Originally Posted by
pmac
A couple of things to point out about this paper that are relevant to mortality rate.
1. It was published Jan 24, relying on patient data from up to Jan 2. In other words, well before much was known, and in particular, much before there was any info on the frequency of asymptomatic individuals (now known to be high, although a reliable number is still very much a work in progress). So, the group of patients is limited to those with readily identifiable symptoms, which strongly skews the sample.
2. Note the frequency of patients with an underlying disease/condition: 32%. Specifically, diabetes (eight [20%]), hypertension (six [15%]), and cardiovascular disease (six [15%]). Note that these categories add up to more than 32%, meaning that some people had more than one underlying health issue.
Conclusion: the morbidity value is based on a population that does not include those with mild cases, and does include those with preexisting problems. Unless obesity is proven to be an extreme risk factor for this disease, many/most people are not in the high risk group, and the morbidity will be much lower.
That's my interpretation from reading the paper and being generally aware of what's going on but not directly working on this. My colleagues (I'm a genetics prof with an active research lab) who do work on things more directly relevant (but not necessarily on coronaviruses) keep saying to anyone who's interested that from a personal health perspective (ie, not from a 401K perspective) you should be a lot more concerned about the flu.
Paul
Bookmarks