4 ms·
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 c
by 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 agoWe 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 agoI 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.