Thu Feb 27, 2020, 12:36 AM

The case fatality rate for COVID-19 is not "about 2%" - it's 3.4%

Based on tonight's numbers from https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ : Deaths 2804, Cases 82,183, the case fatality ratio is 3.41%

Not only that, but the fatality rate has been climbing steadily for the last two weeks:

12-Feb 2.13%
13-Feb 2.15%
14-Feb 2.27%
15-Feb 2.41%
16-Feb 2.49%
17-Feb 2.55%
18-Feb 2.67%
19-Feb 2.81%
20-Feb 2.93%
21-Feb 3.04%
22-Feb 3.13%
23-Feb 3.31%
24-Feb 3.37%
25-Feb 3.41%
26-Feb 3.41%

That climb could just be an artifact of slowing case growth, but maybe not. I'm no pandemiologist

, but this behaviour of the data worries me. At the very least, the white coats and empty suits should be using more accurate numbers, in the interests of transparency.

43 replies, 2871 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

43 replies	Author	Time	Post
The case fatality rate for COVID-19 is not "about 2%" - it's 3.4% (Original post)	The_jackalope	Feb 2020	OP
It's also helpful to realize that many cases are not diagnosed	PoindexterOglethorpe	Feb 2020	#1
"May be" significantly less.	The_jackalope	Feb 2020	#3
If you honestly think that the published number so those who've contracted	PoindexterOglethorpe	Feb 2020	#6
A more effective way to make things look better than they are	The_jackalope	Feb 2020	#11
Wouldn't there be an incentive	wnylib	Feb 2020	#25
Yes, but there's an at least equal incentive to under report deaths	The_jackalope	Feb 2020	#35
So far, US sources say there are 15	wnylib	Feb 2020	#37
Johns Hopkins web site reports 60.	The_jackalope	Feb 2020	#38
That percentage is probably still helpful as a benchmark vs other similar diseases though ...	mr_lebowski	Feb 2020	#5
Exactly	Sunsky	Feb 2020	#30
That's a very good point.	PoindexterOglethorpe	Feb 2020	#43
Much more likely	greenjar_01	Feb 2020	#39
SARS and MERS are both 10%+ and are in the same family	Amishman	Feb 2020	#41
It is probably going up because many people are just carriers or	applegrove	Feb 2020	#2
Early data is always noisier than later data	The_jackalope	Feb 2020	#4
Spanish flu was really bad in that it was most lethal for young adults.	Lucky Luciano	Feb 2020	#7
So maybe it's turns out to be half as lethal as Spanish Flu, and affects older people	The_jackalope	Feb 2020	#10
Well the early data was more accurate because they could always almost	applegrove	Feb 2020	#8
But Chinese politicians were (and are) heavily involved in the data management.	The_jackalope	Feb 2020	#9
But if you don't count all the carriers, and the virus has gotten out of containment,	applegrove	Feb 2020	#14
Overcounting the cases or undercounting the deaths both make the situation look better.	The_jackalope	Feb 2020	#15
I think the Chinese are scientists. They dislike bad data as much as	applegrove	Feb 2020	#16
The problem might not be bad scientists	The_jackalope	Feb 2020	#17
But it is spreading. Other countries will be able to figure out the mortality rate	applegrove	Feb 2020	#19
This message was self-deleted by its author	applegrove	Feb 2020	#18
the powers that be recognize the significance	Demonaut	Feb 2020	#12
It looks like they do.	The_jackalope	Feb 2020	#13
Rec Always appreciate your posts	lunasun	Feb 2020	#20
The good news: it's not killing kids.	Laffy Kat	Feb 2020	#21
Unlike the flu. So far this season, there have been...	3catwoman3	Feb 2020	#22
Yes, thanks; I was just checking the CDC for peds.	Laffy Kat	Feb 2020	#23
The majority of those are in China though and alot of those I suspect are people that were more	cstanleytech	Feb 2020	#24
Correct answer is we don't know yet, but it's a number 2-9%	JCMach1	Feb 2020	#26
No one here has mentioned another	wnylib	Feb 2020	#27
It's actually a bit early. Stats will move around...	Wounded Bear	Feb 2020	#28
It has been around that since early on -	Ms. Toad	Feb 2020	#29
In Korea it's less than 1 percent	Blues Heron	Feb 2020	#31
This virus starts off very mild and gradually gets worse.	Coventina	Feb 2020	#34
we have little dependable data as China held back for so long, and I am more concern about	beachbumbob	Feb 2020	#32
+1,	uponit7771	Feb 2020	#40
OK, you talking about behavior of the data makes me think you know more about this stuff than	Squinch	Feb 2020	#33
Intuitively I agree with you.	The_jackalope	Feb 2020	#36
A controlled population might be a better measure.	onenote	Feb 2020	#42

Response to The_jackalope (Original post)

Thu Feb 27, 2020, 12:39 AM

PoindexterOglethorpe (18,196 posts)

1. It's also helpful to realize that many cases are not diagnosed

because people are not very sick or asymptomatic altogether.

Also, in China they've changed the definition of who has the coronavirus at least twice, which makes statistics a bit tricky. But the overall death rate for those who get the virus is significantly less, given the many undiagnosed cases.

The case fatality rate for COVID-19 is not "about 2%" - it's 3.4%

1. It's also helpful to realize that many cases are not diagnosed

3. "May be" significantly less.

6. If you honestly think that the published number so those who've contracted

11. A more effective way to make things look better than they are

25. Wouldn't there be an incentive

35. Yes, but there's an at least equal incentive to under report deaths

37. So far, US sources say there are 15

38. Johns Hopkins web site reports 60.

5. That percentage is probably still helpful as a benchmark vs other similar diseases though ...

30. Exactly

43. That's a very good point.

39. Much more likely

41. SARS and MERS are both 10%+ and are in the same family

2. It is probably going up because many people are just carriers or

4. Early data is always noisier than later data

7. Spanish flu was really bad in that it was most lethal for young adults.

10. So maybe it's turns out to be half as lethal as Spanish Flu, and affects older people

8. Well the early data was more accurate because they could always almost

9. But Chinese politicians were (and are) heavily involved in the data management.

14. But if you don't count all the carriers, and the virus has gotten out of containment,

15. Overcounting the cases or undercounting the deaths both make the situation look better.

16. I think the Chinese are scientists. They dislike bad data as much as

17. The problem might not be bad scientists

19. But it is spreading. Other countries will be able to figure out the mortality rate

12. the powers that be recognize the significance

13. It looks like they do.

20. Rec Always appreciate your posts

21. The good news: it's not killing kids.

22. Unlike the flu. So far this season, there have been...

23. Yes, thanks; I was just checking the CDC for peds.

24. The majority of those are in China though and alot of those I suspect are people that were more

26. Correct answer is we don't know yet, but it's a number 2-9%

27. No one here has mentioned another

28. It's actually a bit early. Stats will move around...

29. It has been around that since early on -

31. In Korea it's less than 1 percent

34. This virus starts off very mild and gradually gets worse.

32. we have little dependable data as China held back for so long, and I am more concern about

40. +1,

33. OK, you talking about behavior of the data makes me think you know more about this stuff than

36. Intuitively I agree with you.

42. A controlled population might be a better measure.