ANBOUND's Forecast and Assessment towards Wuhan Pneumonia (Third Tracking Report)
Following the third tracking report by ANBOUND on Wuhan Pneumonia, the numbers in the results of confirmed cases of the illness have been readjusted. In particular, having eliminated extraneous variables that could affect the results, i.e. cases of regular pneumonia and influenza being misdiagnosed as Wuhan Pneumonia, the figures presented in the data show that the final confirmed cases were approximately 43,600 cases, higher than the 30,000 cases reported in the second assessment as of January 29.
Based on models and data analysis, ANBOUND predicts that the peak occurrence time of the novel coronavirus infection will remain the same as per the January 29 second phase forecast and assessment. The prediction is that the epidemic will peak at February 9 followed by a volatile decline in its figures thereafter.
It is worth noting the data that appeared from the continuous tracking analysis on February 3 and the subsequent three days point towards "a new dawn" in battling the epidemic. As such, ANBOUND believes that a monumental moment is very likely to happen in China on February 3. This is backed up by the fact that relevant analysis shows an overall solid downward trend in newly suspected cases and the data forms a cross-trend with the newly confirmed cases, which both represents and reflects the peak of the epidemic that is approaching. This means the judgment of the trend is in line with the peak figure associated on February 9. Among them, extraneous variables such as hospital transfer and sudden exposure in Wuhan have been ruled out through prolonged judgment and continuous tracking. Hence, "a new dawn" is nearing.
In the third assessment, ANBOUND conducted an in-depth analysis of the data concerning mortality rates and participated in a cross-national investigation to understand the mystery behind the outbreak's unusually high mortality figures. The analysis showed that Wuhan's mortality rate is shockingly higher than that of a normal circumstance. In areas outside Wuhan, the mortality rate is only two in a thousand, with the figure expected to further decline soon. Although the mortality rate is far higher than that of influenza under empirical conditions, it is still far below the estimates of past experts. As of February 4, there were 797 confirmed cases in Guangdong with zero fatality; likewise, Zhejiang had as many as 829 confirmed cases with no deaths. Outside of China, there has only been 1 fatality reported thus far, in the Philippines. Likewise, there were cases reported in Nepal and Cambodia too though there were no deaths involved. Using these examples as a focal point of comparison, 414 deaths were reported in Hubei, of which 313 deaths came from Wuhan alone. Wuhan faced an alarming figure of 4.9% in its mortality rate, 24.5 times greater than the usual mortality rate.
Assuming the findings operate on the two deaths to a thousand ratio and that miscellaneous causes of death, i.e.: delays in treatment, cross-infection, and old age in Wuhan are ruled out, the novel coronavirus behaves very much like an influenza-like illness. Just like a regular flu, it has a high rate of infection but low mortality rate. The only group to be predisposed to a higher fatality rate is elderly people with weaker resistance, though most can eventually recover nonetheless.
Therefore, based on the comprehensive assessment in the data of the mortality rates, there is reason to believe that the World Health Organization has overestimated the threat of "Wuhan Pneumonia", although one should bear in mind that the WHO's assessment takes into consideration of third world countries too. Additionally, certain Chinese government departments, particularly the public health department is as equally baffled by the results. Policy actions are often designed conservatively, and the lack of qualitative analysis of the Wuhan Pneumonia has led to string of problems and huge policies. cost. Put together, the number of deaths caused by the novel coronavirus in Wuhan ranges anywhere between 500 to 900, which is consistent with the data obtained from the second assessment on January 29.
Economy wise, as the epidemic situation has not ended, any accurate prediction of the epidemic's impact towards the economy is unlikely to occur. A systematic assessment made only from a macro perspective believes that it is reasonable to maintain the forecast from the second assessment on January 29, where the impact on national economic growth is predicted to increase by 0.5% -1.2%, based on a structural analysis examining the impact of Spring Festival consumption as well as the tourism, catering and cultural and creative industries. Among them, the impact on the economic growth in the first quarter is the largest, and it is difficult for the quarterly economic growth to exceed 5%. All these predictions and judgments are consistent with the second assessment. As such, there is no need to adjust the performance of data analysis.
It needs to be stressed that the most important economic concern related to the epidemic at present is to prevent the Chinese economy experiencing a downward trend. At present, apart from major reforms, there are no good supporting policies to fortify it. Even with the injection of large-scale capital flows within small state-owned circulations, floating capital can cause drastic fluctuations in the capital market, which means market demands cannot be expanded. Furthermore, the difficulty of running a business still exists, perhaps even worsened given the epidemic. This will tighten the consumption of resources and cause the Chinese economy to decline for long-term. This would surely be the greatest risk China will face soon.
The above results are a part of the information tracking research, which is an empirical research and is solely used for references only.
Contact ANBOUND Malaysia Office at : Suite 25.5, Level 25, Menara AIA Sentral, 30 Jalan Sultan Ismail, 50250 Kuala Lumpur