Coronavirus expected to infect half of the global population with a 3% death rate
That’s over 115 million people that will die
This is insane
No, this is Patrick.
share
MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > Coronavirus expected to infect half of t...
No. It doesn't have a 3% death rate.
This virus is extremely contagious, but it's barely lethal.
3 percent if you take into account only the confirmed cases.
There are massive shortages of tests worldwide, though. Even people who are symptomatic are not being tested because the tests just aren't there. Not to mention the many people with mild or no symptoms who don't get tested.
Coronavirus is worse than the flu, so it's serious, but people need to stop repeating this panicky talk.
True, but the contagiousness combined with the high mortality rate among 60+ is going to make it very deadly.
shareOh, sure. I wasn't trying to argue that. It's much worse than the flu. We're just not sure how much worse.
Reaction to Corona does make me wonder what would happen if something like the Spanish Flu or worse came around. That killed people in the prime of their lives by the millions.
I think with advances in medicine (at least in developed countries) the Spanish Flu wouldn't have had quite as bad of an impact as it did in 1918. It would still probably be pretty hairy at first but I think we'd get it under wraps quicker. But who knows? Maybe it would be worse because of the greater population and higher density population centers. Let's hope we never find out.
shareYeah exactly, imagine corona back then
shareThe Spanish Flu killed so many people because there was wartime censorship including in the U.S. Instead of warning people not to gather in large crowds, the news media was muzzled.
Coronavirus is overwhelming our medical resources. Respirators are useless for a patient who can't be provided one.
It doesn't have a high mortality rate.
shareIt's higher than the flu.
shareCDC says the rate was accidentally inflated by Chinese numbers. In the west it doesn't have much of a mortality rate and I'll bet it drops further.
shareEven with the adjustment, it's still higher than the flu. And you have to take into account the possibility of there not being enough respirators.
shareNo one does anything about the flu.
We don't close society for the flu, everyone isn't expected to protect flu victims, and they either get it or don't. If you are in a cancer ward, you routinely have to wear masks as does the patient.
This is a below average disease and doesn't make normal people very sick. So, even if people continue to die it's in a normal range focused on people likely to die from something.
If only the media would spread this truth instead of the panic.
shareWhy are doctors denying so many Italians respirators and allowing them to die?
shareIt's higher than the flu.
That's still unknown. It seems that at the end it'll be probably very similar to the flu. share
That's only your opinion. The medical researchers state it's deadlier than the flu.
shareNo. They didn't.
They calculated the death rate related to confirmed cases. Since the real number of cases is unknown, what that calculation tells you is that mortality ≤3%
It's a top limit, not a equality.
Some people have issues dealing with uncertainty. They need assurance, that's why so many people transform "less or equal than" into "equal to", because certainties make them feel safer.
By the way, that's the same principle that leads to religion. We're talking about religious thought here: the need for certainties in an adrift world.
How come many more Italians are dying from Coronavirus than have died from the flu in past years?
shareThey aren't.
Last seasons, influenza killed about 20,000 people in Italy per year.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335066618_Investigating_the_impact_of_influenza_on_excess_mortality_in_all_ages_in_Italy_during_recent_seasons_201314_-_201617_seasons
In Italy, Coronavirus still has to kill 10x more only to reach the average influenza death toll.
The Coronavirus "season" has just begun.
shareIn North Italy? I don't think so. They're in the middle of it. Right now there must be hundreds of thousands infected.
shareIt started December 1, 2019. Experts are saying it will be around for months if not years unless there's a vaccine which is at least a year away.
Like I wrote, it just started.
Being there for months doesn't mean it'll be peaking for months everywhere.
Once an epidemic reaches an area, the peak is relatively short, a couple of months. The more contagious, the shorter the period (and the more pronounced).
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Spanish_flu_death_chart.png
Spanish flu was around for close to three years, January 1918 through December 1920. 500 million became effected and 50 million died (10%).
Like I wrote, it just started since this is barely four months old.
For most people it is less than a cold and to the point some don't know they have it.
It is only dangerous people people who are near death like 90 year olds and people with cancers.
Also, the death rate is dropping the new figure is well under 1% and something like .2 at the beginning of the week.
How come so many Italians are dying and their medical resources have become overwhelmed, Pollyanna?
share[deleted]
[deleted]
Oh shit even worse
shareThe thing about the 3% death rate is these were among the initial victims. They didn't get a chance to stock up on Zinc, and other immune system boosters. Like we are now.
shareCorrect.
The CDC says it's now around .2% and probably falling.
[deleted]
[deleted]
shareThat's sexy!
shareThat is wild speculation. I think as of now world death is about 9 thousand. Just the US has 22 thousand dead from flu.
shareCorrect.
But people don't want to hear about the flu because it's not sexy and new.
Most of these people do not care about other people, they care about the fantasy and novelty of this situation.
"Most of these people do not care about other people"
That's rich coming from the guy who also said "We don't a need a vaccine"
But I'm sure you're just acting as self-appointed spokesman for the CDC again.
Count up the 90 yr olds or those with cancer in this picture.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/18/nyregion/new-jersey-family-coronavirus.html
Another anecdotal head-scratcher, right? I wonder what they think about the idea of a vaccine?
That's why the CDC says the "complete clinical picture is not fully known"
We don't need a vaccine has nothing to do with not caring about people. It has to do with the facts. This virus doesn't make many people sick, at all.
Even a couple famous people and a whole soccer team reported they have it, but feel nothing. A vaccine is not needed for a "disease" that has almost no side effects in nearly 100% of people. And, viruses always mutate, so it will be useless most likely next year, if this is yearly.
It has nothing to do with emotional reactions and opinions.
You didn't really acknowledge the article, kinda like that 32 yr old when it didn't confirm your bias. The famous people with little or no symptoms count more than this family you just ignored. So objective.
Another guy who died attended a gathering with this family before he knew had it. He wasn't "90 and near-death" either. He was a 69 year old diabetic with emphysema. Let's face it. You created a line that leaves more unaffected to suit your thesis --i.e., you pulled that exaggerated bar out of your ass.
You're just at the other end of the novelty spectrum. You're the "they always say this and nothing ever happens. remember that time?" guy. The guy the search and rescue people pull out the water b/c he didn't leave the flood zone before the hurricane -- b/c he knew it would be nothing -- b/c of some false analogy or illogical assumption that this time must always be like last time. No one knows with the certainty you've asserted. And no one has said only "90 year olds or w/cancer" are in danger. Absurd.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/18/health/coronavirus-young-people.html
And since you don't like newspaper articles that don't support your thesis, take it from your source.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912e2.htm?s_cid=mm6912e2_w
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912e2.htm?s_cid=mm6912e2_w#T1_down
Among 508 (12%) patients known to have been hospitalized, 9% were aged ≥85 years, 26% were aged 65–84 years, 17% were aged 55–64 years, 18% were 45–54 years, and 20% were aged 20–44 years. Less than 1% of hospitalizations were among persons aged ≤19 years (Figure 2). The percentage of persons hospitalized increased with age, from 2%–3% among persons aged ≤9 years, to ≥31% among adults aged ≥85 years. (Table).
In less than 24 hours your assertion that the young don't get sick enough to go to the hospital went by the boards. I guess those non-existent reports exist after all, huh?
You don't know.
I couldn't read the article from the times.
All cases I have seen of younger people dying are very sick people.
You aren't reading your own articles correctly. Being "sick" isn't getting the sniffles. People being hospitalized and dying are very old people or very sick people.
They are already very sick from something else.
Both articles are from the Times. You can read one but not the other? You know, the one about the family that you're still silent about?
Here's both again from a different source, as though you couldn't find them yourself elsewhere in an eye blink.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/coronavirus-shatters-new-jersey-family-kills-3-4-more-hospitals-n1163696
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-updates-young-people-ages-20-to-44-hospitalizations-20-percent-adults-spring-break-social-distancing/
And who said anything about the young dying?
You said yesterday that they don't get sick enough to go to the hospital. It's all mild with that group, 3 days and gone. The 1 who gets really sick is the 90 yr old or cancer patient.
Are you gonna start a new crab-walk while redefining "sick enough" as you go?
And I'm sure you've done an in-depth study of that 20% consisting of 20-44 yr olds that are in the hospital -- and the 12% ICU patients being of that same group. Why should we doubt what you must know for certain about them? The CDC calls their underlying health unknown right now -- but not you! They must all have cancer since they're not 90. And remember that confirmation bias now! If it doesn't fit, you can always throw it out -- or move the goalposts as you crab-walk away from initial exaggerations once stated as fact.
Will you pledge to do something extremely undignified on camera if The Wuhan kills fewer people than the yearly flu?
shareI've never made any claims about the final number of deaths or comparisons to flu's past. You've made an unfounded assumption about me. I'm accepting of the unknown rather than making a leap to certainty about outcomes when it's so early in the game. "It will be nothing" is as flawed as "It will be a disaster". And mocking any measures to prevent the possibility of the latter is absurd.
A reasoned and fair position.
I , too, am being careful. The unknown, as you say and social responsibility and all that. However, the data so far indicates something less deadly than the regular flu. So I'm cautious but skeptical.
The fear and panic are the main threats here. Spreading these killers online is the actual disaster ... so far. Time will tell.