Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Coronavirus Real Time Map

gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 146 posts

Re: Coronavirus Real Time Map

#131

Post by xdarnold »

gdfasfklshg4 wrote: post #77
xdarnold wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is incorrect. If we assume that this virus is as infectious as the common cold, we can expect the infection rate within a household to be approximately 25% of contacts. That means that of the people you LIVE with, 25% will catch it from you. 50% infection rate in a large, distributed population like China would be very extreme.

I never said 50% of the population have the same cold at once. 50% catching it over a 6 month period is very reasonable.

Over any time frame, it's still quite extreme. To use influenza as a proxy, which has virulence comparable to the cold, the yearly incidence rate in China is <35 per 100,000. Even if this is a full 100x worse, we aren't even getting close to 50% infection rate over the season or a 6 month time frame.

Re: Coronavirus Real Time Map

#132

Post by infinity0 »

brigandish wrote: post #130
infinity0 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The guy needs to Chill T F O. R0 of measles is like 12-18. And with the city-wide quarantine people should be modelling 99.99% reductions in travel not 99%.

> Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding (Eric Ding) is a health economist, epidemiologist, and nutrition scientist at the Harvard Chan School of Public Health, and an expert advisor to the World Health Organization. I'm not usually one for relying heavily on authority, but this guy[1] is likely to know when the R0 number looks very, very bad. [1] https://scholar.harvard.edu/ericding/home

Literally thousands of other people have the same qualifications as him and are also not freaking out over Twitter. I'd say the data leans more heavily in the other direction.

Re: Coronavirus Real Time Map

#133

Post by xdarnold »

xdarnold wrote: post #131
gdfasfklshg4 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never said 50% of the population have the same cold at once. 50% catching it over a 6 month period is very reasonable.

Over any time frame, it's still quite extreme. To use influenza as a proxy, which has virulence comparable to the cold, the yearly incidence rate in China is <35 per 100,000. Even if this is a full 100x worse, we aren't even getting close to 50% infection rate over the season or a 6 month time frame.

Replying myself to add reference, here:

https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(19)30354-6/pdf

This is all well understood, and studied in considerable depth.

The media overreaction is typical, but here at HN we are better than that and we should strive to rely on established science (where available). No need to throw out extreme or unreasonable numbers!

Re: Coronavirus Real Time Map

#134

Post by koheripbal »

cjhopman wrote: post #120
koheripbal wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Influenza deaths are 2 per 100,000. source: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/flu.htm SARS death rate is around 10% source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndr...

You are comparing apples to oranges. Here's a better set of comparisons: Deaths per 100,000: Influenza: 2 SARS: 0.22 https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/flu.htm , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndr... , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_China % of deaths of hospitalized people: Influenza: ~10% SARS: ??? https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html % of deaths of diagnosed people (~CFR): SA…

Your 0.22 number is nowhere in your sources, and is obviously off by several orders of magnitude based off of my original sources above.

Re: Coronavirus Real Time Map

#135

Post by brigandish »

infinity0 wrote: post #132
brigandish wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding (Eric Ding) is a health economist, epidemiologist, and nutrition scientist at the Harvard Chan School of Public Health, and an expert advisor to the World Health Organization. I'm not usually one for relying heavily on authority, but this guy[1] is likely to know when the R0 number looks very, very bad. [1] https://scholar.harvard.edu/ericding/home

Literally thousands of other people have the same qualifications as him and are also not freaking out over Twitter. I'd say the data leans more heavily in the other direction.

> As a Web of Science Highly Cited Researcher, He was ranked in 2018 as among the Top 1% of all scientists worldwide.

Let's cut that down to hundreds.

Re: Coronavirus Real Time Map

#136

Post by cjhopman »

koheripbal wrote: post #134
cjhopman wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are comparing apples to oranges. Here's a better set of comparisons: Deaths per 100,000: Influenza: 2 SARS: 0.22 https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/flu.htm , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndr... , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_China % of deaths of hospitalized people: Influenza: ~10% SARS: ??? https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html % of deaths of diagnosed people (~CFR): SA…

Your 0.22 number is nowhere in your sources, and is obviously off by several orders of magnitude based off of my original sources above.

I think you don't understand how mortality rates are calculated. This also explains why you took two completely unrelated measure and compared them to each other in your original post. Deaths per 100,000 is based on total population.

The SARS mortality rate for China in 2003 was ~0.02 (349 deaths, 1.3billion population). I was being nice to you and using just the population of southern china where the sars outbreak primarily occurred.

Whether that's the most appropriate measure for this comparison isn't clear, which is why included the other measures.

Re: Coronavirus Real Time Map

#137

Post by cjhopman »

cjhopman wrote: post #136
koheripbal wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your 0.22 number is nowhere in your sources, and is obviously off by several orders of magnitude based off of my original sources above.

I think you don't understand how mortality rates are calculated. This also explains why you took two completely unrelated measure and compared them to each other in your original post. Deaths per 100,000 is based on total population. The SARS mortality rate for China in 2003 was ~0.02 (349 deaths, 1.3billion population). I was being nice to you and using just the population of southern china where the sars outbreak p…

If you limit to just Taiwan or Hong Kong where SARS was pretty bad, you get 0.6 and 4.4 respectively. At that point, it's less of a good comparison as you should apply the same focusing in for influenza.

Also, that's looking at the US mortality rate for influenza which is particularly low. The worldwide average is 5.9, with regions ranging from 4.5-6.2 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6815659/).

Re: Coronavirus Real Time Map

#138

Post by gdfasfklshg4 »

xdarnold wrote: post #131
gdfasfklshg4 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never said 50% of the population have the same cold at once. 50% catching it over a 6 month period is very reasonable.

Over any time frame, it's still quite extreme. To use influenza as a proxy, which has virulence comparable to the cold, the yearly incidence rate in China is <35 per 100,000. Even if this is a full 100x worse, we aren't even getting close to 50% infection rate over the season or a 6 month time frame.

I was comparing with a cold not with influenza.

We could try to make the comparison you are suggesting instead. But to make a valid comparison we need to consider:

Is influenza infectious for 10 days before any symptoms show?

How many people get the influenza vaccine each year? I.e. is there some herd immunity built up?

The symptoms of influenza are universally nasty for everyone infected. No one with the flu is walking around and going to work (if you think do then you don't have the influenza virus you have a cold). It seems that at least some people with this new corona virus just have cold like symptoms and therefore will not by default be self-isolating like people with influenza naturally do.

Re: Coronavirus Real Time Map

#139

Post by gdfasfklshg4 »

xdarnold wrote: post #133
xdarnold wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Over any time frame, it's still quite extreme. To use influenza as a proxy, which has virulence comparable to the cold, the yearly incidence rate in China is <35 per 100,000. Even if this is a full 100x worse, we aren't even getting close to 50% infection rate over the season or a 6 month time frame.

Replying myself to add reference, here: https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(19)30354-6/pdf This is all well understood, and studied in considerable depth. The media overreaction is typical, but here at HN we are better than that and we should strive to rely on established science (where available). No need to throw out extreme or unreasonable numbers!

See my other comment. I was comparing to one of the viruses that causes a COLD not influenza.

Colds are quite different to flues.

Re: Coronavirus Real Time Map

#140

Post by bart_spoon »

ilkan wrote: post #121
bart_spoon wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a single death of someone in their 30s out of 100+. And I don't even know if its been confirmed if they were immunocomprimised or not. Every other person to die was 47 or above, many of who had previous health issues. 1 out of 100 is is a pretty good indication that it mostly dangerous to the older population. The fact that no young children to have died yet, which also tend to be a vulnerable group for vir…

"50% of the deaths were under 47"... fixed that for you. Also implying people over 47 are elderly and not worthy caring about? Most middle managers, craftsmen, ceo's, politicians, doctors, professors, military officers would disagree.

50% of deaths were under 47? Do you have a source for this? Because I can't find that anywhere, and the last time anyone reported any numbers it was literally all but 1 were 47 or older.

And I'm not implying that people 47 and older arent worth caring about. But that group is always tends to have more severe health problems, which is why people should take those numbers with a grain of salt.

Post reply on HN