Hacker News Reader

Comment by koheripbal | Hacker News Reader

The numbers we're getting out of China are a mess and almost entirely useless.

There are reports of hospitals turning people away unless they a very sick, and also not testing every ill patient because they're overwhelmed.

I've see death certificates posted online with "viral pneumonia" because they aren't able to test everyone - and certainly don't bother testing those who have already died.

The errors are both ways and huge.

The only thing we can conclude is that it's contagious, deadly, and more deadly than the seasonal flu.

View on HN

There was one interesting number though. The Japanese had been evacuating 200 people from Wuhan and found 3 cases. Assume that a plane of evacuees like that is somewhat random sampling. And that evacuees have similar or better hygiene. This puts infection rate at 1% of the population. Official population of Wuhan is 11 million, it is possible that it is larger. This puts the number to 100k cases.

On top of that, 2 of the returnees refused to be tested. Who knows what they're up to… work? Seeing family? Hanging around in the park with a Strong Zero for a chat?

Korea evacuated 400 today, 1 couldn't board the plane because known infected, on arrival 4 were tested and found to be infected. This is consistent with the Japan flight from yesterday that you mention.

So, you are infected? How does it compare to the flu? Are symptoms very different?

Best wishes for your recovery!

GP didn't say anything about being infected.

1, not I. I think you mis-read.

Isn't taking the population of Wuhan as 11 million cherry picking? You could choose the population of central Wuhan and get a higher estimate or the population of Hubei province and get a lower estimate. Presumably the distribution of Japanese people evacuated does not match the distribution of people in Hubei province, since many will be tourists (more likely to be in the city centre). Moreover their chance of being infected will depend on where they were staying: there is an epicenter.

But yes it does indicate that the real number is much higher than the confirmed cases. It's really hard to track an outbreak of this magnitude especially when many people are carriers showing mild symptoms. It's actually a good thing if cases are being severely underestimated as it implies a lower death rate (deaths are harder to fudge).

> deaths are harder to fudge

Are you sure about this? AFAIK, the Chinese government does not disclose someone as dead by this virus unless they tested the person positive. That means that if someone dies from respiratory complications on the street or in their home, they will write it off as pneumonia. Right now Wuhan city only has the capacity to screen roughly 6000 samples everyday. Add to this that many sick people are basically just told to go home. Not many cars are driving, city is shutdown so god knows how many are sitting lifeless in their livingroom. I have also seen much evidence that communities are barring the doors of infected households so they can't leave their apartments.

The death count can only be expected considerably higher than reported.

> I've see death certificates posted online with "viral pneumonia"

Would that not be a proper reason for a corona virus caused death? Or does it have to be specific if the exact cause is known?

I'd expect that death certificates would specify the specific cause, if it's known. But I don't know if that's true.

Either way, it makes the data far less useful.

How is "viral pneumonia" not the specific cause of death?

Doesn't say which virus.

If they don't know, fine. Albeit sloppy, given the context.

If they do know, and don't say, it's deceptive.

I'm not sure that it's deceptive; generally the "cause of death" is just one part of a larger report that can give further detail.

Thats like saying the person died form lack of blood after being shot. Its technically correct, but actually useless.

Medically it seems much more specific though. You could die from numerous things after a gunshot wound, so naming the specific cause of death is more accurate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com