Originally Posted by
FlareArmed2
I get figures from
John Hopkins, they in turn get their data from a wide variety of sources not just the Chinese government. They have a
blog here for those that wish to deep dive.
At the end of the day I don't really know how accurate anything on the internet is. I can point out that the trajectory of data in mainland China matches the rest of the world. If there is a significant diversion between the two then I think the idea that some numbers don't add up would be a supportable hypothesis; but I don't see that right now. But that's just me, you might have another take on it. I honestly don't know.
The "S" be silent?
There is possibly fair skepticism on the numbers that came out of China, which doesn't mean any intent to be deceptive, it is just as likely to be from the problems of responding to the new virus, establishing exactly what is and what isn't a case, and appropriately categorising the data of non COVID-19 (WuFlu) cases against the background cases of similar conditions, flu, pneumonia etc. For scale, the figures on seasonal flu deaths is bad enough, but the deaths from pneumonia alone are over 50,000 PA in the USA, so sorting out the signal from the noise is always problematic until there are reliable tests in place. The recent Chinese numbers reflecting the change in categorisation doesn't mean the situation is deteriorating, it puts the data in better perspective.
A curiosity with this virus so far is that the outcomes are quite variable. The latest information suggests that many more cases exist, yet the rate overall is not increasing that greatly for the adverse outcomes. That is cold comfort for the recently departed, but it puts in context the significance of the outbreak. The fatality ratio is going to be lower against actual infected cases when this is washed out, and it will quite probably be higher than the seasonal flu, but it is not going to change the world, other than an excessive response that shuts down activity globally which may have a greater adverse effect than WuFlu itself.
The adverse outcomes appear to impact those that are immune compromised already, and if that is really the case, then the most effective response to the virus is to identify those that are at risk, and maintain isolation for them from the potential spread of the disease, as, effectively we are at risk of bombing our own global systems into the stone age to stop something that has already been let out of the bag. If the spread is already outside of the containment lines, it is time to point defend, and that currently is a doable procedure. If a belated half hearted attempt to quarantine the global public remains the focus, then we are unlikely to be successful, and that action will take resources away from those that are in greatest peril from adverse outcomes. That same group at most risk are already under risk of similar outcomes from other causation agents.
WuFlu is like a forest fire that set up lots of undetected hot spots throughout the forest. The resources can be focused on the points of critical effect, the building in the forest, or we can attempt to tamp out each new hotspot, but we are behind the spread, and the spots are not showing up easily. Our current response is to pull out every tree in the forest, not sure that is now the correct response any longer. With infinite resources, sure, fill your boots, but when we have limitations, then the best solution may be to protect those that are readily identifiable as being at risk.
This virus doesn't affect the great majority of the cases at present. A risk of a half hearted response is that the virus doesn't spread rapidly through the available population, and all we do is slow it down, and then we are effectively giving it an opportunity to have more time active in the community overall, and allow it therefore more opportunity to evolve. As it changes slightly at every replication cycle, there is as much likelihood that it becomes more problematic over cycles than becomes benign. Right now, it is relatively benign to the vast majority of cases. I'm not suggesting terminating personal discipline in infection control, I am suggesting that the cat is out of the bag, and the rational defence is to protect those that the virus has greatest impact on. To do so would lessen the economic impact that this outbreak has which has all the hallmarks of a bad day out at present. Those at most risk can be protected without affecting trade and commerce at all, and that would be a rational position to consider. The current global response is heading over a cliff, and adding economic collapse to the equation hardly improves the survival rate of those at risk already.