Posted on 01/24/2020 5:03:00 PM PST by 11th_VA
... Reed wastes no time to get to his terrifying conclusion which is that if no change in control or transmission happens, then further outbreaks will occur in other Chinese cities, “and that infections will continue to be exported to international destinations at an increasing rate.”
As a result, in 10 days time, or by February 4, 2020, Reed‘s model predicts the number of infected people in Wuhan to be greater than 250 thousand (with an prediction interval, 164,602 to 351,396);
(Excerpt) Read more at finanz.dk ...
Good.
Lying about fractions is very stupid.
While that is true, I can’t quantify the cases that didn’t make it to the hospital.
I can only quantify what is on the record.
It’s good to point out what you did, because it reminds folks that the mortality rate is probably considerably less than this figure I worked up.
I should probably add a note to that effect when I work up the numbers.
Bah!
Anyone who doesn’t know ‘early days’ reports are unreliable is a fool.
I’m truly sorry for the deaths and suffering. But I just don’t see the connection to the “economy of the world” unless it turns in to the bubonic plague of 1347.
Of course, I can always be wrong.
I agree.
My attempt to quantify the mortality rate is to help folks keep things in perspective.
China could be lying too.
I just don’t like the negative information to build up unchecked.
Take care.
What a stupid vanity comment
Can anyone believe what the Chinese govt is reporting?
Do your best.
Appreciate it.
Tough assignment to take on.
That was a very limited (n=41) sample from December. I wouldn't generalize much from it. Otherwise, the article is quite good.
Here's what I think:
I read somewhere that 25% of the cases are severe. If severe cases go to the hospital. And the hospitals are good about diagnosing it. Then probably closer to 25% of cases have been diagnosed. Which puts the total current diagnosed/undiagnosed cases at 5200 instead of 1300.
If the incubation period is 14 days. Let's say the person becomes infections on day 10 and infects 4 other people then.
With no smoothing and 10 day increments this gives
And with a 3% death rate, that's 10,368 deaths, by the end of February.
The question becomes, what stops this virus?
The good news is that they are taking it seriously.
Now do I really want to take on Mrs Smith's math. lol
Being a coronavirus, one would expect it to be more like SARS than influenza, but the progressive weakening is just a blue sky pipe dream at this point.
The new virus’s proteins are between 70 and 99 percent identical to their counterparts in the SARS virus, says Karla Satchell, a microbiologist and immunologist at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago.
Okay you’re right but you’re wrong.
The REAL mortality rate is how many people die out of x number of people who catch it. And it has nothing to do with rate of transmission. But it can only be determined after the x cases are fully resolved.
The APPARENT mortality rate which is an estimate of the true mortality rate is the number of current deaths / number of cases. And you’re right. If you speed up the rate of infection, then the growth in deaths lags behind the growth in number of cases, and it will give a lower mortality rate. But that’s deceptive, because eventually it will catch up to the true mortality rate. Unless other factors intervene like better treatment measures.
I agree with you. Viruses don’t survive if they get progressively weaker with each transmission. And SARS didn’t survive. I don’t know what it was about the SARS virus that made it weaker.
I would expect most viruses would replicate exact copies of themselves with perhaps an expected mutation rate. But I would expect that to either maintain it’s strength or get stronger. I wouldn’t expect a virus to get consistently weaker like SARS did.
Validate prediction ping.
Absolutely.
But ‘reports’ are using updated fatality figures but not updated transmission figures,
That destroys the usefulness of a ratio.
It’s probably more correct to say that the current mortality rate of hospitalized cases is 3%.
And “IF” the researcher is right that only 5% of the cases have been confirmed. Then that might drop the mortality rate to 0.6% mortality. Which would be good news for everyone. The bad news is that there are 24,500 people now spreading the illness insted of 1300.
Excellent!
Of course it’s ‘early days’ so who knows... anything.
If you assume the number of fatalities is a constant, sure
But, no, your logic is flawed. We aren’t splitting a pizza between more people. We’re handing out more pizzas. And one slice of each pizza is poisoned.
////////makes no sense at all.
The fatalities is not a constant.
Anyway, I’m hitting the hay.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.