Turned over an envelope and did a risk assessment tonight after I read all this talk about changing and cancelling flights. Compared latest nCoV case numbers with populations, to get case rates per head of population. Very rough, just pulled the population data out of wikipedia and compared it with today’s tally of cases (20,677) by location.
This thing is still very centred in Hubei province, and to a lesser extent in China (other than Taiwan and HK). The rest of the world totals 194 cases, and there is no explosion in numbers, growth has been modest thus far. The data today also suggests some tapering off in the growth in China.
So here are Locations, no of reported cases, population, and the ratio of cases to population, working out from Wuhan. I’m sure you’ll let me know if my envelope sums are wrong
.
Hubei province, 13252, 57.2m, 1/4,300
Rest of PRC, 7231, 1,371m, 1/189,600
Rest of World, 194, 6.300m, 1/32,400,000
Lower number, higher case rate, bigger risk. And below some selected global hotspots, in descending order of “scaryness”. Again number of cases, population, case rate per capita...
Singapore, 18, 5.6m, 1/311,000
Hong Kong, 17, 7.4m, 1/435,000
Australia, 12, 25.6m, 1/2,130,000
Taiwan, 10, 23.7m, 1/2,370,000
Thailand, 19, 69.4m, 1/3,650,000
Japan, 20, 126.1m, 1/6,300,000
Of course, pretty flaky analysis, doesn’t consider undetected/unreported cases, relative growth rates in case numbers by location, ability of a country to report, the low reliability of small numbers as indicators, and so on. Nor does it consider crowding and concentration of cases in cities. If you did, you’d note Australia’s relative “hotspot“.
Gold Coast, 2, 0.68m, 1/340,000.
Not seeking to instil fear, quite the opposite. We’re still entertaining visitors from Gold Coast this weekend, still aiming to transit HKG in a couple of weeks.
cheers skip