story
But, the demographics skewed older than the general population, and there were 3200 people on board in basically a worst case scenario for spread.
So 42/3200 is ~1% of a much older population.
Edit: link to China study summary below, but including it top-level here as well.
http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/02/study-720...
>Also, the cruise ship cases aren’t all resolved outcomes yet.
No they aren't, but the vast majority have been symptomatic longer than the average time till hospitalization and the number in critical condition hasn't increased in days. It's very unlikely they'll get to anywhere near 20%. And this is in a more geriatric population.
http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/02/study-720...
About 40% of the patients in that study weren't even tested. They were included based on symptoms that include severe pneumonia. The ones who were tested, sought testing because they displayed symptoms severe enough to seek treatment.
This is the very definition of selection bias, and there is absolutely no reason to pretend that a 20% hospitalization rate is a realistic outcome.
Yes, but the reason why the Diamond Princess is interesting is that we know exactly how many of them got infected. We don't know that about any other population.
Also consider my point that many, many of these cases are unresolved. Whereas the China study, which most health experts are relying on currently as our best guess - not the cruise ship — looks at resolved cases.
The number of undiagnosed cases is the great unknown that experts disagree on. It's also the basis for all the wild speculation out there.
Under normal circumstances I would say let's test a random sample of the population in some affected area. But as test kits are scarce doing that would probably be ill advised.
If 42 were critical, that doesn't necessarily mean they were the only ones who needed hospital treatment.
>If 42 were critical, that doesn't necessarily mean they were the only ones who needed hospital treatment.
Percent hospitalized isn't the thing to look at. It's percentage of people who need intensive care or a ventilator that matters.
Many people were hospitalized for observation. Some people received IV fluids. How many of those people were saved by IV fluids vs. just being a nice to have is unknown. But that kind of care can be done in mass tent hospitals or even at home.
Are these numbers still updated now that many (or all?) have left the ship? Where can I see those numbers?
>Many people were hospitalized for observation
Yes, but if fewer people had been under close observation in a hospital more might have died. Admitting only precisely those who turn critical is not realistic in my (lay person's) opinion.
I agree with you about the age distribution on the cruise ship though. This is very important to note.
Still, I have to wonder what share of the population can get hospital/ICU treatment at any given time.
I don't know about other places, but here in the UK hospital bed occupancy rates are dangerously high at the best of times. I don't know how many beds/ICUs can be freed up in an emergency. But I doubt it's anywhere near enough if everyone gets sick at the same time.
I hope someone is doing some modelling to find out how aggressively we have to slow down the rate of infection so that hospitals are not overwhelmed.
