3 ms·

It is worthy of coverage, but it’s only interesting because it’s new. It really not the super virus they make it out to be. The news coverage does not paint a r

by 40four 7y ago

It is worthy of coverage, but it’s only interesting because it’s new. It really not the super virus they make it out to be. The news coverage does not paint a realistic picture. The height mortality rate is mostly due to the novelty and the fact we haven’t developed drugs for it yet. Also, it is killing almost exclusively elderly people. People who don’t have fully functioning immune systems. I’m willing to be the common flu killed a similar percentage of elderly before we developed a vaccine for it. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-se... This is not the message the news tells us though. They would have us believe it is some unstoppable virus, killing anyone who comes in contact with it. But there really isn’t any evidence to back it up. Fear mongering certainly does drive traffic.

ocho 7y ago
This is a rather high mortality rate for hospitalized patients. People with the new coronavirus have a very wide spectrum of symptoms which can be harmless, remain almost unnoticed up to very deadly syndromes. How can you justify that people spread the virus with almost 0 symptoms, killing basically other people. People respond differently to certain diseases, its normal. I had a relative early January in Bangkok hospitalized due to the coronavirus. Some patients do not even develop fever, where some other have to hang on artificial respirators for more than a week. Although my relative survived the illness after a very severe situation for 10 days on artifical respirator, he also now has permanent damages of the lungs. Would've probably died without rapid hospitalization rather quickly. After seeing that in real life I feel like many more people actually died without proper diagnosis of this new type of virus. For now, take these WHO-stats with a grain of salt and wait for stats in European countries. Currently it is roughly above 2% fatal. Which is similar to the Spanish Flu from 1918. FML. I don't want to know how SARS-CoV-2 would have wrecked in 1918 compared to healthcare in 2020.

by 40four 7y ago

ocho 7y ago

This is a rather high mortality rate for hospitalized patients. People with the new coronavirus have a very wide spectrum of symptoms which can be harmless, remain almost unnoticed up to very deadly syndromes. How can you justify that people spread the virus with almost 0 symptoms, killing basically other people. People respond differently to certain diseases, its normal. I had a relative early January in Bangkok hospitalized due to the coronavirus. Some patients do not even develop fever, where some other have to hang on artificial respirators for more than a week. Although my relative survived the illness after a very severe situation for 10 days on artifical respirator, he also now has permanent damages of the lungs. Would've probably died without rapid hospitalization rather quickly. After seeing that in real life I feel like many more people actually died without proper diagnosis of this new type of virus. For now, take these WHO-stats with a grain of salt and wait for stats in European countries. Currently it is roughly above 2% fatal. Which is similar to the Spanish Flu from 1918. FML. I don't want to know how SARS-CoV-2 would have wrecked in 1918 compared to healthcare in 2020.