Topic: This corona thing is starting to get serious.
Anonymous A started this discussion 6 years ago #97,266
Shortages of masks, and just general shit like disinfectants. Like, what the fuck is it going to look like with these swarms of sick people all trying to get into a crowded hospitals where there ain't even a doctor? What about America where some of them will have weapons? Like geez. We should bite the bullet or whatever it's called and just totally lock down everything, stop the spread dead in its tracks. We are really going to regret not having done that.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later[^] [v] #1,097,857
It’s interfering with my job and how many hours I get. That’s more likely to kill me before the actual Coronavirus.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 5 minutes later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,097,861
@previous (B)
Yes i also don't think I'll die from it but who knows. A whole lot of people will die though and the mass sickness that comes from mass infection, it's going to be hard to watch.
Yes i also don't think I'll die from it but who knows. A whole lot of people will die though and the mass sickness that comes from mass infection, it's going to be hard to watch.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 3 hours later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,097,934
I'm super worried about this
I don't want anyone to die
I don't want anyone to die
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,097,936
@1,097,861 (A)
Why aren't you making these threads about Influenza? 600k people a year die from that, and 1 billion people are infected.
Why aren't you making these threads about Influenza? 600k people a year die from that, and 1 billion people are infected.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 21 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,097,940
@1,097,934 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
There's little we can do. People are in complete denial of what's coming.
@previous (D)
Yeh but that's like less than 1% lethality rate, while who says this virus is 3.6% in its lethality rate. Even if it ain't higher than that (who keeps underestimating lethality rates of diseases) you also have to keep in mind there's absolutely no immunity within the public and that it's a stealthy virus that spreads easy before hand. It's going to be a disaster.
There's little we can do. People are in complete denial of what's coming.
@previous (D)
Yeh but that's like less than 1% lethality rate, while who says this virus is 3.6% in its lethality rate. Even if it ain't higher than that (who keeps underestimating lethality rates of diseases) you also have to keep in mind there's absolutely no immunity within the public and that it's a stealthy virus that spreads easy before hand. It's going to be a disaster.
chill dog !!81dzJNNYL joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 25 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,097,949
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,097,997
On the plus side, booking a cruise is really cheap.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,098,032
Anonymous G replied with this 6 years ago, 20 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,098,042
@previous (H)
Seriously. They're dirt cheap to book right now. Even if I get quarantined, it beats waiting in line at CostCo to be price gouged on bottled water for the next month.
Sure, the Diamond Princess and the Grand Princess are stuck, but Princess Cruises has other ships. The Royal Princess, the Star Princess, the Sun Princess, the Coral Princess, and the Emerald Princess are all still cruising the Pacific Ocean. And the company could use the business. They've had a spot of bad PR lately. We should all go! Let's organize a Minichan plague cruise!
Seriously. They're dirt cheap to book right now. Even if I get quarantined, it beats waiting in line at CostCo to be price gouged on bottled water for the next month.
Sure, the Diamond Princess and the Grand Princess are stuck, but Princess Cruises has other ships. The Royal Princess, the Star Princess, the Sun Princess, the Coral Princess, and the Emerald Princess are all still cruising the Pacific Ocean. And the company could use the business. They've had a spot of bad PR lately. We should all go! Let's organize a Minichan plague cruise!
Anonymous H replied with this 6 years ago, 15 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,098,054
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 2 hours later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,098,078
I'M WORRIED ABOUT SYNTAX!! WILL HIS 77 ALMOST 80 WEAKEND IMMUNE SYSTEM BE ABLE TO FIGHT OFF THIS VIRUS??
OR WILL WE LOSE HIM FOREVER?
OR WILL WE LOSE HIM FOREVER?
Syntax joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 2 hours later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,098,079
@previous (I)I eat a LOT of Sushi lots n lots of Sushi - Monaco is high on the list because they as the French, (Nextdoor neighbors) {1 myle Zone} in the South of France, eat a lot of SeaFood. France in total where Parisians and butter not s much so good mixed in with South of France which is the Mediterranean diet still gives over all 82.27 years. Moms Grandfather lived to 99 and given he fathered 18 children I wood say he did ok along the way. Rest of males in my family on my dads side just horrid heart issues because of High Cholesterol and it's genetic YET Fun to solve with great diet and EXERCISE Lots of Exercise - Aerobic is the Key and the Endorphins are beyond terrific/exciting/
In a few minutes tyme for me to hit my Ocean a Blue and Air temp at momento is exactly equal to the water temp 75 degrees NO WeTSuit today-yesterday-2morrow
Conditions Calm very Calm n serene. Going to meditate in Sauna like Surf conditions. Humidity is uniquely HIGH as all Fuck.
Anonymous I replied with this 6 years ago, 2 hours later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,098,096
Syntax replied with this 6 years ago, 31 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,098,100
Anonymous D replied with this 6 years ago, 2 days later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,098,982
@1,097,940 (A)
Okay but the same point, 600,000 people every year of influenza. Why isn't society at a halt?
Okay but the same point, 600,000 people every year of influenza. Why isn't society at a halt?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,098,987
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,098,988
dreamworks joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,099,002
Green !StaYqkzUPc joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 52 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,099,003
@previous (dreamworks)
3 billion people died during the black death, start taking this seriously please.
3 billion people died during the black death, start taking this seriously please.
Syntax joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 2 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,099,019
@1,098,079 (Syntax)@1,098,096 (I)
@1,098,100 (Syntax)
<------------------Requires hand job assist of course of course
(Edited 36 seconds later.)
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 44 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,099,037
Syntax replied with this 6 years ago, 12 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,099,042
@previous (N)
No it is you that wants to get down and dirty with Trump cause he is the man you voted4
No it is you that wants to get down and dirty with Trump cause he is the man you voted4
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 34 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,099,050
dreamworks replied with this 6 years ago, 3 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,099,072
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 7 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,099,074
@1,098,079 (Syntax)
The French do not butter their bread. I think you are making all of that story and the statistics up.
The French do not butter their bread. I think you are making all of that story and the statistics up.
Syntax joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 8 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,099,078
@previous (O)
French people don't eat bread plain
Spread some butter, jam, chocolate spread, or even put in cheese (either spread it or cut a slice). Some even like to tear off bits of the bread and dip it in honey (you can do the same with jam and chocolate spread).
The French and their Bread - French rules for eating breadspoonuniversity.com › Lifestyle
French people don't eat bread plain
Spread some butter, jam, chocolate spread, or even put in cheese (either spread it or cut a slice). Some even like to tear off bits of the bread and dip it in honey (you can do the same with jam and chocolate spread).
The French and their Bread - French rules for eating breadspoonuniversity.com › Lifestyle
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 16 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,099,081
@1,099,072 (dreamworks)
I really don't want to play this game with you, you can just do the math with the current fatality rate and the amount expected to catch it this year, then it's even higher once you add a percentage or two when factoring in the overwhelmed hospitals. Stop making me feed you the info you lazy bastard because even if i did you'd still have to see it to believe it.
I really don't want to play this game with you, you can just do the math with the current fatality rate and the amount expected to catch it this year, then it's even higher once you add a percentage or two when factoring in the overwhelmed hospitals. Stop making me feed you the info you lazy bastard because even if i did you'd still have to see it to believe it.
Anonymous Q joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 9 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,099,084
dreamworks replied with this 6 years ago, 12 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,099,087
@1,099,081 (A)
Right but you said this was an experts' estimation not just your guess. Aren't experts estimating between 15 and 80 million deaths?
Right but you said this was an experts' estimation not just your guess. Aren't experts estimating between 15 and 80 million deaths?
dreamworks double-posted this 6 years ago, 58 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,099,089
@1,099,081 (A)
Also yes I would believe you if you posted a actual worst case scenario from an estimate by experts that claims it would be hundreds of millions of deaths.
Also yes I would believe you if you posted a actual worst case scenario from an estimate by experts that claims it would be hundreds of millions of deaths.
Syntax replied with this 6 years ago, 7 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,099,098
I am hoping this thing will distract from the fact that I got Aids from a illegal Mexican boy.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 5 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,099,146
@1,099,087 (dreamworks)
@1,099,089 (dreamworks)
No you wouldn't. The nath is there for you. I even described the math steps. Do it and report back.
@1,099,089 (dreamworks)
No you wouldn't. The nath is there for you. I even described the math steps. Do it and report back.
jodi !ariasXXmaE joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 17 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,099,149
dreamworks replied with this 6 years ago, 4 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,099,194
@1,099,146 (A)
The Australian National University says 15 to 80 million deaths. Your estimate relies on the entire population of earth to catch the virus ?
The Australian National University says 15 to 80 million deaths. Your estimate relies on the entire population of earth to catch the virus ?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 38 seconds later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,099,195
dreamworks replied with this 6 years ago, 39 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,099,198
@previous (A)
They did the math. You did it incorrectly. Do you really think you're smarter than a whole university team combined??
They did the math. You did it incorrectly. Do you really think you're smarter than a whole university team combined??
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,099,200
@previous (dreamworks)
You quoted some university nobody has heard about and called it experts. Wow. Now here's some news from real experts.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/coronavirus-infection-outbreak-worldwide-virus-expert-warning-today-2020-03-02/
Now do the math... Wise ass.
You quoted some university nobody has heard about and called it experts. Wow. Now here's some news from real experts.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/coronavirus-infection-outbreak-worldwide-virus-expert-warning-today-2020-03-02/
Now do the math... Wise ass.
Anonymous D replied with this 6 years ago, 2 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,099,214
@previous (A)
> CBS News spoke to one of the country's top experts on viruses, Marc Lipsitch from Harvard University, who cautions that 40-70% of the world's population will become infected — and from that number, 1% of people who get symptoms from COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus, could die.
Not bad.
> CBS News spoke to one of the country's top experts on viruses, Marc Lipsitch from Harvard University, who cautions that 40-70% of the world's population will become infected — and from that number, 1% of people who get symptoms from COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus, could die.
Not bad.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 6 years ago, 13 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,099,216
Anonymous S joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 17 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,099,220
dreamworks replied with this 6 years ago, 20 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,099,224
Anonymous Q replied with this 6 years ago, 17 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,099,229
CDC estimates that flu has resulted in between 9.3 million and 49 million illnesses each year in the United States since 2010.
900 coronaviruscases in U.S. = End of days.
900 coronaviruscases in U.S. = End of days.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 3 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,099,278
@1,099,224 (dreamworks)
See, you are just going to play this silly game. You'll have to see to believe, it's a waste of time talking to you about this.
See, you are just going to play this silly game. You'll have to see to believe, it's a waste of time talking to you about this.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,099,279
@1,099,229 (Q)
A Italian doctor responsible for the covid response said that this was like a bomb except contagious and not limited by time and place.
A Italian doctor responsible for the covid response said that this was like a bomb except contagious and not limited by time and place.
Anonymous S replied with this 6 years ago, 8 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,099,281
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,099,282
@previous (S)
I'm not keeping notes and he'll just discredit the research. He has a a expert on the matter, it should be enough but i guess he'll see.
I'm not keeping notes and he'll just discredit the research. He has a a expert on the matter, it should be enough but i guess he'll see.
dreamworks replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,099,305
@1,099,278 (A)
Um I just want to read the study which isn't linked in the article which doesn't really go in to any depth as to what the estimate is based on
Um I just want to read the study which isn't linked in the article which doesn't really go in to any depth as to what the estimate is based on
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 10 hours later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,099,487
Anonymous G replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,099,490
@1,099,200 (A)
> Now do the math...
Okay. If the world population is 7,700,000,000 and Lipsitch's estimate of 70% infected is correct then that would mean 5,390,000,000 infected. His estimate of the mortality rate is 1% in the article you listed so that's 53.9 million deaths. Lipsitch''s lower estimate of 40% infected would give 30.8 million deaths. That's actually a lower figure than the 80 million cited by @1,099,194 (dreamworks).
@1,099,305 (dreamworks)
It doesn't look like he's citing a study, just projections from a "combination of the mathematical models that we use to track and predict epidemics." I can't find any source where he goes into details about the models he is using. Lipsitch certainly seems to an expert the field of epidemiology though so it's probably reasonable to assume he knows what he is doing.
Even Lipsitch is cagey about the numbers and points out that those are just projections based on current models. He is careful to qualify his responses with the caveat that those numbers are just projections and can change depending on how people take precautions and actions to prevent infection.
> Now do the math...
Okay. If the world population is 7,700,000,000 and Lipsitch's estimate of 70% infected is correct then that would mean 5,390,000,000 infected. His estimate of the mortality rate is 1% in the article you listed so that's 53.9 million deaths. Lipsitch''s lower estimate of 40% infected would give 30.8 million deaths. That's actually a lower figure than the 80 million cited by @1,099,194 (dreamworks).
@1,099,305 (dreamworks)
It doesn't look like he's citing a study, just projections from a "combination of the mathematical models that we use to track and predict epidemics." I can't find any source where he goes into details about the models he is using. Lipsitch certainly seems to an expert the field of epidemiology though so it's probably reasonable to assume he knows what he is doing.
Even Lipsitch is cagey about the numbers and points out that those are just projections based on current models. He is careful to qualify his responses with the caveat that those numbers are just projections and can change depending on how people take precautions and actions to prevent infection.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 26 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,099,491
@previous (G)
Mhm, now actually do it with the current lethality rate as it is believed, and factor in that it's going to be higher than that if the hospitals simply don't have the manpower or resources to help them all. Also what happened to that condescending remarks about me being smarter than the experts? Is that not what you two are doing, if you don't believe the current lethality rate and the expert in the article?
Mhm, now actually do it with the current lethality rate as it is believed, and factor in that it's going to be higher than that if the hospitals simply don't have the manpower or resources to help them all. Also what happened to that condescending remarks about me being smarter than the experts? Is that not what you two are doing, if you don't believe the current lethality rate and the expert in the article?
Anonymous G replied with this 6 years ago, 33 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,099,492
@previous (A)
> Also what happened to that condescending remarks about me being smarter than the experts?
I posted in this thread five days back to make a silly comment about cruise ship prices. You might be confusing me with a different anon.
> Is that not what you two are doing, if you don't believe the current lethality rate and the expert in the article?
On the contrary, I am taking the expert you cited seriously by using his numbers and doing the math like you asked. The lethality rate you want to use isn't part of his model. If you're appealing to an authority on the subject, you don't get to revise his estimate by picking and choosing only some of the numbers he cites and adding in other numbers where you think they should go.
There is plenty of reason to suspect that lack of testing, unreported cases, or under-reporting of cases by some countries may make the current lethality rate look higher than it actually is. That is probably why Lipsitch is using a lower rate than one calculated from the current raw data in his modeling.
> Also what happened to that condescending remarks about me being smarter than the experts?
I posted in this thread five days back to make a silly comment about cruise ship prices. You might be confusing me with a different anon.
> Is that not what you two are doing, if you don't believe the current lethality rate and the expert in the article?
On the contrary, I am taking the expert you cited seriously by using his numbers and doing the math like you asked. The lethality rate you want to use isn't part of his model. If you're appealing to an authority on the subject, you don't get to revise his estimate by picking and choosing only some of the numbers he cites and adding in other numbers where you think they should go.
There is plenty of reason to suspect that lack of testing, unreported cases, or under-reporting of cases by some countries may make the current lethality rate look higher than it actually is. That is probably why Lipsitch is using a lower rate than one calculated from the current raw data in his modeling.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 21 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,099,494
@previous (G)
There's also plenty of reason to suspect the fatality rate will increase significantly with overwhelmed hospitals. What me and dreamworks were debating was how many people would catch the virus this year.
As i am sure you know, it is indeed hard to know the mortality rate in the start of a outbreak of a unknown virus. The who had been underestimating that number in the start, as well as its rate of infection. If anything, the estimations have only gotten worse with time, the mortality rate doesn't either factor in the situation with the hospitals. WHO says the mortality rate is 3.6 and again, those rates don't come from a completely overwhelmed health care system but that's what we are facing.
There's also plenty of reason to suspect the fatality rate will increase significantly with overwhelmed hospitals. What me and dreamworks were debating was how many people would catch the virus this year.
As i am sure you know, it is indeed hard to know the mortality rate in the start of a outbreak of a unknown virus. The who had been underestimating that number in the start, as well as its rate of infection. If anything, the estimations have only gotten worse with time, the mortality rate doesn't either factor in the situation with the hospitals. WHO says the mortality rate is 3.6 and again, those rates don't come from a completely overwhelmed health care system but that's what we are facing.
dreamworks replied with this 6 years ago, 10 hours later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,099,633
@1,099,491 (A)
Wait, you want to believe an infection estimation from one guy but not his death rate estimation??
Wait, you want to believe an infection estimation from one guy but not his death rate estimation??
(Edited 14 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 15 hours later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,099,765
@previous (dreamworks)
No...? His infection and lethality estimates were BOTH lower than what they are now. Look, you can't blame me for what's happening. This isn't just me overreacting to something "basically like the flu" but instead it's very real and very serious. Can't you see that, even after all these developments?
No...? His infection and lethality estimates were BOTH lower than what they are now. Look, you can't blame me for what's happening. This isn't just me overreacting to something "basically like the flu" but instead it's very real and very serious. Can't you see that, even after all these developments?
dreamworks replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,099,768
Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 5 hours later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,099,828
myabe Trump declares emergency Medicare for all in the US
Anonymous G replied with this 6 years ago, 9 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,099,990
@1,099,494 (A)
Well, critically, that 40-70% projection doesn't have a timeline attached. He just seems to be talking about the proportion of the population that will be reached mathematically given the current population factors and infection rates. That's not a projection for next month or even next year.
The problem with you plugging in your estimation of the mortality rate that he points out in the CBSNews article is that we don't have a good estimate of the number of less severe cases. Current numbers are being estimated from patients who show symptoms severe enough to report to a hospital or populations at high risk of infection in which thorough testing is being done. In an interview with Der Spiegel he says, "We don’t know how many people are really infected. It’s like an iceberg with the severe cases at the top level and the asymptomatic ones underneath the surface. We won't know how big the latter part of the iceberg is – and thus the true fatality rate – until the outbreak is over."
> WHO says the mortality rate is 3.6
The WHO does say that. They also offer the same caveat that the only number currently known is how many people have died out of those who have been reported and that it is too early to make any conclusive statements about what the overall mortality rate will be.
The mortality rate is being calculated as a percentage of deaths/total cases. If the number of total cases is greater than we know about, then the denominator of that ratio increases which means the overall rate is smaller. That is why epidemiologists and world health organizations are cautioning people about making statements based on incomplete data. It sounds very much like all the the experts are cautioning against doing exactly what you want to do with the numbers.
Well, critically, that 40-70% projection doesn't have a timeline attached. He just seems to be talking about the proportion of the population that will be reached mathematically given the current population factors and infection rates. That's not a projection for next month or even next year.
The problem with you plugging in your estimation of the mortality rate that he points out in the CBSNews article is that we don't have a good estimate of the number of less severe cases. Current numbers are being estimated from patients who show symptoms severe enough to report to a hospital or populations at high risk of infection in which thorough testing is being done. In an interview with Der Spiegel he says, "We don’t know how many people are really infected. It’s like an iceberg with the severe cases at the top level and the asymptomatic ones underneath the surface. We won't know how big the latter part of the iceberg is – and thus the true fatality rate – until the outbreak is over."
> WHO says the mortality rate is 3.6
The WHO does say that. They also offer the same caveat that the only number currently known is how many people have died out of those who have been reported and that it is too early to make any conclusive statements about what the overall mortality rate will be.
The mortality rate is being calculated as a percentage of deaths/total cases. If the number of total cases is greater than we know about, then the denominator of that ratio increases which means the overall rate is smaller. That is why epidemiologists and world health organizations are cautioning people about making statements based on incomplete data. It sounds very much like all the the experts are cautioning against doing exactly what you want to do with the numbers.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,100,003
@previous (G)
They have to be cautious because they are the experts unlike me and you. I think we don't have to be cautious talking about it on minichan though. As I have said, it is indeed a difficult thing for us to estimate how many people will die, but the current numbers isn't exactly just a guess by someone that has no idea what they are talking about and those numbers don't look good.
During the start of this, people were saying the same with the china cases, they said they probably aren't counting in everyone who's infected or everyone who's dead but the WHO did send someone over and said that wasn't the case at all. They were testing fanatically for the virus, more than a million tests each week.
They have to be cautious because they are the experts unlike me and you. I think we don't have to be cautious talking about it on minichan though. As I have said, it is indeed a difficult thing for us to estimate how many people will die, but the current numbers isn't exactly just a guess by someone that has no idea what they are talking about and those numbers don't look good.
During the start of this, people were saying the same with the china cases, they said they probably aren't counting in everyone who's infected or everyone who's dead but the WHO did send someone over and said that wasn't the case at all. They were testing fanatically for the virus, more than a million tests each week.
Anonymous G replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,100,066
@previous (A)
> During the start of this, people were saying the same with the china cases, they said they probably aren't counting in everyone who's infected or everyone who's dead but the WHO did send someone over and said that wasn't the case at all. They were testing fanatically for the virus, more than a million tests each week.
From a February 9, 2020 article:
In Hubei, it takes hours for samples to be sent to the laboratories and days for the results to be issued. The local health department says the labs can run 6,000 tests a day, but even with staff working around the clock, there aren’t enough laboratories to keep up with the workload. The province is seeking outside help.
That was the reporting on the situation in Hubei a little more than a month ago. There was a testing bottleneck in the quarantined province that was the epicenter of the outbreak. Granted, China did work around the problems by using CT scans and other diagnostic techniques to assess patients. While these fixes certainly helped deal with the immediate issue of prioritizing people for medical care, they offered a much less accurate assessment of the numbers.
Chinese doctors at the time were specifically talking about the probelm:
Dr. Joseph Tsang Kay Yan, an infectious disease specialist in Hong Kong, said the health authorities in China should use the testing kits more widely to get a clearer picture of the epidemic. He warned that the main disadvantage of using CT scans would be missing patients with mild symptoms, raising the risk of spreading the infection.
So China did eventually solve some of the problems. Manufacture of test kits and supplies was ramped up quickly in response. Medical professionals were brought in and infrastructure was quickly put into place. However, we are no where close to having thoroughly tested all affected areas in China or even all the people in Hubei, the most impacted province. On top of that, there were some problems with the accuracy of early test kits and some of the early diagnoses. Accurate record keeping isn't what is foremost on people's minds in the middle of a health crisis.
All that is to say, there is no reason to just assume the numbers that came out of China are complete or accurate now that the situation is better than it was a month ago. Even the Chinese government is saying it is hard to estimate the numbers in such a chaotic situation.
> They have to be cautious because they are the experts unlike me and you. I think we don't have to be cautious talking about it on minichan though.
This is all the more reason to actually pay attention to what the experts are saying - all of what those experts are saying. You can't just skip over some parts to find a sensational claim to pass along and talk about. You can't pick some projected numbers from one place and combine them with some figures you found somewhere else while ignoring all the warnings from the experts about how you shouldn't do that. Repeating numbers that sound scary while ignoring all of the qualifiers the experts put at the end of those projections is just irresponsibly spreading rumors cloaked in the guise of expert opinion.
> During the start of this, people were saying the same with the china cases, they said they probably aren't counting in everyone who's infected or everyone who's dead but the WHO did send someone over and said that wasn't the case at all. They were testing fanatically for the virus, more than a million tests each week.
From a February 9, 2020 article:
In Hubei, it takes hours for samples to be sent to the laboratories and days for the results to be issued. The local health department says the labs can run 6,000 tests a day, but even with staff working around the clock, there aren’t enough laboratories to keep up with the workload. The province is seeking outside help.
That was the reporting on the situation in Hubei a little more than a month ago. There was a testing bottleneck in the quarantined province that was the epicenter of the outbreak. Granted, China did work around the problems by using CT scans and other diagnostic techniques to assess patients. While these fixes certainly helped deal with the immediate issue of prioritizing people for medical care, they offered a much less accurate assessment of the numbers.
Chinese doctors at the time were specifically talking about the probelm:
Dr. Joseph Tsang Kay Yan, an infectious disease specialist in Hong Kong, said the health authorities in China should use the testing kits more widely to get a clearer picture of the epidemic. He warned that the main disadvantage of using CT scans would be missing patients with mild symptoms, raising the risk of spreading the infection.
So China did eventually solve some of the problems. Manufacture of test kits and supplies was ramped up quickly in response. Medical professionals were brought in and infrastructure was quickly put into place. However, we are no where close to having thoroughly tested all affected areas in China or even all the people in Hubei, the most impacted province. On top of that, there were some problems with the accuracy of early test kits and some of the early diagnoses. Accurate record keeping isn't what is foremost on people's minds in the middle of a health crisis.
All that is to say, there is no reason to just assume the numbers that came out of China are complete or accurate now that the situation is better than it was a month ago. Even the Chinese government is saying it is hard to estimate the numbers in such a chaotic situation.
> They have to be cautious because they are the experts unlike me and you. I think we don't have to be cautious talking about it on minichan though.
This is all the more reason to actually pay attention to what the experts are saying - all of what those experts are saying. You can't just skip over some parts to find a sensational claim to pass along and talk about. You can't pick some projected numbers from one place and combine them with some figures you found somewhere else while ignoring all the warnings from the experts about how you shouldn't do that. Repeating numbers that sound scary while ignoring all of the qualifiers the experts put at the end of those projections is just irresponsibly spreading rumors cloaked in the guise of expert opinion.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,100,093
@previous (G)
Yes i can, as I've tried to explain, if you would just actually listen instead of pretending to be some kind of internet police. WHO has said the Chinese numbers are accurate, I'd rather believe them, thank you.
Yes i can, as I've tried to explain, if you would just actually listen instead of pretending to be some kind of internet police. WHO has said the Chinese numbers are accurate, I'd rather believe them, thank you.
Sheik Anon joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 8 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,100,184
Anonymous G replied with this 6 years ago, 12 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,100,342
@1,100,093 (A)
> WHO has said the Chinese numbers are accurate, I'd rather believe them, thank you.
It's the numbers they specifically say aren't accurate that you want to use though. You should probably trust the number of confirmed cases they report. The problem is that you want to use a mortality rate that they explicitly say is too high. That's not you believing them. That's you ignoring them.
They make it pretty clear in their situation reports that they are working on the data as reported by government agencies all over the world. While the number of confirmed cases is diagnosed according set protocols and is some of the most complete data available on instances of infection, they have no way of accounting for asymptomatic cases, mild cases, and people that haven't been tested yet. They specifically go out of their way to say:
While the true mortality of COVID-19 will take some time to fully understand, the data we have so far indicate that the crude mortality ratio (the number of reported deaths divided by the reported cases) is between 3-4%, the infection mortality rate (the number of reported deaths divided by the number of infections) will be lower.
Do you see the problem? If they go out of their way to tell you that an estimate is too high and you just ignore all the warnings, then you're just saying to hell with what the experts say and making up your own model.
> WHO has said the Chinese numbers are accurate, I'd rather believe them, thank you.
It's the numbers they specifically say aren't accurate that you want to use though. You should probably trust the number of confirmed cases they report. The problem is that you want to use a mortality rate that they explicitly say is too high. That's not you believing them. That's you ignoring them.
They make it pretty clear in their situation reports that they are working on the data as reported by government agencies all over the world. While the number of confirmed cases is diagnosed according set protocols and is some of the most complete data available on instances of infection, they have no way of accounting for asymptomatic cases, mild cases, and people that haven't been tested yet. They specifically go out of their way to say:
While the true mortality of COVID-19 will take some time to fully understand, the data we have so far indicate that the crude mortality ratio (the number of reported deaths divided by the reported cases) is between 3-4%, the infection mortality rate (the number of reported deaths divided by the number of infections) will be lower.
Do you see the problem? If they go out of their way to tell you that an estimate is too high and you just ignore all the warnings, then you're just saying to hell with what the experts say and making up your own model.
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 6 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,100,346
Lizzo joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,100,347
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 6 years ago, 58 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,100,359
No, he's on second.