The table below shows, for 28 February 2020, the diagnosed cases (C), deaths (D), and recoveries (R) from 25 parts of China. Data from John Hopkins University.
The usual caveats apply.
The last three columns are a function of the primary data. Existing cases (E) is C-(D+R), i.e. diagnosed cases less resolved cases. D/(D+R) is one method for estimating the case fatality ratio. E/C is the unresolved cases divided by diagnosed cases. This ratio will fall to zero over time given that all cases will resolve into recoveries or deaths. The table is sorted by this number.
As is evident, the fatality ratio varies wildly, from Jiangxi, where 790 out of 935 cases have already been resolved, with only one death, to Hubei where little more than half the 65,914 cases have been resolved, with a 9.22% apparent fatality ratio.
Time series analysis (not shown here) suggests that unresolved cases (E) tend to resolve into recovery rather than death, hence there is a moderately strong correlation (0.6) between E and apparent fatality.
There is no explanation yet of why cases should have taken so long to resolve in Hubei, which the media call the epicentre of the outbreak. Note also, as before, that the cases in Hubei are a tiny fraction of its population.
In other news, manufacturing activity in China in February plunged faster than during the 2008 financial crisis.
| Place | Date | C | D | R | E | D/(D+R) | E/C |
| Qinghai | 28-Feb-20 | 18 | 0 | 18 | 0 | 0.00% | 0% |
| Gansu | 28-Feb-20 | 91 | 2 | 82 | 7 | 2.38% | 8% |
| Yunnan | 28-Feb-20 | 174 | 2 | 156 | 16 | 1.27% | 9% |
| Henan | 28-Feb-20 | 1,272 | 20 | 1,112 | 140 | 1.77% | 11% |
| Hebei | 28-Feb-20 | 318 | 6 | 277 | 35 | 2.12% | 11% |
| Jiangxi | 28-Feb-20 | 935 | 1 | 790 | 144 | 0.13% | 15% |
| Shanghai | 28-Feb-20 | 337 | 3 | 279 | 55 | 1.06% | 16% |
| Anhui | 28-Feb-20 | 990 | 6 | 821 | 163 | 0.73% | 16% |
| Hunan | 28-Feb-20 | 1,017 | 4 | 830 | 183 | 0.48% | 18% |
| Shanxi | 28-Feb-20 | 133 | 0 | 109 | 24 | 0.00% | 18% |
| Shaanxi | 28-Feb-20 | 245 | 1 | 199 | 45 | 0.50% | 18% |
| Jiangsu | 28-Feb-20 | 631 | 0 | 515 | 116 | 0.00% | 18% |
| Zhejiang | 28-Feb-20 | 1,205 | 1 | 975 | 229 | 0.10% | 19% |
| Fujian | 28-Feb-20 | 296 | 1 | 235 | 60 | 0.42% | 20% |
| Jilin | 28-Feb-20 | 93 | 1 | 73 | 19 | 1.35% | 20% |
| Guizhou | 28-Feb-20 | 146 | 2 | 112 | 32 | 1.75% | 22% |
| Liaoning | 28-Feb-20 | 121 | 1 | 93 | 27 | 1.06% | 22% |
| Tianjin | 28-Feb-20 | 136 | 3 | 102 | 31 | 2.86% | 23% |
| Xinjiang | 28-Feb-20 | 76 | 3 | 52 | 21 | 5.45% | 28% |
| Chongqing | 28-Feb-20 | 576 | 6 | 402 | 168 | 1.47% | 29% |
| Beijing | 28-Feb-20 | 410 | 7 | 257 | 146 | 2.65% | 36% |
| Sichuan | 28-Feb-20 | 538 | 3 | 338 | 197 | 0.88% | 37% |
| Shandong | 28-Feb-20 | 756 | 6 | 405 | 345 | 1.46% | 46% |
| Hubei | 28-Feb-20 | 65,914 | 2,682 | 26,403 | 36,829 | 9.22% | 56% |