5 ms·
That assumes the death rate is actually 1%. In the hypothetical where 40%+ have been infected, I think it’s be safe to assume the death rate might be lower than
by abhorrence 7y ago
That assumes the death rate is actually 1%. In the hypothetical where 40%+ have been infected, I think it’s be safe to assume the death rate might be lower than we suspect it is.
- zaroth 7y agoIt was the same during the H1N1 hysteria. CFRs being quoted of 2-3% and it turned out much less deadly than an average flu. A few weeks ago we didn’t even know there were asymptomatic carriers. My prediction is that when all is said and done and the IFR is closer to 0.01% that this will all look very stupid. Experts in Ohio say they suspect that 1% of people are infected. OK, so where are the hospital cases?
- Spare_account 7y agoAt 0.01%, Italy would expect to see around 6,000 deaths. They're up to 1200 as of today and don't appear to have be nearing an inflection point. We should know soon I guess...
- Symmetry 7y agoSouth Korea is doing some random testing to figure out how many cases only looking at symptomatic patients is missing. With that it looks like the total fatality ratio is just .6% for them. But of course they haven't had hospitals overwhelmed with too many patients at once and I expect that Italy will see a much higher fatality ratio.
- zaroth 7y agoI look forward to statistically valid serological (antibody) testing, but this usually takes a year or two to be released.
- Scarblac 7y agoThe hospital cases come like two weeks after the infections.
- zaroth 7y agoWe're talking about a number on the order of 2^17. Doubling every 6 days that's 100 days. Doubling every 3 days that's still 51 days. You cannot have 100,000 cases with even a 1% hospitalization rate without at least... on the order of 250 hospitalizations.