For all discussing the statistics let me say the following :
At this stage the stats are indicative only as there are significant issues with the reliability of initial data from China and now Iran in particular. Consider all stats at the moment to be more general than definitive but there are many more reasons to be positive than negative or alarmist.
There seems to be a significant number of patients globally who haven’t been counted as they have nil or mild symptoms - this significantly skews any data on transmission rates and death rates. the most recent journal articles from reputable medical journals are now citing the global death rate is trending down and should continue to do so. A couple are suggesting that in all likelihood the rate will settle in the general area of influenza. But as with any stat, the more data collected the more accurate the end result, so we will see.
As mentioned, statistics are great for management and health economic planning and for sensationalist media reporting but not necessarily important for the individual. Remember the saying , "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
The post above about the “economist” prediction has been eviscerated by many sources as unnecessarily alarmist and wildly inaccurate. They back tracked very quickly after the furore.
Yeh, I think we all realise the value of statistics and the general circumstances of their application. For that reason I thought those stats I posted coming from the diamond princess may have been more useful to analysts, given they also could possibly have some access to the passenger list? Ages etc.
don’t mean to sound so cold about it, but numbers don’t have feelings.
According to jirskyr, we'd need to wait 2-5 years to have sufficient data to take notice of the statistics...
That's not what I said, I said the rates might not settle for 2-5 years. The mortality rate of COVID-19 in the first few months is exactly what it says - the rate in the first few months. The comparative flu rate is from decades of data of many different strains. So COVID-19 mortality rates might get worse, or they might get drastically better.
But what does that matter to the sample size of 1? If you are sick, you are sick. If you die, you die. You can't half-die or 3% die, so you just need to be aware of the risks and take appropriate precautions. Fuss over whether the mortality rate is 3.5% or 5.3% etc, or whether the Chinese aren't posting true numbers - a problem for Chinese, not for Australians.
Right, so regardless of whether the rates settle or not, any data on this is irrelevant as long as I only consider myself?
You seem to have taken my post as an insult. Not my field, so I'm genuinely trying to learn off you seeing as you're a professional in the industry.
You have a weird way of being genuine, stirring up nonsense about indigenous.
Firstly, I'm not an epidemiologist. So if we have one in here, they are the expert. But I know a reasonable amount about disease statistics, particularly in analysis of clinical trial data, because that's part of what I do for a living.
What is global data? It's just the sum of all the stuff. There is no average person in real-life, you can't point to the person who is in the middle of everything. So global data is only relevant to you, the individual, in considering your own risk.
For example, the global road fatality rate is about 0.02%, for influenza it's about 0.2%. So you are about 10x more likely to die from flu than a road crash. I would propose to you that most people are pretty confident of not dying from flu. Similarly, most people are pretty confident of not dying from driving. Why are people confident? Because on average the death rates are pretty low.
That's somewhat reasonable, but it's just a risk factor. If you actually have flu, you are very obviously more chance of dying from it than if you don't have flu. If you are elderly or immuno-compromised, your risk increases substantially again. Same when comparing safe driving with a seatbelt vs speeding whilst on drugs and no seatbelt.
So then what help, really, is the global flu data or global road death toll data to an indivdual, going about their day? You are either sick or you are not, and you respond accordingly. Global data is very helpful to hospitals, very helpful to road safety professionals, very helpful to the government, but just a predictor for your standard citizen. Then, if your circumstances change and you become at much higher risk of flu or road death, you take appropriate action. If you have flue or are about to crash, you respond ever more seriously.
I.e. if you have COVID-19 or know someone who does - take it very seriously. Take it more seriously than the 3.4% mortality rate might indicate you should. If you don't have them, just be aware of the risk. But whether or not it's 4% or 6% global risk, I really don't think that matters - people are already taking it quite seriously.
