Can’t reply to older posts here, but a few general comments.
@Tank. The overall mortality rate could be the same as seasonal flu (keep in mind the mortality rate of the flu varies a lot as well, depending on the strain), but the disease is clearly far more serious for some people. Some of this is known, the elderly and obese, and those with existing conditions like heart disease, diabetes,etc. Why some younger people are getting very sick and a small % dying is largely unknown, or at least unknown to me. A much larger percentage of younger people appear to have no symptoms or very mild symptoms (unlike the flu which can make younger people very sick).
@mikehunt. The people suggesting the mortality rate is a lot lower than previously thought are scientists doing scientific studies. Doesn’t mean their conclusions are right, but likely closer to the truth than lads like us waffling on the Internet.
@Julio_Geordio. The German study looks the most interesting and compelling, as they tested the entire population of a municipality where there was a large COVID-19 outbreak, and tested for both presence of the virus and for antibodies. They found that 14% of the population had antibodies, and 2% had active virus infection. Overall mortality was calculated at 0.37%, this would put it at about 2X worse than a bad flu.
It would be very interesting to see an anti body study from Italy or Spain, where they’ve been slammed, to see how much of the population is left to get it
1 Like
The Germans are one of the best performers when dealing with it. The scientists do not have accurate data. Otherwise their results would show that this is way worse than the ordinary flu. It has to be with the figures we are seeing.
There’s one going on in New York right now, the infection rate there has to be off the charts.
I have no idea what that means. The three studies that have been done so far are antibody tests in areas that have COVID-19 cases and deaths. One is an area in Germany that had a large outbreak. All three studies show the number of people infected that had no symptoms or very mild symptoms are between 85% and 95% of the total infected.
The show me state stepping up
1 Like
To say mortality rates are similar between this and the ordinary flu don’t tie with the increase in deaths in the UK per the FT article today where average deaths are 10k per week but with Covid 19 it’s 18k, an increase of 80%. They were predicting deaths of up to 250k in the UK and this has been revised down to 60k now. These scientific models or studies are wildly inaccurate up to now so should probably be best ignored.
You are confusing two completely different things. The models done by the London Imperial College and others are just that, models. They are of course prone to enormous error based on the assumptions plugged into them.
The mortality rate can only be known if you know how many people have been infected and how many of those died. The only way to determine the number infected is through antibody studies. These are actual clinical studies, not models.
As to the UK, the mortality rate like everywhere depends on the number infected, and as of now nobody knows how many have been infected there.
So without the full information why are they even attempting to make conclusions on mortality rate?
Because in three studies in three different locations, they did antibody testing on a significant number of people, so they can calculate how many have been infected. In the German study they did testing on every person living in a municipality. These are the only studies we have so far that are based on actual antibody testing, any mortality rates quoted previously were just guesses.
So the German figures/mortality rates are the only accurate ones for that area. You can’t apply those rates to everywhere else. Any suggestions that mortality rates are similar is just wild speculation.
A big question in the UK is why so many BAME are succumbing to it. Most if not all of the doctors who have died in the UK are BAME. It’s a strange one.
Germany is 3.5% CFR vs. 2% for SK and the Diamond Princess? I believe Germany only test post death if there is an indicator of an infection, which will likely leave many out still and in effect raise the date rate.
You have to consider the numbers not being tested though. Yes they’ve tested a lot, but we have actually tested more. They were actually more restrictive than Ireland until late March on who could get a test - so they weren’t catching asymptomatic people in great numbers. They were certainly more efficient than us, but they were still not quite as sharp as SK initially who have tested consistently and more on the ball with contact tracing given their previous experiences. So lets say we doubled the actual German cases to catch more asymptomatic carriers and those with limited symptoms and increased deaths by 50%, their death rate would drop to 2.5%. Triple the positives and the same amount of deaths as I just mentioned, it drops to 1.7%. You see how this goes as we continue, the test on Heinsberg showed that up to 14% of the town could have had it. All of these studies are being criticised but do the maths on one half/one third/one quarter of that being the case for the population at large vs. deaths. Currently Germany has just 0.17% of the population as positive.
People still see SK and the Diamond Princess as a more complete data set with 2% case fatalities than Germany. SK were quicker on the ball with testing, though still limited. With the Diamond Princess at a CFR of 2%, people say they have greater handle on asymptomatic cases as they tested so many in a confined space. But within both there are drawbacks, the DP found 50% asymptomatic carriers, SK found just 20%. SK also did not test a lot of people with suspected cases - so for all of SK’s testing regime, they are never getting to a full representative sample. On the DP, you had a boat that skewed way older than the general populations age & not a huge sample. On the other hand, most people on a cruise will be of quite able bodied and healthy (even @Fagan_ODowd), so you could argue more at risk groups weren’t exposed to the virus.
Until we get to the bottom of the excess mortality and antibodies we just won’t know. There will be country to country differences on whatever base you have, from simple demographics to unique health factors of a country. I don’t think people are coming to conclusions at all.
1 Like
It isn’t wild speculation, as it’s based on the actual mortality rate calculated from a 100% sampling of a population. It’s the most accurate calculation we have, as the Santa Clara and LA studies could be prone to sampling errors. The three studies are reasonably close though, a mortality rate of 0.15% to 0.37%, a long way from the WHO’s estimate of 3.4%, which was based on wild speculation.
It is wild speculation to apply these percentages to a different place. There are far too many variables.
Would a high percentage of front line staff in the UK, doctors, nurses, care workers, etc. be BAME? The numbers of health care staff being infected everywhere is shocking, but I suppose not that surprising given the state of PPE available earlier, and the fact masks weren’t even been recommended for most people. We have gone from masks being of little value to compulsory masks in a few weeks.
Wild speculation is suggesting a mortality rate based on a guess of how many are infected.
Nobody is suggesting applying the results of these three studies to a different place. What is being said, at least by me, is that these studies, based on actual antibody testing, suggest the mortality rate of COVID-19 is likely much closer to the mortality rate of the flu (0.1-0.2% based on severity) than the 3.4% suggested by the WHO.
2 Likes
If you were a betting man you’d say more likely to be closer to that alright.
A counter argument would be why are there 80% more UK deaths in one week compared to the same week last year? This would suggest that it is far more dangerous than the ordinary flu. I’m sure Northern Italy and Spain would say it’s far more dangerous than the ordinary flu.
You are completely misunderstanding what the mortality rate is. Ebola has a higher mortality rate than the flu, it doesn’t mean it kills more people every year.
Covid is much more contagious than the flu. It doesn’t change the mortality rate though.
3 Likes