Anonymous wrote:I read the article at:
https://www.amgreatness.com/2020/03/19/dangerous-curves/
I don’t buy the “fueled by media” bashing – people in the media are for the most part statistics-and-data-analysis illiterate and have no way of evaluating the numbers throw at them – The thesis here though seems sounds and would explain the relative low number of deaths in China. The high numbers of deaths in Italy would reflect the state of their health care system and their demography (skewing older than most European countries).
On an anecdotal note – I was sick late December after hosting the kids (one of them was a bit “under the weather” with fever but no other symptoms) of a friend visiting from China. My symptoms reflect almost all the ones associated with the coronavirus (nausea and cramps to start, cough & temperature afterwards). It felt different from anything I had experienced before. I was OK in about 3 days and completely back in about 2 weeks.
I know that the plural of anecdote is not “data” but it is one that makes me at least understand her perspective on it and the data that she is presenting seem to support her hypothesis.
Dangerous? Yes -- sure.
Deadly: only for the very old and already sick -- 99% of the people who died were suffering from something else PRIOR to the virus..
Worth cancelling everything and destroying our economy over it?? No -- absolutely no.
and now, we are talking about 2 Trillions (With a T) of printed money...
A complete disaster for nothing...
"Worth cancelling everything and destroying our economy over it?? No -- absolutely no.
and now, we are talking about 2 Trillions (With a T) of printed money...
A complete disaster for nothing... "
Anonymous wrote:I think people are vastly overestimating the health of average Americans and the strength of our healthcare system.
Anonymous wrote:I think people are vastly overestimating the health of average Americans and the strength of our healthcare system.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Less than a 2 percent death rate. No need to overhype things. Shame on you.
Yes if 80% of the country gets and a 2% death rate..that’s only 5.232 million deaths. That is not even close to the numbers of deaths in WW2.
Are you reading what this is doing to the lungs of those who don't die?
I haven't read anything about that. If you have a good article, please link.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Less than a 2 percent death rate. No need to overhype things. Shame on you.
Would you get on a plane if there was a 2 percent chance it would crash? Shame on YOU.
PP here, yes, I would.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Less than a 2 percent death rate. No need to overhype things. Shame on you.
Yes if 80% of the country gets and a 2% death rate..that’s only 5.232 million deaths. That is not even close to the numbers of deaths in WW2.
That's more than the number of deaths in the US for WWII.
10 times the number of people who died in the US during WW2 (approx 500k).
This needs to be explained more to “common” folk.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:^^PS, I’m even getting on a couple of planes this week.
That's just idiotic.
Why is the world do you think this is funny or in anyway something to be done at this time?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It’s not 2% of the population... *bangs head against wall*
Ok it's 2% of 40-70% of the population. Let's call it 50% of the population that will get infected.
That's 115,000,000 people. Thus 1,500,000 dead of the disease and 20,000,000 hospitalized, displacing all the other critical patients, who also die at a higher rate. It's on the order of magnitude of 2,000,000 deaths at a minimum if we don't slow it down.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Less than a 2 percent death rate. No need to overhype things. Shame on you.
Yes if 80% of the country gets and a 2% death rate..that’s only 5.232 million deaths. That is not even close to the numbers of deaths in WW2.
Are you reading what this is doing to the lungs of those who don't die?
Anonymous wrote:Less than a 2 percent death rate. No need to overhype things. Shame on you.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So let's get some perspective here. Let's take Italy with its 60,000 million population. They now have 4,825 dead. That's .01% of the population. Tragic yes, but it doesn't look as scary as saying 53,500 diagnosed and 4,825 dead.
In other words, even as it rages in Italy, only 54K of the entire population (rounded up) is infected out 60 MILLION people.
Sure. They are now on lockdown. Lockdown works.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Less than a 2 percent death rate. No need to overhype things. Shame on you.
Would you get on a plane if there was a 2 percent chance it would crash? Shame on YOU.
PP here, yes, I would.