5 ms·

This isn't just a Facebook/Twitter thing. A person on MSNBC just said that 20% of the US will die from this virus. Why would you say that? No stat backs that up

This isn't just a Facebook/Twitter thing. A person on MSNBC just said that 20% of the US will die from this virus. Why would you say that? No stat backs that up.

thenayr 7y ago
When did this happen? Seems unlikely they actually said that.
clarry 7y ago
Well let me think of something. Maybe they know something about the virus and what happens when it mutates, comes back, and reinfects you? (Or maybe someone who thinks the know something told 'em that.) I mean I know nothing so that's just a wild guess, but I think it is equally naive to think that looking at the current stats is enough to extrapolate and say anything and everything that needs to be said.
- partiallypro 7y ago
  Or they don't know what they are talking about and have an agenda.
dredmorbius 7y ago
Italy's current stats show 463 deaths, 724 recoveries. http://web.archive.org/web/20200309190730/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019–20_coronavirus_outbreak_by_country_and_territory http://web.archive.org/web/20200309190730/https://en.m.wikip... (archive.org to show status as of my comment) (WHO's SITREP 49 shows 366 deaths, doesn't list recoveries: https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200309-sitrep-49-covid-19.pdf https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situati...) The raw CFR represented is quite high. Whether that represents a virulent strain or insufficient monitoring (I suspect the latter) isn't clear.
- partiallypro 7y ago
  On the contrary the death rate in Germany is almost 0%. The median age for those that have passed in Italy is ~81. Most of the US deaths currently were from an end-of-life care center. A massive percentage of the deaths in China are from the original province. I'm not saying this isn't an issue, and we should especially look out for our elderly, but the stats simply aren't there to claim a 20% death rate. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    Germany's rate is suspiciously low, though 2 deaths are reported today.
    - hef19898 7y ago
      Could we just stop real-time counting of each and every single case? Germany has more than 81 million people, just to add some perspective. People die, it sucks, and that virus is not your common cold, but this case counting, in media and the internet, is really getting ridiculous. And please refrain from using words like "suspiciously" which tend to transport negative messages. There is nothing suspicious about these numbers what so ever.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - dredmorbius 7y ago
        Sorry, no conspiracy intended. Only the observation that, relative to experiences elsewhere, Italy's mortality is high, Germany's is low. Far more than expected, which suggests other dynamics (again: unlikely some conspiracy) at play. When you're used to dealing with numbers, numbers that don't match up to expectations are "suspicious", in that they suggest some underlying issue, though whether in data or ground truth can be hard to say.
        7y ago
martinpw 7y ago
Do you have a link for that? I don't think that is what was said at all. I found this link with a video - is this what you are referring to? https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/watch-msnbc-medical-contributor-says-80-of-the-population-will-survive-coronavirus https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/watch-msnbc-medical-... where he said "we know 80% of the population is going to survive, and a typically a 15-20% rate of mortality for those individuals that are both elderly or have underlying conditions". Note the part in italics which you left out and which completely invalidates your original statement. The numbers he gave are a fairly standard analysis and there are stats to back that up.
- blackflame7000 7y ago
  Clause 1: we know 80% of the population is going to survive AND Clause 2: a typically a 15-20% rate of mortality for those individuals that are both elderly or have underlying conditions Clause 1 is still total bs even with clause 2 added because it should say 80% of people who are elderly or have underlying conditions will survive. The actually percentage of people will be much higher. It's intentionally misleading.

This isn't just a Facebook/Twitter thing. A person on MSNBC just said that 20% of the US will die from this virus. Why would you say that? No stat backs that up.

thenayr 7y ago

When did this happen? Seems unlikely they actually said that.

clarry 7y ago

Well let me think of something. Maybe they know something about the virus and what happens when it mutates, comes back, and reinfects you? (Or maybe someone who thinks the know something told 'em that.) I mean I know nothing so that's just a wild guess, but I think it is equally naive to think that looking at the current stats is enough to extrapolate and say anything and everything that needs to be said.

partiallypro 7y ago
Or they don't know what they are talking about and have an agenda.

dredmorbius 7y ago

Italy's current stats show 463 deaths, 724 recoveries. http://web.archive.org/web/20200309190730/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019–20_coronavirus_outbreak_by_country_and_territory http://web.archive.org/web/20200309190730/https://en.m.wikip... (archive.org to show status as of my comment) (WHO's SITREP 49 shows 366 deaths, doesn't list recoveries: https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200309-sitrep-49-covid-19.pdf https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situati...) The raw CFR represented is quite high. Whether that represents a virulent strain or insufficient monitoring (I suspect the latter) isn't clear.

partiallypro 7y ago
On the contrary the death rate in Germany is almost 0%. The median age for those that have passed in Italy is ~81. Most of the US deaths currently were from an end-of-life care center. A massive percentage of the deaths in China are from the original province. I'm not saying this isn't an issue, and we should especially look out for our elderly, but the stats simply aren't there to claim a 20% death rate. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  Germany's rate is suspiciously low, though 2 deaths are reported today.
  - hef19898 7y ago
    Could we just stop real-time counting of each and every single case? Germany has more than 81 million people, just to add some perspective. People die, it sucks, and that virus is not your common cold, but this case counting, in media and the internet, is really getting ridiculous. And please refrain from using words like "suspiciously" which tend to transport negative messages. There is nothing suspicious about these numbers what so ever.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - dredmorbius 7y ago
      Sorry, no conspiracy intended. Only the observation that, relative to experiences elsewhere, Italy's mortality is high, Germany's is low. Far more than expected, which suggests other dynamics (again: unlikely some conspiracy) at play. When you're used to dealing with numbers, numbers that don't match up to expectations are "suspicious", in that they suggest some underlying issue, though whether in data or ground truth can be hard to say.
      - 7y ago

martinpw 7y ago

Do you have a link for that? I don't think that is what was said at all. I found this link with a video - is this what you are referring to? https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/watch-msnbc-medical-contributor-says-80-of-the-population-will-survive-coronavirus https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/watch-msnbc-medical-... where he said "we know 80% of the population is going to survive, and a typically a 15-20% rate of mortality for those individuals that are both elderly or have underlying conditions". Note the part in italics which you left out and which completely invalidates your original statement. The numbers he gave are a fairly standard analysis and there are stats to back that up.

blackflame7000 7y ago
Clause 1: we know 80% of the population is going to survive AND Clause 2: a typically a 15-20% rate of mortality for those individuals that are both elderly or have underlying conditions Clause 1 is still total bs even with clause 2 added because it should say 80% of people who are elderly or have underlying conditions will survive. The actually percentage of people will be much higher. It's intentionally misleading.