4 ms·
Yes, hospital-level serious for 20% of cases. 5-10% require ICU care. The ~2% fatality rate is with ICU support and ventilation. When the hospitals get overr
by nostrademons 7y ago
Yes, hospital-level serious for 20% of cases. 5-10% require ICU care. The ~2% fatality rate is with ICU support and ventilation. When the hospitals get overrun it increases to ~7%, which is what we saw in Wuhan and now Italy. Your chance of dying if you do need hospitalization but don't get it appears to be > 50%.
Death rates by age range also assume ICU care. It's virtually unheard of for healthy middle-aged people if they have access to good medical care, but plenty of 30- and 40-somethings can and have died from it once the hospitals are overrun.
- Retric 7y agoIt’s far from clear how accurate those numbers for Italy and China are. China essentially gave up on testing the general population in Wuhan and their numbers mostly represent the most serious cases. Italy’s infections seem to be mostly centered around the elderly with 40% of infections in the 70+ age range despite 65+ year olds only representing 21.53% of their population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Italy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_I... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Italy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Italy
- gvjddbnvdrbv 7y agoThe WHO has verified China's numbers.
- mirimir 7y agoSure, but they didn't go back in time to test more people.
- inferiorhuman 7y agoThe WHO has verified China's numbers. Source? China plainly lied about the outcomes of the SARS epidemic and reported about half the fatality rate of nearly every other country. Hell, no Chinese person I've talked with recently believes the official numbers.
- zhte415 7y agoThe Lancet unverified those numbers quite a while ago https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30260-9/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
- gvjddbnvdrbv 7y agoI flagged this because it was published in January nearly a month earlier than the WHO's verification. Essentially this was not in bad faith when it was published but it is now so out of date and misleading and sharing it now is dangerous in that it may cause people to ignore safety advice.
- zhte415 7y agoIt was a nowcast. It's intended to be out of date after a while. And provide an estimation at the time. I don't understand how it is dangerous, could you explain that?... earlier action would have been better.
- gvjddbnvdrbv 7y agoYou are claiming that a study published in January supercedes a study in February. Given that people are making difficult choices right now that will impact the course of the epidemic we should be very careful sharing outdated information that could lead to people becoming infected. China's numbers are a minimum. Many people are saying online they are a maximum. I.e. claiming that there are lots of hidden mild infections when there are not.
- zhte415 7y ago> You are claiming that a study published in January supercedes a study in February. No, I am no. I am saying the study supercedes numbers reported by authorities. The point of the study was to scatter information on very opaque reporting. > China's numbers are a minimum. Many people are saying online they are a maximum. I.e. claiming that there are lots of hidden mild infections when there are not. That doesn't parse.
- emmelaich 7y agoPopulations of China and Italy are ageing and have a lot of smokers.