Estimating the risk of 2019 Novel Coronavirus death during the course of the outbreak in China, 2020

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

Since the first case of Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCov) was identified in December 2019 in Wuhan City, China, the number of cases continues to grow across China and multiple cases have been exported to other countries. The cumulative number of reported deaths is at 637 as of February 7, 2020. Here we statistically estimated the time-delay adjusted death risk for Wuhan as well as for China excluding Wuhan to interpret the current severity of the epidemic in China. We found that the latest estimates of the death risk in Wuhan could be as high as 20% in the epicenter of the epidemic whereas we estimate it ∼1% in the relatively mildly-affected areas. Because the elevated death risk estimates are likely associated with a breakdown of the medical/health system, enhanced public health interventions including social distancing and movement restrictions should be effectively implemented to bring the epidemic under control.

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2020.02.19.20025163: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.


    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).


    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Our study is not free from limitations. First, our CFR estimate is influenced by ascertainment bias and this might influence estimates upwards. For those infectious diseases characterized by a large fraction cases with mild or asymptomatic illness, the infection fatality risk, e.g., the number of death divided by the total infected, is a more appropriate index of disease burden (22-23). For this purpose, mass serological surveillance and surveys to assess the presence/absence of symptoms is strongly recommended to disentangle the threat of emerging infectious diseases including 2019-nCov. Second, in our estimation we employed the time delay distribution from illness onset to deaths (N=39), which was obtained from secondary sources, but the available data does not include either the date of illness onset or the confirmed date. For this reason, we utilized the time delay from hospitalization to death (N=33). In conclusion, our latest estimates of the risk of 2019-Cov deaths in China could be as high as 20% in the epicenter of the epidemic whereas this estimate is around 1% in the relatively mildly-affected areas in China as of February 5th, 2020. Because it is likely that the death risk from 2019-nCov is associated with a breakdown of the medical/health system in the absence of pharmaceutical interventions (vaccination and antiviral drugs), enhanced public health interventions including social distancing, quarantine, enhanced infection control in healthcare settings and movemen...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.


    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.


    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.


    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.