
Coronavirus – The Outlook Has Worsened - joshuafkon
https://www.cassandracapital.net/post/coronavirus-the-outlook-has-worsened
======
9nGQluzmnq3M
This article is junk, and I don't understand why we're accepting medical
analysis from a random trader. A few of the more obvious flaws:

* At this point in the epidemic you can't compute fatality rates simply by deaths/recoveries, because recoveries lag deaths by several weeks (once you're dead you're dead, but if you survive it takes a few weeks to recover and start testing negative).

* It is well known that China is undercounting cases, not because of some deep CCP conspiracy, but because Wuhan/Hubei's health system is so overloaded that only the sickest cases are hospitalized, much less tested.

* This also skews death rates very high, because mild cases are not detected and counted at all. This is also clear from the divergence in death rates in Hubei (2.x%) and outside Hubei (under 0.5%, and there's undercounting happening here too).

* The virus has been in the wild in a number of countries outside China (Singapore, Japan, Thailand, etc), yet to date local transmission has petered out and there's no sign of massive outbreaks happening. This argues for a much lower R0, and/or that there's something specific to Wuhan that favors the virus, with cold, dry winter air and heavy air pollution (and the accompanying chronic lung damage) cited as possible factors.

~~~
prepend
> You can't compute fatality rates simply by deaths/recoveries, because
> recoveries lag deaths by several weeks (once you're dead you're dead, but if
> you survive it takes a few weeks to recover and start testing negative).

There are limitations with this method, but I think it’s the best possible at
the time. What method do you think is better?

~~~
9nGQluzmnq3M
Count deaths & recoveries a few weeks in for cohorts that showed first
symptoms on the same days. But data collection for this is hard and it takes a
while too.

~~~
prepend
This is mentioned in the article and is more accurate, but isn’t possible
throughout an outbreak for the reason you state.

------
seren
I enjoyed the clear and fact based presentation, with different scenarios.

I am bit shocked to learn that that the R0 of the Spanish flu was only around
2 though.

Regarding the number of case outside of China, raising exponentially, at least
half of them, 454 as of today are onboard of the Diamond Princess. I am not
sure if this is good or bad but surely a cruise ship is a bit peculiar
situation, and maybe you cannot extrapolate too much based on that .

On the other hand, it also means that if a "dense" community is hit where
people are living closely, it can have a bad outcome as well.

------
mnw21cam
Why does the article finish in the middle of a sentence?

~~~
ethbro
Because the generating model ran out of memory.

------
joosters
I'm curious about a rather immaterial point in the corona virus reporting: Why
does everyone discuss 'mainland China'? What are they trying to clarify by
putting that 'mainland' word in?

It surely can't be Taiwan, since these are Western articles, whose audience
probably won't confuse the two. So is it about Hong Kong? That doesn't make
much sense either, since most of Hong Kong _is_ on the mainland.

And yet, while these reports all talk about mainland China, they still include
Hainan (a large island off the south coast of China). In fact this article has
it highlighted in its map as being an area under lockdown. And yet Hainan is
quite obviously _not_ a part of the mainland.

So why do writers keep referring to 'mainland' China?

~~~
ohmaigad
Mainland China is PRC.

~~~
joosters
So is Hainan!

~~~
ohmaigad
Then why are you wondering why it is included? Mainland in this case is a
geopolitical term.

~~~
joosters
Because it makes no sense? For all the uses of 'mainland China', it would be
simpler to just say 'China', with no loss of clarity. Adding pointless words
just for the sake of it, especially when it seems that the author(s) don't
mean what the word says, is bad writing.

~~~
robjan
Hong Kong is inside China but not governed directly by PRC. Most non-Chinese
citizens need a visa to enter "Mainland China" but not Hong Kong. Most Chinese
people need a permit to enter Hong Kong. So, yes, the distinction is useful.

