Teeqoz said:
My country, Norway, has tested roughly 1.5% of the population, which is probably one of the highest test coverages of any country (more than twice as many per capita as South Korea for instance). We have 3k confirmed cases, which should be a decent enough sample size to draw some conclusions. So far, we have 14 dead, which is a less than 0.5% CFR. We have 237 hospital admissions, which is a less than 8% hospitalisation rate. 2.5% of the cases have required intensive care (some of which have sadly perished). While these numbers might increase a bit (notwithstanding a huge amount of undiagnosed cases, though that would bring the numbers further down), as some cases will progress and get worse, and certainly if our health system gets over capacity, it's easy to see that your estimates are absolutely ludicrous and not based on good data. Data sets from other countries that have done extensive testing tell the same story. Italy's CFR and hospitalization rate are so high because they haven't tested enough people. This doesn't mean this isn't a serious illness. But you still shouldn't make up numbers, or make wild guesses without having done proper research. |
In denmark we have 1715 (currently) confirmed cases of infected.
we have 350+ hospitalised (~20,4%) and 87 (~5%) in intensive care.
Norways situtation isnt "normal", I think you guys might have tested broadly and "found" alot more asymptomatic people, than in denmark.
In denmark, like most other places in the world, we mainly test those people that show serious "symptoms".
Maybe in norway you guys tested alot of healthy young people, that even though they have the virus, they dont need help (hospitalisation) or Itensive care.
Basically, even though your number is high (3000 > 1700) your numbers of hospitalised & intensive care are smaller.
Why? maybe because in denmark we have more people infected with the virus.
We just dont know, because we havnt tested as many seemingly health people as you have.
"This doesn't mean this isn't a serious illness. But you still shouldn't make up numbers, or make wild guesses without having done proper research."
You dont understand what a "worst case scenario is".
No place in the world, would ever let the virus spread like that, so its never going to show up like that anywhere.
That doesnt mean it cannot happend, or that it isnt a realistic worst case scenario.
"it's easy to see that your estimates are absolutely ludicrous and not based on good data."
^ i know that Teeqoz.
Every countries in the world is doing their best to stop the virus and slow it.
The numbers I talked about, are for a country that does nothing to stop the virus, and it somehow infects 70% of the population.
Which no sane country leaders would ever allow to happend.
So its based on a "unreal" situation, that showcases a "worst case" (absolutely worst, thing that could ever happend because of this).
There has been experts that said, if nothing is done, it could spread to 70% of the entire population of some countries.
There are places where hospitalisation is 20%.
2,5% mortality rate is lower, than many places (compaired to confirmed cases).
I think you mis-understood my post.
This was just because someone used a "best case" + "worst case" situation, and gave really low numbers for a worst possible outcome type of deal.
My point was his numbers were obviously wrong, because it can do worse than that.
Essay Pro