Posted on 04/09/2020 6:36:42 AM PDT by Politically Correct
Some commenters responding to this daily series providing some information about the Chinese virus have repeated what seems to have become something of a mantra among libertarians who, understandably, dislike the idea of widespread lockdowns, with the loss of freedom and the economic damage that they entail. That mantra is that the Chinese virus is no more infections or no more fatal than flu, and that if we had allowed everyone to acquire immunity by catching the infection and throwing it off all would be well.
Look at today’s graph. Though the downtrend in the daily compound growth rate in total confirmed cases now appears well established, that growth rate is still very high, averaging around 8% globally outside China and occupied Tibet, where the numbers are unreliable.
Fig. 1. Mean compound daily growth rates in confirmed cases of COVID-19 infection for the world excluding China (red) and for several individual nations averaged over the successive seven-day periods ending on all dates from March 14 to April 7, 2020.
The red curve shows the case growth rate for the world excluding China. If the 8% daily growth rate were to continue, yesterday’s 1,430,919 confirmed cases (many of which tend to be those serious enough to have come to the authorities’ attention, since testing is still occurring on a tiny scale in most countries) would have risen to nearly 8 million by the end of April, and more than 80 million by the end of May.
It is important, therefore, to ensure that the now well established downtrend is maintained. That is why, for the time being, governments will be keeping lockdowns in place. It would be irresponsible to do otherwise.
Of course, one might legitimately argue that, if the Chinese virus were really no worse than flu, the crippling social and economic cost of lockdowns would be unjustifiable.
But governments cannot afford to make policy on the assumption, perhaps a little too carelessly made by some commenters here, that the virus is no more dangerous and no more infectious than flu.
Here, then, to help us to begin to answer that important question, are some tolerably reliable, real-world data. I am grateful to the Intensive Care National Audit and Research Center in London for having made details from its Case Mix Programme Database available. The Case Mix Programme is the national clinical audit of patient outcomes from adult critical care.
The Center has recently issued a report on all confirmed UK cases reported to it up to midday on 3 April, just a few days ago. Critical care units notify the Center as soon as they have admitted any patient with confirmed Chinese virus, together with demographics, initial physiological state, organ support and eventual outcome.
The report concerns 2249 patients, whose mean age at admission was 60 years, compared with 58 years for 4759 patients with non-COVID-19 viral pneumonia, most of them caused by flu, over the three complete years 2017-2019.
Of the 2249 patients, 346 (15%) have died, 344 (15%) have been discharged alive, and 1559 (69%) are still in critical care. The case fatality rate, as a fraction of all closed cases admitted to intensive care, is thus a little over 50%, compared with only 22% for the non-COVID viral pneumonias of the past three years. In each age-group (under 50, 50-69 and 70+), the percentage of patients admitted to critical care with the Chinese virus and subsequently dying in hospital is at least twice the percentage of critical-care patients with other viral pneumonias over the previous three years.
Among those requiring ventilation, two-thirds die by the end of their critical care and only one-third survive. Therefore, the case fatality rate for closed cases where ventilation was required is more than 67%, compared with only 16% for non-COVID viral pneumonia cases requiring ventilation.
Worse, advanced respiratory support for Chinese-virus cases is typically maintained for between 4 and 9 days (average 6 days), while it is not needed at all in non-COVID-19 viral-pneumonia cases, which require only basic respiratory support, and require it only for 2-4 days (average 3 days). The data are similar for cardiovascular support, and for renal support. The Chinese-virus cases tend to require advanced rather than basic support, and to require it for twice as long. And yet, even after all that extra care, the case fatality rate is many times higher than for non-COVID viral pneumonias.
On the assumption that about half of all this year’s critical cases of seasonal viral pneumonia would have occurred by now, and making no allowance for any further exponential growth in Chinese-virus cases in intensive care, and assuming that the summer will stop the virus causing critical cases (an assumption that the authorities, rightly, do not regard themselves as being in any position to make yet), there are approximately three times as many serious Chinese-virus cases than all other viral pneumonias combined, including those caused by flu, in a typical year, and at least twice as many of these will die than with other serious viral pneumonia cases.
Thus, the Chinese virus is six times more fatal than pre-existing viral pneumonias, including those caused by flu.
In the past three years, some 46% of viral-pneumonia cases were female and 54% male. With the Chinese virus, however, only 27% are female and 63% are male.
The report also considers ethnicity. About four-fifths of the UK population is White, but only two-thirds of the critical cases to date are Whites. Blacks, in particular, are three times over-represented in intensive care: they represent one case in seven, but are only one in 20 of the population.
Body mass index was also studied, but the number of cases in the below-normal, normal, overweight, obese and morbidly obese categories is not far out of line with the general population, two-thirds of whom are overweight or obese. Some 72% of intensive-care Chinese-virus cases are overweight or obese.
Interestingly, the number of cases with cardiovascular, respiratory, renal, hepatic, cancerous or immunocompromised comorbidities was quite small. In all these categories, it was less than for the usual viral pneumonias over the past three years.
In the past three years, non-COVID viral pneumonias have put 43% of patients on to ventilators within the first 24 hours. The Chinese virus, however, is worse: it puts 63% on to ventilators within the first 24 hours. Therefore, governments planning hospital capacity for Chinese-virus cases must make extra allowance for the greater demands, both in advanced rather than basic care and in days of treatment, than other viral-pneumonia cases.
The doctor through whom I came upon these figures, who has himself suffered with the Chinese virus and has recovered, is very angry that for political reasons those who understandably dislike lockdowns have been maintaining, contrary to the evidence, that the Chinese virus is “no worse than flu”.
Be in no doubt. This disease is a lot worse than flu. It puts more people into intensive care, where they require costlier and more advanced treatment, where they will be in intensive care for twice the time required by other viral pneumonia-patients, and where they are more than twice as likely to die as those other patients.
So don’t dismiss it lightly. Not any more. Wash hands often. Wear full-face masks when out of doors or away from home. Take Vitamin D3 daily. Be safe.
Looks to be more contagious but less lethal than the typical yearly flu from what I can see.
Thanks for the information.
I don’t care how many test positive. That is only a reflection of how many are being tested. The ONLY figures I even care about are the death figures.
“Looks to be more contagious but less lethal than the typical yearly flu from what I can see.”
My Life. My Business.
The business of America is business.
Get Back To Work!
Prior to the release of a safe and effective vaccine, serology testing to detect antibodies and a PCR test to determine if an infected individual still harbors active virus and is still a danger to others, isolation is still the only real safeguard. However if a given individual has antibodies and a negative PCR test, then that individual is immune, infection free and can freely go about their business. Hopefully these tests will be available soon to all.
I would encourage you to pay attention to the people infected, as well. The deaths and those infected form the mortality rate, and we're finding that rate is much, much lower than was originally projected. With such a low rate, we have to ask, "why is everything shut down?"
“””””My Life. My Business.”””””””””””””
I don’t want you to infect me or my family. This is not the flu, “bro”.
The ONLY figures I even care about are the death figures.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
They are worthless unless they break down ALL the deaths and quit counting ‘may have had symptoms’ (THEY do tend to go to the extreme to be ‘safe’)
Like it has been said may be linked to beerflu is NOT the same as due to the beerflu.
And definitely have to really search for the data of how many die on a ‘normal’ day.
Have to use common sense and
FOLLOW THE MONEY
If the economy sinks deep enough into the gutter, then it will turn COVID-19 into child’s play.
And *those* seem to be faked more and more these days.
Then stay home.
From the article:
Thus, the Chinese virus is six times more fatal than pre-existing viral pneumonias, including those caused by flu.
In short, the doctors and especially epidemiologists need to stop missing this in their pronouncements: 🎯
p.s. Now I wonder if that strange three-day cold I experienced in mid-December 2019 was a very mild case of COVID-19.... 🤔🤧😷
So, will we end up at a point where the cost benefit ratio makes the stay home edicts/shutdown untenable? Will some folks develop a natural immunity and will it become one of those things we have to deal with seasonally?
And there in lies the problem. Highly infectious, everybody gets sick at once, some have a tough time at home, other overwhelm your healthcare system, increasing fatality rate, and that is bad optics here in plentiful, entitled USA.
Agreed. I’ll be intrigued to see how the Swedish approach works. I think this whole thing has been vastly overblown and very suspicious from a tyranny standpoint.
On top of that, politicians that are ready to pounce on anything that goes wrong.
We are in complete agreement except we don’t know how many people are infected. We only know how many people have been tested and found to test positive. That’s pretty worthless information. If I test 100 people in a state of 1 million, and all of them have teeth, that doesn’t mean 100 people have teeth. It means 100 people have been tested.
There’s a study underway to answer that very question. They drew blood on more than a thousand Californians in order to see. Answers in a couple of weeks.
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.