4 ms·

Interesting... i wonder what the data is to back up that assertion? Another interesting tidbit in there was that very few cases (1%) appear to be totally asymp

Interesting... i wonder what the data is to back up that assertion? Another interesting tidbit in there was that very few cases (1%) appear to be totally asymptomatic, and that most infections apparently start showing some symptoms after a couple days. So there are a few assertions in total that seem to depart from what was previously understood, at least through mass and social media.

ngngngng 7y ago
I've never had such a steady stream of seemingly conflicting data before.
- baddox 7y ago
  Are you actually receiving conflicting data, or just conflicting reports about data? It's not clear to me how data itself can "conflict." As a made-up example, if you keep seeing alternating cases where one person had symptoms and another person didn't, that's not "conflicting data." That's just data showing that 50% of people have symptoms.
  - Eliezer 7y ago
    Well said. There can be conflicting reports but never conflicting realities. That said, sometimes our apparent data is being filtered by different factors, or even altered, across different reports.
knzhou 7y ago
> i wonder what the data is to back up that assertion? The data is the tens of thousands of cases the WHO has stats on. You can read any of their reports, they've been saying the same thing for months. The main sources contradicting them are random internet commentators.
- himinlomax 7y ago
  They've not been saying that for months, that's completely absurd. The disease started spreading in November at the earliest. Just a month ago very little was known about its transmission rate and lethality; estimates from reputable sources ranged from 1 to 20%.
  - Trasmatta 7y ago
    > estimates from reputable sources ranged from 1 to 20%. What reputable sources have said anything close to 20%?
    - himinlomax 7y ago
      That was the high end of the early estimates, though they all said it was highly unlikely.
    - chaostheory 7y ago
      The highest estimated r0 in a non-peer reviewed paper that I've seen is 6.6. himinlomax may be referring to individual cases like the one involving a cult in South Korea where one lady was confirmed to have infected approximately 70 people
      - tylerhou 7y ago
        himinlomax was claiming that reputable sources reported a 20% lethality rate, which is absurd (about as high as SARS).
        himinlomax 7y ago
        I didn't talk about reports, I said "estimates." And yes, early estimates included the perfectly reasonable though eventually disproven hypothesis that it could turn out to be as deadly as MERS (SARS was not that deadly).
- blablabla123 7y ago
  > The main sources contradicting them are random internet commentators. Yup and these are stating the opposite, as well since months but based on much more unreliable assumptions and data.
flukus 7y ago
> Another interesting tidbit in there was that very few cases (1%) appear to be totally asymptomatic I believe this was based on mass testing in China well into the lockdown period, so it's a reason to be optimistic but may not be they case in other parts of the world, particularly during the early outbreak phase. Even more complicated because they now know there are multiple strains.

ngngngng 7y ago

I've never had such a steady stream of seemingly conflicting data before.

baddox 7y ago
Are you actually receiving conflicting data, or just conflicting reports about data? It's not clear to me how data itself can "conflict." As a made-up example, if you keep seeing alternating cases where one person had symptoms and another person didn't, that's not "conflicting data." That's just data showing that 50% of people have symptoms.
- Eliezer 7y ago
  Well said. There can be conflicting reports but never conflicting realities. That said, sometimes our apparent data is being filtered by different factors, or even altered, across different reports.

knzhou 7y ago

> i wonder what the data is to back up that assertion? The data is the tens of thousands of cases the WHO has stats on. You can read any of their reports, they've been saying the same thing for months. The main sources contradicting them are random internet commentators.

himinlomax 7y ago
They've not been saying that for months, that's completely absurd. The disease started spreading in November at the earliest. Just a month ago very little was known about its transmission rate and lethality; estimates from reputable sources ranged from 1 to 20%.
- Trasmatta 7y ago
  > estimates from reputable sources ranged from 1 to 20%. What reputable sources have said anything close to 20%?
  - himinlomax 7y ago
    That was the high end of the early estimates, though they all said it was highly unlikely.
  - chaostheory 7y ago
    The highest estimated r0 in a non-peer reviewed paper that I've seen is 6.6. himinlomax may be referring to individual cases like the one involving a cult in South Korea where one lady was confirmed to have infected approximately 70 people
    - tylerhou 7y ago
      himinlomax was claiming that reputable sources reported a 20% lethality rate, which is absurd (about as high as SARS).
      - himinlomax 7y ago
        I didn't talk about reports, I said "estimates." And yes, early estimates included the perfectly reasonable though eventually disproven hypothesis that it could turn out to be as deadly as MERS (SARS was not that deadly).
blablabla123 7y ago
> The main sources contradicting them are random internet commentators. Yup and these are stating the opposite, as well since months but based on much more unreliable assumptions and data.

flukus 7y ago

> Another interesting tidbit in there was that very few cases (1%) appear to be totally asymptomatic I believe this was based on mass testing in China well into the lockdown period, so it's a reason to be optimistic but may not be they case in other parts of the world, particularly during the early outbreak phase. Even more complicated because they now know there are multiple strains.