Dark numbers rule..?

Herwig Kopp
Mar 24 · 23 min read

A call for the importance of asymptomatic cases in the spread of Covid-19 involving studies from China, Italy and Japan. Bear in mind, read this opinion at your own risk, It is not a peer reviewed scientific evaluation & publication, but based on 1 month of observation collecting the cases available for the existence and impact of asymptomatic cases — I call here DARK NUMBERS.

Because we are also in a veritable crisis in crisis communication, it is difficult for laymen and experts to find common ground in what to believe. But we are not in a war of opinions or belief systems, this is not a political debate, but in trustful scientifically valid observations if something is happening or not. A new reality. In all that storytelling, the fiction which ruled our life till now, there is now a benchmark, a result of our pondering — do our predictions and actions match with the unfolding events out there, or not. Is someone getting sick nor not? Are Emergency rooms / ICUs overstreched or not, does the virus SARS-Cov-2 infect human cells and multiplies there, or not. Do we carry it around in substantial numbers also infecting others unknowingly, or NOT? My suspicion was for 3 weeks that dark numbers may rule the scenario — and there is evidence and justified reason to think so now.

Covid-19 is no fake news, it is a bitter reality which is overloading the health systems of the richest countries RIGHT NOW and where there is still too much of discussion ongoing if it is happening or not — not when. In Italy, where I live right now 22/03/2020, with 46.638 at the moment positively tested / infected people, 5476 deaths and 7024 cured (http://www.salute.gov.it/portale/nuovocoronavirus/dettaglioContenutiNuovoCoronavirus.jsp).

Official numbers vs. true numbers vs. dark numbers

How to interpret the numbers we are given? Well, this very well made overview diagram from the study of Zunyou & McGoogan about the unfolding scenario of cases in Wuhan published on 24/02/2020 in the JAMA — Journal of Americal Medical Association may help here (see figure 1 in https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2762130):

Zunyou & McGoogan in JAMA. Published online February 24, 2020. doi:10.1001/jama.2020. 2648 This figure was adapted with permission. CDC indicates Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention; HICWM, Hubei Integrated Chinese and Western Medicine; 2019-nCoV, 2019 novel coronavirus; WHO, World Health Organization.

Thomas Puyeo, a startup entrepreneur and MBA from Stanford has tried to make sense of the numbers and wrote a highly influential medium post explaining the numbers/bars depicted very well: “The grey bars show the true daily coronavirus cases. The Chinese CDC found these by asking patients during the diagnostic when their symptoms started. Crucially, these true cases weren’t known at the time. We can only figure them out looking backwards: The authorities don’t know that somebody just started having symptoms. They know when somebody goes to the doctor and gets diagnosed.

What this means is that the orange bars show you what authorities knew, and the grey ones what was really happening.

On January 21st, the number of new diagnosed cases (orange / official cases) is exploding: there are around 100 new cases. In reality, there were 1,500 new (true) cases that day, growing exponentially. But the authorities didn’t know that. What they knew was that suddenly there were 100 new cases of this new illness.

Two days later, authorities shut down Wuhan. At that point, the number of diagnosed daily new cases was ~400. Note that number: they made a decision to close the city with just 400 new cases in a day. In reality, there were 2,500 new cases that day, but they didn’t know that.The day after, another 15 cities in Hubei shut down.

Up until Jan 23rd, when Wuhan closes, you can look at the grey graph: it’s growing exponentially. True cases were exploding. As soon as Wuhan shuts down, cases slow down. On Jan 24th, when another 15 cities shut down, the number of true cases (again, grey) grinds to a halt. Two days later, the maximum number of true cases was reached, and it has gone down ever since.

Note that the orange (official) cases were still growing exponentially: For 12 more days, it looked like this thing was still exploding. But it wasn’t. It’s just that the cases were getting stronger symptoms and going to the doctor more, and the system to identify them was stronger. This concept of official and true cases is important.” (from https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-people-will-die-f4d3d9cd99ca some of the text set in bold my emphasis, the parts set inverse are my clarifications)

Still, this might not be the full picture.

Asymptomatic cases are missing in this account and they do not play into the official numbers, because they very rarely got tested and thus, registered. The statistics to show the true numbers from official ones working backwards and estimating the true ones are fine — ONLY it if they would encompass the asymptomatic ones, too. Those, who might NOT get sick themselves, but contribute (in a yet unknown amount) to the epidemiology of Covid-19.

There is an elephant in the room, probably explaining a lot of the spread: dark numbers, or asymptomatic cases who stay subclinical and do not develop symptoms (or only very mild ones one might not really recognise). How many are these? If we cannot screen for temperature or feeling sore or “sick”, cough, headache or throat ache, how shall we contain the virus? It seems to be proven that (unlike SARS) in Covid-19 cases people are already infective without symptoms (but may develop them at a later stage) AND that there is a significant percentage of “asymptomatic cases” which may NEVER develop symptoms but prove to be SARS-Cov-2 positive AND are spreaders. This calls quarantine and screening into question, but social distancing and wearing a mask is still the best way to fight a spread, BECAUSE we do not know who has it (or will get sick soon). I call them (to distinguish from Thomas Pueyo using “true” case) dark cases.

The IHS — Institute for Higher Studies in Vienna (Austria) thinks there are about 76% asymptomatic cases to expect and they also hint to the Italian community of Vò and a study of Univ. of Padua conducted there, at the first known cluster of the Covid-19 outbreak in Italy. See (in German) https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000115987433/zu-wenig-tests-zu-viel-spekulation-um-die-dunkelziffer

So, the dark numbers need to be differentiated into true numbers and asymptomatic ones, staying dark, because they do not get properly measured.

The case of Vò (Italy)

The most stricken country in Europe has its own “Wuhan”, a place called Vò in Veneto next to Padua. There possible asymptomatic cases can be tested and studied being cordoned off by military forces. In a study of this first location of the outbreak in Italy this part of infected humans are called ‘submerged’ infections. It got conducted by Andrea Crisanti, Direttore della Cattedra dell’Unità Diagnostica di Microbiologia e Virologia dell’Università di Padova. https://www.trialsitenews.com/university-of-padua-vo-study-one-possible-hypothesis-of-how-to-contain-covid-19/ with the following blunt result:“The percentage of infected people, even if asymptomatic, in the population is very high.” A professor (Professor Sergio Romagnani of the University of Florence) interpreting the study, was saying, “The isolation of asymptomatic is essential to be able to control the spread of the virus and the severity of the disease.” In La Republicca Prof. Romagnani (who is a former teacher of Prof. Andrea Crisanti) is quoted to estimate the asymptomatic cases to be 50–75%: “The vast majority of people infected with Covid-19, between 50 and 75%, are completely asymptomatic but represent a formidable source of contagion.” — Italian original: “La grande maggioranza delle persone infettate da Covid-19, tra il 50 e il 75%, è completamente asintomatica ma rappresenta una formidabile fonte di contagio”. https://www.repubblica.it/salute/medicina-e-ricerca/2020/03/16/news/coronavirus_studio_il_50-75_dei_casi_a_vo_sono_asintomatici_e_molto_contagiosi-251474302/

10/03/2020 Andrea Crisanti, the leader of the study in Vò has outlined his learnings and strong suggestions from the data gathered there, the “model of Vò”. Testing was early and the tested symptomatic and asymptomatic cases were isolated, so the rate of infection dropped significantly. One of the big Italian newspapers brought the story, arts of the interview in Corriere della sera translated from Italian by me, explaining the approach, see the Italian original here: https://www.corriere.it/salute/malattie_infettive/20_marzo_10/crisanti-tamponi-massa-zone-focolaio-c-poco-tempo-df2e2036-6239-11ea-9897-5c6f48cf812d.shtml

How old were the infected people? “Half of them were elderly people who did not develop serious forms: an unexpected fact, which we are still studying.”

Can the «Venetian model» be exported to other Italian regions? “The goal is to control the epidemic in the early stages, also to limit the severity of clinical manifestations. I believe that the approach chosen for Vo ‘can be used to close the outbreaks existing in our country — starting from Veneto, Marche, Emilia-Romagna — and then concentrate efforts in Lombardy. But we must hurry, time is not on our side ».

What do you recommend to do in practice? «Wherever there are outbreaks, carry out mass tests on the population and trace the contacts of the positive (more or less close), then isolate all the infected, even if they are asymptomatic. It takes aggressive action, otherwise the virus will continue to circulate. The alternative is the Chinese way, all closed for 3 months without exception. “

Is it an economically sustainable program? “A test (tampon) costs 30 euros, a patient in intensive care from 3 to 5 thousand euros per day.”

How do you assess the situation in Lombardy? “It is very submerged, it is necessary to make it emerge, find and isolate all the positive and the related contacts, direct and indirect. Costs what you cost: do you need 5 million tampons? They take it. Lombardy has the resources to do it, but drastic measures are needed ».

12/03/2020 Andrea Crisanti in another interview VVOX in which he demands «mass swabs to eradicate coronavirus»: https://www.vvox.it/2020/03/12/coronavirus-tamponi-veneto-cosa-succede/ and states: “The Region is about to greatly enhance the ability to swab across the region. First of all, we will check all risk categories, all those most exposed to the public: carabinieri, police, cashiers, operators who are in contact with the public, health personnel. Afterwards we will go to the home of all those who complain of symptoms: we will test them, if they are positive we will put them in isolation and we will put all the contacts in isolation, in addition to testing all those within a radius of 100 meters.”

13/03/2020 Andrea Crisanti did an interview in “Il Gazettino” noting:

The real problem is the asymptomatic positives, if we continue to send them around we will never eliminate the epidemic.


In an interview with sanitainformazione.it Crisanti says on 12/03/2020: “Now in Vo ‘we know how many asymptomatics are, because in the second sampling this 2.5 per thousand (0,25% or in a community of 3.700 = 9 cases, my addition) is all composed of asymptomatics. We have put them in isolation and now theoretically Vo ‘should be safe — continues Crisanti, who has a past as a researcher at Imperial College London -”Surely asymptomatics play an important role. Identifying positive and asymptomatic contacts is a fundamental thing.”

So far the study in Vò does not seem to have gotten published and the real numbers they observed are left obscure and a bit contradictory, as Crisanti has not stated direct data but mostly general learnings. From all that he said, it could point to a 8% ratio of asymptomatics remaining in Vò after 2 weeks — that means 9 of 111 –but that is my augury, deducted from what he said — and it is a little bit strange that we do not get more detailed access to the data or concrete numbers. We will see if the interpretation of Prof. Romagnani concerning 50–75% asymptomatic will hold up over time. I will update this section when I find a link to the conducted finished study. It seems to be clear that the positive cases in Vò were contained by the quarantine measures but also by testing EVERYBODY, to be sure. That is not technically possible yet in any of the countries with a Covid-19 outbreak, and even in South Korea which is following a mass testing strategy not every citizen gets tested.

On 19/03/2020 Crisanti got cited in the Nationalpost.com (see https://nationalpost.com/news/world/how-an-experiment-helped-one-italian-town-find-submerged-infections-cut-new-covid-19-cases-to-zero):

“We were able to contain the outbreak here because we identified and eliminated the ‘submerged’ infections and isolated them,” he said of the Vò approach. “That is what makes the difference.”

The accounts about asymptomatic cases may prove very relevant for the US, which has denied their importance in the initial stages. That changed recently:

“Asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic transmission are a major factor in transmission for Covid-19,” said Dr. William Schaffner, a professor at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine and longtime adviser to the CDC. “They’re going to be the drivers of spread in the community.” Read more about this curated for an audience in the US in a piece by CNN from 19/03/2020: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/14/health/coronavirus-asymptomatic-spread/index.html

A less scientific account of this approach for the US can also be found here calling a possible solution the “Veneto model”: https://promarket.org/why-mass-testing-is-crucial-the-us-should-study-the-veneto-model-to-fight-covid-19/

On 23/03/2020 he was speaking in the local TV news/updates TGR Veneto suggesting a plan to focus-test all the high-risk workforce first, also if they do not show symptoms (yet) and then enlarge the number of tests steadily, to catch as many asymptomatic spreaders as possible and protect those who are not infected yet. The numbers of test tampons and facilities to analyse them are limited, so it needs to be a step-by-step plan, in his view. Watch the announcement here (in Italian) https://www.rainews.it/tgr/veneto/video/2020/03/ven-coronavirus-covid19-virologo-Andrea-Crisanti-sorveglianza-attiva-con-tamponi-mirati-fe8591ad-edc7-498a-afd2-4ddbce0b720c.htm

The problem is that there are many asymptomatic people who are not confined and still have, although reduced, an ability to socialize and therefore to transmit the virus. Hence the idea of ​​”mass tampons” throughout Veneto and promises to be the only real weapon at the moment to combat the epidemic.

Narrow focus

“Given the limited testing to date, some deaths and probably the vast majority of infections due to SARS-CoV-2 are being missed. We don’t know if we are failing to capture infections by a factor of three or 300. Three months after the outbreak emerged, most countries, including the U.S., lack the ability to test a large number of people and no countries have reliable data on the prevalence of the virus in a representative random sample of the general population.” Still, Dr. John P.A. Ioannidis, professor of medicine, of epidemiology and population health, of biomedical data science, and of statistics at Stanford University and co-director of Stanford’s Meta-Research Innovation Center is founding his reasoning of the CFR only on the Diamond Princess case and the few cases in comparison in the US, dismissing the work of the Chinese authorities, South Korea or the high CFR in Northern Italy right now (6,5%!) — entirely. There are 72.000 people case scenarios here and I suggest he reads that and asks European fellow colleagues for their unfolding data (31.000 cases in Italy as of yet 19/03/2020 — ). https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/

As you can read in the CNN article cited above, US Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar told host George Stephanopoulos on 01/03/2020 on ABC’s This Week, that

…asymptomatic spread is “not the major driver” of the spread of the new coronavirus.”You really need to just focus on the individuals that are symptomatic,” he said. “It [the containment strategy] really does depend on symptomatic presentation.”

The website for the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention echoes that assessment, “Some spread might be possible before people show symptoms; there have been reports of this occurring with this new coronavirus, but this is not thought to be the main way the virus spreads,” according to the website.

In contrast, according to Harvard Medical Schoo true cases, not yet registered (or staying unregistered) may be about 50x the registered official cases. Harvard Medical School / Massachusetts General Hospital released their estimate in a video recording of the MGH Medical Grand Rounds of 12/03/2020). You can watch it here: https://externalmediasite.partners.org/…/53a4003de5ab4b4da5… So, if the actual (true) cases are 50x greater than the reported cases, they likely have 75,000 cases not-yet-registered in the United States already, echoes Jason Scott Warner (USA) @medium (15/03/2020 date of the post about statistics & math of Covid-19 where I found this) https://medium.com/@Jason_Scott_Warner/the-sober-math-everyone-must-understand-about-the-pandemic-2b0145881993).

As for 24/03/2020 there are 46.450 positive cases in the US with 593 deaths (see John Hopkins “real-time” data @ https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6). 9 days earlier, on 15/03/2020 there were 1.678 positively tested according to WHO situation reports (see https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/situation-reports/).

The number of reported cases he judges as not that important, in comparison. I do not agree, only all the pieces of the puzzle give a proper view on that complicated disease rolling over the planet, “unseen” and unheard. There might be a substantial number or unreported cases which stay out of the official numbers, and therefore also out of the estimates of the not-yet-registered ones. I think it locally understandable but in a world where we are all battling the same phenomena scientifically hazardous to not listen at all to colleagues from abroad or only considering what is happening around the corner of your office, in your city or not much less narrow within the fictional, arbitrary borders of a nation. The virus knows no borders and searches the opportunity to travel and multiply not with abstract governmental bodies or health associations, but with bodies of humans. Singular ones. We need to listen to each other and build up networks of trust, if we want to battle planetary threats efficiently together.

The broad picture

Stubbornly following individual paths may just isolate countries and offer gaps to step in for rivals. All the doctrines of “…. FIRST!” might crumble to dust if they are in need of help, having misjudged the situation. Often the responsible ones seem not to have listened to the experts and straightforward voices, but to petty economic considerations and national whispers, suggesting political gain for this and that, delaying action.

Bill Gates was writing as early as February 28, 2020 about the threat of asymptomatic cases in the New England Journal of Medicine. Yes, THIS Bill Gates. He is a billionaire and funds medical research for years, and despite not being a doctor or virologist he has a voice and a weight: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2003762

In a German study of 126 evacuees from Wuhan there were 2 asymptomatic cases found which got missed by thorough symptom screenings. A group of predominantly German nationals who had stayed in Hubei Province was evacuated to Frankfurt, Germany, on February 1, 2020. They were to be transferred to Germersheim, Germany, and quarantined for 14 days. The study got published as a letter of Hoehl et al. in 18/02/2020 to the New England Journal of Medicine including the names of 19 doctors and one specialist, see https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2001899

A Japanese study (Nishiura et al. Feb 17/2020 — March 6/2020) of 565 evacuees from Wuhan resulted in a tally of 30,8% asymptomatic cases. Interestingly they note that this ratio is slightly smaller than that of influenza, which was estimated at 56–80% (Hsieh et al., 2014) using similar definitions for symptomatic individuals. This is taken from the .pdf with updates in March. https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30139-9/pdf

(NOTE: The preprint version of this paper from 17.02.2020 shows a higher count still of 41,6% asymptomatic cases: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.03.20020248v2)

One may ask the question why the reports of asymptomatic cases are not included in every report and discusses on high priority, and the focus rests still in many countries obstinately on the symptomatic cases they can see and measure more directly. To expand the narrow picture to a broad one means maybe to declare defeat in not having reacted quickly enough, as their decision to focus on observable symptoms may sound easier, but bite back over time, when they are wrong. You cannot properly track down hundreds or thousands of people without symptoms who were contaminating a lot of others unknowingly over a period of a month, unfortunately. That may only work early on with few official numbers and strict and aggressive investigations of possible contact persons, isolating and testing them over and over again, to be sure. The limited number of planned test capacities and funds for that may have closed the time window already — but one might ask why the richest countries in the world, Germany, the USA, France, the UK have opted fo far against throwing a lot of resources onto testing often and quickly — endangering the spread of an unknown virus originating in China, where reports already warned about the problem of asymptomatic cases. This selective ignorance may have caused us the opportunity for containment and all what is left is either suppression or mitigation.

Numbers from China

Can we believe the official numbers from China as prominent German Virologist Alexander Kekulé is suggesting us do (hear in German in the end of the MDR podcast: https://www.mdr.de/nachrichten/podcast/kekule-corona/corona-kompass-kekule-ausbreitung100.html)? I hope so, but hope alone is not enough. The data from China should have informed us since the outbreak in Dec/Jan but there were a lot of voices being critical with the depth and sincerity of communication as the one-party system in China got challenged by suppressing the facts first and reacting slowly, then very drastically.

Supchina, the platform of China news built by veterans of China-watchers Kaiser Kuo (ex-director for international communications for Chinese search engine Baidu) and Jeremy Goldkorn (founder of infamously shut down danwei.org) offered deeper insights into the situation in China. They also run the renowned Sinica podcast for years inviting prominent China journalists and China-watchers to participate in uncensored discussions about Chinese political and economic affairs and their editors usually express a more nuanced opinions. On 09/03/2020 their take on the Chinese numbers sound as follows: “The new official numbers from China, to be taken with a huge grain of salt, especially after Caixin confirmed that asymptomatic — but still contagious! — COVID-19 patients are not being counted in official numbers in many provinces.” (see https://supchina.com/2020/03/09/official-covid-19-cases-fall-in-china-but-can-we-believe-the-numbers/) and later cite e.g. Graham Webster (editor-in-chief, Stanford New America DigiChina Project) on 19/03/2020 when he tweeted:

When Chinese official sources report numbers amidst an unprecedented propaganda campaign and with existential risk to CCP rule on the table, don’t take them literally. Take them as what authorities want you to think and repeat.

Reports from China do indicate that the authorities were very well aware of the threat concerning asymptomatic cases and have known about the contagion risk:

Caixin reported on 01/03/2020: “In its Jan. 28 virus prevention and control plan, the NHC demanded the prompt detection and reporting of those with light or no symptoms. According to the document obtained by Caixin, the Heilongjiang CDC confirmed its first asymptomatic case on Feb. 1 and left the individual off its public list of confirmed cases as per NHC instructions.

In a statement to Caixin, the Heilongjiang CDC said that it was told by the national CDC to “temporarily” include asymptomatic cases in public tallies with confirmed, symptomatic cases. However, after the Feb. 7 release of the fourth edition of the NHC’s Covid-19 guidelines, which reaffirmed that asymptomatic cases should be reported separately and excluded from the confirmed case tally, Heilongjiang removed 13 asymptomatic infected individuals from its “confirmed cases.”

China’s policy has remained in place despite multiple studies from both Chinese and overseas researchers suggesting that individuals infected with Covid-19 can be contagious even if they do not feel ill. (…) Nevertheless, at a Feb. 14 press conference, NHC deputy director Zeng Yixin said that the country would only publicize “suspected” and “confirmed cases.” “If you don’t have symptoms, it’s not an illness,” he said. “There’s no need to announce it.” “If you don’t have symptoms, it’s not an illness,” he said. “There’s no need to announce it.” (see at Caixin, porous paywall, sign-in seems to be for free https://www.caixinglobal.com/2020-03-01/chinas-decision-to-leave-asymptomatic-patients-off-coronavirus-infection-tally-sparks-debate-101522529.html)

Also from this article of Caixin Global is the reaction of Michael Mina, assistant professor of epidemiology and immunology at the Harvard School of Public Health: “Perhaps the most important component at this point is it shows that it may be even more widespread and difficult to contain than we think,” Mina said. “I think any withholding of known figures pertaining to infections not only does a disservice to China’s ability to monitor and help control the epidemic but also inhibits global scientists from being able to learn from and disseminate useful information both back to China and to the global community.”

UPDATE: On 01/04/2020 Caixin added an article titling “China’s Asymptomatic Coronavirus Case Numbers Don’t Tell the Whole Story” in which they write:”The updates to epidemic reports follow at least two calls by Chinese Premier Li Keqiang to focus on containing asymptomatic carriers, which numerous studies have shown to be contagious, as well as public calls for transparency about the size of this population. The NHC announced Tuesday that it would include the latest information on this group in its reports starting Wednesday in an effort to address public concerns.” https://www.caixinglobal.com/2020-04-01/chinas-asymptomatic-coronavirus-case-numbers-dont-tell-the-whole-story-101537553.html

Why do the efforts or lack of efforts around asymptomatic numbers do not reach our TV reports and official government policies in Europe can only be speculated about. They might face the same scenario than in China, not having reacted early enough so that only a lockdown remains as an effective strategy to contain also the asymptomatic cases. Even though transparent communication is paramount specially in democratic societies, authorities might put the asymptomatic cases under the rug, as their lax measures in the first weeks of a spread to Europe did not count in asymptomatic cases and it turned out to be a grave mistake, and they do not want to admit it to keep people following their often perceived “harsh” new rules. Germany jumped from 5.813 on the 15/03/2020 to 32.061 confirmed cases on 24/03/2020, that means 5,5x in 9 days.

IMHO, we do not know enough and the Western democratic nations are performing poorly to contain a contagious pathogen, to the detriment of their citizens. We need an international, global response which is based on science, sound concerning strategies and accurate numbers to base them on.

The case of the Diamond Princess

The cruise ship Diamond Princess arrived off the Japanese coast in early February with more than 3,700 passengers and crew members from more than 50 countries and regions. It was placed under quarantine on 4 February 2020 after authorities found that a passenger who got off the boat in Hong Kong during its voyage tested positive for the virus. On 20 January 2020, an 80-year-old passenger from Hong Kong embarked in Yokohama, sailed one segment of the itinerary, and disembarked in Hong Kong on 25 January. He visited a local Hong Kong hospital, six days after leaving the ship, where he later tested positive for COVID-19 on 1 February. On its next voyage, 4 February, the ship was in Japanese waters when 10 passengers were diagnosed with COVID-19 during the unfolding of the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak .

The infections included at least 138 from India (including 132 crew and 6 passengers), 35 Filipinos, 32 Canadians, 24 Australians, 13 Americans, 4 Indonesians, 4 Malaysians, and 2 Britons (see also https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/18/britain-to-evacuate-citizens-from-coronavirus-hit-cruise-ship-diamond-princess). Home countries arranged to evacuate their citizens and quarantine them further in their own countries. As of 1 March, all on board including the crew and the captain had disembarked.

Officials kept finding new infections among the passengers and crew members and transporting them to Japanese hospitals, while others have been told to stay inside their individual cabins during the 14-day quarantine period. Japan’s efforts to control the viral infections on the vessel have prompted international concern. https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/coronavirus-covid-19-japan-cruise-ship-diamond-princess-12439564. The Japanese government was arranging special embarkation procedures for US citizens taking the chartered flight, an official said, adding that “a certain number” of other countries have also shown interest in similar evacuation measures.

While some Americans on the ship have urged their government to extract them from the boat, others on board criticised the plan. “Incredibly disappointed that the US Government has decided to throw a monkey wrench into the quarantine we have maintained here on board the Diamond Princess,” tweeted Matt Smith, an American lawyer. “The US Government … wants to take us off without testing, fly us back to the US with a bunch of other untested people, and then stick us in 2 more weeks of quarantine? How does that make any sense at all?” https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/covid19-coronavirus-us-evacuate-diamond-princess-japan-12438432

With 3,700 passengers and crew on board, the Diamond Princess was at that point with the highest rate of coronavirus infection in the world outside of China.

It also makes up for a very interesting study of asymptomatic cases and repetitive testing of a quarantined population. A paper by Mizumoto et al. accepted on 12/03/2020 and published in Eurosurveillance (Europe’s journal on infectious disease surveillance, epidemiology, prevention and control) accounts for the ratio of symptomatic vs. asymptomatic cases there. The result of the team around comes with a lot of cautious epidemiological math, ending at 17,9% asymptomatic cases accounted for. In an earlier version they reported the following progression of cumulative data over 7 days (13/02/2020–20/02/2020) https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.10.2000180 :

“Of the 634 confirmed cases, a total of 306 and 328 were reported to be symptomatic and asymptomatic, respectively. The proportion of asymptomatic individuals appears to be 16.1% (35/218) before 13 February, 25.6% (73/285) on 15 February, 31.2% (111/355) on 16 February, 39.9% (181/454) on 17 February, 45.4% (246/542) on 18 February, 50.6% (314/621) on 19 February and 50.5% (320/634) on 20 February.“

As of 23 March 2020, at least 761 out of the 3,711 passengers and crew had tested positive for the virus. The asymptomatic ones were getting tested repetitively, some became symptomatic, some stayed without symptoms, despite being positively tested. This dynamic may be a bit difficult to envision, so I add here also the table of cumulative counts, to clear the picture a bit:

Mizumoto Kenji, Kagaya Katsushi, Zarebski Alexander, Chowell Gerardo. Estimating the asymptomatic proportion of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases on board the Diamond Princess cruise ship, Yokohama, Japan, 2020. Euro Surveill. 2020;25(10):pii=2000180. https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.10.2000180

Their estimated asymptomatic proportion they conclude at 17.9% (95%CrI: 15.5–20.2%), which overlaps in their view with a recently derived estimate of 30.8% from data of Japanese citizens evacuated from Wuhan (the study cited above). The team around Mizumoto notes clearly:

Considering the reported similarity in viral loads between asymptomatic and symptomatic patients and that transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic cases may be possible, even though there is no clear evidence as yet of asymptomatic transmission, the relatively high proportion of asymptomatic infections could have public health implications.

This reported “similarity of virus loads” another important part of the puzzle can be found in Zhou et al.: “The viral load that was detected in the asymptomatic patient was similar to that in the symptomatic patients, which suggests the transmission potential of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic patients. These findings are in concordance with reports that transmission may occur early in the course of infection5 and suggest that case detection and isolation may require strategies different from those required for the control of SARS”. Look their whole account up at: Zou L, Ruan F, Huang M, Liang L, Huang H, Hong Z, et al. SARS-CoV-2 Viral Load in Upper Respiratory Specimens of Infected Patients. N Engl J Med. 2020;41(2):NEJMc2001737. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc2001737 PMID: 32074444

That patients without symptoms can be very well contagious has been also assessed in this large study of “Clinical characteristics of 2019 novel coronavirus infection in China” by Guan et al. published in the New England Journal of Medicine doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.06.20020974 on 09/02/2020 already. The full text can be downloaded here: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.06.20020974v1.full.pdf

The Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare has stated on it’s official website concerning the Diamond Princess case that of 508 patients who have been discharged in Japan, 262 are symptomatic and 246 are asymptomatic, which excludes those returning on charter flights. https://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/newpage_10251.html (with google translation). So, the Japanese authorities count 48% of asymptomatic cases in the remaining positive passengers of the Diamond Princess after 40 days since putting the ship under quarantine on the 4th of February. In domestic cases they report in a 717 patient example that asymptomatic pathogen holders were found in 88 cases — that would be ca. 12%.


Reliable estimates of the reproduction number and the death risk associated with COVID-19 are crucially needed to guide public health policy. The dark numbers or “asymptomatic proportion”, which is broadly defined as the proportion of asymptomatic infections among all the infections of the disease is a useful quantity to gauge the true burden of the disease and better interpret estimates of the transmission potential. Asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic patients do expose a viral load comparable to cases with symptoms (fever, throat ache, cough), so there is no scientific reason not to take these findings seriously. The dark numbers might affect the spread of the SARS-Cov-2 virus and may pose a threat as a residue of new clusters, now and when official numbers dwindle.

On 23/03/2020 Caixin Global reports (see https://www.caixinglobal.com/2020-03-23/despite-official-figures-wuhan-continues-to-find-new-asymptomatic-covid-19-cases-daily-101532880.html ) that despite official figures proclaiming that no new domestic Covid-19 cases occurred, authorities continue to register asymptomatic cases, sometimes “a dozen a day”.

According to a member of the infectious disease prevention and control team in Wuhan, every day the city continues to record “several or more than a dozen asymptomatic infected individuals,” which are people that have tested positive for Covid-19, but do not feel ill and are excluded from published numbers.

The infectious disease prevention and control team has stayed behind, after Hubei’s provincial Covid-19 task force on Friday ordered it to remain.

If we forget the asymptomatic ones out there, which may make up between 12–75% of the infected people, we will have a hard time to get rid of this SARS-Cov-2 / Covid-19 pandemic and face a long time of recurrent clusters of infections and “necessary” lockdowns which could have gotten avoided in first place by due diligence.

This article has been also published on tropicofchoice.com on 24/03/2020 http://www.tropicofchoice.com/dark-numbers-rule/

& first as a Facebook note on 23/03/2020 in my FB profile https://www.facebook.com/notes/herwig-egon-casadoro-kopp/dark-numbers-rule/10158103025998834/

Herwig Kopp

Written by

Ex-brain researcher, speaker & narrative interaction designer researching the reality of fiction

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade