THE highly-respected journal of infectious diseases published this week its study of COVID-19 in China and 37 other countries. The study is emphatic about the seriousness of the virus. And yet the fatality rate it found is low: 1.4 percent for those infected under 60 (outside China) and 4.5 percent for those over 60:

We collected individual-case data for patients who died from COVID-19 in Hubei, mainland China (reported by national and provincial health commissions to Feb 8, 2020), and for cases outside of mainland China (from government or ministry of health websites and media reports for 37 countries, as well as Hong Kong and Macau, until Feb 25, 2020).

[…]

Our estimates of the case fatality ratio for COVID-19, although lower than some of the crude estimates made to date, are substantially higher than for recent influenza pandemics (eg, H1N1 influenza in 2009). With the rapid geographical spread observed to date, COVID-19 therefore represents a major global health threat in the coming weeks and months. Our estimate of the proportion of infected individuals requiring hospitalisation, when combined with likely infection attack rates (around 50–80%), show that even the most advanced health-care systems are likely to be overwhelmed. These estimates are therefore crucial to enable countries around the world to best prepare as the global pandemic continues to unfold.

[….]

In cases reported outside of mainland China, we estimated an overall modal case fatality ratio of 2·7% (95% CrI 1·4–4·7) using the parametric model (table 2). In those who reported travel to mainland China (and would therefore have been detected in the surveillance system), we estimated an overall modal case fatality ratio of 1·1% (0·4–4·1), and in those without any reported travel to China (therefore detected either through contact tracing or through hospital surveillance), we estimated a case fatality ratio of 3·6% (1·9–7·2) using the parametric model. The estimated case fatality ratio was lower in those aged under 60 years of age (1·4% [0·4–3·5]) compared with those aged 60 years and over (4·5% [1·8–11·1]). Similar estimates were obtained using non-parametric methods (table 2).

— Comments —

Susan-Anne White:

The Lancet is not a respectable journal. It is pro-abortion and pro-LGBT. The study you posted about has none other than Professor Neil Ferguson listed as one of the contributors, the same Neil Ferguson of Imperial College fame who recently backtracked on his predictions regarding Covid-19.

You wrote about this yourself in your post “Leading UK doctor admits he was wrong” (28th March 2020.)

I wouldn’t trust anything the Lancet said, with or without Ferguson as a contributor.

I have to say Mrs. Wood that you are confusing me with your seemingly changing views on Covid-19. It is hard to pin down your views as at times you seem all over the place.

Laura writes:

Thank you for the information about Lancet. Not to quibble, but I didn’t say it was respectable. I said it was respected. Being “highly-respected” does not mean it does not have a political agenda. In fact, in our world, it means it does have a political agenda. I looked at the study quickly, but wanted to post it right away because I didn’t want to neglect important studies on the virus. You are right about Ferguson. He should be tried for treason for inflating the numbers in public statements.

My view of COVID, which I have stated repeatedly, is that there is a serious virus that is in no sense catastrophic and is overwhelmingly affecting the infirm. At the same time, there is an enormous over-reaction by government and media that is a cover for a vast transfer of wealth, restricting civil liberties and demoralizing the general population in order to acclimate it to totalitarian controls.

In the interest of fairness, I have tried to present prominent research on the severity of the virus and I am always willing to consider any evidence that my general impression of the medical situation is wrong. After all, I’m not a doctor or epidemiologist and recognize that. I have spent many hours trying to digest the information that is available. The Lancet article, despite the hyperbolic language, basically confirms what I have been saying.

The lockdown should end immediately.

People should decide for themselves how much to change their habits to avoid the virus. The effects of the lockdown will be far worse than the virus.

However, I believe there is no possible way this lockdown is going to end before April 30 because the length of it has been pre-determined.

Please follow and like us: