The methodological approach and data sources are detailed in the associated post by JHU professor Lauren Gardner: https://systems.jhu.edu/research/public-health/ncov/
Coronavirus Real Time Map
91–100 of 146 posts
Re: Coronavirus Real Time Map
#92If these stats hold, the disease looks to have a mortality of around 2%.
Doesn't sound like a lot, but an R0 of >2 is concerning because of what it means for total infected. 2% of everyone within range of access to modern transportation is an awful lot of people.
Re: Coronavirus Real Time Map
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
From what I've read so far, it seems that hosts can infect healthy people 1-2 weeks before first symptoms. Something missing though is how long after the infection does the host become active in spreading the virus.
China has stated that they think it can be contagious before symptoms. The US has stated as of yesterday (Jan 27) that there is no evidence for that yet.
The German case confirms it is. A woman (from Shanghai, infected by her parents from Wuhan) gave a training seminar in Munich. She transmitted the virus to her German colleage (33 yr), but started to feel ill only on her flight back to China. (The man developed symptoms over the weekend, but his state improved, so he actually went to work on Monday, was hospitalized on Tuesday.)
Re: Coronavirus Real Time Map
#94Found this report circulating on twitter from a junior doctor in Australia. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.23.20018549v... Novel coronavirus 2019-nCoV: early estimation of epidemiological parameters and epidemic predictions > Key findings: > ● We estimate the basic reproduction number of the infection (𝑅𝑅0) to be significantly greater than one. We estimate it to be between 3.6 and 4.0, indicating t…
Western news media are currently reporting ~100 dead and ~4,500 infected (though that number is surely much higher in reality). This is a ~2% mortality rate. Can we naïvely extrapolate that we expect ~4,000 casualties from ~190,000 infections? I'm not good at understanding numbers, but I'm sure someone here can chime in with a better way to read this.
You can naively extrapolate that, but it will be, well, a naive extrapolation. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it won't necessarily be accurate. If the virus does get into, say, the US, but it happens to only infect 20-40 year-olds through office transmission, it probably won't even be that fatal. If it happens to get into a senior home, it could be a great deal more deadly.
And that's before we consider the spoiler of mutations, which is the real problem. In the long term, it is evolutionarily advantageous for the virus to become less lethal and eventually fade into the background as just another cold, if it isn't wiped out by aggressive quarantining. However, in the short term, many of the same things that will make it more transmissible, such as more effectively converting host systems into virus factories, or contrariwise, being more effectively hidden while still being contagious, will also make it more dangerous to the host and/or society.
But for all that, there is a sense in which the "naive extrapolation" is also the best thing we have right now based on available data. It is, at least, data-driven.
Re: Coronavirus Real Time Map
#95Found this report circulating on twitter from a junior doctor in Australia. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.23.20018549v... Novel coronavirus 2019-nCoV: early estimation of epidemiological parameters and epidemic predictions > Key findings: > ● We estimate the basic reproduction number of the infection (𝑅𝑅0) to be significantly greater than one. We estimate it to be between 3.6 and 4.0, indicating t…
Western news media are currently reporting ~100 dead and ~4,500 infected (though that number is surely much higher in reality). This is a ~2% mortality rate. Can we naïvely extrapolate that we expect ~4,000 casualties from ~190,000 infections? I'm not good at understanding numbers, but I'm sure someone here can chime in with a better way to read this.
I'm not qualified to have an opinion on the the virus, but the numbers could exhibit a selection bias: People with relatively mild symptoms and no death probably could be misdiagnosed as having a flu or proper influenza, which would imply that the mortality rate would actually be lower.
Re: Coronavirus Real Time Map
#96This looks a lot more serious compared to a week ago.
People who are actually concerned at this stage while ignoring the scientists who say there's no proof it's serious are prime examples of the types who get worked up by the media hypetrain and should be actively avoided. It's a harsh assessment but honestly think it's the case. The media sell stories. People click on those stories, the stories that get clicked on most get other stories written on the topic. This is h…
China just shut down 15 cities and 2 provinces with nearly 80 million people and put men with guns in nbc suits at all the exits,shut down the internet,stop all travel and extend public holidays Im sure its perfectly harmless
Re: Coronavirus Real Time Map
#97If these stats hold, the disease looks to have a mortality of around 2%. Doesn't sound like a lot, but an R0 of >2 is concerning because of what it means for total infected. 2% of everyone within range of access to modern transportation is an awful lot of people.
The problem is not many patients who have contracted the virus have released from hospital yet. Any there are many serious cases. From many Chinese sources such as [1], Chinese gov's data shows there are 4515 confirmed cases, 106 deaths, 976 in critical conditions, recovered and discharged only 60 cases. So I'm not sure how we should calculate mortality rate right now.
Re: Coronavirus Real Time Map
#98This looks a lot more serious compared to a week ago.
People who are actually concerned at this stage while ignoring the scientists who say there's no proof it's serious are prime examples of the types who get worked up by the media hypetrain and should be actively avoided. It's a harsh assessment but honestly think it's the case. The media sell stories. People click on those stories, the stories that get clicked on most get other stories written on the topic. This is h…
If the 2% mortality rate is correct, then the risk of dying to the virus is significantly higher than my risk of dying in traffic. It is bad if such a potent virus were to spread everywhere.
That said, I don't trust the numbers so at this point it's hard to say. My gut says there are way more infected people than reported, but deaths are probably less likely to be underreported at that scale. Which means mortality rate would actually be significantly lower than 2%. On flip side, the chance of getting infected would be much higher.
Re: Coronavirus Real Time Map
#99So based on the outcome so far (107 deaths, 63 fully recovered) the survival rate is 37%?
Patients outside of China do not seem to have serious illness so far. https://www.reddit.com/r/China_Flu/comments/euvexx/current_s... But there are two few confirmed cases to understand the mortality rate. Might be there are additional factors unique to China that is causing a higher death rate.
These are the ones self reporting and getting prompt care.
Re: Coronavirus Real Time Map
#100This looks a lot more serious compared to a week ago.
People who are actually concerned at this stage while ignoring the scientists who say there's no proof it's serious are prime examples of the types who get worked up by the media hypetrain and should be actively avoided. It's a harsh assessment but honestly think it's the case. The media sell stories. People click on those stories, the stories that get clicked on most get other stories written on the topic. This is h…
[deleted]