The CFR for Covid19 is unknown at this point .

The Case Fatality Rate is the ratio between confirmed cases and confirmed deaths.

It’s that easy

Why are we even hearing numbers from the media without even a quick clarification ?

“ if it bleeds it leads “ “ Orange man bad “

But I digress ......

The primary reason why the CFR may overestimate the probability of death is that the number of confirmed diagnosed cases is likely an undercount of the true number of infections. This problem is known as ascertainment bias, which is to say that the medical system is much more likely to confront and diagnose severe cases and deaths than mild ones. Again suppose there were two deaths out of 100 resolved cases (people recovered or died)—but that an additional 50 mild cases have gone undetected. That means that while the CFR is 2 percent, the percent of all cases who have died is 2/150 = 1.3 percent.

This is why even as some reports from China say the death rate is 3.4 percent for known cases, medical experts such as Tom Frieden, former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, say that number is “certainly an overestimate” and expect a global rate below 1 percent.

On the other hand as the article states. The estimates can go in the other direction as they did in 2003 with MERS. Originally thought to be at a 4% CFR. Was at the end of the epidemic 10% CFR.


Because of the lack of testing available in most countries early on. An aggressive testing regiment should drop the CFR.


South Korea is a good example of a success at this point .

They came out of the blocks running and are testing 10,000 people a day .

Which just might explain why they had a .06% CFR .

Rand

a reply to: Fallingdown

I heard something similar the other day. There was talk also that there needs to be more info coming forward about those that are dieing such as age and if they had existing medical conditions. This info would then help doctors target their efforts better towards those who need it most but also allow people to better understand the risk to them.

a reply to: hsvenforcer

In my book even if someone died because of a secondary condition. Covid 19 is what killed them.

This info would then help doctors target their efforts better towards those who need it most but also allow people to better understand the risk to them.

I tried to do that on an earlier thread .

Nobody’s on that one either . 🤐

a reply to: Fallingdown


There is beds for about 1% of the population and of those beds most are full. Empty beds don't make money. Also about 19% of people will need hospitalization. Here is some numbers from the CDC...

An official representing the Centers for Disease Control, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, told NBC News and other reporters in Geneva on Monday that China published a paper with detailed data on more than 44,000 confirmed cases of COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus, that gives doctors and researchers a better understanding of the age range of people affected, the severity of the disease and the mortality rate.

The virus causes severe disease, including pneumonia and shortness of breath, in about 14 percent of cases, he added. About 5 percent of patients have critical diseases including respiratory failure, septic shock, and multiple-organ failure.
And the virus is fatal in 2 percent of reported cases, while the risk of death increases the older a patient is

source

There is a reason why China and Italy had to quickly quarantine everyone. They needed to keep the peak number of covid-19 patients low and spread out so that they could have a chance at tending to everyone that required hospitalization.

If we let it peak too high too fast then our medical system will become overwhelmed and overburdened thus resulting in far more deaths thus resulting in a much higher mortality rate.

It is my concern that the U.S. will be too slow to implement such measures as Italy and China, resulting in a high peak and an overburdened health system.

a reply to: Alien Abduct

Yup I’ve been over all of the numbers.

I don’t dispute any of the statistics nor do I believe them.

44,000 confirmed cases

That’s my point .

Does anybody believe those are the only 44,000 confirmed cases ?

I’ll venture out on a limb and say they probably missed at least a third .

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: Alien Abduct

Yup I’ve been over all of the numbers.

I don’t dispute any of the statistics nor do I believe them.

44,000 confirmed cases

That’s my point .

Does anybody believe those are the only 44,000 confirmed cases ?

I’ll venture out on a limb and say they probably missed at least a third .

Well that was the sample size. I dont think their aim was to study every person with the virus. That would be too difficult.

a reply to: Fallingdown

Because of the lack of testing available in most countries early on. An aggressive testing regiment should drop the CFR.


South Korea is a good example of a success at this point .

They came out of the blocks running and are testing 10,000 people a day .

Which just might explain why they had a .06% CFR .

I absolutely agree with this. I have been reading numbers and stats and any other information I can get my eyes on since mid January on this. What I have posted three posts above is my conclusion and your OP is in line with what I have been thinking.

a reply to: Fallingdown

The diamond princess is one of our best sources of how deadly it might be. There are currently 328 out of 697 (47%) confirmed cases that show no symptoms (Statista). It would be fair to assume that anyone with no symptoms would probably not be tested outside of their current situation. That means the figures seen on various sources like Worldometers of 91% mild / 9% serious would only apply to that remaining 53%. That would equate to a further 48% being mild (5% serious) and it would be fair to assume that a percentage of those would also not bother being tested. Finally we know the average age of those on cruise ships tend to be higher than in a normal population and as such given data on how different age groups are affected (China CDC) we can assume these figures would potentially be more favourable. Personally I believe somewhere between the 50% seen on the cruise and up to 90% of cases may go untested.

There are currently 7 deaths on the cruise out of the 697 so around 1% although outside of the cruise ship we would probably assume 7 deaths out of the 369 showing symptoms which would equate to the 2% we were initially quoted. The CDC data above the mortality rate jumps as soon as you hit 50 so again I think it would be fair to assume that it would be lower in reality, how low is to be confirmed.

This is just me overthinking things, someone smarter on here may rubbish what I've said but I like my odds better than the 3.4% quoted elsewhere!

a reply to: Alien Abduct

I dont think their aim was to study every person with the virus.That would be too difficult.

Of course they can’t test everybody on earth .

But the larger the sample group the more accurate the data.

originally posted by: hsvenforcer
a reply to: Fallingdown

I heard something similar the other day. There was talk also that there needs to be more info coming forward about those that are dieing such as age and if they had existing medical conditions. This info would then help doctors target their efforts better towards those who need it most but also allow people to better understand the risk to them.

Doctors, nor those in the medical professional, are not confused and need no direction. We already know who dies. Almost no one under 60 dies. Just because the media wants to go crazy in order to hurt Trump in an election year doesn't mean medical professionals don't have these facts. Like other mild illnesses, those of advanced age and poor health are at risk for more severe symptoms which can be life threatening. The good thing is that unlike other illnesses children do not seem to be very susceptible to Covid-19. Either they are extremely unlikely to get infected, or their infection is so mild it goes completely unnoticed.

The CFR is easy enough to work out to determine the trend which is highly variable dependant on area. We can calculate deaths as a percentage of the total of deaths and recoveries to get an idea but that's leaving out the confirmed but unresolved cases so the number gets better as the unresolved number gets smaller in relation to the total resolved (deaths + recoveries).

In China things appear to be stabilising with:
80973 confirmed cases with 65655 recovered and 3193 deaths
That leaves 12125 unresolved which could still go either way and the rate of spread seems to have pretty much flattened out.
3193/(65655+3193) = 4.6% CFR
if there are no more deaths out of the 12125 unresolved, the CFR falls to about 3.9%

In other areas only just developing like Italy the true figure won't be known for another month or more when the spread is essentially contained (if it's contained)

a reply to: autom8

Are you saying just because you don't have symptoms you don't have the virus? You can carry a virus without symptoms. It's not unusual at all.

Almost 1/2 of the Diamond Princess cases were asymptomatic. www.eurosurveillance.org...

That's a shocking statistic, if true, that isn't being report.

That doesn't mean mild symptoms, it means no symptoms.

On one hand, it's good news that the virus isn't only mild in most people but it shows not symptoms. So we can cut all the CFR rates in half. But it would also make the virus travel extremely fast, which is what we are seeing now.

How they stack up globally

US has 34 - 36 ICU beds per 100,000

The UK 6.6

And the UKs new suicidal idea is to let coronavirus run through the populations for herd immunity LMAO, APOCALYPTIC scenes are coming soon

originally posted by: Pilgrum
The CFR is easy enough to work out

Technically true. But it's a meaningless number. What percentage of people who get infected go undetected because their symptoms are so mild they do not receive treatment?

The CFR could be 3%, while the actual fatality rate is 0.1%.

originally posted by: TritonTaranis

And the UKs new suicidal idea is to let coronavirus run through the populations for herd immunity LMAO, APOCALYPTIC scenes are coming soon

It's probably the best solution. It's what the US should do too. Have anyone at risk, 70+, self isolate, and go on with our lives. Personally if I had the choice between Covid-19 or the Flu I would much prefer to get Covid-19.

a reply to: Pilgrum

What do you think the percentage of undiagnosed cases is worldwide ?

Because that unknown variable would need to be added to your formula .

a reply to: Fallingdown

CFR does not account for undiagnosed cases. So it is not added to the formula.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Pilgrum
The CFR is easy enough to work out

Technically true. But it's a meaningless number. What percentage of people who get infected go undetected because their symptoms are so mild they do not receive treatment?

The CFR could be 3%, while the actual fatality rate is 0.1%.

Consider this :
The numbers reported with "mild" - "medium" cases in a percentage are not really CoronaVirus. The doctors , not having the test kits , did not want to take a chance and marked it up as a case. Thus , inflating those numbers.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Pilgrum
The CFR is easy enough to work out

Technically true. But it's a meaningless number. What percentage of people who get infected go undetected because their symptoms are so mild they do not receive treatment?

The CFR could be 3%, while the actual fatality rate is 0.1%.

Consider this :
The numbers reported with "mild" - "medium" cases in a percentage are not really CoronaVirus. The doctors , not having the test kits , did not want to take a chance and marked it up as a case. Thus , inflating those numbers.

No, those are only counting mild cases and positive testing. A diagnosis requires a positive test.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

That’s my point.

The primary reason why the CFR may overestimate the probability of death is that the number of confirmed diagnosed cases is likely an undercount of the true number of infections.

We’re never gonna be able to get a accurate amount of people infected . But as the sample pool grows the more accurate that number gets . The sample pools will grow because nations have had time to respond and testing will increase .

Did you see the last part of my OP on South Korea ?