Here are the statistics for the mortality rate for the corona virus figured in the way that is most commonly used, that is the percentage of those diagnosed with the disease who die from it:
France: 31%
Italy: 24%
South Korea: 1.1%
USA: 1.3%
China: 4%
Iran: 7.2%
Germany: 0.3%
UK: 4.4%
Spain: 5.1%
Why is there such a great variance between the nations? These are not because of small numbers distorting the calculations. In the UK there are 4500 cases, but in the rest of the countries on the list there are at least 8000 cases in each country. Italy has over 45,000 cases and China has over 80,000.
There are some obvious differences in how long the outbreak has been serious in each country. Since the disease takes a while to kill people, the numbers should go up in countries with earlier outbreaks. That doesn't seem to hold, though. China was first and it has a 4% mortality rate while South Korea was also one of the earliest outbreaks and it has a very low mortality rate. The outbreak in Iran hit after the one in South Korea, but Iran has a 7.2% mortality rate.
Another possibility is that the rate depends on the scope of testing. In the USA over the last two days the number of cases diagnosed has skyrocketed as large scale testing proceeds. The number of dead, however, while still rising has not been moving up at anything even close to the growth rate in cases.
And why is there such a big difference between France and Germany? Is it the quality of healthcare? Is there something genetic about Germans that makes them better able to withstand the virus?
We know that in Italy the vast bulk of the deaths are of people over 80 who have other medical conditions. There are more of these people in Italy on a percentage basis than there are in Germany, for example. Still, that doesn't explain the difference between 24% and 0.3% mortality.
The main point here, though , is that the mortality rate in all of these places is actually much lower than the numbers listed above. Most people who get the virus either don't have symptoms at all or have such mild symptoms that they don't get tested. One estimate is that fewer than 15% of those infected have serious symptoms. That would mean that the mortality rate in each country listed above should be divided by about 7 to come closer to the actual rate of mortality among all those infected. That would put the rate in the USA at the moment at about 0.2% or just slightly worse than the flu. Because the infections in the USA have come later than those in many other countries, the rate may be too low if calculated in this way. Still, it should be a comfort to those who are sitting at home avoiding the virus to know that the mortality rate here is actually quite low.
On top of this, it is important to add in that these figures are all for mortality in the total population. We know, however, that those who are elderly and with other medical problems are the people with the main difficulty in surviving the disease. In other words, healthy young people should have a mortality rate that is extremely low, probably lower than that for the flu.
France: 31%
Italy: 24%
South Korea: 1.1%
USA: 1.3%
China: 4%
Iran: 7.2%
Germany: 0.3%
UK: 4.4%
Spain: 5.1%
Why is there such a great variance between the nations? These are not because of small numbers distorting the calculations. In the UK there are 4500 cases, but in the rest of the countries on the list there are at least 8000 cases in each country. Italy has over 45,000 cases and China has over 80,000.
There are some obvious differences in how long the outbreak has been serious in each country. Since the disease takes a while to kill people, the numbers should go up in countries with earlier outbreaks. That doesn't seem to hold, though. China was first and it has a 4% mortality rate while South Korea was also one of the earliest outbreaks and it has a very low mortality rate. The outbreak in Iran hit after the one in South Korea, but Iran has a 7.2% mortality rate.
Another possibility is that the rate depends on the scope of testing. In the USA over the last two days the number of cases diagnosed has skyrocketed as large scale testing proceeds. The number of dead, however, while still rising has not been moving up at anything even close to the growth rate in cases.
And why is there such a big difference between France and Germany? Is it the quality of healthcare? Is there something genetic about Germans that makes them better able to withstand the virus?
We know that in Italy the vast bulk of the deaths are of people over 80 who have other medical conditions. There are more of these people in Italy on a percentage basis than there are in Germany, for example. Still, that doesn't explain the difference between 24% and 0.3% mortality.
The main point here, though , is that the mortality rate in all of these places is actually much lower than the numbers listed above. Most people who get the virus either don't have symptoms at all or have such mild symptoms that they don't get tested. One estimate is that fewer than 15% of those infected have serious symptoms. That would mean that the mortality rate in each country listed above should be divided by about 7 to come closer to the actual rate of mortality among all those infected. That would put the rate in the USA at the moment at about 0.2% or just slightly worse than the flu. Because the infections in the USA have come later than those in many other countries, the rate may be too low if calculated in this way. Still, it should be a comfort to those who are sitting at home avoiding the virus to know that the mortality rate here is actually quite low.
On top of this, it is important to add in that these figures are all for mortality in the total population. We know, however, that those who are elderly and with other medical problems are the people with the main difficulty in surviving the disease. In other words, healthy young people should have a mortality rate that is extremely low, probably lower than that for the flu.
No comments:
Post a Comment