WHO Says Coronavirus Death Rate Is 3.4% Globally, Higher Than Previously Thought

CNBC ^ | Tuesday, March 3, 2020 | Berkeley Lovelace, Jr. and Noah Higgins-Dunn

[kristinn]

World health officials said Tuesday the case fatality rate for COVID-19 is 3.4% globally, higher than previous estimates of about 2%.

“Globally, about 3.4% of reported COVID-19 cases have died,” WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said during a press briefing at the agency’s headquarters in Geneva. In comparison, seasonal flu generally kills far fewer than 1% of those infected, he said.

...During a press briefing Monday, WHO officials said they don’t know how COVID-19 behaves, saying it’s not like influenza. They added that while much is known about the seasonal flu, such as how it’s transmitted and what treatments work to suppress the disease, that same information is still in question when it comes to the coronavirus.

[kaila]

We don’t have the hospital manpower and equipment, like ventilators, if this becomes a serious epidemic here.

[calenel]

“Next, what happens in the U.S. where people are healthier, there is less smoking, pollution is lower, and the health care system is better? I know the answer to that: We’ll have a much lower contraction and death rate than did China.”

Smoking rates are not dramatically different in the US and China - 18% and 25%, but I think the demographics of smokers are much different. In the US it is rural types that smoke more as the nanny-staters have discouraged smoking in the cities. In China, it is the opposite - the affluent city dwellers smoke more than the rurals.

Pollution levels are lower, but pollution in India is comparable to that in China and as far as we know the CV did not take hold there (as far as we know).

I would expect that contraction rates are going to be consistent based on exposure, but the frequency of severe cases should be determined by smoking and pollution levels among other factors. So not as bad here as in China. I sure hope so, anyway.

[Bon mots]

It seems to be killing older people, kids are barely affected but can spread it.

The WHO and CDC came up with two numbers that are concerning - based on data by two organizations who study these things.

Infection rate of Corona: 40-70%;
Mortality rate of Corona: 3.4%;

Contrast that to the flu:

Influenza infection rate: 10% of unvaccinated adults;
Mortality rate of influenza: 0.1%;
Annual deaths (US) per year: +/- 30,000

So now you do the math and it's looking like 6 million will perish in the USA alone from this.

[Bon mots]

The evolution of denial:
China is full of smokers and they eat bats.
South Korea, Sinapore, Japan: It only affects Asians.
Iran: Iran's healthcare sucks.
Italy: Italy is full of old people and smokers.
United States: Only already sick people are dying.

Normalcy Bias.

Over 70 % of people display normalcy bias in disasters (black swan events).
Normalcy Bias has been described as the most dangerous of all human biases.

I believe that this is a Black Swan event and one that will be THE Defining event of this generation.

[calenel]

“Its also worth noting, the CFR has been trending up lately, possibly due to a slowdown in case designations due to a dearth of kits. Or maybe it IS getting deadlier.”

More likely the CFR is going up for two reasons. First, there are several regions where this is just starting to spread widely. Fatalities will happen faster than recoveries, so for what ever the actual mortality rate is, the instantaneous CFR will be higher. The other reason is that we’re getting honest numbers rather than the Chinese suppressed numbers, even though the Chinese numbers are still included and contaminate the results.

“For comparison, per the CDC, the numbers for the flu in 2017-2018 were 61k dead and 810k hospitalized or 7.5%.”

That 810k hospitalized number is misleading. There were many times that number of reported cases and undoubtedly many more times that number of unreported cases. But the ‘but flu’ trolls will glom onto that 7.5% number to claim the flu is more dangerous. Probably even before I finish this post...

[calenel]

“Globally means it is that high in some places and not in others.”

No, globally means that it is HIGHER in some places and LOWER in others. It was not a maximum, but an average.

[entropy12]

Drastic steps are already happening here...
witness banning flights from high risk areas. When was the last time we saw that? Not during SARS or Bird flu or mad cow disease or Ebola (very high kill rate) etc?

United Air has canceled all flights from Japan! When did that happen before?

I just came back from a cruise las Saturday. We were forced to sign a statement saying we had not traveled to China, Hong Kong or Macau during last few weeks. I have done 30+ cruises since 1988 and never recall something like that.

[UNGN]

The WHO wants to scare people into funding them.

Doctors at CDC have said 85% of the people who get the disease it could be “mild or Asymptomatic”.

China isn’t Testing “Mild or Asymptomatic” case to confirm the virus, so they ARE NOT COUNTED in the Covid 19 cases.

Ground Zero, uncontained, Hubei has a 4% death rate with “confirmed” cases, which mean there could be 4X-5X more unconfirmed (mild and asymptomatic) per what CDC DEoctors told us.

That makes the actual death rate 1% - .8%.

Higher than the common flu, but not 3.4%.

[calenel]

“...where are the bodies of the people who would have to have
died in the intervening generations then?”

Coffins. Or urns.

But if you’re wondering why they aren’t counted as CV casualties, it’s because they weren’t testing or even looking.

Many of the earlier cases would have presented as pneumonia-flu-negative (pneumonia not apparently caused by flu). There were reports of an increase in such not too long ago. They’ll have to go back and check, if they can - or if they dare.

[Gay State Conservative]

That's my assumption. Unless I'm mistaken the typical older person has a less “robust” immune system than does a person of 20...40...or even 60. So I'd be more concerned if this virus...or any virus...was killing lots of 40 year olds rather than lots of 80 year olds.

[Uncle Miltie]

morality rage =

I’ll be happy when that norm is restored to FR. :-)

[Uncle Miltie]

He was my neighbor, and his lawn had so many dandelions, I’m not gonna miss him....

[calenel]

You sound like me a few weeks back, lol.

As long as we can focus the entire resources of a region on a relatively small number of cases we can control it. If we fail to stamp out brushfires we’ll just get more Wuhans.

[DoughtyOne]

It will come in a few months.

[kristinn]

I didn’t take it that way. Thanks.

[calenel]

“From what I am reading MOST victims of covid-19 are old and feeble and already have health issues.”

So let’s let ‘em die. It will solve the SS and Medicare solvency issue if we kill off the elderly at 34 times the rate they would have died anyway. What’s a few old people? Useless eaters. Right?

Your casual disregard for human life, even old, feeble, sick human life, is disturbing.

But at least you’re past denial and into the rationalizing stage.

[lepton]

From the limited metadata that has been made available, about half of those dying are over 70, or have another major underlying health condition. They’ve been stretching the definition of “elderly” to include those over 50.

The elderly are the major victims of the flu, and are why the flu and secondary infections from the flu typically kill about 0.04%-0.2% of those who become sick - typically around 0.1%. It’s already cooked into the numbers. At best, COVID-19 is about 20 times as deadly as the typical flu, with demographics that shift slightly more towards the middle. At worst, it’s a good bit beyond that.

Anyways, the main argument around here seems to amount to whether or not you should wash your hands regularly, work from home if you can, spend around $50 up front to buy things you would generally buy anyway, and try not to spread your snot on your neighbors.

My main argument is against bad math. Over time, it’s probably a more deadly contagion. Look at the Sanders campaign.

[null and void]

Death per 100,000 works very well when the epidemic is over.

It understates the final rate rate when all people who are sick and will die are counted as if they are guaran-dammed-teed to survive.

[lepton]

If that is true, there will be 100,000 Dead in Milan Italy alone, since it have been uncontained there for a month.
I highly doubt its 3.4%

---

Those are distinct non-sequiturs.

[calenel]

The actual number will be different from 3.4%. The unresolved cases will resolve, and with more comprehensive testing the truly minor cases will be identified. So we don’t know what that number will finally be.

And we don’t know if any more health care systems (regional) will fail like Wuhan. Lombardy has been reported to be close (saturated) but it could be hype. Eventually we will be unable to focus “unlimited” resources onto any outbreak, and more than just the highest risk people will die. We have to keep stamping out brushfires and pretend containment is possible because it will slow the spread and save lives.