4 ms·

> It's not statistically inconsistent. When China had 100 cases confirmed, they had reported only 2 deaths. Now there are 100 cases outside China, so statistica

by svara 7y ago

> It's not statistically inconsistent. When China had 100 cases confirmed, they had reported only 2 deaths. Now there are 100 cases outside China, so statistically we should expect 2. 0 actual vs 2 expected is statistically insignificant. My point here was that the China data is probably biased because the medical system there is overtaxed, but outside of China it isn't. Therefore, estimating mortality based on non-China data seems safer, and no one outside of China has died so far. If I take your low end mortality estimate, 20%, and apply that to the number of non-China cases 6 days ago (12), you get only a 6% probability of all of these people surviving. Note that this already contains a lot of assumptions (going back 6 days, taking your lowest mortality estimate) that work in favor of your alarmism.

mrb 7y ago
When the WHO declares something a "global health emergency" we have valid reasons to be alarmist :) I think that "going back 6 days" is insufficient, so your conclusion of a 6% probability is unsupported. Given the extreme state of paranoia around the world (eg. authorities testing people coming out of airplanes) it is likely that cases outside China are detected very early after the onset of symptoms. As such, death, when it takes place, will probably take more than 6 days after a confirmed case is detected. In fact, the studies in The Lancet document cases of patients that take much more than 6 days to die.
- svara 7y ago
  We can speculate all night, it remains speculation. All I've done is use the numbers you suggested to point out inconsistencies. Yet you keep finding reasons for why we are almost literally all going to die (with mortality rates of up to around 50%), when you have no more insight into this than anyone else in this thread. Everybody is taking this seriously, but playing prophet of doom is really shitty and has all sorts of potential negative consequences in the real world.
  - mrb 7y ago
    I suppose I didn't communicate clearly. I never said we are all going to die. For one, we are probably going to find a vaccine or treatment. And the eventual observed CFR may end up being in the lower end of what I quote (9%) instead of the upper end (56%). You tried to point out 1 inconsistency, and I replied back saying it wasn't an inconsistency ("0 actual vs 2 expected is statistically insignificant.") It's too early to tell if the CFR outside China will differ from the CFR in China.

by svara 7y ago

mrb 7y ago

When the WHO declares something a "global health emergency" we have valid reasons to be alarmist :) I think that "going back 6 days" is insufficient, so your conclusion of a 6% probability is unsupported. Given the extreme state of paranoia around the world (eg. authorities testing people coming out of airplanes) it is likely that cases outside China are detected very early after the onset of symptoms. As such, death, when it takes place, will probably take more than 6 days after a confirmed case is detected. In fact, the studies in The Lancet document cases of patients that take much more than 6 days to die.

svara 7y ago
We can speculate all night, it remains speculation. All I've done is use the numbers you suggested to point out inconsistencies. Yet you keep finding reasons for why we are almost literally all going to die (with mortality rates of up to around 50%), when you have no more insight into this than anyone else in this thread. Everybody is taking this seriously, but playing prophet of doom is really shitty and has all sorts of potential negative consequences in the real world.
- mrb 7y ago
  I suppose I didn't communicate clearly. I never said we are all going to die. For one, we are probably going to find a vaccine or treatment. And the eventual observed CFR may end up being in the lower end of what I quote (9%) instead of the upper end (56%). You tried to point out 1 inconsistency, and I replied back saying it wasn't an inconsistency ("0 actual vs 2 expected is statistically insignificant.") It's too early to tell if the CFR outside China will differ from the CFR in China.