3 ms·

It 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

by irq11 7y ago

It 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 ago
Note 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 ago
  No. 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 ago
    Or, 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.

by irq11 7y ago

JoeAltmaier 7y ago

Note 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 ago
No. 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 ago
  Or, 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.