3 ms·
You are wrong, that is one of the worst data sets to use, because of so many unidentified cases. Again, see the NEJM: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NE
by nostromo 7y ago
You are wrong, that is one of the worst data sets to use, because of so many unidentified cases.
Again, see the NEJM:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387
Or any of the better data sets:
On the Princess Cruise, a naturally controlled study, the death rate was less than 1%, with a cruise full of old people.
Non-Wuhan death rate in China, where more mild cases were identified, ended up being 0.7%.
https://www.livescience.com/is-coronavirus-deadly.html https://www.livescience.com/is-coronavirus-deadly.html
Goodness, there are so many chicken littles on HN nowadays.
- zaroth 7y agoI guess all I can do for this poor comment is vouch and upvote. Sad to see that fearmongering and bad data compounded by bad math is ruling the day.
- YZF 7y agoOn the Princess Cruise everyone received top notch care. What if there were no available hospital beds and respirators? What would be the death rate when the medical system is so overwhelmed none of the acute cases can receive any medical care? That's the number that should influence how far we go in trying to control transmission. In Israel the single serious case is 38 years old. He is on a respirator. No some 80+. IIRC from the Washington cases there were some in their 20s who are hospitalized. Israel is less likely to have random unknown cases given their stringent border control, quarantines and testing.
- ALittleLight 7y agoThere are multiple conflicting reports of the death rate. However, if hospitals are overwhelmed by the serious cares, which I've seen estimated at 15-20% then the death rate, whatever it is, will surely rise as serious cases go unattended.