3 ms·
Keep in mind, the number you are talking about is known deaths / known cases. Neither of these is a final or accurate number: many of the current cases will pr
by jacobolus 7y ago
Keep in mind, the number you are talking about is known deaths / known cases.
Neither of these is a final or accurate number: many of the current cases will progress to death, and many who have been (or are) infected have not been tested (e.g. because they were asymptomatic or had only minor symptoms).
Here’s a more careful attempt to determine the numbers for Wuhan (published today) which results in numbers substantially lower (though still scary) than those suggested by the WHO previously https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0822-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0822-7
- tempestn 7y agoFor sure, to have an accurate number you need to wait until all cases resolved AND you need to have thorough testing to know what the total number of cases were. Good to see that it may not have been quite as bad as thought in Wuhan. That said, they did enact pretty strict quarantine measures there and massively surged hospital capacity, so it's not like that number represents total healthcare collapse either. Regardless, to me it seems to great to just say it's outweighed by the costs of control measures, especially since there is another path to take.
- averros 7y agoNote that the estimate of mortality in the article (which is about 3x of the normal flu) is relative to symptomatic cases. The actual mortality is lower by a factor of 6 or so, considering the percentage of cases which are asymptomatic.