3 ms·

2-3% is not a reasonable estimate. It keeps getting lowered, especially in a western context with better medical care. 2% was an early estimate in a Chinese c

2-3% is not a reasonable estimate. It keeps getting lowered, especially in a western context with better medical care. 2% was an early estimate in a Chinese context, but even there it's going down as more cases are identified. Now people are estimating 1.5%, 1%, or even less. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387

adventured 7y ago
2-3% wasn't an early estimate for China. It's the figure. It's based on the reported total cases and reported deaths. We have no other figures to go on out of China other than what they've officially reported (anything else is pointless speculation, we could each claim anything). The death rate there is in that 2-3% range so far. I do agree, generally, with your point that highly developed healthcare systems should be able to get the mortality rate under whatever the figures are in China. That might only mean 1.5% to 2% though, given China's reported mortality figure is closer to the high 3% area.
- nostromo 7y ago
  It's the figure of deaths in china / verified cases -- and we know that the verified cases is low. In any case, I'll just go with The New England Journal of Medicine on this one, not some online spook. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387
  - adventured 7y ago
    So far China has around ~3,000 deaths on ~80,000 cases. 3.75% What are you trying to refute about that exactly? Those are China's reported numbers. Online spook? I have no idea what you're talking about. Your only alternative is to say, flat out, that China's figures are wrong / a lie (Which figures though - deaths? Cases? Both? Is the mortality rate even higher?). And once you do that, we can all just start making up numbers at will.
    - downerending 7y ago
      Here's an amateur rejoinder: It's possible, if not probable, that the infections have actually spread far more widely than what has currently been detected. Those wider cases may have been almost entirely silent, and resolved without significant incident. If that's true, then the actual rate of fatalities (or even serious cases) might be a lot lower than first thought. The truth, of course, is that currently no one really knows at present. Right now we have educated guesses at best.
- gremlinsinc 7y ago
  Wouldn't this also only assume that we don't tax the current system? Since, you can still be 'critical' need a ventilator/icu, but not die, would mean that if there aren't available beds/equipment, the mortality rate goes up, am I right? Being as we have around 96,000 ICU beds, and 64,000 ventilators. Could that drive up the mortality to 4-8% simply due to unpreparedness?
  - taylodl 7y ago
    Correct. What we know so far is 80% of those infected show mild to no symptoms. 20% of those infected require hospitalization. Of that 20%, roughly 15% perish. The problem is we can't tell who that 15% are. So we treat everybody equally. To your point, IF there were a massive outbreak in the United States far more than 3% would be expected to die due to our medical resources being depleted. This is one of the reasons the flu of 1918 was so deadly - medical resources were depleted. There's a good documentary about it (the 1918 flu) on Netflix.
    - gremlinsinc 7y ago
      K, my logical brain + google, sort of came to this conclusion. Just kind of scary the implications. I'm also curious what this is going to have on the state of politics in America, I mean --the boomers might speed up their rate of decline being the target demo for the virus, giving a lift to the gen-x, xennials, millenials, etc...

adventured 7y ago

2-3% wasn't an early estimate for China. It's the figure. It's based on the reported total cases and reported deaths. We have no other figures to go on out of China other than what they've officially reported (anything else is pointless speculation, we could each claim anything). The death rate there is in that 2-3% range so far. I do agree, generally, with your point that highly developed healthcare systems should be able to get the mortality rate under whatever the figures are in China. That might only mean 1.5% to 2% though, given China's reported mortality figure is closer to the high 3% area.

nostromo 7y ago
It's the figure of deaths in china / verified cases -- and we know that the verified cases is low. In any case, I'll just go with The New England Journal of Medicine on this one, not some online spook. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387
- adventured 7y ago
  So far China has around ~3,000 deaths on ~80,000 cases. 3.75% What are you trying to refute about that exactly? Those are China's reported numbers. Online spook? I have no idea what you're talking about. Your only alternative is to say, flat out, that China's figures are wrong / a lie (Which figures though - deaths? Cases? Both? Is the mortality rate even higher?). And once you do that, we can all just start making up numbers at will.
  - downerending 7y ago
    Here's an amateur rejoinder: It's possible, if not probable, that the infections have actually spread far more widely than what has currently been detected. Those wider cases may have been almost entirely silent, and resolved without significant incident. If that's true, then the actual rate of fatalities (or even serious cases) might be a lot lower than first thought. The truth, of course, is that currently no one really knows at present. Right now we have educated guesses at best.
gremlinsinc 7y ago
Wouldn't this also only assume that we don't tax the current system? Since, you can still be 'critical' need a ventilator/icu, but not die, would mean that if there aren't available beds/equipment, the mortality rate goes up, am I right? Being as we have around 96,000 ICU beds, and 64,000 ventilators. Could that drive up the mortality to 4-8% simply due to unpreparedness?
- taylodl 7y ago
  Correct. What we know so far is 80% of those infected show mild to no symptoms. 20% of those infected require hospitalization. Of that 20%, roughly 15% perish. The problem is we can't tell who that 15% are. So we treat everybody equally. To your point, IF there were a massive outbreak in the United States far more than 3% would be expected to die due to our medical resources being depleted. This is one of the reasons the flu of 1918 was so deadly - medical resources were depleted. There's a good documentary about it (the 1918 flu) on Netflix.
  - gremlinsinc 7y ago
    K, my logical brain + google, sort of came to this conclusion. Just kind of scary the implications. I'm also curious what this is going to have on the state of politics in America, I mean --the boomers might speed up their rate of decline being the target demo for the virus, giving a lift to the gen-x, xennials, millenials, etc...