China - National Health Commission: 2.1% fatality rate among confirmed cases nationwide

[Commonground]

National Health Commission: 2.1% fatality rate among confirmed cases nationwide
2020-02-04 17:19:28 Source: Xinhua News Agency
Jiao Yahui, deputy director of the State Administration of Health and Medical Care Administration, said at a press conference of the State Health and Medical Commission on the 4th that as of 24:00 on February 3, the cumulative number of confirmed cases of pneumonia caused by new-type coronavirus nationwide was 20,438, with a cumulative death of 425 The mortality rate of confirmed cases nationwide was 2.1%. The death rate was mainly concentrated in Hubei Province. The case fatality rate of confirmed cases in Hubei Province was 3.1%. The fatality rate of confirmed cases in Wuhan was 4.9%. The case fatality rate in other provinces except Hubei was 0.16%. It can be seen from this set of figures that the main death cases are in Hubei. Although the number of cases in other provinces across the country is quite large, the vast majority are light cases. (Reporters Chen Cong and Liu Yizhan)

http://www.xinhuanet.com/politics/2020-02/04/c_1125530729.htm

 

[sharon sanders]

There is no way to know what the real case fatality rate is because the total number of cases is not known and the true number of deaths is not known.

Anyone who is not officially diagnosed is not calculated in their numbers. There are reports of people who appear to be non-critical being turned away at hospitals. Plus, any death without an official diagnosis is not counted in the death number.

Always buyer beware with China goverment data.

 

[gsgs]

likely because they don't test mild cases in Wuhan/Hubei because there are just too many.
While in other provinces they have different priorities, different health-bureaus, own calculations and guidelines
and above all : not so many people to test.

Are there other possibilities ? Water or food contaminated in Wuhan with higher initial load ?
They probably would have found that by now.
New introductions from animals ? Well, all the known sequences are from one introduction, however
that one introduction could also have gon to cats,rats,dogs chickens whatever.
BTW. no sequences from Wuhan since weeks or so, I read

-------------------------------
f Wuhan engulfed in a thick fog h

 

[curiosity]

Until the confirmed numbers in provinces outside Hubei are much larger - ratios cannot statistically be accurate. The higher the number, the more accurate the CFR. Same as outside China - the number of confirmed infections are too small statistically to derive accurate presentations.

Unfortunately, it is possible the CFR will be in the higher range.

 

[curiosity]

There is no way to know what the real case fatality rate is because the total number of cases is not known and the true number of deaths is not known.

Anyone who is not officially diagnosed is not calculated in their numbers. There are reports of people who appear to be non-critical being turned away at hospitals. Plus, any death without an official diagnosis is not counted in the death number.

Always buyer beware with China goverment data.

If there is a data report similar to the US P&I mortality or the annual CDC All Cause Death reports in China, the evidence of increased mortality will be there... not sure if they make that info public like the US does.

Ultimately, the true CFR will not be known until it passes through the world population. Some areas and demographics will have worse or better outcomes. For example, the cases outside China may be doing better because they are receiving treatment and medication in an intact medical system. Where in Hubei, as demonstrated by the many videos Hawkeye has shared - the trash and mayhem and inattentiveness to dying people in the same waiting room are clear indicators of a disheveled system overwhelmed by the epidemic.

 

[JimO]

The articles I have read refer to an approximate CFR of 2% as the low end of the spectrum, as though that number doesn't indicate a significant risk. I agree that any specific number is a guess at this stage; however, even if the CFR is as low as 0.5% and half the population gets it, that's still 15 million deaths globally, not an inconsequential number. That would mean over 700k deaths in the US, which is more lives lost than during the entire Civil War. I believe this warrants pretty aggressive controls to at least delay the spread until a vaccine is available.

Even if we analyze it without consideration of the human cost, the economic cost of losing that many people to disease will likely exceed any costs incurred to control it. How serious would an outbreak have to be to cancel an event like the Super Bowl? It would cost billions; however, what if infected persons attended and spread it to others who then dispersed all over the country? The consequential cost would likely well exceed the cost to cancel. How many lives would it take to cancel an event like that? I bet a credible terrorist threat that might result in dozens of deaths would be cause to cancel it. But we don't weigh these threats equally and until we do, we might not be able to control the spread of nCoV, particularly if it is truly transmissible by asymptomatic individuals.

I guess my point in all these musings is that even with the lowest estimate I've seen of 0.6% CFR, it warrants taking aggressive action, given how readily the virus appears to have adapted to H2H transmission.

 

[gsgs]

lowest estimate is 0.17% , which is the current CFR outside Hubei.
Then take 20% attack rate, which were the CDC-numbers for the mexflu-pandemic in Feb.2010,
(after 1 year we may have a vaccine and immunity from infection may last ~2 years)

that gives ~100000 deaths for USA, which seems to be a reasonal estimate ATM (IMO)

 

[JimO]

lowest estimate is 0.17% , which is the current CFR outside Hubei.
Then take 20% attack rate, which were the CDC-numbers for the ******-pandemic in Feb.2010,
(after 1 year we may have a vaccine and immunity from infection may last ~2 years)

that gives ~100000 deaths for USA, which seems to be a reasonal estimate ATM (IMO)

I don't disagree because we can't accurately estimate any of the numbers yet, but a CFR of 0.17% and attack rate of 20% seem like a best-case scenario, given the available information, and those numbers are similar to seasonal flu. Even 100,000 deaths in the U.S. in a year warrants aggressive actions to delay the spread of nCoV until a vaccine is developed.

I just don't hear any public health officials talking about specific actions, at least here in the U.S., to limit the spread of nCoV. If the 2009 pH1N1 pandemic was any indication, school closings won't be effective because they wait too long and often just "disinfect" the school building and start classes again in a week. We all know that the building isn't the source of the virus. Local schools, colleges and universities need to at least look at the logistics and consequences of closing for one to three months and plan for it just in case. We have a short window to plan and then everything will simply be reactionary.

I fear we haven't learned anything in the U.S. even after the pH1N1 and subsequent severe seasonal flu seasons. At least there seems to be progress in the medical community that stems from the ebola outbreak, assuming cases can be identified early enough to prevent significant transmission.

 

[gsgs]

I didn't account for the likely delay in deaths , there could be ~2weeks in averge from confirmed to death..
In the last 3 days we had already 3,4,5 deaths outside Hubei, giving already 0.6% CFR
and it looks increasing