Death rate of coronavirus under 1 percent?

[Chomsky]

yeah the article wasn't quite up to snuff on a second review

South Korea is also testing thousands and is treating cases very early before complications can arise. Are we doing that here?

The quality of the healthcare infrastructure in terms of fighting the virus is a variable. For that 0.6% number to maintain, if it is indeed accurate, will vary depending on other countries infrastructure. We'd have to show that America's virus fighting health infrastructure is as good as Korea's, and so far that has not been demonstrated.

 

[Fishking]

That is a huge problem. I get it people are afraid and want to see comforting numbers, but ignoring risk is stupid

So far it doesn't seem to be a risk if you're not old with respiratory issues.

 

[Fishking]

Slowing the spread doesn't really impact the mortality rate.

Mostly correct but it depends on who the slowdown rate is effecting. Since it only seems to harm elderly people with respiratory issues then slowing the rate among that group would help. Everyone else seems to not have much of an issue with it.

 

[Slartibartfast]

So far it doesn't seem to be a risk if you're not old with respiratory issues.

very true. I am not personally afraid because the published data shows that I am not a population that is at high risk.

 

[JasperL]

Slowing the spread doesn't really impact the mortality rate.

It can because if it spreads quickly the number of patients can overwhelm the healthcare system, and an overwhelmed system will increase the rate. Further, if the virus behaves like the flu, warmer temps MIGHT slow the spread so anything we can do now to keep communities from having the virus establish itself might reduce the number of cases, with the best case we slow it long enough to get a vaccine.

All that is why the talking points from Trump are so reckless. We really don't want to treat it like "the flu" because it's different, and extraordinary efforts now might in fact save some unknown number of thousands of lives, long term, short term.

FWIW, the editorial doesn't really put a point estimate on the death rate because we just don't know. By comparison, the average flu has a death rate of about 0.1% but the 1968 pandemic (mentioned as a possible close parallel) had a death rate of something 0.5%, or 5X higher. Do some math - 20% infection rate, 65 million, and each 0.1% over the baseline is an additional 65,000 dead. So if it's "only" 0.5%, that is an additional 260,000 dead, in addition to the flu, and most of them older people. So it's comforting, I guess, that it's not 1% but the numbers even as contemplated in the editorial are pretty staggering.

 

[Fishking]

I see you took your study link down. Might as well as it was garbage ... (grin) ...

South Korea is showing us already that the death rate is way below 1%.

March 5, 2020 - "The US and South Korea announced their first cases of the coronavirus on the same day: January 20. More than six weeks later, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has tested around 1,500 people for the virus. South Korea, meanwhile, has tested about 140,000.

This quick response has allowed South Korea to detect more than 6,000 coronavirus patients, around 35 of whom have died. That means the country's death rate is around 0.6%. ..."

South Korea has widespread coronavirus testing, sees low death rate - Business Insider


I suspect that the death rate in developed nations will be even lower while countries like Iran and China will have one of the highest death rates.

Not to mention even that % is likely to drop because those are only the number they've tested, not the number that's infected, which is going to be much higher.

 

[Fishking]

No, it's not speculation. The media is generally presenting hard numbers in relation to known cases and the resultant mortality rate as being reported by the various governments & health organizations.

What is speculation, is your & others' speculating that there are many unknown cases that will dilute the current known mortality rate. That may be a fair speculation, but it is just that - speculation.

If they don't know how many people are actually infected, then it's speculation.

 

[Chomsky]

Not sure about that but the U.S. certainly is faring better than most EU, ME and Asian countries, as far as new cases and deaths go.

Take a look: Coronavirus Update (Live): 113,754 Cases and 3,990 Deaths from COVID-19 Wuhan China Virus Outbreak - Worldometer

I'm not sure what you & your source mean by "new cases and deaths".

But the U.S. overall numbers seem to be worse, often substantially worse, than any of the European countries with the exception of Italy (and then we're only slightly better there (Italy) at that).

Your U.S. data is showing over a 3-1/2 percent fatality rate.

 

[Chomsky]

If they don't know how many people are actually infected, then it's speculation.

No. Not at all. The poster's claim is the media is "speculating". They are not. They are reporting hard data from various governments & health organizations.

 

[Chomsky]

Mostly correct but it depends on who the slowdown rate is effecting. Since it only seems to harm elderly people with respiratory issues then slowing the rate among that group would help. Everyone else seems to not have much of an issue with it.

I'm in agreement with you here, but only in that we should take extraordinary measures around assisted living & retirement community & facilities. Obviously we still need to halt the virus' progression in the general populace, because anyone harboring the virus is a carrier and may unknowingly interact with a more easily compromised group.

 

[trixare4kids]

I'm not sure what you & your source mean by "new cases and deaths".

But the U.S. overall numbers seem to be worse, often substantially worse, than any of the European countries with the exception of Italy (and then we're only slightly better there (Italy) at that).

Your U.S. data is showing over a 3-1/2 percent fatality rate.

What's not to understand.
You must be seeing something differently than I am.

 

[Chomsky]

What's not to understand.
You must be seeing something differently than I am.

What do they mean by "new" cases?

And I assume you agree with the U.S. 3-1/2 percent fatality rate in your data set?

 

[trixare4kids]

What do they mean by "new" cases?

And I assume you agree with the 3-1/2 percent fatality rate in your data set?

KNOWN new cases from the day before. Everyday these figures change. The U.S is faring better than China, S. Korea, Iran, Spain, Italy, France, Germany go.
I don't pay attention to the fatality percentage; see other link I posted to the thread as to why that is.

 

[Mongidig]

So basically the mortality rate is similar to the common flu? I believes I mentioned this would be the case several weeks ago. I would have said the only thing we have to fear is fear itself if that quote wasn't already taken. The Democrats and liberal media have weaponized this fear mongering and the public is buying it.

 

[ttwtt78640]

No, it's not speculation. The media is generally presenting hard numbers in relation to known cases and the resultant mortality rate as being reported by the various governments & health organizations.

What is speculation, is your & others' speculating that there are many unknown cases that will dilute the current known mortality rate. That may be a fair speculation, but it is just that - speculation.

The problem is that there is simply no standard for defining a "known" COVID-19 case as opposed to a "suspected" or "presumed" COVID-19 case. That is precisely why folks are being kept in quarantine for two weeks (or more) in order to determine whether or not they are in fact carriers of the COVID-19 virus.

 

[Peter King]

COVID-19 Mortality Rate May Be 'Considerably Less Than 1%'

This is dangerous for elderly people and those with severe respiratory issues.

To everybody else, not so much.

tell that to the Italians where the death rate is over 5%

In the US it is now 3.5%

So no, so far there is no indication that the death rate will be considerably less than 1%

Maybe if a vaccine is found and implemented in a few weeks that death rate could fall considerably but I am not waiting for that to happen anytime soon.

13% of the active cases right now are in serious or critical condition so it is almost certain that the death rate will rise.

In Italy the number of new cases was 1797 and the number of deaths rose by 97 people.

And I think in cities like New York the worst is yet to come.

 

[JasperL]

You know, no disrespect, but if I were hearing this from a source that was not the Trump health administration, I'd give it more credence.

Right now you can't even use the CDC numbers, which are woefully low. The (domestic) numbers from the Johns-Hopkins website were 4X as high as the CDC when I posted last night. Johns-Hopkins is the data from the the boots on the ground providers, while the CDC is data filtered by the Trump administration for your consumption. I'd be extremely wary of trusting anything from them.

It looks like CDC might not be reporting to WHO either. I've been using that data, but it's still got the U.S. at 213 cases in the report today, and 2 days since the last case.

Situation reports

 

[Lutherf]

COVID-19 Mortality Rate May Be 'Considerably Less Than 1%'

This is dangerous for elderly people and those with severe respiratory issues.

To everybody else, not so much.

That sounds like fake news to me. The word I'm getting is that this virus has an unreported death rate of 165% but international governments, lead by Trump, are covering that up to prevent a panic.

 

[Port & Starboard]

COVID-19 Mortality Rate May Be 'Considerably Less Than 1%'

This is dangerous for elderly people and those with severe respiratory issues.

To everybody else, not so much.

It should be taken seriously.

But the freakout factor has been fueled for the obvious reasons.

 

[Lutherf]

That is a huge problem. I get it people are afraid and want to see comforting numbers, but ignoring risk is stupid

That's true. If we really want to be safe we should panic about anything and everything that could possibly befall us. If someone owns a gun it's only right to assume that they will turn into a homicidal maniac. If anyone has a penis we should assume that they will eventually rape women, children and chickens. If a bank denies a loan to someone we should assume that the entire financial industry is racist and plotting the destruction of people of color. The only way we can possibly be safe from this terror is to have a government in place that does everything for us.

 

[JasperL]

Mostly correct but it depends on who the slowdown rate is effecting. Since it only seems to harm elderly people with respiratory issues then slowing the rate among that group would help. Everyone else seems to not have much of an issue with it.

That's not entirely true. The risk of death is non-trivial in those not old and not with respiratory issues. It's just far higher for those in the vulnerable group.

E.g. Who is getting sick? A look at coronavirus risk by age, gender, and more

Co-morbidities also raise the risk of dying from Covid-19. China CDC’s analysis of 44,672 patients found that the fatality rate in patients who reported no other health conditions was 0.9%. It was 10.5% for those with cardiovascular disease, 7.3% for those with diabetes, 6.3% for people with chronic respiratory diseases such as COPD, 6.0% for people with hypertension, and 5.6% for those with cancer.

A death rate of 1/100 for healthy people, no matter the age, is scary IMO. Start lumping in non-elderly adults with those listed conditions and you get to significant total of adults - maybe 50%.

In general, IMO spreading the idea that the only ones at risk are old, frail is pretty irresponsible.

 

[JasperL]

So basically the mortality rate is similar to the common flu? I believes I mentioned this would be the case several weeks ago. I would have said the only thing we have to fear is fear itself if that quote wasn't already taken. The Democrats and liberal media have weaponized this fear mongering and the public is buying it.

We don't know that. Some of the estimates are that the rate is perhaps around 0.5%. If so and the infection rate is 20%, that's an additional 325,000 dead. So is worrying about that and taking extraordinary measures to prevent it "fear mongering" and "weaponizing" a crisis? I wouldn't think so but am interested in what you think.

Basically we don't know the death rate, but again, since we do not know if it's 0.05% (less than flu) or 0.5% (5x higher than flu) what should the public response be? Assume the best case and act accordingly?

 

[JasperL]

It should be taken seriously.

But the freakout factor has been fueled for the obvious reasons.

What's the correct public posture here? If we don't freak out about it, what should institutions do? We have a local music festival that attracts about 85,000 from 48 states and several foreign countries (based on last year) so if we don't freak out about the virus, should we have the festival later this month or not? If we cancel it is that prudent 'taking it seriously' or a liberal MSM-fueled "freakout" to harm Trump?

I can't tell what the difference in those reactions on the ground. Can you help explain exactly how seriously we should take this thing, given the massive unknowns at this point?

 

[JasperL]

That's true. If we really want to be safe we should panic about anything and everything that could possibly befall us. If someone owns a gun it's only right to assume that they will turn into a homicidal maniac. If anyone has a penis we should assume that they will eventually rape women, children and chickens. If a bank denies a loan to someone we should assume that the entire financial industry is racist and plotting the destruction of people of color. The only way we can possibly be safe from this terror is to have a government in place that does everything for us.

OK, so what should government do? Airlines? Schools? Convention centers? Employers of all kinds? You're good at throwing rocks but it's unclear what you support.

Should we do like Trump suggests, and institutions take the attitude - it's the flu - and do nothing more than we do for the flu each year? Open the flights back up to China, Italy, Iran? Let those on the cruise ship just walk off and go about their business like in any other year?

 

[Peter King]

It should be taken seriously.

But the freakout factor has been fueled for the obvious reasons.

What you call the freakout factor is simply to prevent mass illness issues. Just look at the northern part of Italy, it seems the virus is rampant there. The government has had to take (just like in China) drastic measures, draconian measures to be precise. It has all but shut down that part of the country but sadly some people (when the media reported on the plans) "fled" the containment zone.

It is not too smart to listen to the Stand Audiobook during this period as I have been doing

But to be honest, it is better to prevent than cure/deal with.

And please elaborate on what you call "obvious reasons?".