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?
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.
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.
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?
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?
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%