3 ms·

So some comments here say 60-70% global infection [0] and 3-4% death rate [1]. Is this really possible? That would be like ~150 million deaths. 0, https://news

• katmannthree 7y ago
  It could be worse than that once the hospitals are overloaded / out of equipment needed for artificial respiration. From the numbers coming out of China ~20% of cases are "serious," ~5% "critical."
• lm28469 7y ago
  "if" we get to 70% of the world contaminated and "if" the death rate really is that high globally then yes the maths checks out. But that's already a lot of "ifs".
• bcrosby95 7y ago
  Outcome of critical cases is heavily reliant upon whether the medical system can handle the number of infected. If someone requires a ventilator and you're out of ventilators they're kinda fucked. There's also evidence that lots of people show little to no symptoms. There's probably a large number of people that simply don't know they had it. Which is both good and bad. If we manage to keep it from spreading too far too fast, from the variety of studies I've seen then anywhere from .5% to 1% is probably more realistic. But if we don't, expect something higher. This is why waiting for "enough" people to die as evidence of severity, then responding is a poor response. FWIW the Spanish Flu infected 27% of the world's population. 60-70% seems really high.
  • harambaebae69 7y ago
    Commercial aviation had barely begun when the Spanish Flu occurred, and the world was nowhere near as connected.