sensational claims that go viral. Definitely worth reading if you've got some relevant background, but keep your skeptical hat on too.

"that go viral" :)

Re: Age, Sex, Existing Conditions of Covid-19 Cases and Deaths

#300

Post by ajross » Thu, Feb 27, 2020, 4:55 PM UTC

JshWright wrote: post #134

ajross wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This article literally is data.

It's incomplete data, that is being combined in ways to give certain impressions, that aren't necessarily backed by actual medical science.

Gah, the data in this article is literally medical science. It's reporting on a paper from the Chinese Journal of Epidemiology, which it even links you to directly.

Now, maybe this science is wrong. If you want to make that argument, though, you need to make it with evidence. You don't get to dismiss it like that without doing your own science.