JRPGfan said:
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.
|
The point is that we have tested more people.... That is why our data is more accurate.... which is why our data is useful for extrapolation, while Italy's - and Denmarks - isn't.
A 15% mortality rate isn't a worst case scenario. It's just wrong. Any projection - even a worst case scenario projection - has to look at the data. If not you might as well say that the worst case is a 100% mortality rate. Both 15% and 100% are nonsense and equally worthless as worst case secnarios.
If you don't care about the quality of the dataset, you can draw whatever conclusion you want. I could use only the cases that have died and say "oh, in my dataset, everyone with the disease died, so the worst case is a 100% mortality rate". Obviously, that is misleading at best, and malicious at worst. That is what you are doing, though taken to the extreme.
You seem to understand that the Norwegian dataset is of higher quality, so I can't understand why you'd disregard it and use lower quality datasets.
Essay Pro