The coronavirus spread updated in real time

[_MsJack]

Anyone else wondering why there haven't been any deaths outside of China yet, apart from two Chinese nationals who traveled to other countries on death's door?

There are or have been 568 cases outside of mainland China, and only 2 people have died (the aforementioned Chinese nationals who were already in bad shape when they showed up). Counting them, that's a death rate of only .3% - .4%. There's sure to be at least a few more, and I know many of the cases in other countries aren't out of the woods yet.

I'm not suggesting that the Chinese are more susceptible to the virus than anyone else, but I am beginning to wonder if poor medical care and/or lack of resources to treat the massive, sudden number of infected isn't contributing to the death rate in China.

[_honorentheos]

From the link Res posted:

Asked why Wuhan was so much higher than the national level, the NHC official replied that it was for lack of resources, citing as an example that there were only 110 critical care beds in the three designated hospitals where most of the cases were sent.

National mortality rate was basically stable, as of Feb. 4 at 2.1%, and it was 2.3% at the beginning of the epidemic, which can be seen as a slight decline.

Front the analysis of death cases, it emerged that the demographic profile was mainly male, accounting for 2/3, females accounting for 1/3, and is mainly elderly, more than 80% are elderly over 60 years old, and more than 75% had underlying diseases present such as cardiovascular and cardiovascular diseases, diabetes and, in some cases, tumor.

Elderly people with basic diseases, as long as they have pneumonia, were clinically a high-risk factor regardless of whether it is a coronavirus or not, and the case fatality rate was also very high, so it is not that the case fatality rate of pneumonia is high because of the infection with the new coronavirus. "This point must be explained to everyone," concluded the NHC official.[7]

[_Res Ipsa]

I suspect it may be a combination of better health care and the ages of those exposed. I’m not advocating that people here become shut-ins or start wearing masks. Hell, I’m just south of the first US case, and I haven’t altered anything in my behavior. But until the number of resolved cases is a much greater percentage of the unresolved cases, I think it’s a mistake minimize the risk the virus poses.

[_moksha]

60,349 cases on February 13, 2020.

[_subgenius]

60,349 cases on February 13, 2020.

Is that a lot?

[_canpakes]

60,349 cases on February 13, 2020.

Is that a lot?

Today’s sublogic lesson:

No number is ever ‘a lot’, because there’s always a bigger number.

[_subgenius]

No number is ever ‘a lot’, because there’s always a bigger number.

Just trying to understand the reasoning behind posting that number - apparently you are struggling as well.

[_canpakes]

No number is ever ‘a lot’, because there’s always a bigger number.

Just trying to understand the reasoning behind posting that number - apparently you are struggling as well.

I think that you’re struggling with both the post itself, and the fact that other folks aren't struggling with that post. : D

[_Res Ipsa]

Yesterday’s numbers from Hubei province reported that new deaths doubled and new cases went up by 7x over the previous day. Apparently, that’s due to a change from reporting confirmed cases to clinically diagnosed cases. Shortage of test kits? Who knows? But it doesn’t help the pros figure out how the virus behaves.

[_Xenophon]

Yesterday’s numbers from Hubei province reported that new deaths doubled and new cases went up by 7x over the previous day. Apparently, that’s due to a change from reporting confirmed cases to clinically diagnosed cases. Shortage of test kits? Who knows? But it doesn’t help the pros figure out how the virus behaves.

The few reports I heard were it was mostly due to shortages in test kits and questionable accuracy even when testing was done. Thus the shift to focusing on clinical diagnosis.