The fatality rate of Covid19

[joe_infinity]

See this new epidemiological study here: Early epidemiological assessment of the transmission potential and virulence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Wuhan City: China, January-February, 2020

It concludes that the fatality of Covid19 even in the Chinese city of Wuhan was only 0.04% to 0.12% and thus * rather lower * than that of seasonal flu, which has a mortality rate of about 0.1%. As a reason for the overestimated fatality of Covid19, the researchers suspect that initially only a small number of cases were recorded in Wuhan, as the disease was probably asymptomatic or mild in many people.

Interesting, what are people's thoughts on this?

 

[blairsh]

What are your thoughts?

 

[joe_infinity]

What are your thoughts?

Im oddly happy to hear that the fatality rate is so low, everything else Ive been hearing up to now has said that the fatality rate of covid19 is much higher than flu. If this were true, covid19 ought to be significantly more manageable than had first been thought.

Im searching around for other data to back this up, no luck yet though....

 

[Teaboy]

I think with Covid-19 it was always the speed at which it spread which was the main concern. Even if the fatality rate does prove to be below 1% as we probably mostly suspected that's still a fuck ton of deaths by the time its spread across the planet.

 

[blairsh]

Well, I'll be reserving opinion, least til the winter rolls round again.

 

[joe_infinity]

Well, I'll be reserving opinion, least til the winter rolls round again.

It's as if people * want * to believe that covid19 is more serious (= deadly) than it actually is!

 

[blairsh]

It's as if people * want * to believe that covid19 is more serious (= deadly) than it actually is!

That's quite an assumption you have there.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's as if people * want * to believe that covid19 is more serious (= deadly) than it actually is!

No. It's people wanting it to be as good as possible but reserving judgement. I would love it if the Oxford model is right and half the population already has it, meaning just one wave, which will pass in a few weeks. Doesn't mean I now think it must be right - even they admit they don't have the evidence yet to say either way.

 

[joe_infinity]

I think with Covid-19 it was always the speed at which it spread which was the main concern. Even if the fatality rate does prove to be below 1% as we probably mostly suspected that's still a fuck ton of deaths by the time its spread across the planet.

But the speed and efficiency of transmission of Covid19 is also less than that of flu, according to Dr Tedros Ghebreyesus of the WHO.

He states here (WHO: Coronavirus tougher to spread than flu, but more severe) that influenza is impossible to contain because: "COVID-19 does not transmit as efficiently as influenza. With influenza, people who are infected but not yet sick are major drivers of transmission, which does not appear to be the case for COVID-19."

 

[Flavour]

In Italy over 8000 people have died. Out of 80,000 confirmed cases. So, there's that.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

But the speed and efficiency of transmission of Covid19 is also less than that of flu, according to Dr Tedros Ghebreyesus of the WHO.

He states here (WHO: Coronavirus tougher to spread than flu, but more severe) that influenza is impossible to contain because: "COVID-19 does not transmit as efficiently as influenza. With influenza, people who are infected but not yet sick are major drivers of transmission, which does not appear to be the case for COVID-19."

Wahtever the truth of that, we have now seen in Italy and Spain how a large number of infections can happen very quickly, how such a surge can overwhelm even a good health service, and how, when that happens, people die.

 

[joe_infinity]

No. It's people wanting it to be as good as possible but reserving judgement. I would love it if the Oxford model is right and half the population already has it, meaning just one wave, which will pass in a few weeks. Doesn't mean I now think it must be right - even they admit they don't have the evidence yet to say either way.

But if this study turns out to be accurate, meaning that Covid19 is less deadly (in addition to being less infectious) than flu, what would this say about the societal lock-down?

It seems to me that the lock-down is based on the assumption (which is now challenged) that covid19 is more deadly than flu.

 

[joe_infinity]

In Italy over 8000 people have died. Out of 80,000 confirmed cases.

The problem with these ^ kinds of statistics is that they only account for correlation, not causation.

So this statistic only shows that 8000 people died WITH covid19 (= correlation). It does not establish how many of these 8000 people died BECAUSE OF covid19 (= causation).

It has been estimated that as few as just two of the Italy covid19 deaths occured in people who were not already seriously ill with other health conditions like cancers, lung or heart issues, etc.

 

[Thora]

But if this study turns out to be accurate, meaning that Covid19 is less deadly (in addition to being less infectious) than flu, what would this say about the societal lock-down?

It seems to me that the lock-down is based on the assumption (which is now challenged) that covid19 is more deadly than flu.

The lockdown is based on the assumption that we don't have enough ICU beds for everyone who will get severely ill.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

But if this study turns out to be accurate, meaning that Covid19 is less deadly (in addition to being less infectious) than flu, what would this say about the societal lock-down?

It seems to me that the lock-down is based on the assumption (which is now challenged) that covid19 is more deadly than flu.

You haven't addressed my answer really. South Korea and China have shown how particular measures can stop the spread. Other countries have shown what happens if you don't adopt those measures early enough. We don't have a test case of a country where the virus is spreading and no action has been taken, and there's a reason for that.

It isn't a catastrophe so far, even in Italy, though it might feel like it. For comparison, in the UK, there are between 20,000 and 50,000 additional deaths in winter each year. As long as the total numbers of victims of C19 remain below, say, 30,000 (the difference between a good winter and a bad one), we will be able to say that it wasn't really so exceptionally bad, even if it won't feel like that because attention will be focused on those deaths in a way that it usually is not.

But the reason we're in lockdown is because it was feared the figure would be more like 300,000, not 30,000. If it eventually turns out that this isn't the case, then great. But even in that event, short-term 'flattening of the curve' will save lives by allowing health services to cope - the thing that has broken down in parts of Italy and Spain now, and we have to hope does not break down here.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The problem with these ^ kinds of statistics is that they only account for correlation, not causation.

So this statistic only shows that 8000 people died WITH covid19 (= correlation). It does not establish how many of these 8000 people died BECAUSE OF covid19 (= causation).

It has been estimated that as few as just two of the Italy covid19 deaths occured in people who were not already seriously ill with other health conditions like cancers, lung or heart issues, etc.

My mate died last winter. He had pancreatic cancer and was perhaps two or three months away from death anyway, but he was actually killed by the flu. That's common, of course. That's why we have excess deaths each winter. But you're now pretty much parrotting the rubbish Cummings was coming out with - that these are people who are going to die soon anyway so fuck em. Why should we alter what we do?

 

[joe_infinity]

The lockdown is based on the assumption that we don't have enough ICU beds for everyone who will get severely ill.

Im talking about the worldwide lock-down, and just in general, the whole idea that Covid19 is more serious (more worth worrying about, more worth trying to actively prevent) than flu.

I wonder about the consequences if it does indeed turn out down the line that covid19 is actually less deadly and less infectious than flu.

 

[ska invita]

It's as if people * want * to believe that covid19 is more serious (= deadly) than it actually is!

Its very much a hope for the best, prepare for the worst situation

 

[Flavour]

The problem with these ^ kinds of statistics is that they only account for correlation, not causation.

So this statistic only shows that 8000 people died WITH covid19 (= correlation). It does not establish how many of these 8000 people died BECAUSE OF covid19 (= causation).

It has been estimated that as few as just two of the Italy covid19 deaths occured in people who were not already seriously ill with other health conditions like cancers, lung or heart issues, etc.

If someone has cancer and has 6 months to live and then they get corona and die in 3 days, the cause of death is still corona, not cancer, even though cancer obviously weakened the immune system to allow corona to become lethal. it's more complicated than you're making out, and i think you're disingenuous in your attempts to redirect us back towards the "it's just the flu" sort of thinking, which is clearly ridiculous.

 

[joe_infinity]

We don't have a test case of a country where the virus is spreading and no action has been taken, and there's a reason for that.

Russia is a good example of a country where the virus is present, but no lock down measures are in place

See here - No Russia lockdown as Putin puts on show of calm

Russia apparently has very low rates of covid19

 

[joe_infinity]

you're disingenuous in your attempts to redirect us back towards the "it's just the flu" sort of thinking

The whole thread is based on a study which claims that covid19 is actually significantly * less * deadly than flu, it is that line of thinking which i am trying to explore.

According to this information, covid19 is both less deadly, and less infectious than flu.

Yet the world does not grind to a halt every flu season...

It strikes me that there is a logical gap here somewhere, im trying to find it

 

[killer b]

Russia has just announced a lockdown you bellend. As if stories from a week ago have the slightest relevance.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The Spanish flu pandemic of 1918-19 killed around 50,000,000 people. That's the kind of thing we're trying to avoid here. If it turns out that we needn't have worried so much, then great. That means fewer people will have died. Doesn't mean this response is wrong.

 

[scifisam]

The problem with these ^ kinds of statistics is that they only account for correlation, not causation.

So this statistic only shows that 8000 people died WITH covid19 (= correlation). It does not establish how many of these 8000 people died BECAUSE OF covid19 (= causation).

It has been estimated that as few as just two of the Italy covid19 deaths occured in people who were not already seriously ill with other health conditions like cancers, lung or heart issues, etc.

I don't think that's true. If someone has covid 19 but dies of a different condition, it's not counted as them dying of covid 19.

Yup, not true:

"It is therefore true that these patients had underlying health conditions, but it is also worth noting that they had acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pneumonia, needed respiratory support, and would not have died otherwise."

From The Lancet.

Doctors have thought of the underlying conditions, you know.

 

[Thora]

The problem with these ^ kinds of statistics is that they only account for correlation, not causation.

So this statistic only shows that 8000 people died WITH covid19 (= correlation). It does not establish how many of these 8000 people died BECAUSE OF covid19 (= causation).

It has been estimated that as few as just two of the Italy covid19 deaths occured in people who were not already seriously ill with other health conditions like cancers, lung or heart issues, etc.

I read an interview with a New York doctor yesterday who talked about two 30-something patients with "underlying conditions" dying the day before - their underlying conditions were asthma, and obstructive sleep apnoea. So yes, conditions that made them more susceptible to c19 but not things that are usually fatal by themselves.

 

[joe_infinity]

If someone has cancer and has 6 months to live and then they get corona and die in 3 days, the cause of death is still corona, not cancer,

Again, you are falling victim to the correlation =/= causation fallacy

It is impossible to assert that corona 'caused' death in this instance, because you do not know that the person would not have died anyway, even in the absence of corona.

Saying that they had '6 months to live' is not an accurate guide to the exact time when they are going to die.

 

[Saul Goodman]

Russia is a good example of a country where the virus is present, but no lock down measures are in place

See here - No Russia lockdown as Putin puts on show of calm

Russia apparently has very low rates of covid19

Both China and Russia have form for being economical with the truth.

 

[Thora]

Again, you are falling victim to the correlation =/= causation fallacy

It is impossible to assert that corona 'caused' death in this instance, because you do not know that the person would not have died anyway, even in the absence of corona.

Saying that they had '6 months to live' is not an accurate guide to the exact time when they are going to die.

If someone has a brain tumour or heart disease and they die of pneumonia caused by c19 on a ventilator in an ICU, doctors aren't going to be confused about whether it was actually the tumour that got them.

 

[joe_infinity]

I don't think that's true. If someone has covid 19 but dies of a different condition, it's not counted as them dying of covid 19.

This ^ is demonstrably incorrect in the case of Italy:

See this video () where an Italian health minister explicitly clarifies that: "I want you to remember these people died WITH the coronavirus and not FROM the coronavirus"

The covid19 death rate is actually just a measure of how many corpses tested positive for covid19, so it does not establish causation

 

[killer b]

This ^ is demonstrably incorrect in the case of Italy:

See this video () where an Italian health minister explicitly clarifies that: "I want you to remember these people died WITH the coronavirus and not FROM the coronavirus"

The covid19 death rate is actually just a measure of how many corpses tested positive for covid19, so it does not establish causation

Not even that, if the figures in this piece are right.

«The real death toll for Covid-19 is at least 4 times the official numbers»

Nembro, one of the municipalities most affected by Covid-19, should have had - under normal conditions - about 35 deaths. 158 people were registered dead this year by the municipal offices. But the number of deaths officially attributed to Covid-19 is 31

www.corriere.it