There are several very smart people who are arriving at different conclusions to WHO and the msm concerning the right way forward dealing with the Wuhan Coronavirus. They are worth listen to .
The very first quote should have made you question what you were posting: “We are afraid that 1 million infections with the new virus will lead to 30 deaths per day over the next 100 days”
Uncontrolled, several thousands of people will die a day in the USA, not 30 deaths per day.
Why? Maybe it was recorded when that was the case.
The issue is, you are quoting people who were talking without realizing that the death rate from last week was going to be way lower than this week and even lower than it will be next week.
There is a lag between people becoming infected and actually dying. So last week, many assumed the virus wasn’t that lethal because they were judging the death rate being low by looking at a newly infected, non-recovered population. However, after 2 or 3 weeks, some in the newly infected column will enter the dead column.
If/When we run out of ventilators, the situation will be even worse…which is why we are practicing social distancing so that the healthcare system isn’t overwhelmed more than it already will be.
And that was the only point made by thelat and the other eleven scientists?
You don’t turn off someone’s presentation after the first sentence offends (in this case, because subsequent events have made that point become inaccurate). Well, a lot of people do, actually
I looked through it…and most of the people there clearly didn’t realize that the same thing that happened in Italy can happen here and be even worse. Do you know how many people in the US have pre-existing conditions? How many people, through lack of health insurance and regular checkups, are vulnerable and don’t even know it? How many people will die if they can’t get a ventilator? How many people this virus is putting into comas or causing life long injury even if they escape death?
I read from those experts that Italians have a high morbidity rate from respiratory infection anyway. Hence their greater susceptibility to the Wuhan virus.
“Italy is known for its enormous morbidity in respiratory problems, more than three times any other European country.”
They also have a lot of elderly.
1 Like
All of this talk was based on the assumption that we were going to fare far better than Italy due to the smaller amount of deaths relative to known cases in the US. However, this wasn’t because our population is way healthier than Italy…it was simply because we were earlier in the cycle. By current indications, the horrific death tolls we were hearing about from Italy will be here within a week or so.
actually… no. for reasons I don’t understand the death rate everywhere except Italy seems to be around 1.5%, while in Italy it’s 10%
1 Like
We can’t accurately calculate the death rate (to the extent that it can be accurately calculated at all) until it’s over.
People are essentially shrugging about things not being so bad when the eye of the storm hasn’t even breached land.
the only thing the death rate is going to do from this point onward is go down as more tests find more infected who are asymptomatic or who have symptoms so mild they would not otherwise have been tested. likely will fall around .7%, maybe a bit lower.
2 Likes
I’m not expecting it to be 10%, but Italy’s death rate isn’t likely to be anywhere near 10% either. Those numbers at this point will be skewed by the amount of testing done and who gets tested.
In terms of total deaths, our current trajectory would point to us having more deaths than Italy by the time everything settles down.
of course we would, we have about 6X the population.
1 Like
Yeah, but 1.5% rate vs 10% rate…how is that an of course we would? 10% is more than 6 times the rate of 1.5%.
I’m pointing to analyzing the death rate right now being silly because of unequal testing and different countries being in different stages of the outbreak.
I may be mistaken, but I believe the mortality rate is calculated as deaths per hospitalized case, not per positive test. that rate doesn’t change much once its established except as treatment improves.
No, your argument is inconsistent. The death rate you’re using is a calculation of how many people die vs the amount tested. This doesn’t really reveal how many people were actually infected…nor does it reveal any strong insight about the likelihood of recovery if hospitalized.
Most experts are thinking the actual mortality rate is going to be somewhere around 0.5 to 3% when it’s all said and done.
As far as hospitalized deaths, things are getting worse in the US. 10X more deaths happened yesterday vs the same day a week ago and there’s no indication that we are at peak. What happens if the virus starts pounding Florida or other areas with more vulnerable populations? What happens when medical staff have to start making choices about who to save?
Paul, there’s a lot of very sound reasoning there in the first article for some very bright mind.
The economic dammage from this virus is most likely going to be far far far more severe than anything the virus itself is tough.
Two more people that are tested the lower the mortality rates get and it looks like in the end this is going to be closed in mortality to a bad outbreak of H1N1
1 Like
The most common thumbnail estimate I’ve heard used is 80% of reported cases experience no to moderate symptoms, 20% require hospitalization, and 1% die. According to your methodology, that’s a 5% mortality rate. I think they’re using “per positive test”. “Per hospitalized case” might be the better metric, or it might not. Would a third world country with minimal facilities see a much higher death rate, since probably only the sickest would wind up in the hospital?
this is false.
90% of those tested test negative. There is no rate “I’m using”. there is only the published rate. Which I believe is calculated vs hospitalized cases, not total positive tests. The likelihood of recovery if hospitalized would be the inverse of the mortality rate. 98.5%, And no, most experts do not expect anything approaching 3%. .5 to 1.5%, likely settling around .7%
2 Likes
No, you can’t put people who don’t have the coronavirus in the mortality rate estimation…what are you even talking about? How are people who test negative even relevant to the discussion?
