Is Coronavirus less fatal than early predictions suggested? Two Stanford medical professors suggest that current mortality estimates are way too high.

[Cecilie1200]

This is what I've been saying all along, and the TDS morons have been trying to ignore. Their claims that the Wuhan flu is more deadly than the Swine flu is based on psuedo-science. It's based on figures that are clearly biased.

Is coronavirus less fatal than early predictions suggested?

Coronavirus is an icky disease that takes a cruel toll on the elderly, the sick, and the unlucky. In this modern era, we can outwit many things that once routinely killed people, but the Grim Reaper is still out there and he’ll eventually get all of us. Scary headlines have hinted that coronavirus is now the Grim Reaper's preferred method.

Media reports have told us that coronavirus is significantly more deadly than the flu, which annually kills 30,000 to 60,000 Americans. Based on the speed with which it killed in China, Italy, Iran, and Spain, it looked as if the American death toll could easily top two million people annually. While that’s small potatoes compared to past pandemics (e.g., the Plague of Justinian, the Black Death, the Spanish Influenza), it’s a staggering toll in modern America. Any actions seemed worthwhile to America from turn into a viral slaughterhouse.

But that might not be what's happening.

At the Wall Street Journal (behind a paywall), Eran Bendavid and Jay Bhattacharya, two medical professors at Stanford, propose that we’re using the wrong math and that we are still missing the numbers we need to do the math correctly. However, by extrapolating from available data, one can argue that coronavirus’s mortality rate is significantly lower than the early estimates.

According to the doctors, “The true fatality rate is the portion of those infected who die, not the deaths from identified positive cases.” When calculating the mortality rate, while we know the numerator (the number who have died), we’re using the wrong denominator. If the denominator is only those sick enough to get the test in the first place, that small number will return a much higher mortality rate.

The real denominator should be the total number of people who catch this contagious virus.

The real statistic that no one has calculated yet is the ratio of ACTUAL Chinese Kung Flu cases to the number of confirmed ones. My guess is that its probably a large number as this CV bug doesn't really create much symptoms in most of the infected people.

That's the point the article is making. We don't know how many people have actually caught the bug. All we know is how many cases the CDC is porting, which is based on tests of people who already show the symptoms. That's a small fraction of the people who actually get the bug.

An entire city in Italy and the country of Iceland are testing 100% of their citizens. 50% of those with the virus are asymptomatic. STAY. THE. FUCK. HOME!!!!!

Iceland reports 802 confirmed cases and 2 deaths. That works out to a death rate of 0.24%.

You shot down your own post, moron.

Why are you so dedicated to minimizing this very serious disease? What's in it for you? You have no loved ones over 60?

Why are YOU so dedicated to maximizing it? Someone suggests that there might be some good news and the results might not be as bad as predicted, and you act like a child who just had his favorite toy taken away. "How DARE you suggest millions won't die?" God only knows how badly you'd sulk if someone reported that a cure had been found.

 

[Cecilie1200]

This is what I've been saying all along, and the TDS morons have been trying to ignore. Their claims that the Wuhan flu is more deadly than the Swine flu is based on psuedo-science. It's based on figures that are clearly biased.

Is coronavirus less fatal than early predictions suggested?

Coronavirus is an icky disease that takes a cruel toll on the elderly, the sick, and the unlucky. In this modern era, we can outwit many things that once routinely killed people, but the Grim Reaper is still out there and he’ll eventually get all of us. Scary headlines have hinted that coronavirus is now the Grim Reaper's preferred method.

Media reports have told us that coronavirus is significantly more deadly than the flu, which annually kills 30,000 to 60,000 Americans. Based on the speed with which it killed in China, Italy, Iran, and Spain, it looked as if the American death toll could easily top two million people annually. While that’s small potatoes compared to past pandemics (e.g., the Plague of Justinian, the Black Death, the Spanish Influenza), it’s a staggering toll in modern America. Any actions seemed worthwhile to America from turn into a viral slaughterhouse.

But that might not be what's happening.

At the Wall Street Journal (behind a paywall), Eran Bendavid and Jay Bhattacharya, two medical professors at Stanford, propose that we’re using the wrong math and that we are still missing the numbers we need to do the math correctly. However, by extrapolating from available data, one can argue that coronavirus’s mortality rate is significantly lower than the early estimates.

According to the doctors, “The true fatality rate is the portion of those infected who die, not the deaths from identified positive cases.” When calculating the mortality rate, while we know the numerator (the number who have died), we’re using the wrong denominator. If the denominator is only those sick enough to get the test in the first place, that small number will return a much higher mortality rate.

The real denominator should be the total number of people who catch this contagious virus.

The real statistic that no one has calculated yet is the ratio of ACTUAL Chinese Kung Flu cases to the number of confirmed ones. My guess is that its probably a large number as this CV bug doesn't really create much symptoms in most of the infected people.

That's the point the article is making. We don't know how many people have actually caught the bug. All we know is how many cases the CDC is porting, which is based on tests of people who already show the symptoms. That's a small fraction of the people who actually get the bug.

An entire city in Italy and the country of Iceland are testing 100% of their citizens. 50% of those with the virus are asymptomatic. STAY. THE. FUCK. HOME!!!!!

Iceland reports 802 confirmed cases and 2 deaths. That works out to a death rate of 0.24%.

You shot down your own post, moron.

Why are you so dedicated to minimizing this very serious disease? What's in it for you? You have no loved ones over 60?

1. I'm interested in facts, not hysterical bullshit.
2. This hysterical bullshit is crashing the economy. People are panicking over nothing, and idiots like you are driving it.

Everything you and your TDS moron friends post is bullshit intended to drive up the hysteria.

With its mortality rate and rate of infection, people are not "panicking over nothing". They are panicking over a real thing that is overwhelming our nation's hospitals. Now get out there, trooper. Go expose yourself to this "nothing".

Yes, but the point is, the mortality rate isn't as high as is currently being reported, because logic and mathematics tells us it isn't. And you're pissed off about that.

 

[Mustang]

This is what I've been saying all along, and the TDS morons have been trying to ignore. Their claims that the Wuhan flu is more deadly than the Swine flu is based on psuedo-science. It's based on figures that are clearly biased.

Is coronavirus less fatal than early predictions suggested?

Coronavirus is an icky disease that takes a cruel toll on the elderly, the sick, and the unlucky. In this modern era, we can outwit many things that once routinely killed people, but the Grim Reaper is still out there and he’ll eventually get all of us. Scary headlines have hinted that coronavirus is now the Grim Reaper's preferred method.

Media reports have told us that coronavirus is significantly more deadly than the flu, which annually kills 30,000 to 60,000 Americans. Based on the speed with which it killed in China, Italy, Iran, and Spain, it looked as if the American death toll could easily top two million people annually. While that’s small potatoes compared to past pandemics (e.g., the Plague of Justinian, the Black Death, the Spanish Influenza), it’s a staggering toll in modern America. Any actions seemed worthwhile to America from turn into a viral slaughterhouse.

But that might not be what's happening.

At the Wall Street Journal (behind a paywall), Eran Bendavid and Jay Bhattacharya, two medical professors at Stanford, propose that we’re using the wrong math and that we are still missing the numbers we need to do the math correctly. However, by extrapolating from available data, one can argue that coronavirus’s mortality rate is significantly lower than the early estimates.

According to the doctors, “The true fatality rate is the portion of those infected who die, not the deaths from identified positive cases.” When calculating the mortality rate, while we know the numerator (the number who have died), we’re using the wrong denominator. If the denominator is only those sick enough to get the test in the first place, that small number will return a much higher mortality rate.

The real denominator should be the total number of people who catch this contagious virus.

I'll tell you what. Why don't you go to New York City and tell them that?

 

[bripat9643]

This is what I've been saying all along, and the TDS morons have been trying to ignore. Their claims that the Wuhan flu is more deadly than the Swine flu is based on psuedo-science. It's based on figures that are clearly biased.

Is coronavirus less fatal than early predictions suggested?

Coronavirus is an icky disease that takes a cruel toll on the elderly, the sick, and the unlucky. In this modern era, we can outwit many things that once routinely killed people, but the Grim Reaper is still out there and he’ll eventually get all of us. Scary headlines have hinted that coronavirus is now the Grim Reaper's preferred method.

Media reports have told us that coronavirus is significantly more deadly than the flu, which annually kills 30,000 to 60,000 Americans. Based on the speed with which it killed in China, Italy, Iran, and Spain, it looked as if the American death toll could easily top two million people annually. While that’s small potatoes compared to past pandemics (e.g., the Plague of Justinian, the Black Death, the Spanish Influenza), it’s a staggering toll in modern America. Any actions seemed worthwhile to America from turn into a viral slaughterhouse.

But that might not be what's happening.

At the Wall Street Journal (behind a paywall), Eran Bendavid and Jay Bhattacharya, two medical professors at Stanford, propose that we’re using the wrong math and that we are still missing the numbers we need to do the math correctly. However, by extrapolating from available data, one can argue that coronavirus’s mortality rate is significantly lower than the early estimates.

According to the doctors, “The true fatality rate is the portion of those infected who die, not the deaths from identified positive cases.” When calculating the mortality rate, while we know the numerator (the number who have died), we’re using the wrong denominator. If the denominator is only those sick enough to get the test in the first place, that small number will return a much higher mortality rate.

The real denominator should be the total number of people who catch this contagious virus.

I'll tell you what. Why don't you go to New York City and tell them that?

You win the award for "Lame Response of the Month"

Congratulations, retard!

 

[OldLady]

This is what I've been saying all along, and the TDS morons have been trying to ignore. Their claims that the Wuhan flu is more deadly than the Swine flu is based on psuedo-science. It's based on figures that are clearly biased.

Is coronavirus less fatal than early predictions suggested?

Coronavirus is an icky disease that takes a cruel toll on the elderly, the sick, and the unlucky. In this modern era, we can outwit many things that once routinely killed people, but the Grim Reaper is still out there and he’ll eventually get all of us. Scary headlines have hinted that coronavirus is now the Grim Reaper's preferred method.

Media reports have told us that coronavirus is significantly more deadly than the flu, which annually kills 30,000 to 60,000 Americans. Based on the speed with which it killed in China, Italy, Iran, and Spain, it looked as if the American death toll could easily top two million people annually. While that’s small potatoes compared to past pandemics (e.g., the Plague of Justinian, the Black Death, the Spanish Influenza), it’s a staggering toll in modern America. Any actions seemed worthwhile to America from turn into a viral slaughterhouse.

But that might not be what's happening.

At the Wall Street Journal (behind a paywall), Eran Bendavid and Jay Bhattacharya, two medical professors at Stanford, propose that we’re using the wrong math and that we are still missing the numbers we need to do the math correctly. However, by extrapolating from available data, one can argue that coronavirus’s mortality rate is significantly lower than the early estimates.

According to the doctors, “The true fatality rate is the portion of those infected who die, not the deaths from identified positive cases.” When calculating the mortality rate, while we know the numerator (the number who have died), we’re using the wrong denominator. If the denominator is only those sick enough to get the test in the first place, that small number will return a much higher mortality rate.

The real denominator should be the total number of people who catch this contagious virus.

The real statistic that no one has calculated yet is the ratio of ACTUAL Chinese Kung Flu cases to the number of confirmed ones. My guess is that its probably a large number as this CV bug doesn't really create much symptoms in most of the infected people.

That's the point the article is making. We don't know how many people have actually caught the bug. All we know is how many cases the CDC is porting, which is based on tests of people who already show the symptoms. That's a small fraction of the people who actually get the bug.

An entire city in Italy and the country of Iceland are testing 100% of their citizens. 50% of those with the virus are asymptomatic. STAY. THE. FUCK. HOME!!!!!

Iceland reports 802 confirmed cases and 2 deaths. That works out to a death rate of 0.24%.

You shot down your own post, moron.

Why are you so dedicated to minimizing this very serious disease? What's in it for you? You have no loved ones over 60?

Why are YOU so dedicated to maximizing it? Someone suggests that there might be some good news and the results might not be as bad as predicted, and you act like a child who just had his favorite toy taken away. "How DARE you suggest millions won't die?" God only knows how badly you'd sulk if someone reported that a cure had been found.

She's reacting that way because some people will take that to mean that they can ignore the social distancing and will continue to clamor to go back to work while cases are still climbing. That will only make things much, much worse.

 

[Cecilie1200]

This is what I've been saying all along, and the TDS morons have been trying to ignore. Their claims that the Wuhan flu is more deadly than the Swine flu is based on psuedo-science. It's based on figures that are clearly biased.

Is coronavirus less fatal than early predictions suggested?

Coronavirus is an icky disease that takes a cruel toll on the elderly, the sick, and the unlucky. In this modern era, we can outwit many things that once routinely killed people, but the Grim Reaper is still out there and he’ll eventually get all of us. Scary headlines have hinted that coronavirus is now the Grim Reaper's preferred method.

Media reports have told us that coronavirus is significantly more deadly than the flu, which annually kills 30,000 to 60,000 Americans. Based on the speed with which it killed in China, Italy, Iran, and Spain, it looked as if the American death toll could easily top two million people annually. While that’s small potatoes compared to past pandemics (e.g., the Plague of Justinian, the Black Death, the Spanish Influenza), it’s a staggering toll in modern America. Any actions seemed worthwhile to America from turn into a viral slaughterhouse.

But that might not be what's happening.

At the Wall Street Journal (behind a paywall), Eran Bendavid and Jay Bhattacharya, two medical professors at Stanford, propose that we’re using the wrong math and that we are still missing the numbers we need to do the math correctly. However, by extrapolating from available data, one can argue that coronavirus’s mortality rate is significantly lower than the early estimates.

According to the doctors, “The true fatality rate is the portion of those infected who die, not the deaths from identified positive cases.” When calculating the mortality rate, while we know the numerator (the number who have died), we’re using the wrong denominator. If the denominator is only those sick enough to get the test in the first place, that small number will return a much higher mortality rate.

The real denominator should be the total number of people who catch this contagious virus.

I'll tell you what. Why don't you go to New York City and tell them that?

Why do you think the math would be different because he's talking to someone in NYC?

 

[Cecilie1200]

This is what I've been saying all along, and the TDS morons have been trying to ignore. Their claims that the Wuhan flu is more deadly than the Swine flu is based on psuedo-science. It's based on figures that are clearly biased.

Is coronavirus less fatal than early predictions suggested?

Coronavirus is an icky disease that takes a cruel toll on the elderly, the sick, and the unlucky. In this modern era, we can outwit many things that once routinely killed people, but the Grim Reaper is still out there and he’ll eventually get all of us. Scary headlines have hinted that coronavirus is now the Grim Reaper's preferred method.

Media reports have told us that coronavirus is significantly more deadly than the flu, which annually kills 30,000 to 60,000 Americans. Based on the speed with which it killed in China, Italy, Iran, and Spain, it looked as if the American death toll could easily top two million people annually. While that’s small potatoes compared to past pandemics (e.g., the Plague of Justinian, the Black Death, the Spanish Influenza), it’s a staggering toll in modern America. Any actions seemed worthwhile to America from turn into a viral slaughterhouse.

But that might not be what's happening.

At the Wall Street Journal (behind a paywall), Eran Bendavid and Jay Bhattacharya, two medical professors at Stanford, propose that we’re using the wrong math and that we are still missing the numbers we need to do the math correctly. However, by extrapolating from available data, one can argue that coronavirus’s mortality rate is significantly lower than the early estimates.

According to the doctors, “The true fatality rate is the portion of those infected who die, not the deaths from identified positive cases.” When calculating the mortality rate, while we know the numerator (the number who have died), we’re using the wrong denominator. If the denominator is only those sick enough to get the test in the first place, that small number will return a much higher mortality rate.

The real denominator should be the total number of people who catch this contagious virus.

The real statistic that no one has calculated yet is the ratio of ACTUAL Chinese Kung Flu cases to the number of confirmed ones. My guess is that its probably a large number as this CV bug doesn't really create much symptoms in most of the infected people.

That's the point the article is making. We don't know how many people have actually caught the bug. All we know is how many cases the CDC is porting, which is based on tests of people who already show the symptoms. That's a small fraction of the people who actually get the bug.

An entire city in Italy and the country of Iceland are testing 100% of their citizens. 50% of those with the virus are asymptomatic. STAY. THE. FUCK. HOME!!!!!

Iceland reports 802 confirmed cases and 2 deaths. That works out to a death rate of 0.24%.

You shot down your own post, moron.

Why are you so dedicated to minimizing this very serious disease? What's in it for you? You have no loved ones over 60?

Why are YOU so dedicated to maximizing it? Someone suggests that there might be some good news and the results might not be as bad as predicted, and you act like a child who just had his favorite toy taken away. "How DARE you suggest millions won't die?" God only knows how badly you'd sulk if someone reported that a cure had been found.

She's reacting that way because some people will take that to mean that they can ignore the social distancing and will continue to clamor to go back to work while cases are still climbing. That will only make things much, much worse.

I don't believe that for a second, nor do I believe it's advisable to be dishonest and foment panic to prevent stupid people from being stupid.

 

[Seawytch]

Breaking News! BriPat doesn't think enough people are dying! Go away Russian troll!

Not breaking new

This is what I've been saying all along, and the TDS morons have been trying to ignore. Their claims that the Wuhan flu is more deadly than the Swine flu is based on psuedo-science. It's based on figures that are clearly biased.

Is coronavirus less fatal than early predictions suggested?

Coronavirus is an icky disease that takes a cruel toll on the elderly, the sick, and the unlucky. In this modern era, we can outwit many things that once routinely killed people, but the Grim Reaper is still out there and he’ll eventually get all of us. Scary headlines have hinted that coronavirus is now the Grim Reaper's preferred method.

Media reports have told us that coronavirus is significantly more deadly than the flu, which annually kills 30,000 to 60,000 Americans. Based on the speed with which it killed in China, Italy, Iran, and Spain, it looked as if the American death toll could easily top two million people annually. While that’s small potatoes compared to past pandemics (e.g., the Plague of Justinian, the Black Death, the Spanish Influenza), it’s a staggering toll in modern America. Any actions seemed worthwhile to America from turn into a viral slaughterhouse.

But that might not be what's happening.

At the Wall Street Journal (behind a paywall), Eran Bendavid and Jay Bhattacharya, two medical professors at Stanford, propose that we’re using the wrong math and that we are still missing the numbers we need to do the math correctly. However, by extrapolating from available data, one can argue that coronavirus’s mortality rate is significantly lower than the early estimates.

According to the doctors, “The true fatality rate is the portion of those infected who die, not the deaths from identified positive cases.” When calculating the mortality rate, while we know the numerator (the number who have died), we’re using the wrong denominator. If the denominator is only those sick enough to get the test in the first place, that small number will return a much higher mortality rate.

The real denominator should be the total number of people who catch this contagious virus.

Have you volunteered at you local Emergency Center yet? Someone as unconcerned about the virus as you are should be on the front lines fighting it.

So you aren't concerned about the virus?

I'm very concerned. You aren't. You should volunteer to help fight the virus on the "front lines". I am following recommended guidelines and staying home or only going to my workplace or grocery store.

Tell us how concerned you are when your leaders aren't wasting time trying to use the virus to advance their political agenda, and you aren't making excuses for them doing it.

When I see your hypocritical ass demanding to know what funding for the arts and airplane emissions standards have to do with the coronavirus, we'll talk.

Sure, we can talk about those if you'd also like to talk about the massive corporate bailout with no oversight for corporations too. Or how about Republicans tacking on provisions about abstinence only education. Can't have one discussion without the other.

 

[forkup]

This is what I've been saying all along, and the TDS morons have been trying to ignore. Their claims that the Wuhan flu is more deadly than the Swine flu is based on psuedo-science. It's based on figures that are clearly biased.

Is coronavirus less fatal than early predictions suggested?

Coronavirus is an icky disease that takes a cruel toll on the elderly, the sick, and the unlucky. In this modern era, we can outwit many things that once routinely killed people, but the Grim Reaper is still out there and he’ll eventually get all of us. Scary headlines have hinted that coronavirus is now the Grim Reaper's preferred method.

Media reports have told us that coronavirus is significantly more deadly than the flu, which annually kills 30,000 to 60,000 Americans. Based on the speed with which it killed in China, Italy, Iran, and Spain, it looked as if the American death toll could easily top two million people annually. While that’s small potatoes compared to past pandemics (e.g., the Plague of Justinian, the Black Death, the Spanish Influenza), it’s a staggering toll in modern America. Any actions seemed worthwhile to America from turn into a viral slaughterhouse.

But that might not be what's happening.

At the Wall Street Journal (behind a paywall), Eran Bendavid and Jay Bhattacharya, two medical professors at Stanford, propose that we’re using the wrong math and that we are still missing the numbers we need to do the math correctly. However, by extrapolating from available data, one can argue that coronavirus’s mortality rate is significantly lower than the early estimates.

According to the doctors, “The true fatality rate is the portion of those infected who die, not the deaths from identified positive cases.” When calculating the mortality rate, while we know the numerator (the number who have died), we’re using the wrong denominator. If the denominator is only those sick enough to get the test in the first place, that small number will return a much higher mortality rate.

The real denominator should be the total number of people who catch this contagious virus.

So I've read up about your source. What happened is that they extrapolated the number of infected in one village population 3000 to an entire country. The result are intriguing but these professors themselves admitted not remotely conclusive. The reason why should be obvious. To use as your benchmark data from one village is too limited. What if the village was lucky enough to not have many infected and such a small base number means even a few more or less infected people means a huge statistical difference.

As far as I know all medical professionals agree that 2 to 4 percent is high because all recognize that confirmed cases don't equal actual cases. But trying to use that fact to try to compare this thing to swine flu (mortality 0.02) or common flu (mortality 0.1) simply doesn't match what we see on the ground. No swine- or common flu- has ever been able to overwhelm the capacity of a country's capacity to deal with it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Breaking News! BriPat doesn't think enough people are dying! Go away Russian troll!

Not breaking new

This is what I've been saying all along, and the TDS morons have been trying to ignore. Their claims that the Wuhan flu is more deadly than the Swine flu is based on psuedo-science. It's based on figures that are clearly biased.

Is coronavirus less fatal than early predictions suggested?

Coronavirus is an icky disease that takes a cruel toll on the elderly, the sick, and the unlucky. In this modern era, we can outwit many things that once routinely killed people, but the Grim Reaper is still out there and he’ll eventually get all of us. Scary headlines have hinted that coronavirus is now the Grim Reaper's preferred method.

Media reports have told us that coronavirus is significantly more deadly than the flu, which annually kills 30,000 to 60,000 Americans. Based on the speed with which it killed in China, Italy, Iran, and Spain, it looked as if the American death toll could easily top two million people annually. While that’s small potatoes compared to past pandemics (e.g., the Plague of Justinian, the Black Death, the Spanish Influenza), it’s a staggering toll in modern America. Any actions seemed worthwhile to America from turn into a viral slaughterhouse.

But that might not be what's happening.

At the Wall Street Journal (behind a paywall), Eran Bendavid and Jay Bhattacharya, two medical professors at Stanford, propose that we’re using the wrong math and that we are still missing the numbers we need to do the math correctly. However, by extrapolating from available data, one can argue that coronavirus’s mortality rate is significantly lower than the early estimates.

According to the doctors, “The true fatality rate is the portion of those infected who die, not the deaths from identified positive cases.” When calculating the mortality rate, while we know the numerator (the number who have died), we’re using the wrong denominator. If the denominator is only those sick enough to get the test in the first place, that small number will return a much higher mortality rate.

The real denominator should be the total number of people who catch this contagious virus.

Have you volunteered at you local Emergency Center yet? Someone as unconcerned about the virus as you are should be on the front lines fighting it.

So you aren't concerned about the virus?

I'm very concerned. You aren't. You should volunteer to help fight the virus on the "front lines". I am following recommended guidelines and staying home or only going to my workplace or grocery store.

Tell us how concerned you are when your leaders aren't wasting time trying to use the virus to advance their political agenda, and you aren't making excuses for them doing it.

When I see your hypocritical ass demanding to know what funding for the arts and airplane emissions standards have to do with the coronavirus, we'll talk.

Sure, we can talk about those if you'd also like to talk about the massive corporate bailout with no oversight for corporations too. Or how about Republicans tacking on provisions about abstinence only education. Can't have one discussion without the other.

I'd be happy to talk about "the massive corporate bailout with no oversight". It didn't exist; it was a made-up talking point for you leftist zombies to parrot to give Pelosi and Company cover under which to demand their goody package.

I'll talk about "abstinence only education" just as soon as you show me some actual proof any such thing happened. Until then, the only thing I have to say about it is, "Seabiscuit claims it, so it must be so much horseshit."

Your turn, Sparkles. Let's see you post something other than, "Well, how about THIS accusation I made up, and THIS one, and don't notice that I ignored all your questions." I dare you.

 

[bripat9643]

This is what I've been saying all along, and the TDS morons have been trying to ignore. Their claims that the Wuhan flu is more deadly than the Swine flu is based on psuedo-science. It's based on figures that are clearly biased.

Is coronavirus less fatal than early predictions suggested?

Coronavirus is an icky disease that takes a cruel toll on the elderly, the sick, and the unlucky. In this modern era, we can outwit many things that once routinely killed people, but the Grim Reaper is still out there and he’ll eventually get all of us. Scary headlines have hinted that coronavirus is now the Grim Reaper's preferred method.

Media reports have told us that coronavirus is significantly more deadly than the flu, which annually kills 30,000 to 60,000 Americans. Based on the speed with which it killed in China, Italy, Iran, and Spain, it looked as if the American death toll could easily top two million people annually. While that’s small potatoes compared to past pandemics (e.g., the Plague of Justinian, the Black Death, the Spanish Influenza), it’s a staggering toll in modern America. Any actions seemed worthwhile to America from turn into a viral slaughterhouse.

But that might not be what's happening.

At the Wall Street Journal (behind a paywall), Eran Bendavid and Jay Bhattacharya, two medical professors at Stanford, propose that we’re using the wrong math and that we are still missing the numbers we need to do the math correctly. However, by extrapolating from available data, one can argue that coronavirus’s mortality rate is significantly lower than the early estimates.

According to the doctors, “The true fatality rate is the portion of those infected who die, not the deaths from identified positive cases.” When calculating the mortality rate, while we know the numerator (the number who have died), we’re using the wrong denominator. If the denominator is only those sick enough to get the test in the first place, that small number will return a much higher mortality rate.

The real denominator should be the total number of people who catch this contagious virus.

So I've read up about your source. What happened is that they extrapolated the number of infected in one village population 3000 to an entire country. The result are intriguing but these professors themselves admitted not remotely conclusive. The reason why should be obvious. To use as your benchmark data from one village is too limited. What if the village was lucky enough to not have many infected and such a small base number means even a few more or less infected people means a huge statistical difference.

As far as I know all medical professionals agree that 2 to 4 percent is high because all recognize that confirmed cases don't equal actual cases. But trying to use that fact to try to compare this thing to swine flu (mortality 0.02) or common flu (mortality 0.1) simply doesn't match what we see on the ground. No swine- or common flu- has ever been able to overwhelm the capacity of a country's capacity to deal with it.

Check out the stats from Iceland I posted, moron, where everyone is tested. They have 802 cases and 2 deaths. That works out to a fatality rate of 0.249%.

Case closed.

 

[Seawytch]

Breaking News! BriPat doesn't think enough people are dying! Go away Russian troll!

Not breaking new

This is what I've been saying all along, and the TDS morons have been trying to ignore. Their claims that the Wuhan flu is more deadly than the Swine flu is based on psuedo-science. It's based on figures that are clearly biased.

Is coronavirus less fatal than early predictions suggested?

Coronavirus is an icky disease that takes a cruel toll on the elderly, the sick, and the unlucky. In this modern era, we can outwit many things that once routinely killed people, but the Grim Reaper is still out there and he’ll eventually get all of us. Scary headlines have hinted that coronavirus is now the Grim Reaper's preferred method.

Media reports have told us that coronavirus is significantly more deadly than the flu, which annually kills 30,000 to 60,000 Americans. Based on the speed with which it killed in China, Italy, Iran, and Spain, it looked as if the American death toll could easily top two million people annually. While that’s small potatoes compared to past pandemics (e.g., the Plague of Justinian, the Black Death, the Spanish Influenza), it’s a staggering toll in modern America. Any actions seemed worthwhile to America from turn into a viral slaughterhouse.

But that might not be what's happening.

At the Wall Street Journal (behind a paywall), Eran Bendavid and Jay Bhattacharya, two medical professors at Stanford, propose that we’re using the wrong math and that we are still missing the numbers we need to do the math correctly. However, by extrapolating from available data, one can argue that coronavirus’s mortality rate is significantly lower than the early estimates.

According to the doctors, “The true fatality rate is the portion of those infected who die, not the deaths from identified positive cases.” When calculating the mortality rate, while we know the numerator (the number who have died), we’re using the wrong denominator. If the denominator is only those sick enough to get the test in the first place, that small number will return a much higher mortality rate.

The real denominator should be the total number of people who catch this contagious virus.

Have you volunteered at you local Emergency Center yet? Someone as unconcerned about the virus as you are should be on the front lines fighting it.

So you aren't concerned about the virus?

I'm very concerned. You aren't. You should volunteer to help fight the virus on the "front lines". I am following recommended guidelines and staying home or only going to my workplace or grocery store.

Tell us how concerned you are when your leaders aren't wasting time trying to use the virus to advance their political agenda, and you aren't making excuses for them doing it.

When I see your hypocritical ass demanding to know what funding for the arts and airplane emissions standards have to do with the coronavirus, we'll talk.

Sure, we can talk about those if you'd also like to talk about the massive corporate bailout with no oversight for corporations too. Or how about Republicans tacking on provisions about abstinence only education. Can't have one discussion without the other.

I'd be happy to talk about "the massive corporate bailout with no oversight". It didn't exist; it was a made-up talking point for you leftist zombies to parrot to give Pelosi and Company cover under which to demand their goody package.

I'll talk about "abstinence only education" just as soon as you show me some actual proof any such thing happened. Until then, the only thing I have to say about it is, "Seabiscuit claims it, so it must be so much horseshit."

Your turn, Sparkles. Let's see you post something other than, "Well, how about THIS accusation I made up, and THIS one, and don't notice that I ignored all your questions." I dare you.

Are you incapable of searching things on the internet? Google broken? Does being a dripping slit of a bitch render you incapable of research?

Senate stimulus bill extends funding for abstinence education

 

[Seawytch]

This is what I've been saying all along, and the TDS morons have been trying to ignore. Their claims that the Wuhan flu is more deadly than the Swine flu is based on psuedo-science. It's based on figures that are clearly biased.

Is coronavirus less fatal than early predictions suggested?

Coronavirus is an icky disease that takes a cruel toll on the elderly, the sick, and the unlucky. In this modern era, we can outwit many things that once routinely killed people, but the Grim Reaper is still out there and he’ll eventually get all of us. Scary headlines have hinted that coronavirus is now the Grim Reaper's preferred method.

Media reports have told us that coronavirus is significantly more deadly than the flu, which annually kills 30,000 to 60,000 Americans. Based on the speed with which it killed in China, Italy, Iran, and Spain, it looked as if the American death toll could easily top two million people annually. While that’s small potatoes compared to past pandemics (e.g., the Plague of Justinian, the Black Death, the Spanish Influenza), it’s a staggering toll in modern America. Any actions seemed worthwhile to America from turn into a viral slaughterhouse.

But that might not be what's happening.

At the Wall Street Journal (behind a paywall), Eran Bendavid and Jay Bhattacharya, two medical professors at Stanford, propose that we’re using the wrong math and that we are still missing the numbers we need to do the math correctly. However, by extrapolating from available data, one can argue that coronavirus’s mortality rate is significantly lower than the early estimates.

According to the doctors, “The true fatality rate is the portion of those infected who die, not the deaths from identified positive cases.” When calculating the mortality rate, while we know the numerator (the number who have died), we’re using the wrong denominator. If the denominator is only those sick enough to get the test in the first place, that small number will return a much higher mortality rate.

The real denominator should be the total number of people who catch this contagious virus.

So I've read up about your source. What happened is that they extrapolated the number of infected in one village population 3000 to an entire country. The result are intriguing but these professors themselves admitted not remotely conclusive. The reason why should be obvious. To use as your benchmark data from one village is too limited. What if the village was lucky enough to not have many infected and such a small base number means even a few more or less infected people means a huge statistical difference.

As far as I know all medical professionals agree that 2 to 4 percent is high because all recognize that confirmed cases don't equal actual cases. But trying to use that fact to try to compare this thing to swine flu (mortality 0.02) or common flu (mortality 0.1) simply doesn't match what we see on the ground. No swine- or common flu- has ever been able to overwhelm the capacity of a country's capacity to deal with it.

Check out the stats from Iceland I posted, moron, where everyone is tested. They have 802 cases and 2 deaths. That works out to a fatality rate of 0.249%.

Case closed.

Yeah, you go with that. This virus is more virulent, more easily spread and more deadly than the flu. Why you feel the need to minimize that fact is really beyond me. You are either a psychopath that has no regard for human life or you have no one in your life that you care about...or both.

 

[Toro]

Breaking News! BriPat doesn't think enough people are dying! Go away Russian troll!

Not breaking new

This is what I've been saying all along, and the TDS morons have been trying to ignore. Their claims that the Wuhan flu is more deadly than the Swine flu is based on psuedo-science. It's based on figures that are clearly biased.

Is coronavirus less fatal than early predictions suggested?

Coronavirus is an icky disease that takes a cruel toll on the elderly, the sick, and the unlucky. In this modern era, we can outwit many things that once routinely killed people, but the Grim Reaper is still out there and he’ll eventually get all of us. Scary headlines have hinted that coronavirus is now the Grim Reaper's preferred method.

Media reports have told us that coronavirus is significantly more deadly than the flu, which annually kills 30,000 to 60,000 Americans. Based on the speed with which it killed in China, Italy, Iran, and Spain, it looked as if the American death toll could easily top two million people annually. While that’s small potatoes compared to past pandemics (e.g., the Plague of Justinian, the Black Death, the Spanish Influenza), it’s a staggering toll in modern America. Any actions seemed worthwhile to America from turn into a viral slaughterhouse.

But that might not be what's happening.

At the Wall Street Journal (behind a paywall), Eran Bendavid and Jay Bhattacharya, two medical professors at Stanford, propose that we’re using the wrong math and that we are still missing the numbers we need to do the math correctly. However, by extrapolating from available data, one can argue that coronavirus’s mortality rate is significantly lower than the early estimates.

According to the doctors, “The true fatality rate is the portion of those infected who die, not the deaths from identified positive cases.” When calculating the mortality rate, while we know the numerator (the number who have died), we’re using the wrong denominator. If the denominator is only those sick enough to get the test in the first place, that small number will return a much higher mortality rate.

The real denominator should be the total number of people who catch this contagious virus.

Have you volunteered at you local Emergency Center yet? Someone as unconcerned about the virus as you are should be on the front lines fighting it.

So you aren't concerned about the virus?

I'm very concerned. You aren't. You should volunteer to help fight the virus on the "front lines". I am following recommended guidelines and staying home or only going to my workplace or grocery store.

Tell us how concerned you are when your leaders aren't wasting time trying to use the virus to advance their political agenda, and you aren't making excuses for them doing it.

When I see your hypocritical ass demanding to know what funding for the arts and airplane emissions standards have to do with the coronavirus, we'll talk.

Sure, we can talk about those if you'd also like to talk about the massive corporate bailout with no oversight for corporations too. Or how about Republicans tacking on provisions about abstinence only education. Can't have one discussion without the other.

I'd be happy to talk about "the massive corporate bailout with no oversight". It didn't exist; it was a made-up talking point for you leftist zombies to parrot to give Pelosi and Company cover under which to demand their goody package.

I'll talk about "abstinence only education" just as soon as you show me some actual proof any such thing happened. Until then, the only thing I have to say about it is, "Seabiscuit claims it, so it must be so much horseshit."

Your turn, Sparkles. Let's see you post something other than, "Well, how about THIS accusation I made up, and THIS one, and don't notice that I ignored all your questions." I dare you.

Are you incapable of searching things on the internet? Google broken? Does being a dripping slit of a bitch render you incapable of research?

Senate stimulus bill extends funding for abstinence education

If you have sex outside of marriage, you'll get coronavirus, you know.

Fortunately, there's no chance of that when you're married.

Unless you're gay married. Then you're going to DIE!

 

[Polishprince]

Breaking News! BriPat doesn't think enough people are dying! Go away Russian troll!

Not breaking new

This is what I've been saying all along, and the TDS morons have been trying to ignore. Their claims that the Wuhan flu is more deadly than the Swine flu is based on psuedo-science. It's based on figures that are clearly biased.

Is coronavirus less fatal than early predictions suggested?

Coronavirus is an icky disease that takes a cruel toll on the elderly, the sick, and the unlucky. In this modern era, we can outwit many things that once routinely killed people, but the Grim Reaper is still out there and he’ll eventually get all of us. Scary headlines have hinted that coronavirus is now the Grim Reaper's preferred method.

Media reports have told us that coronavirus is significantly more deadly than the flu, which annually kills 30,000 to 60,000 Americans. Based on the speed with which it killed in China, Italy, Iran, and Spain, it looked as if the American death toll could easily top two million people annually. While that’s small potatoes compared to past pandemics (e.g., the Plague of Justinian, the Black Death, the Spanish Influenza), it’s a staggering toll in modern America. Any actions seemed worthwhile to America from turn into a viral slaughterhouse.

But that might not be what's happening.

At the Wall Street Journal (behind a paywall), Eran Bendavid and Jay Bhattacharya, two medical professors at Stanford, propose that we’re using the wrong math and that we are still missing the numbers we need to do the math correctly. However, by extrapolating from available data, one can argue that coronavirus’s mortality rate is significantly lower than the early estimates.

According to the doctors, “The true fatality rate is the portion of those infected who die, not the deaths from identified positive cases.” When calculating the mortality rate, while we know the numerator (the number who have died), we’re using the wrong denominator. If the denominator is only those sick enough to get the test in the first place, that small number will return a much higher mortality rate.

The real denominator should be the total number of people who catch this contagious virus.

Have you volunteered at you local Emergency Center yet? Someone as unconcerned about the virus as you are should be on the front lines fighting it.

So you aren't concerned about the virus?

I'm very concerned. You aren't. You should volunteer to help fight the virus on the "front lines". I am following recommended guidelines and staying home or only going to my workplace or grocery store.

Tell us how concerned you are when your leaders aren't wasting time trying to use the virus to advance their political agenda, and you aren't making excuses for them doing it.

When I see your hypocritical ass demanding to know what funding for the arts and airplane emissions standards have to do with the coronavirus, we'll talk.

Sure, we can talk about those if you'd also like to talk about the massive corporate bailout with no oversight for corporations too. Or how about Republicans tacking on provisions about abstinence only education. Can't have one discussion without the other.

I'd be happy to talk about "the massive corporate bailout with no oversight". It didn't exist; it was a made-up talking point for you leftist zombies to parrot to give Pelosi and Company cover under which to demand their goody package.

I'll talk about "abstinence only education" just as soon as you show me some actual proof any such thing happened. Until then, the only thing I have to say about it is, "Seabiscuit claims it, so it must be so much horseshit."

Your turn, Sparkles. Let's see you post something other than, "Well, how about THIS accusation I made up, and THIS one, and don't notice that I ignored all your questions." I dare you.

Are you incapable of searching things on the internet? Google broken? Does being a dripping slit of a bitch render you incapable of research?

Senate stimulus bill extends funding for abstinence education

Abstinence is part of the entire idea of "Social Distancing". There is no way to practice Social Distancing, and not be practicing abstinence at the same time.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This is what I've been saying all along, and the TDS morons have been trying to ignore. Their claims that the Wuhan flu is more deadly than the Swine flu is based on psuedo-science. It's based on figures that are clearly biased.

Is coronavirus less fatal than early predictions suggested?

Coronavirus is an icky disease that takes a cruel toll on the elderly, the sick, and the unlucky. In this modern era, we can outwit many things that once routinely killed people, but the Grim Reaper is still out there and he’ll eventually get all of us. Scary headlines have hinted that coronavirus is now the Grim Reaper's preferred method.

Media reports have told us that coronavirus is significantly more deadly than the flu, which annually kills 30,000 to 60,000 Americans. Based on the speed with which it killed in China, Italy, Iran, and Spain, it looked as if the American death toll could easily top two million people annually. While that’s small potatoes compared to past pandemics (e.g., the Plague of Justinian, the Black Death, the Spanish Influenza), it’s a staggering toll in modern America. Any actions seemed worthwhile to America from turn into a viral slaughterhouse.

But that might not be what's happening.

At the Wall Street Journal (behind a paywall), Eran Bendavid and Jay Bhattacharya, two medical professors at Stanford, propose that we’re using the wrong math and that we are still missing the numbers we need to do the math correctly. However, by extrapolating from available data, one can argue that coronavirus’s mortality rate is significantly lower than the early estimates.

According to the doctors, “The true fatality rate is the portion of those infected who die, not the deaths from identified positive cases.” When calculating the mortality rate, while we know the numerator (the number who have died), we’re using the wrong denominator. If the denominator is only those sick enough to get the test in the first place, that small number will return a much higher mortality rate.

The real denominator should be the total number of people who catch this contagious virus.

Yes, your Trump Defense Syndrome is strong. Seriously, "icky"?? Just the sort of alt-right intelligence I've come to expect from these f'ing Internet cancers...err....websites. But you spin, spin, spin away. Hope you don't get motion sick.
Your boy finally fucked something up that he won't be able to campaign his way out of.

Now, if you want to read some fact based (in so far as the data gathered) here you go. Otherwise, I return you to your regularly schedule right wing apology tour for Donald Trump.
How does the new coronavirus compare with the flu?

Trump needs to shut down the election until Corona virus is completely eradicated

 

[Polishprince]

This is what I've been saying all along, and the TDS morons have been trying to ignore. Their claims that the Wuhan flu is more deadly than the Swine flu is based on psuedo-science. It's based on figures that are clearly biased.

Is coronavirus less fatal than early predictions suggested?

Coronavirus is an icky disease that takes a cruel toll on the elderly, the sick, and the unlucky. In this modern era, we can outwit many things that once routinely killed people, but the Grim Reaper is still out there and he’ll eventually get all of us. Scary headlines have hinted that coronavirus is now the Grim Reaper's preferred method.

Media reports have told us that coronavirus is significantly more deadly than the flu, which annually kills 30,000 to 60,000 Americans. Based on the speed with which it killed in China, Italy, Iran, and Spain, it looked as if the American death toll could easily top two million people annually. While that’s small potatoes compared to past pandemics (e.g., the Plague of Justinian, the Black Death, the Spanish Influenza), it’s a staggering toll in modern America. Any actions seemed worthwhile to America from turn into a viral slaughterhouse.

But that might not be what's happening.

At the Wall Street Journal (behind a paywall), Eran Bendavid and Jay Bhattacharya, two medical professors at Stanford, propose that we’re using the wrong math and that we are still missing the numbers we need to do the math correctly. However, by extrapolating from available data, one can argue that coronavirus’s mortality rate is significantly lower than the early estimates.

According to the doctors, “The true fatality rate is the portion of those infected who die, not the deaths from identified positive cases.” When calculating the mortality rate, while we know the numerator (the number who have died), we’re using the wrong denominator. If the denominator is only those sick enough to get the test in the first place, that small number will return a much higher mortality rate.

The real denominator should be the total number of people who catch this contagious virus.

So I've read up about your source. What happened is that they extrapolated the number of infected in one village population 3000 to an entire country. The result are intriguing but these professors themselves admitted not remotely conclusive. The reason why should be obvious. To use as your benchmark data from one village is too limited. What if the village was lucky enough to not have many infected and such a small base number means even a few more or less infected people means a huge statistical difference.

As far as I know all medical professionals agree that 2 to 4 percent is high because all recognize that confirmed cases don't equal actual cases. But trying to use that fact to try to compare this thing to swine flu (mortality 0.02) or common flu (mortality 0.1) simply doesn't match what we see on the ground. No swine- or common flu- has ever been able to overwhelm the capacity of a country's capacity to deal with it.

Check out the stats from Iceland I posted, moron, where everyone is tested. They have 802 cases and 2 deaths. That works out to a fatality rate of 0.249%.

Case closed.

Yeah, you go with that. This virus is more virulent, more easily spread and more deadly than the flu. Why you feel the need to minimize that fact is really beyond me. You are either a psychopath that has no regard for human life or you have no one in your life that you care about...or both.

You don't know if this virus is more deadly than the flu at all. That's just your guess.

 

[Polishprince]

This is what I've been saying all along, and the TDS morons have been trying to ignore. Their claims that the Wuhan flu is more deadly than the Swine flu is based on psuedo-science. It's based on figures that are clearly biased.

Is coronavirus less fatal than early predictions suggested?

Coronavirus is an icky disease that takes a cruel toll on the elderly, the sick, and the unlucky. In this modern era, we can outwit many things that once routinely killed people, but the Grim Reaper is still out there and he’ll eventually get all of us. Scary headlines have hinted that coronavirus is now the Grim Reaper's preferred method.

Media reports have told us that coronavirus is significantly more deadly than the flu, which annually kills 30,000 to 60,000 Americans. Based on the speed with which it killed in China, Italy, Iran, and Spain, it looked as if the American death toll could easily top two million people annually. While that’s small potatoes compared to past pandemics (e.g., the Plague of Justinian, the Black Death, the Spanish Influenza), it’s a staggering toll in modern America. Any actions seemed worthwhile to America from turn into a viral slaughterhouse.

But that might not be what's happening.

At the Wall Street Journal (behind a paywall), Eran Bendavid and Jay Bhattacharya, two medical professors at Stanford, propose that we’re using the wrong math and that we are still missing the numbers we need to do the math correctly. However, by extrapolating from available data, one can argue that coronavirus’s mortality rate is significantly lower than the early estimates.

According to the doctors, “The true fatality rate is the portion of those infected who die, not the deaths from identified positive cases.” When calculating the mortality rate, while we know the numerator (the number who have died), we’re using the wrong denominator. If the denominator is only those sick enough to get the test in the first place, that small number will return a much higher mortality rate.

The real denominator should be the total number of people who catch this contagious virus.

Yes, your Trump Defense Syndrome is strong. Seriously, "icky"?? Just the sort of alt-right intelligence I've come to expect from these f'ing Internet cancers...err....websites. But you spin, spin, spin away. Hope you don't get motion sick.
Your boy finally fucked something up that he won't be able to campaign his way out of.

Now, if you want to read some fact based (in so far as the data gathered) here you go. Otherwise, I return you to your regularly schedule right wing apology tour for Donald Trump.
How does the new coronavirus compare with the flu?

Trump needs to shut down the election until Corona virus is completely eradicated

Trump should also move the capital out of Washington DC and to Palm Beach or other area which has been spared by this pestilence.

 

[bripat9643]

This is what I've been saying all along, and the TDS morons have been trying to ignore. Their claims that the Wuhan flu is more deadly than the Swine flu is based on psuedo-science. It's based on figures that are clearly biased.

Is coronavirus less fatal than early predictions suggested?

Coronavirus is an icky disease that takes a cruel toll on the elderly, the sick, and the unlucky. In this modern era, we can outwit many things that once routinely killed people, but the Grim Reaper is still out there and he’ll eventually get all of us. Scary headlines have hinted that coronavirus is now the Grim Reaper's preferred method.

Media reports have told us that coronavirus is significantly more deadly than the flu, which annually kills 30,000 to 60,000 Americans. Based on the speed with which it killed in China, Italy, Iran, and Spain, it looked as if the American death toll could easily top two million people annually. While that’s small potatoes compared to past pandemics (e.g., the Plague of Justinian, the Black Death, the Spanish Influenza), it’s a staggering toll in modern America. Any actions seemed worthwhile to America from turn into a viral slaughterhouse.

But that might not be what's happening.

At the Wall Street Journal (behind a paywall), Eran Bendavid and Jay Bhattacharya, two medical professors at Stanford, propose that we’re using the wrong math and that we are still missing the numbers we need to do the math correctly. However, by extrapolating from available data, one can argue that coronavirus’s mortality rate is significantly lower than the early estimates.

According to the doctors, “The true fatality rate is the portion of those infected who die, not the deaths from identified positive cases.” When calculating the mortality rate, while we know the numerator (the number who have died), we’re using the wrong denominator. If the denominator is only those sick enough to get the test in the first place, that small number will return a much higher mortality rate.

The real denominator should be the total number of people who catch this contagious virus.

So I've read up about your source. What happened is that they extrapolated the number of infected in one village population 3000 to an entire country. The result are intriguing but these professors themselves admitted not remotely conclusive. The reason why should be obvious. To use as your benchmark data from one village is too limited. What if the village was lucky enough to not have many infected and such a small base number means even a few more or less infected people means a huge statistical difference.

As far as I know all medical professionals agree that 2 to 4 percent is high because all recognize that confirmed cases don't equal actual cases. But trying to use that fact to try to compare this thing to swine flu (mortality 0.02) or common flu (mortality 0.1) simply doesn't match what we see on the ground. No swine- or common flu- has ever been able to overwhelm the capacity of a country's capacity to deal with it.

Check out the stats from Iceland I posted, moron, where everyone is tested. They have 802 cases and 2 deaths. That works out to a fatality rate of 0.249%.

Case closed.

Yeah, you go with that. This virus is more virulent, more easily spread and more deadly than the flu. Why you feel the need to minimize that fact is really beyond me. You are either a psychopath that has no regard for human life or you have no one in your life that you care about...or both.

I'll go with facts over hysteria every time, moron. None of your claims have been verified. Mine has.

The idea that you are deliberate trying to drive up the hysteria because you "care about human life" doesn't pass the laugh test. Where was your concern when Obama imported into this country multiple people infected with Ebola? You didn't give a shit about any human lives then. You want this epidemic to be as long and as deadly as possible for the sole reason of "orange man bad."

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Consider this: As of this morning, there have been 478,444 corona virus cases worldwide. If we assume that corona virus cases have been under-reported by a staggering 600%, that would give us just under 2.88 million cases in four months (we are at least four months into the COVID-19 outbreak). By comparison, the swine flu averaged 90 million cases per month, or 360 million cases every four months.

So how drastically would COVID-19 cases have to be under-reported to equal the swine flu's 360 million cases in four months? Try 7,528%. And how drastically would COVID-19 cases have to increase over the next 8 months to match the swine flu case number of 1.1 billion? 230,000%.

How about the number of deaths from the corona virus vs. the swine flu? If we take the median of the estimates for H1N1 deaths, we get around 350,000 deaths, or 29,000 deaths per month. As of this morning, there have been 21,524 COVID-19 deaths, which equals an average of 5,381 deaths per month, compared to the swine flu's 29,000 deaths per month. And remember we are taking the median (or middle) of the estimates for swine flu deaths, which ranged from 151,700 to 575,400.

What if COVID-19 deaths continue to increase at the rate we have seen over the last week? This is unlikely, since the COVID-19 death rate has already begun to decline in some nations and localities, even in places where some/all schools and universities have stayed open.

But, let's assume the recent death-rate increase continues. As of 19 March, one week ago, there had been 9,840 COVID-19 deaths. As mentioned, as of this morning there have been 21,524 COVID-19 deaths, an increase of 11,684 deaths in one week, or an increase of 1,669 deaths per day, which equals 50,070 deaths per month. If we make the improbable assumption that the number of corona virus deaths will continue to increase at this rate for the next 8 months--50,070 deaths per month for the next 8 months--that would amount to 400,560 additional deaths in 8 months, for a 12-month total of 422,084 deaths worldwide, whereas the 2009-2019 swine flu pandemic is estimated to have caused as many as 575,400 deaths in 12 months (April 2009 to April 2010).

If we assume that 8 months from now COVID-19 will have caused 422,084 deaths, what percentage would that be of the world's population? 0.00543%, or a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of 1% of the world's population.

This should be pinned.