Corona virus recoveries and mortality....

[rambot]

Hey all.

In my mind, the best way to measure how "lethal" a disease is, is to get a sense of how many people die from it compared to how many people recover from it. When we say a cancer has a "78%" survival rate, THAT is how we calculate that.

With that in mind, I can't quite fathom how people are saying "it's no more deadly than the flu".

COVID recoveries worldwide now 210,245

So that's awesome!

Deaths: 51,376

less awesome.

And it puts the survival rate of this disease at 24.4%


Now let's be sensible here: Who in their right mind (perhaps that is a HUGE asterix) would argue that the common flu has a survival rate of 24.4%

To me: Deaths/Recoveries is the BEST way to measure a disease's mortality rate.


Thoughts?

 

[Gene2memE]

Hey all.

In my mind, the best way to measure how "lethal" a disease is, is to get a sense of how many people die from it compared to how many people recover from it. When we say a cancer has a "78%" survival rate, THAT is how we calculate that.

With that in mind, I can't quite fathom how people are saying "it's no more deadly than the flu".

COVID recoveries worldwide now 210,245

So that's awesome!

Deaths: 51,376

less awesome.

And it puts the survival rate of this disease at 24.4%


Now let's be sensible here: Who in their right mind (perhaps that is a HUGE asterix) would argue that the common flu has a survival rate of 24.4%

To me: Deaths/Recoveries is the BEST way to measure a disease's mortality rate.


Thoughts?

I think you need to check your math.

51,376/261621 = 19.9%.

So, of the 261,621 cases of COVID-19 that are 'closed', 19.9% of them have resulted in a death.

That puts the survival rate at 80.1%.

 

[Dave G.]

Total recover can be weeks, death is death done deal. So the scale for comparison is skewed right off the bat. We will know more months into this. We will also know more with quick accurate testing of who really has it or may have had it unknowingly and survived. Our numbers are nowhere near complete. And yours are wrong as well.

 

[ChristianGirl_96]

Dude please do not worry. No one really knows what the numbers are right now.

 

[Desk trauma]

Thoughts?

Even the most pessimistic estimations of the virus do not have the overall morality rate anywhere near that.

 

[Johan_1988]

Also different populations have different percentages of deaths since genetics, age and pre-existing conditions are also contributing factors and like Dave said, we don't even the real number of infections since some people easily overcome it.

 

[JackRT]

COVID recoveries worldwide now 210,245

So that's awesome!

Deaths: 51,376

less awesome.

And it puts the survival rate of this disease at 24.4%

That's not a survival rate --- that's a death rate! Aside from this, your analysis ignores that vast number of people who have not yet survived or died. Plus post #2.

 

[pitabread]

Recoveries take a lot longer than deaths, so comparing raw deaths to recoveries is going to be misleading when you have a rapidly spreading disease.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

I think you need to check your math.

51,376/261621 = 19.9%.

Not to be picky, but it's 19.6%

 

[Ophiolite]

Hey all.

In my mind, the best way to measure how "lethal" a disease is, is to get a sense of how many people die from it compared to how many people recover from it. When we say a cancer has a "78%" survival rate, THAT is how we calculate that.

With that in mind, I can't quite fathom how people are saying "it's no more deadly than the flu".

COVID recoveries worldwide now 210,245

So that's awesome!

Deaths: 51,376

less awesome.

And it puts the survival rate of this disease at 24.4%


Now let's be sensible here: Who in their right mind (perhaps that is a HUGE asterix) would argue that the common flu has a survival rate of 24.4%

To me: Deaths/Recoveries is the BEST way to measure a disease's mortality rate.


Thoughts?

The numbers dead are undercounted for a variety of reasons:

• Failure to recognise the victim had the virus
• Attribution of the death to another factor
• Delay in the progress of data through the system

However, they are likely within, say, 25%

The number of recoveries is undercounted for various reasons

• Because of the exponential growth of infection and the length of time from infection to recovery, the majority of those infected are still in the recovery phase
• Most contracting the virus are either asymptomatic or have only mild, or moderate symptoms, so that many do not even appear in the statistics

The undercounting here is massive compared with the undercounting of deaths,

Conclusions:
1. It is too early to place any accurate number on the death rate
2. Your calculation is flawed from start to finish

 

[GenemZ]

Hey all.

In my mind, the best way to measure how "lethal" a disease is, is to get a sense of how many people die from it compared to how many people recover from it. When we say a cancer has a "78%" survival rate, THAT is how we calculate that.

With that in mind, I can't quite fathom how people are saying "it's no more deadly than the flu".

COVID recoveries worldwide now 210,245

So that's awesome!

Deaths: 51,376

less awesome.

And it puts the survival rate of this disease at 24.4%


Now let's be sensible here: Who in their right mind (perhaps that is a HUGE asterix) would argue that the common flu has a survival rate of 24.4%

To me: Deaths/Recoveries is the BEST way to measure a disease's mortality rate.


Thoughts?

Incorrect.

The best way to find out its mortality rate to count how many healthy people died from the disease.

Its not what they are doing. For, example: arsenic kills both healthy and unhealthy people equally.

What we are not having reported is how many of those who have died were suffering from other diseases that was leading to death. That is how the propaganda machine has been working, and some experts are now complaining that the reporting is unfair.

 

[expos4ever]

Hello rambot: We do not interact often since we generally agree on everything. I want to point this out, however: Do you not agree that, in line with what Dave G. posted, we need to account for the comparatively long delay in declaring someone recovered? Failing to do that would yield an overly pessimistic survival number.

Example: Suppose that 1000 people are infected on Day 1. And suppose that on day 14, they are all tested and come out positive. Suppose that on day 21, 10 of these people have died and only 20 have met the "recovered" criteria. One would think that, as of day 21, survival is only 20/(10+20) = 66%. But it could turn out that that all the remaining 970 people will all recover eventually. This would put the final survival rate at (20+970)/(10+20+970) = 99%.

And in fact, I would bet that, on average, those who eventually die, die sooner than those who eventually recover are deemed to have recovered - this effect would artificially distort the numbers to a more pessimistic conclusion.

And then there is the (newly discovered?) fact that quite a few people get the virus but never get sick. If you account for these people, the survival rate gets higher.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Recoveries take a lot longer than deaths, so comparing raw deaths to recoveries is going to be misleading when you have a rapidly spreading disease.

To be fair, we've gotten misleading calculations in both directions, depending on whom you listen to. The real mortality range, including all unknowns, is somewhere between 5.2% and 20.1%, as of this writing. The actual number will be somewhere in between those two. Flu mortality rate is only about 0.06% for ages 50 to 64, and 0.83% for ages 65 and older. Even in the absolute rosiest scenario the corona virus is significantly worse.

 

[rambot]

I think you need to check your math.

51,376/261621 = 19.9%.

So, of the 261,621 cases of COVID-19 that are 'closed', 19.9% of them have resulted in a death.

That puts the survival rate at 80.1%.

You used different numbers than me.

 

[rambot]

Ok everyone. Thanks for the clarity


Does anyone know what the working definition of "recovered" is for the purposes of these calculations?


I still the think formula is sound but that we have to wait a much longer time to get a clearer picture.

 

[Amittai]

... Does anyone know what the working definition of "recovered" is for the purposes of these calculations? ...

We don't know the long term effects on anyone.

 

[dqhall]

The numbers dead are undercounted for a variety of reasons:

• Failure to recognise the victim had the virus
• Attribution of the death to another factor
• Delay in the progress of data through the system

However, they are likely within, say, 25%

The number of recoveries is undercounted for various reasons

• Because of the exponential growth of infection and the length of time from infection to recovery, the majority of those infected are still in the recovery phase
• Most contracting the virus are either asymptomatic or have only mild, or moderate symptoms, so that many do not even appear in the statistics

The undercounting here is massive compared with the undercounting of deaths,

Conclusions:
1. It is too early to place any accurate number on the death rate
2. Your calculation is flawed from start to finish

Some people did not have severe symptoms and recovered at home.

A day in intensive care might cost $10,000. People without health insurance were not allowed in. Copays vary. More people stayed at home.

There are shortages of test kits and lab materials.

 

[Ophiolite]

Incorrect.

The best way to find out its mortality rate to count how many healthy people died from the disease.

Its not what they are doing. For, example: arsenic kills both healthy and unhealthy people equally.

What we are not having reported is how many of those who have died were suffering from other diseases that was leading to death. That is how the propaganda machine has been working, and some experts are now complaining that the reporting is unfair.

Utter nonsense. I a healthy person dies from the virus, they died from the virus. If an unhealthy person dies from the virus, they are still just as dead, a condition they would not have been in had they not contracted the virus.

You are, in essence saying, an elderly person, a person with diabetes, a person with a heart condition, a person with a compromised immune system, a person with kidney disease, that none of the people count. Literally, they do not count, because you will not count them.

Not only utter nonsense, but shameful nonsense at that.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Hey all.

In my mind, the best way to measure how "lethal" a disease is, is to get a sense of how many people die from it compared to how many people recover from it. When we say a cancer has a "78%" survival rate, THAT is how we calculate that.

With that in mind, I can't quite fathom how people are saying "it's no more deadly than the flu".

COVID recoveries worldwide now 210,245

So that's awesome!

Deaths: 51,376

less awesome.

And it puts the survival rate of this disease at 24.4%


Now let's be sensible here: Who in their right mind (perhaps that is a HUGE asterix) would argue that the common flu has a survival rate of 24.4%

To me: Deaths/Recoveries is the BEST way to measure a disease's mortality rate.


Thoughts?

Ignoring the science on this doesn't help.

For every "recovery" there's a likely 4-5 people who had it and didn't realize it.

 

[cow451]

Incorrect.

The best way to find out its mortality rate to count how many healthy people died from the disease.

Its not what they are doing. For, example: arsenic kills both healthy and unhealthy people equally.

What we are not having reported is how many of those who have died were suffering from other diseases that was leading to death. That is how the propaganda machine has been working, and some experts are now complaining that the reporting is unfair.

That’s a misguided approach to the data. It is critical to know who gets this disease and the outcomes. That can help define more specific risk factors as well as delineating factors the survivors have.

It’s epidemiology basics.