Epoch Times analyzed the official data the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) published on the coronavirus infection and on the hospitalized patients in Wuhan. It found that there are several holes in the CCP numbers.
1. Confirmed Infected Count = Hospitalized Count
On April 16, the CCP readjusted the Wuhan infection number to 50,333 and the death toll to 3,869.
On April 26, the Wuhan Health Commission announced that “the number of coronavirus infected patients staying in hospital became 0… The cumulative count of patients hospitalized is 50,333.”
This means the all confirmed infected patients are hospitalized, with a 100 percent hospitalization rate.
Taking New York to compare. By April 30, there were 159,865 confirmed cases, among which 41,316 were hospitalized. The hospitalization ratio is 25.84 percent of the confirmed patients.
The Wuhan Health Commission also stated that “the peak count of hospitalized patients was on February 18; it reached 38,020.” On February 18, Wuhan also announced 38,020 confirmed cases. Again, a 100 percent hospitalization rate.
2. Holes in Hospitalization Count
On January 28, the Wuhan Health Commission website said, “From January 22 to January 27, 75,221 people with a fever visited the hospital.” The hospital beds usage report that the Wuhan Health Commission released on February 1 showed this number “beds used: 6,808.” This means that only 9 percent of the 75,221 people who had a fever were hospitalized and thus counted in the CCP’s infection count. However, those 75,221 people were likely to be infected with the coronavirus.
On February 18, the Wuhan Health Commission stated 38,020 people were hospitalized. Its websites announced 18,393 hospital beds were occupied on the same day. If 38,020 were hospitalized, where did the other 19,627 (= 38,020 – 18,393) patients go?
The modular hospitals could hold patients. The Wuhan Health Commission website stated, “On March 10, all 16 modular hospitals in Wuhan were closed. They have treated a total of 12,000 patients with mild infection symptoms.” On February 20, the website of Changjiang Daily, a newspaper under the Wuhan Party Committee, mentioned “by February 20, eight modular hospitals released a total of 616 recovered patients.” So on February 18, there were likely only eight modular hospitals in operation. Since 16 modular hospitals treated 12,000 patients, the 8 modular hospitals in operation then might treated 6,000 patients.
Still, there are 13,627 (= 38,020 – 18,393 – 6,000) patients that the government claimed to be hospitalized but could not be matched to any hospital beds. Had they died in the hospital and thus no longer needed beds?
3. Severe Cases vs. Mild Cases
The modular hospitals were to treat the patients with mild cases. The Wuhan Health Commission said the modular hospitals handled 12,000 mild cases and a total of 46,464 patients were cured in hospitals. That means 34,464 (= 46,464 – 12,000) patients were in the regular hospitals. If the majority of the 34,464 patients were severe cases (since they were not at the modular hospitals), it would mean there were many more severe cases than mild cases, or it would mean many mild cases were simply not counted by the government.
4. Medical Staff Headcounts
On February 6, the Wuhan Health Commission mentioned “80,000 healthcare staff workers were at the front line of the fight against the coronavirus.” This would mean Wuhan has about 80,000 medical staff members.
On March 26, , the Wuhan Health Commission website stated, “By March 24, 141 medical teams came to support Wuhan, with 14,649 medical staff, returned to their home cities. Still 139 teams with 16,558 medical staff members remain in Wuhan.” That means 31,207 (=14,469 + 16,558) medical staffs came from other cities to support Wuhan.
State Council mentioned that “over 40,000 medical support personnel came to Wuhan, with 28,600 nurses, accounting for 68 percent of the group.” That will give 42,059 (= 28,600 / 68%) medical staffs coming from other cities to Wuhan.
If we take 80,000 of Wuhan’s own medical staff members and 40,000 supporting staff members from other cities, that is over 120,000 on the medical staff. {Editor’s note: Epoch Times didn’t mention this point in its writing: We know some of Wuhan’s medical staff were infected. Even if half of the population was infected, that means still 40,000 Wuhan medical staff members and 40,000 supporting staff members were working there. With 80,000 medical staff members on board, were they all only treating the 50,333 infected patients that the CCP claimed on April 26?}
Related postings on Chinascope:
- Infection Count: AEI: 2.9 Million Chinese Might Have Been Infected with Coronavirus
- Infection Count: Trump Administration Official: China’s Real Count Could Be 50 Times Bigger
- Infection Count: 60 Percent Hidden Infection Cases in Wuhan Are Not Reported
- Infection Count: Changjiang Daily Reported a Coronavirus Case on a Day That the Government Reported Zero
- Infection Count: On February 13, Caixin Questioned Wuhan Infection Number
Excerpt in Chinese:
4月16日，武汉市公布修正的疫情数据后，累计确诊病例数修订为50,333例，累计确诊病例的死亡数修订为3869例。
4月26日，武汉市卫健委公布，“我市在院新冠肺炎患者清零……新冠病人累计有50,333人”，完全照抄了修订后的累计确诊病例50,333人。按此公布的数据，武汉市中共肺炎的确诊者，住院比例达到100%，应该算是一个举世无双的“奇迹”。
很难知道，4月16日，中共重新调整累计确诊病例数，是按照住院病人50,333修订的，还是刚刚公布的累计住院病人，按照新的累计确诊病例数50,333人修订的。
4月28日，武汉市卫健委网站再称“全市累计治愈出院46,464人”。
公布的住院患者50,333-公布死亡的3869人=累计治愈出院46,464人，虽然数字不太吉祥，但中共自觉编造的“天衣无缝”，修正后的数字丝毫不差。现在搞清楚了，4月16日，中共调高武汉市累计确诊和死亡数字，不是因为外界压力，而是自己发现，以前编造的数字对不上，只有确诊者住院率100%才能对得上。
除中国大陆、伊朗外，目前世界疫情最严重的城市，是美国的纽约市。截止4月30日，美国纽约市公布的疫情数据，确诊159,865人，住院41,316人，确认感染死亡12,287人，疑似感染死亡5,302人。按此数据，确诊者住院比例25.84%，其他约75%左右的确诊者轻症，或无明显症状，不需要住院。
按照武汉市刚刚公布的数据，确诊者住院比例却达到了100%。
武汉市卫健委还主动透露，“2月18日我市住院患者最多，当天全市在院新冠肺炎患者达38,020人”。2月18日，武汉市公布确诊病例累计也是38,020人，当时武汉封城27天，确诊者住院比例同样100%。
1月28日，武汉市卫健委网站称，“发热门诊就诊人数逐日增多，高峰时段超过1.5万人”，还称“1月22日至27日，全市发热门诊共接诊发热病人75,221人”。当时“方舱医院”还没有开建建成，武汉市卫健委公布的“全市定点医院病床使用情况（2020年2月1日）”，显示“开放床位6754”，“已用床位6808”，实际住院病人比床位还多54个，显然容纳不下“发热病人75221人”。6808/75221=9.05%，2月1日，武汉市定点医院收治的患者，最多仅是出现明显症状患者的9.05%。
武汉市卫健委网站称，“2月18日我市住院患者最多，当天全市在院新冠肺炎患者达38,020人”，当天公布的累计确诊病例，也是38020人。武汉市卫健委网也公布了“全市定点医院病床使用情况（2020年2月18日）”，显示“开放床位19927”，“已用床位18393”，表明仅有18393名感染患者住在定点医院。38,020-18,393=19,627人，多出来的19,627名住院患者，去哪里了？
除定点医院外，武汉市还建造了“方舱医院”。武汉市卫健委网站显示，“3月10日……武汉16家方舱医院全部休舱……累计收治新冠肺炎轻症患者1.2万余人”。
2月20日，长江网报导，“截至20日，武汉市八家方舱医院已累计有616位患者康复”，表明当时只建好了8家“方舱医院”。
假设2月18日，这8家“方舱医院”都已经运行了，收纳了1.2万余人的一半，约6000人。2月18日这一天，公布的住院患者38020人，定点医院只有18,393人，“方舱医院”约6000人，38,020-18,393-6000=13,627人，多出来的13627住院患者，还是没人知道住哪里了？
或者，如果大胆猜测，是否可能多出来的患者13,627人，确实进过医院，但不幸身亡，也不再占用床位。这些额外死亡的13,627人，没有被统计为染疫死亡，但却被统计为住过医院。果真如此，那就意味着，2月18日这一天，住院患者可能确实多，死亡患者也多，有13,627人之多，只是没有被统计为死亡。
2月20日，长江网报导“方舱医院”时，被采访的“硚口方舱医院”院长彭小祥介绍，“确保CT片子当天做当天出结果；确保核酸测试上午做下午出结果；确保病人的临床评估所有资料以最快速度收齐，并彻底完成专辑评估。这三个环节环环紧扣，各个小组加强沟通，保证痊愈的患者尽快出院”。
这段报导证实，所谓的“方舱医院”，并非医院，而是隔离点，主要任务就3项，做CT、核酸检测，再整理好病例。严重的病例，可能转入定点医院；定点医院床位紧张，病情转轻的，也可能转到“方舱医院”，两次核酸检测后，都显示阴性，就被出院了。这说明，1个病人，可能在定点医院和“方舱医院”之间转换，却可能被计算两次住院。
武汉市卫健委网站显示，“3月10日……武汉16家方舱医院全部休舱……累计收治新冠肺炎轻症患者1.2万余人”。如果“全市累计治愈出院46,464人”，46,464-12,000=34,464人，这34,464人，应该是住在定点医院，病症较重或很重。
34464/1.2万=2.87，住在定点医院的病症较重或很重的患者数量，是“方舱医院”轻症患者的2.87倍。如此悬殊的轻重患者比例，是因为众多医生判断有误？还是有大量不明隔离点的轻症患者根本没有统计？
2月6日，武汉市卫健委网站称，“5日，武汉封闭出城通道14天，8万医护人员继续奋战在抗疫一线”。这“8万医护人员”，应该就是武汉市医疗人员的全部家底，不管是医生、护士、勤杂工等，都算上了。李文亮是个眼科医生，也被推上了一线，显然还不够用，急需外援。
3月26日，武汉市卫健委网站称“截至3月24日……已有141支医疗队、14,649人从武汉撤回，目前仍有139支医疗队、16558人坚守在武汉救治一线”。依此计算，外援医护人员应该总计35,695人。
国务院联防联控机制网站公布了更大的数字，“驰援武汉的医务人员超过4万人……其中护士约2.86万，医疗队总数的68%”，按比例换算，2.86万/68%=42,059，武汉市外援医护人员总计42,059人。
需要这么多外援到武汉，只能说明武汉市的医护人员，连救治病情严重和较重的确诊者，都难以胜任，哪还有能力收治其它隔离点的大量确诊病例、疑似病例。为了保证确诊者100%的住院率，只能把没有在医院的大量确诊病例，从统计数据中全部剔除。
Source: Epoch Times, May 1, 2020
https://www.epochtimes.com/gb/20/5/1/n12074462.htm