3 ms·
I figure there's some kind of "true" fatality rate that just answers the question of "If you catch the virus, you have this (age-adjusted) chance of dying". It
by tunesmith 7y ago
I figure there's some kind of "true" fatality rate that just answers the question of "If you catch the virus, you have this (age-adjusted) chance of dying". It seems like we'll asymptotically reach that "true" rate once testing is extremely common and liberal (to have confidence you are identifying all cases). Some countries are reaching that testing rate. Then your upper and lower bounds for that death rate are "deaths / deaths + recoveries" and "deaths / confirmed cases", respectively, and they should converge as "active cases" decrease over time (as they either recover or die). You can use that "band" (between the upper and lower bounds) to judge other countries and determine whether they are testing enough - if they are above that "band", they are clearly not testing enough.
- swsieber 7y agoAre we talking with or without ventilator/hospital support?
- tunesmith 7y agoYeah, that's a good point. Fatality increases as treatment options decrease. Treatment options can decrease whether it's a less advanced country, or a more advanced country that just gets overwhelmed due to poorer containment than other advanced countries.
- MaysonL 7y agoThe thing is, there are probably some people who won't die, no matter how they're treated, and some who will die, no matter how they're treated. There are also quite a large number, probably about 4-5% of the population, who can be saved with correct treatment, from not very aggressive to extremely aggressive - up to running the blood through artificial lungs.
- m463 7y agoA friend mentioned to me that smokers seem to be more likely to succumb, probably because of the effect on lungs.