4 ms·
“ Moreover, we don't know what fraction of the currently-infected who will die have already died. A reasonable guess might be 50%” I lost you at reasonable gues
by rubidium 6y ago
“ Moreover, we don't know what fraction of the currently-infected who will die have already died. A reasonable guess might be 50%” I lost you at reasonable guess. Why not ~1%?
- vkou 6y agoIf the mean time between infection and death is 2 weeks (Mostly true), and the virus has doubled every two weeks (True in NYC), then assuming that not a single new infection takes place starting today (Obviously not true, but this is a hypothetical), then in two weeks, you would expect to have twice the deaths that you do right now.
- cozzyd 6y ago1% would imply an unrealistically high-fatality rate, so that can't be right.
- zucker42 6y agoThe virus takes time (2-3 weeks) to kill people, and the prevalence was presumably measured within the last week. Therefore, we have to take out the cases that occurred in the last week or two. I would suspect that 50% is on the upper end of how much the death lag could skew the results, but 20-50% doesn't seem unreasonable.