3 ms·

The difference is countries widely affected by the virus; Italy and Iran. They too have exponential grow of cases and would logically lots of new cases. Sure,

The difference is countries widely affected by the virus; Italy and Iran. They too have exponential grow of cases and would logically lots of new cases. Sure, countries that don't enough cases shouldn't be compared but countries with an equivalent growth pattern make sense to compare. At the same time, we can look at the total outside China fetal rate and that's about 2%, which again Korea is doing notably better than. All of this is in context of most infection being new, all of it. Sure, CFR may not be the final rate one sees but that doesn't mean it doesn't give significant information about what's happening. The point I've been arguing is that the Korean strategy involves finding asymptomatic cases and preventing these becoming more symptomatic cases by quarantining them, getting those exposed tested and so-forth. One possibility is this means more of those they find are not seriously ill and won't become seriously ill and this reduces the overall CFR, which can be seen in a comparison to other nations with equivalent numbers of infections. This makes sense to me but can indeed only be verified once this whole horrible scenario plays out.

lern_too_spel 7y ago
> All of this is in context of most infection being new, all of it. No. The average time to die after infection is 28 days. Korea has been testing aggressively, and 28 days ago had fewer than 50 cases, despite finding cases earlier in their development. These other countries found cases who were already infected longer. That's why they have more deaths but also why they have more recoveries. You cannot gauge effectiveness of treatment until you've given the treated time to recover or die. > This makes sense to me but can indeed only be verified once this whole horrible scenario plays out. This can be verified today by the lower number of recoveries.
- joe_the_user 7y ago
  > These other countries found cases who were already infected longer. That's why they have more deaths but also why they have more recoveries. Yeah, and as I already noted, this situation MEANS that these other countries are failing to control the infection because they are finding infections late, which is going to mean more deaths later. > You cannot gauge effectiveness of treatment until you've given the treated time to recover or die. Sure, I shouldn't imply Korea does just better treatment rather than that the treatment/test combination regime of Korea seems like the superior model relative to other countries and I think have mostly said that. We can see notably that the infection rate in Korea has dropped off markedly in the last few days.
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
    > this situation MEANS that these other countries are failing to control the infection I never disputed that. > Sure, I shouldn't imply Korea does just better treatment You didn't imply that. You stated explicitly that Korea does better treatment when that statement is based on a gross misunderstanding of CFR data and said you were going to spread that misinformation. ("I darn well intent [sic] to keep pointing to this.") That's the only thing that I took issue with. > We can see notably that the infection rate in Korea has dropped off markedly in the last few days. That has nothing to do with fatality rate.
    - joe_the_user 7y ago
      Fine, what I should have said for absolute clarity is: "China and Korea have effectively dealt with the virus, infections in both those areas have been declining. And Korea now is effectively the lowest fatality rate for any of the effected countries which points to excellent surveillance and adequate treatment." Instead of: "China and Korea have effectively treated the virus, infections in both those areas have been declining. And Korea now is effectively the lowest fatality rate for any of the effected countries which points to excellent surveillance and treatment." But this isn't big change. Moreover, I think Korean model - ie, lots of testing - looks good in total and I think I've made clear that's what I advocate. I would note in China's case, with infections declining everywhere, the fatality rate outside Hubei is fairly low also.
      - lern_too_spel 7y ago
        > And Korea now is effectively the lowest fatality rate for any of the effected countries which points to excellent surveillance and adequate treatment." No, it doesn't. All it points to is that the cases are still active and have not had a chance to die. You cannot draw any other conclusions from that fatality data. > I would note in China's case, with infections declining everywhere, the fatality rate outside Hubei is fairly low also. For exactly the same reason. These infections are newer and have not had a chance to die. With each update, the CFR outside Hubei has increased, as expected. > I think Korean model - ie, lots of testing - looks good in total I agree that more testing is better. Why do you keep bringing this up? It has nothing to do with the fatality rate.

lern_too_spel 7y ago

> All of this is in context of most infection being new, all of it. No. The average time to die after infection is 28 days. Korea has been testing aggressively, and 28 days ago had fewer than 50 cases, despite finding cases earlier in their development. These other countries found cases who were already infected longer. That's why they have more deaths but also why they have more recoveries. You cannot gauge effectiveness of treatment until you've given the treated time to recover or die. > This makes sense to me but can indeed only be verified once this whole horrible scenario plays out. This can be verified today by the lower number of recoveries.

joe_the_user 7y ago
> These other countries found cases who were already infected longer. That's why they have more deaths but also why they have more recoveries. Yeah, and as I already noted, this situation MEANS that these other countries are failing to control the infection because they are finding infections late, which is going to mean more deaths later. > You cannot gauge effectiveness of treatment until you've given the treated time to recover or die. Sure, I shouldn't imply Korea does just better treatment rather than that the treatment/test combination regime of Korea seems like the superior model relative to other countries and I think have mostly said that. We can see notably that the infection rate in Korea has dropped off markedly in the last few days.
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  > this situation MEANS that these other countries are failing to control the infection I never disputed that. > Sure, I shouldn't imply Korea does just better treatment You didn't imply that. You stated explicitly that Korea does better treatment when that statement is based on a gross misunderstanding of CFR data and said you were going to spread that misinformation. ("I darn well intent [sic] to keep pointing to this.") That's the only thing that I took issue with. > We can see notably that the infection rate in Korea has dropped off markedly in the last few days. That has nothing to do with fatality rate.
  - joe_the_user 7y ago
    Fine, what I should have said for absolute clarity is: "China and Korea have effectively dealt with the virus, infections in both those areas have been declining. And Korea now is effectively the lowest fatality rate for any of the effected countries which points to excellent surveillance and adequate treatment." Instead of: "China and Korea have effectively treated the virus, infections in both those areas have been declining. And Korea now is effectively the lowest fatality rate for any of the effected countries which points to excellent surveillance and treatment." But this isn't big change. Moreover, I think Korean model - ie, lots of testing - looks good in total and I think I've made clear that's what I advocate. I would note in China's case, with infections declining everywhere, the fatality rate outside Hubei is fairly low also.
    - lern_too_spel 7y ago
      > And Korea now is effectively the lowest fatality rate for any of the effected countries which points to excellent surveillance and adequate treatment." No, it doesn't. All it points to is that the cases are still active and have not had a chance to die. You cannot draw any other conclusions from that fatality data. > I would note in China's case, with infections declining everywhere, the fatality rate outside Hubei is fairly low also. For exactly the same reason. These infections are newer and have not had a chance to die. With each update, the CFR outside Hubei has increased, as expected. > I think Korean model - ie, lots of testing - looks good in total I agree that more testing is better. Why do you keep bringing this up? It has nothing to do with the fatality rate.