Coronavirus crisis is massively underestimated

It’s not only the economic effects (see here) which are currently being massively underestimated, but probably the mortality rate, and the effective spread as well. But how do you actually determine the mortality rate of viral diseases such as the corona virus? Let’s take the latest values ​​from Mar. 05, 2020, as an example:

This mortality rate is far lower than SARS, but higher than that of ordinary flu, and is more likely to cause death in high-risk groups. So, you can rest easy, right? Is it really like that? The number in the counter (when calculating the mortality rate above) is the number of those who have already died. A true mortality rate would factor in the number of people who have died plus those of the 14,380 who are still to die. This is only known when the crisis is over. Out of the 14,380, more patients will surely die.

China CDC (Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention) publishes not only the deaths and the number of infected people, but also the “recoveries”. It says the following:

For days, the “recoveries” have been about the same as the number of “deaths”, i.e. all the other, approximately 13,700, cases have not yet died or recovered, but are simply still sick. Based on these numbers, an upper limit for the mortality rate can be determined – around 50%. So, you can set up an estimation interval between 2% and 50%. Of course, there are now good arguments that speak against a mortality rate of 50%. Namely, it is likely that the serious cases are first hospitalized and tested, and that they die faster than those with no, or only slight, symptoms. Therefore, the actual mortality rate is likely to be in the one-digit percentage range.

Not only is the mortality rate likely underestimated, but also the prevalence, i.e. the rate of infection in a population. The reported cases (see our infographic) are only the cases that have actually been tested. In a country like Myanmar, which cannot carry out tests (samples are currently being sent to Thailand and reported a week later), there are also no infected people. You can develop the best models, but if the underlying numbers are wrong, the results are meaningless. Test kits are also missing in China, and patients are rejected in hospitals due to the lack of capacity if their symptoms are not severe.

In addition, this virus is much “smarter” than SARS. The SARS virus is more likely to kill its host, making the virus less “effective” at infecting other people. The Wuhan virus, on the other hand, is already contagious if the host does not yet have any symptoms, and the virus can still be passed on after the symptoms have subsided – as the example from Germany shows. Such an asymptomatic distribution is a game-changer that worsens the situation many times over. We at abrechlungen.ch estimate that the true extent is far greater and that the number of infected people, perhaps 50,000 rather than 14,000. For example, it is very unlikely that there are only 7 cases in neighboring Vietnam. It is also not foreseeable what will happen if the virus spreads to countries with an underdeveloped health system, and spreads there in an uncontrolled manner.

The NZZ writes:

«The fear is around, but so far with no reason: […] According to the Federal Office of Public Health (BAG), ten percent of those infected do not have a fever, some do not even have a cough and some have no symptoms.»

Dear BAG,

These asymptomatic cases are the problem in particular! This is not good news, actually, it’s very bad.

Authorities around the world are trying to appease, and warn of unfounded panic. As soon as the authorities warn of scaremongering, the time has really come to be worried.