data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/277f8/277f86e59dcd9b7e049850fa450a6ba38bdde3db" alt="This is a normal post"
But that's extremely unlikely. In relatively young, relative healthy people, Covid19 is a minor inconvenience.
It's estimated that there may be an extra 100 % of cases out there, unreported - which would put the mortality rate at morel ike 1.5 %, which is very similar to the rate we get from regular flu.
Speculation, of course, and not much comfort for people who are in the at-risk groups, like I am.
( , Sun 8 Mar 2020, 7:31, Reply)
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/277f8/277f86e59dcd9b7e049850fa450a6ba38bdde3db" alt="This is a normal post"
Most of the stats I've seen quote the death rate being nearer 0.1%.
( , Sun 8 Mar 2020, 8:02, Reply)
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/277f8/277f86e59dcd9b7e049850fa450a6ba38bdde3db" alt="This is a normal post"
The actual death rate likely is closer to 0.1%, but it's impossible to calculate accurately as the majority won't seek medical assistance.
( , Sun 8 Mar 2020, 8:59, Reply)
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/277f8/277f86e59dcd9b7e049850fa450a6ba38bdde3db" alt="This is a normal post"
Populations are sampled to see how many people have antibodies after a flu season. Then it is known how many people had the flu, and the mortality rate is pretty accurate. The same thing will happen for this coronavirius. We'll know what the mortality rate really is in 18 months or so.
( , Sun 8 Mar 2020, 13:59, Reply)
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/277f8/277f86e59dcd9b7e049850fa450a6ba38bdde3db" alt="This is a normal post"
www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---3-march-2020
"Globally, about 3.4% of reported COVID-19 cases have died. By comparison, seasonal flu generally kills far fewer than 1% of those infected."
It's unclear from the wording, but it's not 1.5%, and while it could be 0.1%, it seems less likely they would choose to express that as 'far fewer than 1%'?
also backs up the point about 3.4% being a measure of reported cases, not all cases.
( , Sun 8 Mar 2020, 9:01, Reply)
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/277f8/277f86e59dcd9b7e049850fa450a6ba38bdde3db" alt="This is a normal post"
TBH my main concern is whether the spread can be slowed sufficiently to avoid hospitals being swamped - I've not seen anything to suggest how much the survival rate is affected by not having access to hospital care, but based on what I've seen from pneumonia I suspect it wouldn't be good.
( , Sun 8 Mar 2020, 16:58, Reply)
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/277f8/277f86e59dcd9b7e049850fa450a6ba38bdde3db" alt="This is a normal post"
Those are two different things - the number of COVID cases reported are simply the number of people who are diagnosed - through whatever means.
However, the number of people infected with flu is far higher than the number who report their infection with flu.
So the denominator will be smaller in the case of COVID because they haven't done any random testing yet to discover how many people have had COVID but did not recognise/report it.
( , Mon 9 Mar 2020, 18:48, Reply)