4 ms·
Not true. These estimates are of overall fatality based on number of people diagnoised. Not based on those who required intensive treatment. That means we have
by beaunative 7y ago
Not true. These estimates are of overall fatality based on number of people diagnoised. Not based on those who required intensive treatment. That means we have crude estimate on death rate for people showing some symptoms. Crude in a way not everyone in the pool is recovered, or dead for that matter, so it's not possible to be that accurate yet, but it will only be higher not lower.
- lotsofpulp 7y agoWouldn’t we only have a crude estimate on the death rate for people diagnosed with the virus? If we find that many people are not getting tested for the virus and just recover by themselves, then it’s possible for the fatality rate to be lower.
- beaunative 7y agoWell, those asymptom case can also infect others. In all likeliness they will infect others, multiple others. So if epidemiological root trauce is done right, we would find those asymptom carrier.
- m0zg 7y agoThis doesn't mean those cases are "asymptomatic". Most people who get the disease fare about as they would with a flu. I'd also venture to guess that most people do not go to the hospital unless things are really bad (e.g. they can't breathe on their own). Furthermore, because not everyone at the hospital gets tested, I'd also guess that there's a number of cases where deaths are misattributed to plain old flu, too, since it's the flu season still, and some of those who are dying "of coronavirus" would have died regardless.
- beaunative 7y agoWell. How is common flu any different? Most people don't get tested and they just recover, if any, a lot more don't. So seeing those two numbers on the same page should mean something, even if you doubt the accuracy based on the assumption a large quantity of people aren't tested.