jibber5000 wrote: » The .01% seems to be extreme. I'd argue the American studies from L.A. and Boston indicating a .1% mortality is more accurate.https://www.google.com/amp/s/patch.com/california/los-angeles/amp/28703719/hundreds-thousands-la-infected-coronavirus-study Still far less than the 1-2% we were initially told.
wakka12 wrote: » The 0.1% mortality rate is simply wrong, no matter how smart or experienced the person who said it is. By this evening, New York state with a population of 19,5 million will have recorded over 19500 deaths. That is more than 0.1% of the state population, even if 100% of the residents of the state got the virus and nobody else dies the 0.1% mortality rate of the virus is impossible
is_that_so wrote: » Always good to point out where it is peer reviewed. That one isn't, yet.
normanoffside wrote: » Maybe the 0.1% is true under a few circumstances e.g. -Disproportionately shielding the vulnerable from infection (i.e. effective cocooning) - Having excellent medical care available for the less vulnerable who get seriously ill.
jibber5000 wrote: » New York is a specific example due to its high population density. No other state is in its ballpark mortality rate wise. We can't pick and choose mortality rates based on certain places. If you took nursing homes in Ireland the mortality rate would be massive in comparison to the general population.
jibber5000 wrote: » There's absolutely no study on Corona Virus that's peer reviewed. The models on which every single public policy decision was made were predictive models, note the UW and Imperial College London, have been wrong The nature of serum testing and the size of these studies mean these are very promising. Coming from an institution such as Stanford matters too.
wakka12 wrote: » Its not picking and choosing, it is simply an example of a place where the virus is extremely widespread. New York state does not have a particularly high population density outside of the city, it is only the 7th most densely populated state in the USA, 4x times less dense than New Jersey and 3x times less dense than Massachusetts. Lombardia and Madrid, more than 0.1% of the population of these regions has also died from the virus. A place's population density does not impact mortality rate, only the total number of deaths. It simply means more people will be infected, it will not influence the proportion of the infected group who die from it.
is_that_so wrote: » Lots of things, and indeed tests, have been promising. We need less of that and more confirmed. There was a lady out of Oxford who claimed an instant test within days a few weeks back and nothing happened.
jibber5000 wrote: » But I mean is that not indicative of a health system being overrun. In less dense areas, hospital systems have been able to cope ie where the disease progression have been staggered. I'm not saying I know the answer for sure. All I'm doing is speculating. That's all any of use can do at the moment.
jibber5000 wrote: » But to be confirmed we need time. Which is what no one has. My point was that the original models used were just predictions which have turned out to be off.
wakka12 wrote: » Perhaps but like it seems to overrun healthcare in many large urban areas..should we only assess diseases impact based on how many they kill in quiet rural areas like? Where do you draw the line. Is the fact that the disease has the capability to overrun advanced healthcare systems not a part of it's dangerousness and hence mortality rate? I dont think mortality rate of diseases is ever calculated based on the damage it does in urban vs rural areas
is_that_so wrote: » Yeah and that is known but there are far too many studies floating out there without a word of caution or drawing attention to the limits of what they might have concluded.
jibber5000 wrote: » If a system in a certain city is overrun and can't give appropriate treatment I think it does effect the mortality rate. If a patient is not able to receive correct medical treatment for a condition their survival rate will go down?
wakka12 wrote: » Yeh but like there are examples in places not overrun as well. I would imagine over the next few weeks there will be a total of greater than 1200 deaths in Dublin city and 2300 in Stockholm metro area for example, again this is 0.1% of thepopulation of these areas Regardless..there is much stronger evidence that coronavirus has a mortality rate of considerably more than 0.1% than to the contrary
jibber5000 wrote: » I really don't think there will be those numbers. Already the admissions in hospitals here have peaked. I suppose the difference with us and Sweden is that we're putting it down to social distancing. The Swedes would put it down that the most vulnerable having already got the virus.
wakka12 wrote: » Yes, but thats why I said weeks/months..including the expected secondary tertiary waves I would say it would reach those numbers. Dublin and Stockholm are each at nearly 400(deaths in Ireland now 770 incl the probable ones today) and 900 deaths respectively at peak/slightly post peak of first wave (I am simply dividing both the national deaths by half, given about 50% of the cases are in the capital in both countries)
Charles Babbage wrote: » We can only measure mortality by reference to places where they have had the disease. Nursing homes have a particular type of resident, New York has people of all ages etc. 0.1% mortality is fantasy, the best you can hope for is 0.4-0.5%. Anyone talking about 0.1% usually assumes infection of massive proportion of the population and there is no evidence for this. If there was massive infection in the population then the health system would come under pressure and the fatality rate would increase.
jibber5000 wrote: » Not If there are more asymptomatic carriers than we initially suspected. Then the .1% could be accurate. If new York state has a population of 20 million and a death toll of 13000 then the mortality at present is .065%. No reason to think the true figure there will be much greater than .1%.
wakka12 wrote: » New York state deaths are 19,000, state population 19.45 million. By this evening more than 0.1% of the state population will have died over the last 4 weeks after contracting coronavirus
jibber5000 wrote: » One source I said had it at 13,000. But I accept the 19,000 from looking at others.
wakka12 wrote: » You are probably looking at a source for the city alone. 13,500 have died in New York city, 19,000 in the rest of state overall I dont really accept the argument that New YOrk, Belgium, Madrid, Lombardy and any and every other epicentre is some kind of exception, Lombardy and NYC, are vastly different . Lombardy, a collection of densely populated towns and small cities, very old population but very healthy generally with low rates of obesity and heart disease, very wealthy area, high quality healtcare NYC very wealthy, dense urbanity, cosmopolitan, young average age, high obesity rates There is almost no overlap is circumstances between these places and for both to be considered exceptions to the norm of what this virus does then there would have to be some valid common factors found between these places to justify the argument.
jibber5000 wrote: » Well the one massive similarity is the influx of Chinese people into both areas. Northern Italy had trade routes and flights direct to Wuhan up until February, New York has the highest Chinese population of any city outside Asia -600k. If the virus was in Wuhan in December/January and large groups were entering these places it is likely that the infection was well established in both places before the numbers really increased. If you take places like Texas (.007%) and Florida (.015%) who have both largely ignored the strict social distancing, why is the mortality rate there so low?
biko wrote: » 15322 cases 1765 dead 11.5% death rate of known cases Numbers from FHMs own tracking pagehttps://experience.arcgis.com/experience/09f821667ce64bf7be6f9f87457ed9aa
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w7.vanillicon.com/v2/75771797d68b15f0c5c6e631c7bb7ced.svg)