The CDC and many other people that are experts in the field of communicable diseases say it has a higher mortality rate. The factor is debatable due to limited data at this point, but many times more lethal.
You may want to revisit what the CDC and other people are saying. Much of it is using couched language, "We anticipate" "we suspect" "we fear" whatever the case may be, this is speculation. That's all I'm saying.
This week's MMWR published today:
Areas for additional COVID-19 investigation include 1) further clarifying the incubation period and duration of virus shedding, which have implications for duration of quarantine and other mitigation measures; 2) studying the relative importance of various modes of transmission, including the role of droplets, aerosols, and fomites; understanding these transmission modes has major implications for infection control and prevention, including the use of personal protective equipment; 3) determining the severity and case-fatality rate of COVD-19 among cases in the U.S. health care system, as well as more fully describing the spectrum of illness and risk factors for infection and severe disease; 4) determining the role of asymptomatic infection in ongoing transmission; and 5) assessing the immunologic response to infection to aid in the development of vaccines and therapeutics. Public health authorities are monitoring the situation closely. As more is learned about this novel virus and this outbreak, CDC will rapidly incorporate new knowledge into guidance for action.
We. Do. Not. Know.
Will the CFR mirror that of China's? Maybe? I suspect it'll be slightly less but probably still well above seasonal flu, but as I have said that's speculation.
I have made essentially the same point over and over and over again, and all I have been saying is that I think sensationalism is bad, preparation is good, and that using PRECISE language is very important at times like this because people like to interpret things themselves and that should be kept to a minimum when things are more nuanced than first glance (like epidemiology of a young and active outbreak).
But what the hell do doctors know? Would you base your personal health care on witch doctors, faith healers, or Karen on facebook, or those that have spent well over a decade studying medical science?
I'm still young, so I don't have decades of experience, but I've spent over a decade now studying medical science. I'm very pedantic about it, because I think it's incredibly important.[/QUOTE]
Edit:
I haven't actually had a chance to sit down and really read through this article yet, although I will tonight/tomorrow, but JAMA has a nice article based on the data from the Chinese CDC.
As of the end of February 18, 2020, China has reported 72 528 confirmed cases (98.9% of the global total) and 1870 deaths (99.8% of the global total). This translates to a current crude CFR of 2.6%. However, the total number of COVID-19 cases is likely higher due to inherent difficulties in identifying and counting mild and asymptomatic cases. Furthermore, the still-insufficient testing capacity for COVID-19 in China means that many suspected and clinically diagnosed cases are not yet counted in the denominator.
2 This uncertainty in the CFR may be reflected by the important difference between the CFR in Hubei (2.9%) compared with outside Hubei (0.4%).1,2 Nevertheless, all CFRs still need to be interpreted with caution and more research is required.
This furthers my point. Even in China there is a significant debate about the actual CFR. Will see see a CFR similar to what is current being observed outside of Hubei? Or one closer to what's being seen within Hubei? Don't know yet. Sitting there and pretend there is certainly in a time of uncertainty is dangerous.