[Future Useless Eater]

My analysis says the SARS death rate is much higher than widely reported.

I believe the various areas differ for two main reasons:

• Some areas have better/worse treatement and life-support facilities.
• Some countries choose to report only their more SERIOUS cases as SARS.

SARS Mortality Rates Based on World Health Organization data                 (Revised: 4/27am)
Area	Recoveries to date	Deaths to date	Recent** Death Rate		Active Cases still in Danger	Projected Future Deaths	Projected Final Mortality
Hong Kong	632	121	12.9%		774	100	14.5%
Singapore	126	21	16.1%		51	8	14.8%
China	1285	122	28.2%		1346	380	18.2%
Canada	77	18	20.7%		47	10	19.5%
World-wide	2239	293	18.5%		2304	426	14.9%
**  ( Deaths in the last 7 days) / ( Deaths + Recoveries in the last 7 days)

Trend - Active Cases Still in Danger
Date	Hong Kong	Singapore	China	Canada	World-wide
Apr 19	914	61	307	66	1616
Apr 20	893	64	497	66	1694
Apr 21 (est.)	872	66	686	66	1771
Apr 22	874	60	708	61	1783
Apr 23	831	58	968	58	2005
Apr 24	812	55	1058	58	2059
Apr 25	781	50	1209	51	2169
Apr 26	774	51	1346	47	2304
(includes new daily cases... excludes cases resolved by death or recovery)

My observations:

• Hong Kong 'might' be getting a handle on their problem.
  • It's average new cases per day is smaller than cases resolved per day.
  • It apparently has the best treatment rate.
• Singapore and Canada MAY be the close to controlling their active caseloads:
  • Canada's higher death rate MAY be because more patients truly had SARS,
    instead of something else like flu.
  • OR MAYBE Canada has poorer healthcare
  • OR MAYBE Canada is ONLY reporting it's more-severe cases.
• China appears to be terribly out of control by every measure.

[The Pheonix]

yes, understandably so, HongKong and Singapore are tiny islands, with piddling 3-6 million people, but China is a continental landmass with 1.3 billion people

are we talking apples and oranges, here

[per loin]

I've become a bit suspicious of Hong Kong's figures. Until April 15, they each day listed new admissions to the hospitals. Since that day they have listed "patients confirmed to have atypical pneumonia following admission to public hospitals earlier". Then two days ago they began to list "suspected cases" who were already hospitalized, but not carried in the confirmed list. They do not say when they began admitting these "suspects". Nor do they state whether their number of "suspects" given each day is a total or the number of new admissions. I'm now carrying the suspects in my chart, in a separate column, and assuming that they are new admissions for each day.

[Lessismore]

Excellent analysis. Using the last 7 days data may result in a mortality estimate that is a little high, since the "recoveries" may generally have an earlier date of onset than the "deaths". If the number of new cases per day is increasing, the earlier cohorts to which the recoveries belong would be smaller than the later cohorts to which the deaths belong. But for Singapore and Hong Kong, the new cases have been flat or declining for the last 2-3 weeks, so those estimates may be pretty accurate.