By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Coronavirus (COVID-19) Discussion Thread

crissindahouse said:

3 more deaths in USA. Number of infected will be much higher as they have reported already

With 9 deaths already there should be 1000 to 3000 infected already, instead of the reported 108. Hospitals in the US are still waiting for Corvid-19 test kits...



The real Death rate today is 6,08%, still decreasing and it could top a constant around 5,5%. (I have calculated it by the derivation, topping 5,6% around March 08)
Stop being in the deny, I know it is hard to admit such an insane death rate but it is the truth.
It is that simple : once you are sick, only TWO possible ends : you die or you recover, everything else based on total cases is just bullshit anti panic info.



Hoping this is the case.

"If one assumes that the number of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times as high as the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%. This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively."

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387?query=recirc_curatedRelated_article



useruserB said:

Hoping this is the case.

"If one assumes that the number of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times as high as the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%. This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively."

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387?query=recirc_curatedRelated_article

Like I was saying, you just completely ignored my post before yours. There is no way we reach such low death rate like 1%, when we have already a sample of real 52000 cases pointing to 5,5%.



Amnesia said:
useruserB said:

Hoping this is the case.

"If one assumes that the number of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times as high as the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%. This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively."

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387?query=recirc_curatedRelated_article

Like I was saying, you just completely ignored my post before yours. There is no way we reach such low death rate like 1%, when we have already a sample of real 52000 cases pointing to 5,5%.

How do you counter the argument that that 52,000 cases does not include those with minimal or no symptoms but who still caught the virus? Obviously those with no symptoms aren't included in the death toll (death seems like a pretty significant symptom), but they should be considered in the patient total. 



...

Torillian said:
Amnesia said:

Like I was saying, you just completely ignored my post before yours. There is no way we reach such low death rate like 1%, when we have already a sample of real 52000 cases pointing to 5,5%.

How do you counter the argument that that 52,000 cases does not include those with minimal or no symptoms but who still caught the virus? Obviously those with no symptoms aren't included in the death toll (death seems like a pretty significant symptom), but they should be considered in the patient total. 

No, because you don't die in 0,01sec once you get the virus. There is only one way to know : you get the virus, only 2 possible issues : death or recover.

And so far among 52000 closed cases, which is a huge statistical sample, we have 6,1% today.



Amnesia said:
Torillian said:

How do you counter the argument that that 52,000 cases does not include those with minimal or no symptoms but who still caught the virus? Obviously those with no symptoms aren't included in the death toll (death seems like a pretty significant symptom), but they should be considered in the patient total. 

No, because you don't die in 0,01sec once you get the virus. There is only one way to know : you get the virus, only 2 possible issues : death or recover.

And so far among 52000 closed cases, which is a huge statistical sample, we have 6,1% today.

I think we're misunderstanding each other. I get that this is a reasonable statistical sample. The argument, though, is that those 52,000 people do not include those who caught the virus but were not checked for it because they showed no or minimal symptoms. It's similar to something like Tuberculosis where many people can be infected without ever knowing about it because it's dormant. If someone catches a mild case of this particular virus they would be none the wiser and would not be included in that 52,000. You can argue that for those who come down with a significant case of the disease there is a death rate of ___ but I think many people read this as "if this virus gets in your system you have a 6% chance of dying" which is what the other poster was arguing against. 

Now I think that most disease death rates probably don't include those who show no symptoms or never see a doctor for their disease because it was mild. We can therefore compare this disease to others and talk about how deadly it is for those who have enough symptoms to go to a doctor, but one should not read that as "if ____ people are infected with this virus 6% of those will die". My apologies if this isn't how you meant the statement about the death rate, but that is how it can read. 



...

Torillian said:
Amnesia said:

No, because you don't die in 0,01sec once you get the virus. There is only one way to know : you get the virus, only 2 possible issues : death or recover.

And so far among 52000 closed cases, which is a huge statistical sample, we have 6,1% today.

I think we're misunderstanding each other. I get that this is a reasonable statistical sample. The argument, though, is that those 52,000 people do not include those who caught the virus but were not checked for it because they showed no or minimal symptoms. It's similar to something like Tuberculosis where many people can be infected without ever knowing about it because it's dormant. If someone catches a mild case of this particular virus they would be none the wiser and would not be included in that 52,000. You can argue that for those who come down with a significant case of the disease there is a death rate of ___ but I think many people read this as "if this virus gets in your system you have a 6% chance of dying" which is what the other poster was arguing against. 

Now I think that most disease death rates probably don't include those who show no symptoms or never see a doctor for their disease because it was mild. We can therefore compare this disease to others and talk about how deadly it is for those who have enough symptoms to go to a doctor, but one should not read that as "if ____ people are infected with this virus 6% of those will die". My apologies if this isn't how you meant the statement about the death rate, but that is how it can read. 

Ok I get it, I apologize for taking so long to get it...I was starting from the fact that once you get the virus, you are sure or nearly sure to get complication.



Amnesia said:

Ok I get it, I apologize for taking so long to get it...I was starting from the fact that once you get the virus, you are sure or nearly sure to get complication.

Read this interview, it goes into how the infection spreads, who is at risk and what is effective:
https://www.vox.com/2020/3/2/21161067/coronavirus-covid19-china

Wuhan is a city of 11 million people. It seems to have peaked there while it had the best opportunity to spread until counter measures got up to speed. This thing can be slowed down, even reversed and it looks like most people will not get infected if we act fast.

But yep, once you start showing symptoms, the chance of needing critical care is currently 17%, death rate 6%.



So, we're getting some weird messaging from the US. Apparently Trump has called the virus a hoax, that he has a health defense shield that has done a great job in defending against the Virus, that they have done better than anyone else. Has put Mike Pence in control, a guy known to pray the AIDS away as the solution. Has said the virus will miraculously disappear in April.

Also, we're hearing that testing is not being done in the US until severe symptoms occur. Also that the government has ordered the CDC to stop publishing numbers.

Speculation is that there will be a massive outbreak in the US if this is true.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.