In china a crude divison of the numbers 106/4607 gives a baseline of 2%. That is far too low.

In terms of an upper bound. Let's look at deaths/(deaths+recoveries) which is a depressing 63%. Obviously that is far too high.

In terms of official estimates for (deaths+critical illness)/cases you get to around 25%. Which is terrifyingly high.

What do we know about this illness?

It takes a long time to kill people, on the order of 20-30+ days. So there will be a large death/cases lag.

We also know that the Chinese authorities are underestimating the mortality rate by not testing people that have already died but may have had the virus. Hence the official estimate of 4% is likely too low.

There have been no deaths outside china but there have also been no cases outside china that go beyond that 20-30 day period.

10% is a conservative estimate. It might be higher, we just don't know.

Like seriously this is bad.

Most viruses are either deadly or infectious but not both. Stands to reason a virus that is too deadly will have a lower reproductive rate and will thus be less effective at spreading. A virus that is infectious will burn out if it kills too many of its hosts.

But this virus combinest the two by taking so long to kill its hosts. 7-10 day incubation period with no symptons at all followed by another week of mild flu like symptons. Only becomes deadly after the 3rd week by which time it has already spread.

I know probably a bit more than most. I have one myself thank you very much.

We may well get the impression nothing much is going on, Q,  but we know the work of the WHO surveillance network will be fully engaged, as will the appropriate resources of UN Member States. A natural caution may prompt you to assert this will not add up to much, but we can't know that at present. If you are correct, we can't yet tell.

I don't see the whole iceberg, but each week I fill in my bit of data with regard to 'flu-like illnesses on Flusurvey. This is a webtool managed and monitored by Public Health England (PHE) and designed to monitor trends of flu-like illness in the community.

I have mentioned this on TWO before and was met with a deafening silence. Citizen science has an important role to play these days and, putting it crudely, if folks are not doing their bit for one of our national 'flu initatives their comments here ring a bit hollow. Tell me you have filled in your Flusurvey data this week and I'll be the first to sing your praises.

Anyone can participate. It's easy. Go to: https://www.flusurvey.net/

If you are not adding to the data - stop adding to the chatter!

Let's see a string of "Me toos!"

It's an exciting week for me - I've reported a cold-type infection that is nicely disgusting.

Roger

This is exactly correct. We see something unfolding with dramatic effect and we're nuts apparently. When the evidence is clear to see.

I've not heard anyone think that this is less severe than SARS. It certainly appears more infectious and potentially more deadly. 

Yes the doomsday brexit rhetoric/ WW3 Iran nonsense does not help either.

We know what a global pandemic can do and we are long overdue for one. I very much hope it doesn't come to that. But I'm much more worried about this than I was about Ebola. In fact this is the most worried I've been about anything in a while.

Yes, it could be 100% too 

I know this is a fast evolving situation , but so far we know that the mortality rate is estimated to be 4% against 10% fo SARS and 34% for MERS. This number could of course be easily way off the mark, but we just don't know this.

Indulging in wild and semi ignorant speculation is probably ill-advised.

I think I know what you're getting at, in fact I definitely do, so apologies if my point came across as patronising. 

However I maintain my point - you don't know as much as people who specialise in virology, or those who dedicate their entire careers to it. 

We should stick to the expert view, and that is one which is currently concerned, but not panicked (on a global basis). 

If someone could provide evidence to the contrary (and I mean evidence), then go wild. 

Well I have, and it was a virologist on BBC News yesterday, or on the Guardian blog, one of the two.

I'd tentatively suggest they are more knowledgeable than you on this topic, despite it being an unpredictable time. 

We'll be there soon. 

Yes that's fine but these are not the only expert opinions I'm hearing. And they are basing these perspectives on dodgy chinese data.

The key thing is, this might blow over into absolutely nothing. But, likewise, it might not.

So we have to take this seriously and prepare for this outcome. If this goes badly it has the potential to be orders of magnitude worse than a 'no deal brexit' and people like you were terrified of that.

All I'm suggesting is we need to take this very seriously and prepare for a worst case scenario.

Although obviously panic isn't helpful either and I'm not suggesting people panic. But there has to be more preparation.

Put it this way, the Chinese authorities will not be overestimating the extent of the problem. Even if only 10% of the leaks that I'm hearing from China are in any way accurate the scale of the problem is far far worse than the chinese authorities are implying. 

As is often the case with you, you sound very confident about things you probably don't know much about. Why are you so categorical that the chinese data is dodgy?

What did you think I was doing before I posted in this thread? On these sorts of issues I did take the time to inform myself. Also I do already know a bit about this stuff as it is anyway.

Look at the Iran thread, I was basically the only voice there that put question to how bad the esculation would be. Turned out I was right about that, or not really me, but the people I took the time to read up who actually knew what they were talking about.

Regarding the chinese data, it's obviously dodgy. We are talking about a totalitarian regime, with a vested interest in playing this whole thing down, with a poor record of academic rigour when it comes to epidemiology. For example, as I've said, the chinese are not routinely testing people that have already died for the presence of the virus; hence the risk the mortality rate is underestimated. You can view leaks from nurses and doctors using VPNs ect to avoid the censorship wall, I haven't seen a single report that suggests the Chinese authorities are doing anything but playing this down. In fact WHO has already critisized china for underplaying the scale of the problem.

And it's not confidence, it's game theory.

It is far better to prepare for a worst case scenario than hope for a best case scenario.

I don't think the odds are high that we will end up with a global pandemic, however that is something that is conceivable in a way that Ebola was not. This needs to be taken seriously and we are not doing enough.

If we were facing a global catastrophe, I'd have expected vast numbers of UK cases by now, and numerous cases of person to person infection.

We are yet to have a single proven case.

Think of how many people will have entered the country from China. 

However I'm not an expert, and I know it's still early days.

Which is a 180 degree volte-face to your position re: Brexit.

Perhaps you just take a position based on your preference then seek out 'evidence' to support it, before bombastically insisting to everyone else you are right.

Your forecasting record here is pretty poor overall, so don't use that argument on me.

Preparing for the worst does obviously make sense (up to a point).

I'm the one making the 180 degree volte-face? When everyone on here was panicking about planes being grounded (a completely inconceivable scenario that was never going to happen). The scare stories surrounding brexit were ridiculous and on par with the ridiculous climate change rhethoric.

But there are few things more terrifying than a global pandemic, and we know from empirical evidence how bad this can get so forgive me for suggesting we need to prepare for this.

Ebola didn't break out in a city of 11 million. Had it done so it would have been catastrophic, particularly as it was a third world country with inadequate or non-existent healthcare services and local customs that exacerbated the risk.

My hope is it's still possible to contain this but my real worry is that the virus is infectious during an asymtomatic period. i.e there may well be people in the UK that have this but have manifested no or only mild symptons.

The usual misrepresentation: nobody was 'panicking about planes being grounded'. What was being highlighted was that the arrangements for air travel were under the control of the EU and a failure to address the issue would cause problems. It was but one of many issues, most of which are down to be dealt with in the 337 days from Saturday.

Maybe we will debate this further as the year unravels.

Ebola had a very high mortality rate but a low reproductive rate. Unlike 2019-nCoV Ebola could only be contracted through very close contact. Local customs there included digging up the dead and dancing with the corpses.