4 ms·

What makes you believe that 5% of your population will be unable to withstand the coronavirus? Seems a little high to me (I am not a doctor, just basing this on

by osrec 7y ago

What makes you believe that 5% of your population will be unable to withstand the coronavirus? Seems a little high to me (I am not a doctor, just basing this on what UK government has published around recovery rates).

jasonv 7y ago
Why do you ask a question about the second half of a paragraph, wherein the answer to your question is in the first half of said paragraph?
- osrec 7y ago
  Is it? Nothing in the first part suggests that the older people will die at a higher rate in Hungary compared to elsewhere, should they all contract the virus.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    5% is the number usually passed around in case of a healthcare system over capacity and having to triage people, and that doesn't count people dying because of untreated things other than COVID-19.
    - osrec 7y ago
      I believe it's 5% of those tested; a group which will almost certainly be composed of those more vulnerable. Thus, I don't think it's representative of the entire population.
grecy 7y ago
You need to look at countries that have had COVID-19 for a longer time to see the real death rate. Countries like the UK, US, Australia, Canada, etc. are only just spiking on infections, and it takes a while before deaths spike as a result (around a week or two). See this graph to understand it [0] Italy has a 9.25% death rate [1] as of today. [0] https://miro.medium.com/max/9350/1*r-ddYhoUtP_se6x-NOEinA.png https://miro.medium.com/max/9350/1*r-ddYhoUtP_se6x-NOEinA.pn... [1] https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/italy/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/italy/
- bosie 7y ago
  You aren't talking about the same thing though. the 9.25% death rate is a death rate of all tested people. Op is talking about X% of the population. The death rate is presumably lower because people aren't getting tested to the right degree (not saying it is frightening high either way).
  - grecy 7y ago
    ahhh, thanks. Sorry for the mistake. That being said, even countries like the US and Canada are saying they expect 60-70% of the population to get it.. so you could say the death rate will be 9% of 60%...
    - bosie 7y ago
      No, you probably can't. The assumption is that the testing population is currently biased towards more serious cases (e.g. if you are in the hospital you get tested. but if you are in the hospital, you have severe symptoms => higher % will die). On the other hand you could have an entire family of 6 people under the same roof not being tested but all positive. Italy thought something similar and tested an entire village. Loads showed no symptoms and tested positive. Hence you will have X% of 60%. Question now is what the X is. But 9% seems to be the super pessimistic upper bound.
    - rurban 7y ago
      The real death rate is around 1%. Which is still very high, compared to the flu. And much higher if you look at the risk groups only.
      - willturman 7y ago
        How are you deriving that 1% number when tests are highly skewed toward severe positive cases, and the virus primarily manifests with mild/no symptoms?
        rurban 7y ago
nicoburns 7y ago
I live in the UK, and I wouldn't trust much the UK government is putting out about this. They aren't listening to scientists until they are absolutely forced to, and they're still underestimating the severity of this.
- osrec 7y ago
  Well, I have no reason to doubt the government just yet. I think they're being fairly clear in their daily briefings. I think people aren't really listening. Tubes are still being used in London and people are treating self quarantine as an opportunity to have a day off, and go to a park. That's a bit scary.
  - stuaxo 7y ago
    With no help for the self employed (a bit section of those at work), they have to go into work. Tubes have been cut to sunday services so of course they are crowded.
  - nicoburns 7y ago
    They should actually be enforcing the quarantine. People aren't taking it seriously, partly because it's not mandatory.
  - 45ure 7y ago
    >I think people aren't really listening. The PM's elderly father went on TV to send out mixed messages, by declaring that he will go to the pub and nobody can stop him, just last week. You have to wonder, and question the 'good' intentions of the government, after running point with flattening the sombrero and building herd immunity strategy, prior to the current situation? The Coronavirus Bill is being debated right now, across both houses, which will give the government sweeping powers; if there was ever a case for Hanlon and the behaviour of plebs ─ this is it.
- thu2111 7y ago
  Come on, literally the very first press conference about it saw the PM flanked by his two most senior scientific advisors who were delegated to for any science-related questions. The government just published all the scientific advice documents that are being used to inform policy. "Not listening to scientists until they're forced to" is a ludicrous assertion. Actually it's much worse - if you read the scientific advice, some of it is about how politicians can't and shouldn't actually follow the scientific advice, because if the government isn't seen to be panicking and doing pointless unnecessary things that other countries are then people might riot. The British government isn't the problem here.

by osrec 7y ago

jasonv 7y ago

Why do you ask a question about the second half of a paragraph, wherein the answer to your question is in the first half of said paragraph?

osrec 7y ago
Is it? Nothing in the first part suggests that the older people will die at a higher rate in Hungary compared to elsewhere, should they all contract the virus.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  5% is the number usually passed around in case of a healthcare system over capacity and having to triage people, and that doesn't count people dying because of untreated things other than COVID-19.
  - osrec 7y ago
    I believe it's 5% of those tested; a group which will almost certainly be composed of those more vulnerable. Thus, I don't think it's representative of the entire population.

grecy 7y ago

You need to look at countries that have had COVID-19 for a longer time to see the real death rate. Countries like the UK, US, Australia, Canada, etc. are only just spiking on infections, and it takes a while before deaths spike as a result (around a week or two). See this graph to understand it [0] Italy has a 9.25% death rate [1] as of today. [0] https://miro.medium.com/max/9350/1*r-ddYhoUtP_se6x-NOEinA.png https://miro.medium.com/max/9350/1*r-ddYhoUtP_se6x-NOEinA.pn... [1] https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/italy/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/italy/

bosie 7y ago
You aren't talking about the same thing though. the 9.25% death rate is a death rate of all tested people. Op is talking about X% of the population. The death rate is presumably lower because people aren't getting tested to the right degree (not saying it is frightening high either way).
- grecy 7y ago
  ahhh, thanks. Sorry for the mistake. That being said, even countries like the US and Canada are saying they expect 60-70% of the population to get it.. so you could say the death rate will be 9% of 60%...
  - bosie 7y ago
    No, you probably can't. The assumption is that the testing population is currently biased towards more serious cases (e.g. if you are in the hospital you get tested. but if you are in the hospital, you have severe symptoms => higher % will die). On the other hand you could have an entire family of 6 people under the same roof not being tested but all positive. Italy thought something similar and tested an entire village. Loads showed no symptoms and tested positive. Hence you will have X% of 60%. Question now is what the X is. But 9% seems to be the super pessimistic upper bound.
  - rurban 7y ago
    The real death rate is around 1%. Which is still very high, compared to the flu. And much higher if you look at the risk groups only.
    - willturman 7y ago
      How are you deriving that 1% number when tests are highly skewed toward severe positive cases, and the virus primarily manifests with mild/no symptoms?
      - rurban 7y ago

nicoburns 7y ago

I live in the UK, and I wouldn't trust much the UK government is putting out about this. They aren't listening to scientists until they are absolutely forced to, and they're still underestimating the severity of this.

osrec 7y ago
Well, I have no reason to doubt the government just yet. I think they're being fairly clear in their daily briefings. I think people aren't really listening. Tubes are still being used in London and people are treating self quarantine as an opportunity to have a day off, and go to a park. That's a bit scary.
- stuaxo 7y ago
  With no help for the self employed (a bit section of those at work), they have to go into work. Tubes have been cut to sunday services so of course they are crowded.
- nicoburns 7y ago
  They should actually be enforcing the quarantine. People aren't taking it seriously, partly because it's not mandatory.
- 45ure 7y ago
  >I think people aren't really listening. The PM's elderly father went on TV to send out mixed messages, by declaring that he will go to the pub and nobody can stop him, just last week. You have to wonder, and question the 'good' intentions of the government, after running point with flattening the sombrero and building herd immunity strategy, prior to the current situation? The Coronavirus Bill is being debated right now, across both houses, which will give the government sweeping powers; if there was ever a case for Hanlon and the behaviour of plebs ─ this is it.
thu2111 7y ago
Come on, literally the very first press conference about it saw the PM flanked by his two most senior scientific advisors who were delegated to for any science-related questions. The government just published all the scientific advice documents that are being used to inform policy. "Not listening to scientists until they're forced to" is a ludicrous assertion. Actually it's much worse - if you read the scientific advice, some of it is about how politicians can't and shouldn't actually follow the scientific advice, because if the government isn't seen to be panicking and doing pointless unnecessary things that other countries are then people might riot. The British government isn't the problem here.