COVID-19 Outbreak (Update: More than 2.9M cases and 132,313 deaths in US) (23 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.

I love how he said he just breezed right through the airports. This is the guy that will throw a positive and be an asymptomatic carrier. <<(Speculation)
 
I love how he said he just breezed right through the airports. This is the guy that will throw a positive and be an asymptomatic carrier. <<(Speculation)

I think it’s highly unlikely that he’s infected. But in a containment scenario, you don’t play with likelihoods.
 
I love how he said he just breezed right through the airports. This is the guy that will throw a positive and be an asymptomatic carrier. <<(Speculation)

It wouldn't bother me if they threw him into a solitary confinement isolation cell with a 2-3 week supply of MRE's.
 
Small sample size of course but right in line with Chinese numbers at 5% died.
China CDC Situation Report on Feb-18
31 Provinces & XPCC
Suspected: 5248 (+1185)
Confirmed: 74185 (+1749)
Severe: 11977 (+236)
Dead: 2004 (+136)
Recovered: 14376 (+1824)

Dead/Confirmed = current Mortality Rate. 2.7% at present in China.
 
1 out of 74 as of today. Mortality rate isn't calculated using recovered cases as the denominator.

This puts it at 1.3%, which is better than China. At the same time you have to look at the number of cases in Japan about a week ago since it takes about 7 days from onset of symptoms until death in most cases.

This number is actually case fatality rate.

China CDC Situation Report on Feb-18
31 Provinces & XPCC
Suspected: 5248 (+1185)
Confirmed: 74185 (+1749)
Severe: 11977 (+236)
Dead: 2004 (+136)
Recovered: 14376 (+1824)

Dead/Confirmed = current Mortality Rate. 2.7% at present in China.

Mortality rate is number of deaths divided by total population. See below.

"How to calculate the mortality rate during an outbreak
The case fatality rate (CFR) represents the proportion of cases who eventually die from a disease.

Once an epidemic has ended, it is calculated with the formula: deaths / cases.

But while an epidemic is still ongoing, as it is the case with the current novel coronavirus outbreak, this formula is, at the very least, "naïve" and can be "misleading if, at the time of analysis, the outcome is unknown for a non negligible proportion of patients." [8]

(Methods for Estimating the Case Fatality Ratio for a Novel, Emerging Infectious Disease - Ghani et al, American Journal of Epidemiology).

In other words, current deaths belong to a total case figure of the past, not to the current case figure in which the outcome (recovery or death) of a proportion (the most recent cases) hasn't yet been determined.

The correct formula, therefore, would appear to be:

CFR = deaths at day.x / cases at day.x-{T}
(where T = average time period from case confirmation to death)

This would constitute a fair attempt to use values for cases and deaths belonging to the same group of patients.

One issue can be that of determining whether there is enough data to estimate T with any precision, but it is certainly not T = 0 (what is implicitly used when applying the formula current deaths / current cases to determine CFR during an ongoing outbreak).

Let's take, for example, the data at the end of February 8, 2020: 813 deaths (cumulative total) and 37,552 cases (cumulative total) worldwide.

If we use the formula (deaths / cases) we get:

813 / 37,552 = 2.2% CFR (flawed formula).

With a conservative estimate of T = 7 days as the average period from case confirmation to death, we would correct the above formula by using February 1 cumulative cases, which were 14,381, in the denominator:

Feb. 8 deaths / Feb. 1 cases = 813 / 14,381 = 5.7% CFR (correct formula, and estimating T=7).

T could be estimated by simply looking at the value of (current total deaths + current total recovered) and pair it with a case total in the past that has the same value. For the above formula, the matching dates would be January 26/27, providing an estimate for T of 12 to 13 days. This method of estimating T uses the same logic of the following method, and therefore will yield the same result.

An alternative method, which has the advantage of not having to estimate a variable, and that is mentioned in the American Journal of Epidemiology study cited previously as a simple method that nevertheless could work reasonably well if the hazards of death and recovery at any time t measured from admission to the hospital, conditional on an event occurring at time t, are proportional, would be to use the formula:

CFR = deaths / (deaths + recovered)

which, with the latest data available, would be equal to:

2,009 / (2,009 + 14,555) = 12% CFR (worldwide)

If we now exclude cases in mainland China, using current data on deaths and recovered cases, we get:

5 / (5 + 177) = 2.7% CFR (outside of mainland China)

The sample size above is extremely limited, but this discrepancy in mortality rates, if confirmed as the sample grows in size, could be explained with a higher case detection rate outside of China especially with respect to Wuhan, where priority had to be initially placed on severe and critical cases, given the ongoing emergency.

Unreported cases would have the effect of decreasing the denominator and inflating the CFR above its real value. For example, assuming 10,000 total unreported cases in Wuhan and adding them back to the formula, we would get a CFR of 7.6% (quite different from the CFR of 12% based strictly on confirmed cases)."

 
Meant to say 24 since you were talking about the first 24 cases.
Understood.

The Japanese woman who did succumb to COVID-19 was in one of the highest risk groups, aged over 80.
 
Understood.

The Japanese woman who did succumb to COVID-19 was in one of the highest risk groups, aged over 80.
Yep, the ones that recovered were in the lower risk group and age seems to be a substantial.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom