URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       nCoV_info
  HTML https://ncovinfo.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: nCoV - discussion
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 96--------------------------------------------------
       Re: estimating the cfr
       By: epsilon Date: February 11, 2020, 6:06 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I generally avoid drawing conclusions from official china
       numbers from Wuhan/Hubei (I have some more trust in the chinese
       numbers outside Hubei). This is not to say, the official lie
       intentionally, rather I think it is simply a problem of capacity
       and chaos in an near-overwhelmed health system)
       Fortunately there are many studies now, that model the spread
       and severity of the epidemic using only non-china data and air
       travel models.
       The other point we all should keep in mind is that you cannot
       simply mix numbers from before Jan 23 (i.e. before the drastic
       isolation measures) with the numbers after the shutdown.
       Before the shutdown we probably had real exponential community
       transmission with case doubling of 3 days. (You can even use the
       official numbers to see that because for case doubling
       estimation it does not matter whether the numbers are off by a
       factor of ten)
       Now, after the sutdown (plus one incubation period) i.e. roughly
       after February 1, we see about linear growth which means that
       the isolation measures work in so far as exponential spread is
       stopped (R_effective <= 1)
       Unfortunately there is still no sign that the isolation measures
       are enough to not only slow down but actually END the epidemic
       (R_effective << 1)
       This is crucial, because isolation cannot be maintained forever.
       
       #Post#: 97--------------------------------------------------
       Re: estimating the cfr
       By: gsgs Date: February 11, 2020, 7:01 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       the numbers of new confirmed cases Hubei ex Wuhan and China ex
       Hubei
       do really go down.
       They did change the definition of confirmed cases somehow and
       hospitalizations
       are still up , but -same argument- the trend should still show
       up,
       if they underreport or change the definition abruptly.
       -----------------------------
       as for the CFR, I verified the 3 weeks lag , I was reading this
       :
  HTML https://republicanfreedom.com/2020/02/10/the-death-rate-is-up-to-5-the-harrowing-admission-of-a-wuhan-doctor/
       found this while searching the link :
  HTML https://www.worldometers.inf
       o/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-rate/
       > Days from first symptom to death: 14 days
       #Post#: 99--------------------------------------------------
       Re: estimating the cfr
       By: epsilon Date: February 11, 2020, 4:28 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote]the numbers of new confirmed cases Hubei ex Wuhan and
       China ex Hubei
       do really go down.[/quote]
       This is a good sign that control or even containmant works for
       prepared cities. They had a head sart of 2 weeks on Wuhan.
       And they really implemented drastic measures (e.g. school
       closures) right from the start even when they had mainly
       imported cases fro Wuhan.
       We should probably do the same now in our on cities/countries.
       But I'm afraid we are only managing this RE-actively instead of
       PRO-actively.
       What I still not understand is why new infections in Wuhan do
       not decrease drastically. They live in maximum isolation for 3
       weeks now. How could they continue infectiong each other.
       Airborne transmission ?
       See also this very recent paper :
  HTML https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.08.20021253v1
       reproductive number R_c, i.e. the transmissibility of the virus
       AFTER isolation/quarantine measuers in China still larger than
       1. (Epidemics can only be stopped if R_c < 1.)
       My take: Even the draconic chinese isolation measures not yet
       sufficient.
       #Post#: 100--------------------------------------------------
       Re: estimating the cfr
       By: gsgs Date: February 11, 2020, 11:44 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       no measures were really successfull in the past to stop
       pandemics
       or even to isolate cities, countries,continents - keeping the
       virus out.
       Even in times without air-travel, railroad.
       And all the papers, the modelings said that it can't be stopped,
       just delayed,mitigated to some degree.
       So I was surprised when the Chinese numbers went down.
       And I'm not sure, that it were the measures. There should be
       differences
       from city to city but apparantly in no city, in no country
       except maybe Wuhan it did take off yet.
       -----------------------------------------------------
  HTML https://flutrackers.com/forum/forum/internet-communication/avian-flu-diary/828940-covid-19-dealing-with-imperfect-numbers
       #Post#: 108--------------------------------------------------
       Re: estimating the cfr
       By: epsilon Date: February 13, 2020, 11:25 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=gsgs link=topic=31.msg100#msg100 date=1581486296]
       apparantly in no city, in no country except maybe Wuhan it did
       take off yet.
       [/quote]
       Yes. That's a very interesting observation that I cannot explain
       at the moment.
       Given the extremely explosive epidemiologic parameters (latest
       research: R0>4, doubling each 2.4 days!) we should be really
       seeing signs of large scale outbreaks some where else by now.
       It's impossible that they perfectly identified an isolated all
       exported cases everywhere.
       But all we see is small to mid sized, controlled clusters of
       50-100 cases in Singapor and on the cruise ship.
       Maybe its just too early.
       Remember in Wuhan it was silently circulating from end of
       November until end of December when the first signs of pneumonia
       clusters revealed themselves.
       The next 2-4 weeks are key !
       #Post#: 111--------------------------------------------------
       Re: estimating the cfr
       By: gsgs Date: February 14, 2020, 7:11 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Wuhan city had about 42,000 people infected by Jan 29, 2020,
       [official number : 2251]
  HTML https://crofsblogs.typepad.com/files/2020.02.10.20021774v1.full.pdf
       the number of infected persons in other provinces fell within
       the range of 9-15,000,
       [meant presumably 9000-15000 on Feb.09]
       [official number = 6351]
       most conservative estimate of 21,000 infections in the cities in
       Hubei province except Wuhan, [on Feb.09]
       [official number : 12729]
       so the official numbers were underestimating his conservative
       estimates
       by a factor of
       19 (Wuhan,Jan29)
       1.6 ( Hubei ex Wuhan , Feb09 )
       1.4 ( China ex Hubei, Feb09 )
       #Post#: 112--------------------------------------------------
       Re: estimating the cfr
       By: epsilon Date: February 14, 2020, 1:28 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       My personal estimate (educated guess) is that prevalence of
       infections already reached up to 1% of the Wuhan population
       (i.e. 100k of 10M) before they shut the city down.
       Also, very recent paper estimated that 900 infected air
       passengers travelled from Wuhan tp 300+ cities outside china in
       the 2 weeks before the travel ban.
       Yet another study estimated that 3 imported seed cases spark
       community outbreak with 50% probability.
       So if those studies are not too far off, it seems pandemic is
       inevitable.
       Concerning cfr I still think it could be "only" 0.5% BUT only
       with fully functional health system. Otherwise 5%, 15% ?
       In one study, 15% need at least additional oxygen, 5% ICU.
       Health system collapse is, IMO, the most worrysome risk with
       COVID19 because the shortage of hospital cpacity and protective
       equipment (and the new studies showing very high infection risk
       for doctors and nurses could lead not only to large number
       massive fear-based non-compliance of HC workers)
       
       #Post#: 114--------------------------------------------------
       Re: estimating the cfr
       By: gsgs Date: February 15, 2020, 3:55 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       can it be worse here than in Wuhan ?
       And with your estimate Wuhan has a very low CFR.
       They have the 3 weeks death-delay since shutdown now.
       And why is the pandemic inevitable, when China apparently
       succeeded to control it
       despite all these initial cases without knowledge what helps ?
       Are we so much worse than China ? Then quickly change the laws
       for
       quarantine and such, import Chinese doctors and nurses,.
       *****************************************************
   DIR Next Page