2 ms·
I reserve the right to change my read if CFR spikes significantly or if infectivity proves higher than currently suspected, but, as I understand it, a 3% CFR is
by eropple 7y ago
I reserve the right to change my read if CFR spikes significantly or if infectivity proves higher than currently suspected, but, as I understand it, a 3% CFR is indicative of mortality through immune deficiency or populations with genetic vulnerability/predisposition to the infectious agent in question.
It is certainly worth watching, much as SARS and H1N1 were serious health concerns that needed to be managed at state and international levels. It is not worth John Q. Public panicking about. It is certainly not worth stopping the world over. It is not bubonic effing plague.
- duxup 7y agoYeah my comment was less about the panic than it is who seems to be getting hit hard. There's a lot of mixed information, particularly strange news about cases where folks seem to be recovering and then sort of "relapse" a week or two after it is identified. The analysis that at least sounds a bit more scientific to me seems to indicate there are a lot of cases where the typically healthy folks are hit hard.
- eropple 7y agoSure. But a normal flu can put a healthy person on their backs, too. It won't kill them.
- Retric 7y agoThe current deaths are a lagging indicator of overall mortality. A large fraction of the current infected are still at significant risk and therefore should be excluded from mortality rate estimates. China has seen 804 deaths and 2,374 recoveries the majority of cases still at significant risk. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2019–20_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2019–20_Wuhan_... The good news is the official rate of new infections has been in steady decline and has finally dropped below 10% per day. Though that may not necessarily be completely accurate either.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]