8 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoThey'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 agoThat was the high end of the early estimates, though they all said it was highly unlikely.
- chaostheory 7y agoThe 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 agohiminlomax was claiming that reputable sources reported a 20% lethality rate, which is absurd (about as high as SARS).
- himinlomax 7y agoI 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.