Posted on 02/27/2020 6:15:35 AM PST by Moonman62
Researchers from China's Center for Disease Control and Prevention today describe the clinical findings on more than 72,000 COVID-19 cases reported in mainland China, which reveal a case-fatality rate (CFR) of 2.3% and suggest most cases are mild, but the disease hits the elderly the hardest.
The study, published in JAMA, is the largest patient-based study on the novel coronavirus, which was first connected to seafood market in Wuhan, China, in December, and has since traversed the globe.
Death rate in critically ill: 49% or higher
A total of 72,314 COVID-19 cases, diagnosed through Feb 11 were used for the study. Of the 72,314 cases, 44,672 were classified as confirmed cases of COVID-19 (62%; diagnosis based on positive throat swab samples), 16,186 as suspected cases (diagnosis based on symptoms and exposures only), 10,567 as clinically diagnosed cases (from Hubei province only, diagnoses based on symptoms, including lung x-ray), and 889 as asymptomatic cases (diagnosis by positive test result but lacking typical symptoms).
"Most cases were diagnosed in Hubei Province (75%) and most reported Wuhan-related exposures (86%; ie, Wuhan resident or visitor or close contact with Wuhan resident or visitor," the authors said.
Eighty-seven percent of patients were aged 30 to 79 years (38,680 cases). This age-group was the most affected by a wide margin, followed by ages 20 to 29 (3,619 cases, or 8%), those 80 and older (1,408 cases, or 3%), and 1% each in ages less than 10 and 10 to 19 years.
Of the confirmed cases, 1,023 patients—all in critical condition—died from the virus, which results in a CFR of 2.3%. The CFR jumped considerably among older patients, to 14.8% in patients 80 and older, and 8.0% in patients ages 70 to 79. Among the critically ill, the CFR was 49.0%.
A smaller study today based on 52 critically ill patients at a Wuhan hospital confirms this finding. Thirty-two of the 52 critically ill patients (61.5%) died, and older age and acute respiratory distress syndrome were correlated with mortality.
The authors of the smaller study also found that 30 (81%) of 37 patients requiring mechanical ventilation had died by 28 days.
Less deadly but more transmissible than SARS, MERS
A total of 81% of cases in the JAMA study were classified as mild, meaning they did not result in pneumonia or resulted in only mild pneumonia. Fourteen percent of cases were severe (marked by difficulty breathing), and 5% were critical (respiratory failure, septic shock, and/or multiple organ dysfunction or failure).
In comparison to SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) and MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome) coronaviruses, which were both identified in the past 20 years, COVID-19 is likely more highly transmissible but not as deadly, the researchers noted. (SARS had a CFR of 9.6%; MERS has a CFR of 34.4%.) And unlike SARS and MERS, hospital-based outbreaks do not seem to be hallmark of COVID-19 at this time.
"Most secondary transmission of SARS and MERS occurred in the hospital setting," the authors wrote. "Transmission of COVID-19 is occurring in this context as well—3019 cases have been observed among health workers as of February 11, 2020 (of whom there have been 1716 confirmed cases and 5 deaths). However, this is not a major means of COVID-19 spread. Rather, it appears that considerable transmission is occurring among close contacts."
Cruise ship study suggests R0 of 2.28
In other research news, a study in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases uses data from the Diamond Princess cruise ship to calculate COVID-19's reproductive number (R0, or R-naught), or the number of people a single infected person is likely to infect.
Among the 355 passengers who contracted the virus, the researchers calculated an R0 of 2.28, similar to other R0 modeling published in the past several weeks.
Also today, two groups announced major developments in COVID-19 vaccine developments. China's Clover Biopharmaceuticals will partner with GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) on Clover's protein-based coronavirus vaccine candidate, COVID-19 S-Trimer, according to a GSK news release. And the University of Queensland in Australia announced a vaccine candidate is ready for a proof-of-concept study after just 3 weeks in development.
Do math much? You're off by a factor of a few hundred.
solid info. Thanks.
What you read on here downplaying the issue likely have a personal desire to downplay it for the sake of downplaying it.
Even if it is “no worse than a common cold”, there is a distinct death rate for the common cold, it’s not trivial, and the deaths will be _in_addition_ to death rates we’ve normalized. Another 80,000 dead US residents, who otherwise would have survived, is not a small issue.
Numbers coming from China admit it _is_ worse “than a common cold”, with (as lead article notes) a >2.3% death rate. Should it full-on hit the USA (which I anticipate it will, having a sufficient rate of spread and nothing stopping it), that means 1 in 50 people you know will die this year - on top of those in that 50 who will die of something else.
And that death rate is based on Chinese numbers, which are generally accepted as seriously under-reported (lest The Party be embarrassed).
It’s not a matter of “provocateurs trying to hurt Trump”.
It’s a matter of 1 in 25 people you know will die of it by year’s end.
Mortality rates in developed nations (S. Korea, Italy) seems to be a bit over 1%.
...
Correct. In countries like the United States, with better health care than China, the fatality rate will be lower. If effective therapeutics are found, the rate will be much lower. Studies are being done now with promising drugs.
Wrong calculation.
Divide deaths by recoveries.
Those currently infected haven’t resolved into either yet, so can’t be counted for fatality rate.
Today’s rate is 8.45% terminal (2,810 dead, 33,243 recovered).
For something spreading at least as fast as flu, that’s pretty fing serious.
https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6
What about the percent requiring hospitalization?
Usually you don’t go to the hospital for the flu.
It sounds like about 10% (or more) require critical care.
When hospitals are full that will not be available, so the death toll may rise.
Why would they want to crash THEIR OWN market?
I can also imagine that in less crowded living conditions in the USA, that the rate of spread might be lower than in crowded Wuhan marketplaces.
That is about it.
Its nasty though, as all severe colds are.
Used to be that the flu was when you either had the runs or were throwing up. Now its anything, even including a bad cold.
For myself I have mild COPD. I wont change my daily habits at all. Get out into the cold fresh air and do what I always do.
Agree on SK. Wife and kids left HK to go there thinking it would be safe then this death cult began purposely spreading the disease.
So far they are safe in a city with no cases.
They are aggressively testing 15k a day and likely to rise.
Japan covering up their cases bigly.
Japan is scared for the Olympics.
Big loss of face if they can’t contain this and have to cancel those.
The data they use is 16 days old.
Crunching real time data from Johns Hopkins...
Outside of China, which includes a lot of Third World countries, the death rate per confirmed infection is 0.7%.
https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6
For comparison - an “average” influenza season in the USA has a total morbidity rate of 0.2%.
I think the corona death rate outside China will continue to drop since we are basically counting the most serious cases at the moment.
The unknown problem - how contagious is it?
Even with a very low death rate, if the corona infection rate is very high, then a lot of people will die.
Most likely someone was being sarcastic. The Spanish Flu pandemic from 1918 to 1920 infected approximately 30% of the world's population at that time or 500 million people and killed approximately 40 to 100 million of them. This is a death rate of between 8% to 20%.
The unusual thing about that strain of flu virus is that it seems to have been most deadly to young adults with strong immune systems. The unusual thing about the name of the flu was that it did not originate in Spain, but the effect of wartime censorship gave people the impression that it was disproportionally affecting Spain which started the misnomer.
This outbreak appears to be a far less deadly strain of infection and more effective treatments will probably be devised over the next few months but there is a good chance it will put a strain on our health-care system next year. And of course the Democrats are hoping and praying that it will become a wild card in the election.
That was written on Feb 4.
Not very many non Asians had seen complete disease progression then to make that determination.
I’d wait another month for the cases in the ICU in Italy to resolve one way or another before I’d say that for sure.
This bug isn’t a ‘quick killer’ like the ones from Hollywood movies. It can take several weeks after exposure to have symptoms and then some linger in the ICU for 2 or 3 more weeks.
So we can’t say for sure what Italy’s CFR is just yet either.
Even if very few non Asians die, the effect of the disease on Asians will wreck our economies as they’re so intertwined with Asia at this point.
FWIW: I find the fastest resolution to flu et al is a good night’s sleep under a mountain of blankets. Body naturally raises temperature when sick because that tends to kill of viruses (more heat-sensitive than human body), so help it out by getting as hot as you reasonably can for as long as you can. The whole “break the fever” etc is the wrong approach (unless actually getting dangerously high temp). Getting chills? heat up and sweat it out.
Since Covid19 seems like Flu++, similar “get hot” treatment may work (lacking any other medical guidance).
Hope for low fatality rates, plan for high.
Too many unknowns at this point.
Precedent points to likely quarantine, be it to actually stop spread or just to reduce demand on medical infrastructure by slowing inevitable spread. Be ready to just stay home for a month with zero outside contact. Many jobs & schools can telecommute.
Completely reasonable advice.
But you will be accused of inciting panic over the common cold.
I don’t care what I’m accused of.
Whatever the rhetoric is, first response should be “are you prepared?”
I’m not panicking because I’m prepared.
Unless otherwise explained, I assume the reason anyone “accuses others of inciting panic over the common cold” is because they’re personally not prepared, and their cognitive dissonance leads them to attack the messenger rather than act, quite sensibly, on the message.
Proper prepping prevents panic.
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.