3 ms·
That's inaccurate. The known case fatality rate is 2.3%, but that's of cases which presented to a hospital and were diagnosed. It's likely that 90% of the infe
by Filligree 7y ago
That's inaccurate. The known case fatality rate is 2.3%, but that's of cases which presented to a hospital and were diagnosed.
It's likely that 90% of the infections are asymptomatic, or close enough to be mistaken for a bad cold. That's bad, because such people are hard to quarantine, but it's good, because it means the true fatality rate may just be 0.2%.
Not that 0.2% of five billion wouldn't still be a horrible tragedy.
- Someone 7y agoAlso, world population in 1918 was about a quarter of what it is now. 50 million dead hit harder then than 100 million would hit now.
- samatman 7y agoIt's not always clear when to use absolute and when to use relative units. I would suggest that each dead person is mourned by approximately the same number of people, and therefore absolute units are more appropriate. Also, the world of 1918 was much less interconnected. It's not clear if that makes losing n% of the population better or worse, but I would bet on worse.
- burtonator 7y agoI agree.. we really really don't know much of what's going to happen here. We definitely need to stay on our toes and not get complacent here.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- koheripbal 7y agoUnfortunately, those errors exist on both the numerator and the denominator. Interviews of crematoriums in China claim that two thirds of the bodies they are picking up are from homes, not hospitals.