4 ms·
I provided a link to “actual evidence” in the post. Read it instead of posting rumor and opinion as fact. Nobody said you “shouldn’t worry” about a virus that
by irq11 7y ago
I provided a link to “actual evidence” in the post. Read it instead of posting rumor and opinion as fact.
Nobody said you “shouldn’t worry” about a virus that kills old people. But if you’re not old or sick, you should worry about it less than other things. Like getting the flu.
”I get that you’re scared and lashing out”
What manner of gaslighting is this? I am absolutely not scared, and I am trying to spread accurate information, in order to counter fear-mongering posts like your own.
- senordevnyc 7y agoSee, there you go again. You’re suggesting that someone young and healthy should be more concerned about the flu, which is absolutely ridiculous and not supported by any data. The only “evidence” you posted is that the elderly and sick are most at risk, which no one was disputing, and which does not support your position that the flu is more dangerous to young and healthy people than this virus.
- irq11 7y agoThe flu is everywhere, right now. Today. This covid virus has infected a tiny sliver of the human population, in a select few locations, and it isn’t that dangerous if you aren’t old or sick. Practically speaking, you should be more concerned about getting hit by a car than catching this virus. You should really stop posting on this subject. You have lost all sense of perspective.
- JoeAltmaier 7y agoThis one has a 3-4% death rate and debilitating, lifelong consequences for those that 'recover'. Its a big deal. If denial makes one feel better, go for it. Post it here though, and expect to be rapidly disabused.
- irq11 7y agoIt does not have a 3-4% fatality rate. You are either getting bad information, or you are making things up. The latest numbers from the WHO and the CCDC are an average case fatality rate of 2.3%. This is highly likely to be an overestimate, and the deaths are skewed heavily to the old and infirm. From the most recent CCDC report [1] those under 40, case fatality was 0.2%. Under 50, 0.4%; under 60, 1.3%. For those with no pre-existing illnesses, case fatality was 0.9%, across all age groups. [1]http://weekly.chinacdc.cn/en/article/id/e53946e2-c6c4-41e9-9a9b-fea8db1a8f51 http://weekly.chinacdc.cn/en/article/id/e53946e2-c6c4-41e9-9...
- JoeAltmaier 7y agoNote the fatality rate is deaths divided by current infected. But the people dying are those that contracted the disease 4-5 days ago (folks don't die the instant they get sick). So the death rate on folks ultimately reaches nearly double the reported rate? But draw your own conclusions: https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6 https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.h...
- irq11 7y agoNo. This is completely incorrect. The case fatality rate is the number of deaths divided by confirmed infections. This is what is being reported. Infection Fatality Ratio changes the denominator to a model for the currently infected population. This is a smaller number, because the denominator is much larger. There is no mortality metric being reported by reputable sources that is multiples higher than the CFR, as you suggest. https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200219-sitrep-30-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=6e50645_2 https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situati...
- JoeAltmaier 7y agoOr, look at the timeline for infection vs eventual fatalities. As I said, draw your own conclusions from the reported data by Johns Hopkins (do they pass the filter for 'reputable'?). The most useful number I know is, survival chances. How many in 100 stand to be alive say 2 months later. The numbers seem worse than 98, by a good margin. At least worldwide.
- mercer 7y agoFor someone 'rational' and 'cool-headed' you seem awfully hysterical, peppering this entire discussion with your certainty. It's fascinating.