Coronavirus Statistics: Cases, Mortality, vs. Flu

Leifer

Senior Member.
So if the US "death rate" goes down, it will because of wider and more numerous testing (and reporting).... as more milder cases are found.
(This reply is time sensitive info, I won't update here.)
As of a few days ago.....estimated "total US citizens tested" is reported to be around 1,895 people....according to non-CDC sources.

Friday, March 6, 2020
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/...=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share

It’s one of the most urgent questions in the United States right now: How many people have actually been tested for the coronavirus?
This number would give a sense of how widespread the disease is, and how forceful a response to it the United States is mustering. But for days, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has refused to publish such a count, despite public anxiety and criticism from Congress.
........
But the number of tests performed across the country has fallen far short of those projections, despite extraordinarily high demand, The Atlantic has found.
.......
Through interviews with dozens of public-health officials and a survey of local data from across the country,
could only verify that 1,895 people have been tested for the coronavirus in the United States, about 10 percent of whom have tested positive.
.......
To arrive at our estimate, we contacted the public-health departments of all 50 states and the District of Columbia. We gathered data on websites, and we corresponded with dozens of state officials. All 50 states and D.C. have made some information available, though the quality and timeliness of the data varied widely. Some states have only committed to releasing their numbers once or three times a week. Most are focused on the number of confirmed cases; only a few have publicized the number of people they are capable of testing.
CDC says 1583 total tests, a day earlier, on March 5th.....(if the reported data was correct and timely}
Honestly...this CDC data seems to be buried a bit :

covid_1.jpg
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-in-us.html

But isn't the protocol (in the last few days)...that if local tests reveal an infection, that it has to be also verified (checked twice) by the CDC ?
 
Last edited:

Agent K

Active Member
About the Coronavirus outbreak, Pinsky mentions that the WHO estimates the US fatality rate is about 3% (USA I assume)...."
The WHO said that the global case fatality rate is 3.4%, just dividing the total deaths by the total cases, but that's a simplistic way to calculate it.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-rate
It may turn out to be lower, but I can't find a good estimate. The Diamond Princess cruise ship is a good case study, since mild cases were more likely to be reported there. 6 out of about 700 patients have died, but only about 200 have recovered, the rest are still sick.
It's not a good sign that the global case fatality rate has increased instead of decreased. If you compare it with the 2009 H1N1 flu pandemic, the H1N1 case fatality rate dropped from 2.5% when there were 787 cases to about 0.4% by the time there were 52,000 reported cases, and it ended up being just 0.02% in the U.S. and maybe 0.05% worldwide.

Here's the COVID-19 death rate out of closed cases. Looks pretty flat now.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-cases
1583576303250.png
 
Last edited:

Leifer

Senior Member.
The global mortality "rate" is abnormality high, because so few people have been tested, and it varies by country. In many countries, only the "obviously sick" or with symptoms, or close associates of positive persons get tested.
How many test kits does Lagos have, or sub-Saharan Africa ?
Mumbai ?
Central America ?
....and so on ?
There will likely be widespread test-kits in the future, but not now.

With such little testing, numbers are conceptual and interpretational.
Most accurate estimates are from countries that have had the most testing....South Korea being one.

Coronavirus: South Korea’s aggressive testing gives clues to true fatality rate
  • With 140,000 people tested, the country’s mortality rate is just over 0.6 per cent compared to the 3.4 per cent global average reported by the WHO
  • Various factors can influence this percentage, but scientists agree that all things being equal, it is more accurate when more people are tested
https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/heal...navirus-south-koreas-aggressive-testing-gives
....and even at 140,000.... that's not a lot.....Seoul population is 10,000,000 strong.
 

Agent K

Active Member
Here's the 2017-2018 flu season data. It was a bad flu season.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden-averted/2017-2018.htm

Table 1:Estimated Influenza Disease Burden, by Age Group — United States, 2017-2018 Influenza Season
Age GroupEstimate95% UI*Estimate95% UIEstimate95% UIEstimate95% UI
Symptomatic IllnessesMedical VisitsHospitalizationsDeaths
0-4 yrs3,678,342(2,563,438, 7,272,693)2,464,489(1,695,054, 4,904,296)25,644(17,871, 50,702)115(0, 367)
5-17 yrs7,512,601(5,899,989, 10,199,144)3,906,553(3,002,375, 5,356,724)20,599(16,177, 27,965)528(205, 1,392)
18-49 yrs14,428,065(12,258,820, 19,396,710)5,338,384(4,262,260, 7,333,716)80,985(68,809, 108,874)2,803(1,610, 6,936)
50-64 yrs13,237,932(9,400,614, 23,062,957)5,692,311(3,895,925, 10,028,080)140,385(99,691, 244,576)6,751(4,244, 15,863)
65+ yrs5,945,690(3,907,025, 11,786,777)3,329,586(2,139,716, 6,623,717)540,517(355,184, 1,071,525)50,903(35,989, 83,230)
All ages44,802,629(39,322,959, 57,928,172)20,731,323(17,978,392, 27,248,302)808,129(620,768, 1,357,043)61,099(46,404, 94,987)
* Uncertainty interval

About a 13.6% incidence and 0.136% case fatality rate, yielding a 0.019% mortality rate.

For COVID-19, some experts are predicting 40% to 80% incidence and about a 1% case fatality rate.

"University of Hong Kong researchers put Covid-19 [case fatality rate] at 1.4 per cent"
https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong...university-hong-kong-researchers-put-covid-19
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...infection-could-reach-60-of-worlds-population
Edit: I see, Dr. Drew puts the COVID-19 case fatality rate at 1% as well. He just inflated the flu case fatality rate to 0.7%, which is higher than the 1968 Hong Kong flu.
Source: https://youtu.be/e_2aaO2nhTE?t=609

 
Last edited:

Agent K

Active Member
The global mortality "rate" is abnormality high, because so few people have been tested, and it varies by country. In many countries, only the "obviously sick" or with symptoms, or close associates of positive persons get tested.
How many test kits does Lagos have, or sub-Saharan Africa ?
Mumbai ?
Central America ?
....and so on ?
There will likely be widespread test-kits in the future, but not now.

With such little testing, numbers are conceptual and interpretational.
Most accurate estimates are from countries that have had the most testing....South Korea being one.

....and even at 140,000.... that's not a lot.....Seoul population is 10,000,000 strong.
The mortality rate could be erroneously low if they don't test patients for coronavirus but simply list the cause of death as pneumonia or cardiac arrest.
In South Korea, there are fewer than 150 recovered patients, so it's too early to count the case fatality rate.
 
Last edited:

Arugula

Member
The 3.4% fatality rate that WHO is reporting is also dramatically increased because of Wuhan/Hubei province specifically, and the fact that healthcare workers there were totally overwhelmed at the start of the crisis.


1583695963529.png
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(20)30068-1/fulltext

Meanwhile, in a place like South Korea, where they were able to prepare an organized and transparent government response, (including drive-through testing, text message alerts, and an investing $25 billion to offset economic losses), we're seeing the 0.7% fatality rate.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2020-03...roach-containing-coronavirus-model-rest-world
 

JFDee

Senior Member.
There are multiple issues hampering the effort to determine the actual, average fatality rate, as a Washington Post article recently stated.

Emphasis is mine.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/03/06/why-its-so-hard-pin-down-risk-dying-coronavirus/
 

Agent K

Active Member
The 3.4% fatality rate that WHO is reporting is also dramatically increased because of Wuhan/Hubei province specifically, and the fact that healthcare workers there were totally overwhelmed at the start of the crisis.

Meanwhile, in a place like South Korea, where they were able to prepare an organized and transparent government response, (including drive-through testing, text message alerts, and an investing $25 billion to offset economic losses), we're seeing the 0.7% fatality rate.
As of February 20, the WHO reported a case fatality rate of 5.8% in Wuhan vs. 0.7% in other areas in China. The rate had increased compared to February 4, when the fatality rate was 4.9% in Wuhan and just 0.16% in other provinces. Right now, Zhejiang province reports 1215 cases, 1161 recoveries, and just 1 death. Is that credible?
Contrast with the U.S., which reports 537 cases, 15 recoveries, and 21 deaths. The crude case fatality rate is 3.9%, but relatively few people have been tested. I'd like to see statistics on just the people who were quarantined or tested before they got sick.
 

Agent K

Active Member
There are multiple issues hampering the effort to determine the actual, average fatality rate, as a Washington Post article recently stated.

Emphasis is mine.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/03/06/why-its-so-hard-pin-down-risk-dying-coronavirus/
86% of the active cases are reported to be mild, but that includes mild pneumonia.

Imperial College London‌ tried to account for the biases, and came up with a 1% fatality rate back on February 10.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/im...ial-College-2019-nCoV-severity-10-02-2020.pdf
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
and 21 deaths. The crude case fatality rate is 3.9%, but relatively few people have been tested.
22. now. but when you hit a nursing home, I don't think that counts really. the article say they typically lose 3-7 people a month. so more than half, 13 passed away, of the death total to date was sick and sick-old people.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...-care-facility-connected-coronavirus-n1152306

**add edit: i should note that i feel adding people at very low risk (under 70 and healthy) is also 'unfair'. without a vaccine and no herd immunity (yet), the fatality rate in people at risk is what matters, imo. and it is the duty of the healthy people to not help spread this disease under the assumption that it is "no big deal". It's a big deal to people with cancer etc.
 
Last edited:

Arugula

Member
As of February 20, the WHO reported a case fatality rate of 5.8% in Wuhan vs. 0.7% in other areas in China. The rate had increased compared to February 4, when the fatality rate was 4.9% in Wuhan and just 0.16% in other provinces. Right now, Zhejiang province reports 1215 cases, 1161 recoveries, and just 1 death. Is that credible?
Contrast with the U.S., which reports 537 cases, 15 recoveries, and 21 deaths. The crude case fatality rate is 3.9%, but relatively few people have been tested. I'd like to see statistics on just the people who were quarantined or tested before they got sick.
That's a good question. Zhejiang is one of the most developed parts of china and a huge industrial center (home to Alibaba). There's a lot of financial incentive to make things looks like they're better than they actually are, and apparently local companies might even be faking electricity consumption & falsifying work logs.

Source: https://theweek.com/speedreads/9004...overy-all-fake-whistleblowers-residents-claim

Zhejiang specifically was the first place that received the top level "Grade I Emergency" declaration, which includes a full-scale effort of social tracking using a "grid management" surveillance system that divides the country into tiny sections, where volunteers and community members are put in charge, decentralizing the enforcement. This kind of control might make it more difficult for outsiders or whistleblowers to understand the scale of what is going on.

https://web.archive.org/web/2020021...eace/c53723/2020-01/29/content_12319327.shtml

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/15/business/china-coronavirus-lockdown.html
 
Last edited:

Agent K

Active Member
22. now. but when you hit a nursing home, I don't think that counts really. the article say they typically lose 3-7 people a month. so more than half, 13 passed away, of the death total to date was sick and sick-old people.
**add edit: i should note that i feel adding people at very low risk (under 70 and healthy) is also 'unfair'.
You don't count high-risk people and low-risk people? I don't follow.
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
I think we need many figures that include many determinations. There's a lot of maths.
....not unlike multiplying and dividing these. :
Population Density,
Testing fluidity.
Lifestyle and hygiene in the midst of a threat.
Lifestyle and hygiene before or after the threat.
Exposed, a number.... (health-care workers, and first-contracted illness.)
Exposed, a number currently.

Does the first set (period) of illnesses and deaths count for very much ? (in numbers only, bless those lives). This was a period of confusion and in-awareness.
Virus protection was likely at an average state before recognizing it, likely the same procedures for Influenza......or thinking it was the "common cold" rhinovirus.......... among typical health workers.


I'm reminding myself of basic averaging......

mean_mediun_mode.jpg
 
Last edited:

Bruno D.

Senior Member.
IMHO, the scary part is that we still don't know how spread it is in US right now.

There are 22 deaths in US. There are 566 confirmed cases right now, what would mean a death rate of 3.8%. Is the coronavirus deadlier in US? Of course it's not, the problem is the spread.

Assuming a death rate of 2%, that would mean 1100 cases. As we are discussing in this thread, 1% or 0.7% is probably a more accurate value, what would mean 2200 to 3200 cases in US right now.

And the scariest part is, we just don't know. No-one knows. I don't care that I, as an average American, am not in the risk group, or that my parents are safe in Brazil, or that the Flu kills 30k people per year, so 22 covid19 deaths are "not relevant". At this point we don't know how spread it is, or where it is, and how many nursing-homes-that-shouldn't-be-counted are going to be hit. This was preventable or at least mitigable, and we are not doing a good job.

US is going to be the second hardest hit country because people just don't care, and I'm sad for that.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
You don't count high-risk people
no. if a cluster appears in a hospital or nursing home and has a high fatality rate, that is a false rate if you are trying to determine the fatality rate for the whole of the U.S. you said the rate in the U.S would be 3.9% using known numbers now. I'm saying that there is an additional reason we cant use known numbers now.
 

Arugula

Member
There's a new independent COVID-19 tracking project started because of the lack of information provided by the US government, particularly when it comes to how many people are getting tested, and how they're reporting the tests. It's a good resource to see what is broadly happening in the US: http://covidtracking.com


https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gjLnqETDiIlKh6zyAHzCTTITzxFrq0ezGq_QvL-FB7s/edit

I'm a contributor, if you would also like to volunteer, you can check out this link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11Lw47PuyIjtOMy3XRnLweff7xBjmlxxtqzVQI5cVdcI/edit
 
Last edited:

Agent K

Active Member
Here is a useful dashboard for tracking CV cases from Johns Hopkins. I looked thru the thread and didn't see it posted yet- apologies if I missed it:
https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6
It was posted on the first page by Arugula. Very easy-to-remember URL, isn't it.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/covid-19-coronavirus.11085/post-236317
Another good tracking site is https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus
The two sites have some differences in the numbers of cases, deaths, and recoveries. I tend to use the larger number.
 

Agent K

Active Member
Regarding the fatality rate discrepancies - interestingly the rate in Lombardy (northern Italy) seems to be disproportionate to the rest of Italy. It could be because of a lack of available ICU beds.
In China, about 80% of the reported cases were not serious (e.g. "mild pneumonia"), 15% were serious (e.g. pneumonia and shortness of breath) and probably needed oxygen, and the remaining 5% were critical (ARDS or shock) and would probably die without intensive care. About half of the critical cases died, which is how you get a roughly 2.5% case fatality rate. So a lack of any ICU beds would double the case fatality rate to 5%, hopefully no higher. But a lack of hospital beds might increase the number of serious cases that become critical and die.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.

deirdre

Senior Member.
not sure how much I trust a site called "worldometers" but they seem to have very specific numbers, and a few NYTimes blurbs (cant access full articles to link) suggested too most cases are mild in SKorea.
1583800426049.png
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/south-korea/

(of course hospital beds and not having 10% of your medical staff in quarantine, would certainly help those with more severe cases to recover)
 

Agent K

Active Member
If you believe the numbers from China, they've managed to contain this epidemic. Reporting just 45 new cases, all in Hubei I think. Or they just stopped reporting most new cases.

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/politico-nightly-coronavirus-special-edition
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000170-c16d-da87-af78-e1ed63560000
Patterson Clark, POLITICO Pro DataPoint

I do believe South Korea's numbers.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/south-korea
1583917258503.png

So, that's optimistic. On the other hand, the global death rate of closed cases is increasing, possibly because various countries are testing the most seriously ill.

1583917677968.png
 

Agent K

Active Member
Across the pond:
"NHS bosses warn hospitals over intensive care demand surge"
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...s-intensive-care-england-nurses-a9395716.html
Had it not been for this leak, those sources might still have thought that he said "sevenfold," and planned accordingly.
 

frankywashere

New Member
Here's a graph of the fatality rate versus the testing rate.
The title says, "Countries that test more for COVID-19 tend to have lower mortality rates for the illness," but the graph shows that Italy tests a lot and still has a high fatality rate.

https://time.com/5798168/coronavirus-mortality-rate
View attachment 39772
I have an answer for this. Italy also has some of the highest percentage of +65 year olds of any european country due to it's aging population. therefore naturally they will have a higher fatality rate. 23% of their population is over the age of 65. from:
https://www.businessinsider.com/italy-coronavirus-old-population-cases-death-rate-2020-3
Annotation 2020-03-12 192122.png



Separate from this, I'm curious if the stats are further skewed for COVID, since we don't know how many cases of COVID have other complications that include pneumonia. For example, death rate for influenza+pneumonia is WAY higher than covid in comparable age groups. I don't understand why doctors on the news aren't being more clear about this. Am I misunderstanding the data?
Below is the COVID death rates
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/
1584066250225.png
compared to influenza+pnuemonia:
1584066489266.png
https://www.lung.org/assets/documents/research/pi-trend-report.pdf

You can see the rate is over 100 here for influenza+pneumonia.

and here shows 4-7% : https://www.livestories.com/statistics/us-influenza-flu-pneumonia-deaths-mortality
1584067102380.png
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The article states that 60% is over the age 40. The graph you posted doesn't seperate and compare ages 40 and over, it lumps 15-64 years together making it impossible to know who many of each age are in that group.
Well, only over 60 is really relevant here, and over 65 even more so. The over 65 group for Italy is not really different from Germany, which has 20 million more people.

You'd need a finer-grained age breakdown to see if there's a difference.
 

frankywashere

New Member
yeah, that's true. I found a good site and i'll throw that together. I wonder if the author took some liberty there. It seems to me that with italy it couldve been that plus other factors combined, and not just the age thing.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Italy also has some of the highest percentage of +65 year olds
you need Lombardy really. vs say Wuhan. or even the areas hit in South Korea. I actually did find the stats on Lombardy but then didn't want to look up where in South Korea to compare to.

For example, death rate for influenza+pneumonia is WAY higher than covid in comparable age groups.
that death rate is per 100,000. so thats like .0016% <dont quote me on that i likely have my decimal places wrong.

with italy it couldve been that plus other factors combined,
I wonder if its still custom to kiss each other on both cheeks on greetings and partings. But the other day the average age of deaths in Italy/Lombardy was 81.4 yrs. Old people often hang out with old people, so it could just be that it is the higher age groups it is circulating in in Italy so far.

All the numbers, in all countries are really way to small and the disease way too young to get any sense of accurate numbers anyway. thats why medical stats you look up are usually at least from 2 years ago. It needs to be over before you can really start to crunch the numbers.
 

frankywashere

New Member
you need Lombardy really. vs say Wuhan. or even the areas hit in South Korea. I actually did find the stats on Lombardy but then didn't want to look up where in South Korea to compare to.


that death rate is per 100,000. so thats like .0016% <dont quote me on that i likely have my decimal places wrong.


I wonder if its still custom to kiss each other on both cheeks on greetings and partings. But the other day the average age of deaths in Italy/Lombardy was 81.4 yrs. Old people often hang out with old people, so it could just be that it is the higher age groups it is circulating in in Italy so far.

All the numbers, in all countries are really way to small and the disease way too young to get any sense of accurate numbers anyway. thats why medical stats you look up are usually at least from 2 years ago. It needs to be over before you can really start to crunch the numbers.
I’m italian, and my mother is in Italy, and I can tell you without a doubt that the custom of kissing each cheek is 100% still in. That will never go away.

[...]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
And I’m starting to think it’s unbelievably irresponsible for Dr Anthony Fauci to go on saying extreme statements like “10x more lethal than the flu” without understanding the worldwide impacts it’s creating
But all of the studies, and the simple figures themselves, point to a mortality rate that's at least 10x that of regular flu. So what are you saying?
 

Agent K

Active Member
A variety of cities, states, and countries have similar bans now, with various differnt numerbers. Here's a smattering for a search for: "banned gatherings of over"

>100: Ohio
>250: San Diego County, Miami Beach, California [strong advisory], Seattle Area, Indiana, New Jersey
>500: New York
>1000 France, Switzerland, Santa Clara County, Berlin

That's certainly not all, and, of course, there's even more draconian measures in Italy and China.
How do they decide on the number? Just guesswork or is there a method to it?
 

frankywashere

New Member
But all of the studies, and the simple figures themselves, point to a mortality rate that's at least 10x that of regular flu. So what are you saying?
What i'm saying is, isn't it too early to be saying this? How can we say this with such small sample pools, and then accurately compare this to the flu which has MASSIVE sample pools? The logic being used is the same logic as saying, "Car company 'x' makes 1 car, someone dies in said car, therefore fatality rate is 100%"
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
What i'm saying is, isn't it too early to be saying this? How can we say this with such small sample pools, and then accurately compare this to the flu which has MASSIVE sample pools? The logic being used is the same logic as saying, "Car company 'x' makes 1 car, someone dies in said car, therefore fatality rate is 100%"
135,000 confirmed cases is a very high sample pool.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Critical Thinker Claim: Correlations Between Media Preference and Coronavirus Infection Rates Coronavirus COVID-19 11
derwoodii Retweet Networks Spreading Coronavirus Disinformation Coronavirus COVID-19 2
Mick West Local Perspectives on Coronavirus re-openings Coronavirus COVID-19 57
Mendel Debunked: The WHO did not take the Taiwan CDC seriously Coronavirus COVID-19 0
TEEJ Fake Coronavirus Detector in Iran Coronavirus COVID-19 0
Mick West Debunking Correlations Between 5G deployments and Coronavirus Coronavirus COVID-19 14
Mick West Boris Johnson in ICU with Coronavirus Symptoms Coronavirus COVID-19 8
Rory Claim: UK Coronavirus Bill (HC Bill 122) means "bad things" Coronavirus COVID-19 9
Mick West Claim: China Mobile loses 8.116 Million subscribers because of Coronavirus Coronavirus COVID-19 2
Agent K Claim: Harvey Weinstein has coronavirus Coronavirus COVID-19 9
deirdre Coronavirus and Younger people Coronavirus COVID-19 14
Mick West Coronavirus Related Shortages in Shops Coronavirus COVID-19 111
Arugula COVID-19 Coronavirus current events Coronavirus COVID-19 479
Mick West Clustering Illusions, Baader-Meinhof, and Death in the Domincan Republic General Discussion 15
Mick West Statistics Help Needed - Understanding the practical meaning of r values Practical Debunking 6
Mick West Debunked: 150 Calories of sugar leads to 11-fold increase in the prevalence of diabetes [1.1%] Health and Quackery 4
Mick West Debunked: Ebola CDC Quarantine Map Matches Immigration/Agenda 21 Maps [Population centers] Conspiracy Theories 9
TWCobra Chemtrail search statistics-Google Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Mick West Abusing Statistics about Homosexuality General Discussion 7
Mick West Searching and Linking to MUFON cases Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0

Related Articles

Top