Would be cool if those responsible for this prediction actually had any skin in the game. I.e. you predict wrong, you personally lose a million euros. You predict right, you get 10M and never have to work again. As things stand, I can just as well predict total eradication of humanity by assuming the worst possible outcome at every juncture. Can it happen? Yes. Will it happen? Not likely, no. But in the meanwhile I'll get to be famous.The "German Administration for Citizen Protection and Disaster Relief" (Bundesamt für Bevölkerungsschutz und Katastrophenhilfe) made a risk analysis in 2012 about a hypothetical corona virus they titled "Modi-SARS". The assumptions regarding R0, letality etc. were scarily close to the actual properties of CoVid-19. The outcome of their risk analysis, for Germany alone: 3 years until a vaccine is available (on mass vaccination scale), until then 50% of the German population had contracted it, death toll 7.5 million. Can be downloaded from their website, however, only in German.
Yep, the longer the incubation period, the higher the R0 “R-naught”.First case official here. Someone got off a cruise in Mexico, flew here, then became sick. No idea when he flew or how long before he got tested. So it definitely has the possibility that it spread. With a R0 as high as 7, he possibly infected 7, who could infect 7 more each, and so on. Potentially spread it to people on that flight.
Yeah. I’m not liking this.
For comparison, seasonal flu has an R0 of 0.9 – 2.1, with a mean of 1.3; the R0 of the 1918-1919 pandemic-causing Spanish flu is estimated to have ranged from 1.4 – 2.8, with a mean of 2.
I've stayed out of this discussion but am following it with interest.Okay, so every now and then I like to throw out ideas or arguments in front of a large group of people who can poke holes in them.
I'd like to get you guys to poke some holes in the following analysis, please. That is to say: If it's wrong, help me find out all the ways it's wrong.
The data comes from a BBC television news broadcast posted on YouTube 3 hours ago (as I type this, 9:27 p.m. EST). It gives the following figures for deaths and recoveries from coronavirus:
TOTAL KNOWN CASES THUS FAR: 101,781
CASES RESOLVED BY DYING: 3,460
CASES RESOLVED BY RECOVERY: 55,866
TOTAL RESOLVED (either died or recovered): 59,326 ( = 55,866 + 3,460 )
TOTAL CASES AS-YET UNRESOLVED (still sick): 42,455
Let's presume what is probably NOT true; namely, that the 101,781 cases currently known are ALL the cases that actually exist.
Given that presumption,
and given that 3460/59326 = 0.058322,
isn't it correct to say that,
IF a person (age, country, state-of-health, and treatment-quality unknown) contracts COVID-19,
THEN he has about a 5.8322% chance -- better than 1 in 20 -- of dying from it?
That is to say: We shouldn't be measuring the dead as a percentage of total cases, but as a percentage of resolved cases; that is, cases whose final outcome is already known.
Of the cases whose outcome is NOT already known, our best guess is that their outcomes will follow similar percentages IF their age, country, state-of-health, and treatment-quality is similar to that of the already-resolved group.
(Fortunately, now that we're learning about the virus, treatment-quality will turn out to be much better in many cases.)
Okay, done. That's the analysis. I'm not wedded to it; I just want a lot of input to improve it.
So, feel free to poke holes in it, now.
Oh, but...please poke useful holes; i.e., things not already stated/implied above. For example, please don't say, "Actually, there are probably many cases not recognized as COVID-19" ...since I already said as much. (However, if you have some way to estimate how many unrecognized cases there are, and how much that would change the outcome percentages, THAT would be useful information!)
Yea, that's the argument @FractalAudio made a few pages back when I mentioned the 0.3% fatality rate. It's a legitimate argument to only consider the recovered vs. died cases when computing the mortality rate because you don't know how the currently unresolved cases will pan out.That is to say: We shouldn't be measuring the dead as a percentage of total cases, but as a percentage of resolved cases; that is, cases whose final outcome is already known.
That is one bright person!I found this article to be quite well written and informative:
If in case hospitals get flooded, people won’t be able to get treatment.(Fortunately, now that we're learning about the virus, treatment-quality will turn out to be much better in many cases.)
The number of deaths due to the Coronavirus might be higher than what is known too. I think you’re probably right but who knows.What if the number actually infected is 10x what is known? Then the death rate is 1/10th of what is being reported.
That was such a great book.I recently read this and some of this stuff reminds me of what went down at the beginning of the story.
Won the Arthur C. Clarke award. Very eerie read.
That would still make it far more deadly than seasonal flu. However, there is no herd immunity for COVID19 like there is for seasonal flu, so there is nothing to prevent it from spreading far more widely than seasonal flu and killing a lot more people.What if the number actually infected is 10x what is known? Then the death rate is 1/10th of what is being reported.