Unlike you and Trump I don't know Mr. Many People or Mr. Some. I'm not aware of anyone trying to mislead you about the death rate It has always been presented as a percentage of cases. “Globally, about 3.4% of reported COVID-19 cases have died,” WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said during a press briefing at the agency’s headquarters in Geneva. The number of deaths if left unchecked is not conjecture just because you don't understand it. It is a fact. https://labblog.uofmhealth.org/rounds/how-scientists-quantify-intensity-of-an-outbreak-like-covid-19 Good thing we took preventive measures. I picked the ship to show the problem with your assumption. Nothing else.
We are still only testing hospital workers exposed to the disease and those who are already showing symptoms. We need to test random members of the general public to establish exactly how prevalent the disease is among the public at large.
Death rate based on the number of known cases is garbage, nothing more. You have two factors involved in the simple math needed to determine death rate due to C19, cases and deaths. One is known (deaths) the other is not (cases) so you can not get a remotely accurate number with a unknown factor involved. Trying to say you have one is just incorrect. It's fear mongering for simpletons. It is not a fact. It's conjecture. And we have all seen how that type of conjecture is very wrong so far. Good thing Trump lead the way with those preventive measures. Your POTUS was leading. Ships are not good cases studies as I showed you with the Roosevelt. You can get all kinds of extreme numbers from using them. So picking one to disprove a "assumption" by me was kind of foolish.
Does WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus have "research papers" that Assistant Secretary of Health Brett Giroir does not?
That would be appropriate--if President Trump had claimed that his desire to reopen America is based upon the fact that he "cannot see" the coronavirus. Could you show us just where he said that, please?
Only if you think the infection rate is incredibly low in which case it is still not worth shutting down the country. But the infection rate is not that low and this virus is far from a "very deadly virus" no matter how you try to talk out both sides of your mouth.
And with the first two clauses of the first sentence, you have dismissed the point--and totally digressed...
Look at the death counts we have, which are also underestimated. Either the death rate is much higher than the seasonal flu or the infection rate is waaaaaaay higher than anticipated, or both. Either way that makes it way deadlier than the flu. If the death rate is really almost as low as the flu, then the infection rate is far, far higher, which would mean a need for MASSIVE testing among those who are asymptomatic.
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/486231-health-experts-warn-coronavirus-mortality-rate-likely-to-drop[/quote] Uh, so? Do these numbers take into account that many--yes, many--people who contract covid-19 are asymptomatic, and are therefore not even aware that they have the virus?
I really don't think so. Rather, I think that we are in the middle of a Dem panic. Are you at all concerned about the huge spike in suicides recently--presumably, because people are going crazy over this continued lockdown? And how about the large spike in domestic abuse, as people who used to have jobs to attend every day no longer do?
WHO never claimed to be providing an accurate number. Quite the reverse. They make it very plain that the actual figure is unknown: "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%." https://www.who.int/docs/default-so...0306-sitrep-46-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=96b04adf_4
It is critically important context that was missing from your OP. The "best estimate" he cited is based on data which was nearly 6 weeks ago. The technical definition of the word "many" is "more than one." Yea. There are a lot more than "one" asymptomatic persons who are not being counted by the data thus far. There are also a lot more deaths who are not being counted by the data thus far. The data, thus far, suggests a mortality rate far higher than 0.1. Where that number will ultimately end up depends on a great deal of factors.
Heart disease also isn't contagious, thus it doesn't have the same potential to multiply the same way this virus has. If this virus were to become as common as the flu, the expected number of fatalities for a single year is in the millions.
Not the least of which is the variance in a country’s age profile. Italy was hit hard because it has an ageing population but Nigeria may not be hit as hard with a younger albeit poorer population
or he could deliver the ventilators to the hospitals that need them, that is if you want to prioritize saving lives over sticking it to Cuomo
Exactly. We have not done enough testing to know how many people have been infected nor have all the bodies been counted. Many die at home. Many are dying in senior centers and not tested or counted. What we DO know...is that hospitals are overwhelmed and bodies are piling up
No. I am concerned about a virus that does not discriminate between male and female, between white, black, brown or yellow, between rich or poor, between tall and short, between straight and gay, between smart and stupid, between left or right etc etc etc.
Go back to the ship example and explain to me a death rate of 1% vs. your .0002%. Shucks even use your carrier. Keep doing that until you figure it out or ask someone else to explain it to you.
I don't think you are using any math. Your numbers are not related to anything in the real world. Except the voter fraud rate.
Point taken. While CVD isn't contagious, it is increasing. It's increasing because more people are adopting the behavioral paths that lead to it. Example then(lifestyle and conduct) is the contagion. As for the fatalities potentially in the millions from corona, I am not convinced. New research is suggesting(loaded word)that the numbers infected without symptoms are 50-100 times higher than those tested positive with symptoms, which would knock the death rate down to that of the flu. The problem then isn't its deadliness, but rather sans an inoculation firewall as we have for the flu, far more would contract it, thus raising the death count.
I have no ideal how long these nuts on the left think we should keep the economy closed. They seem to have no ideal what kind of damage that is doing to people, and what is to come because of it. The cure is worse than the disease, of course they drink pool cleaner . Unless you fudge the math you can not get a death rate of even close to 1% off the Roosevelt. Hell i was using 600 confined cases, 1 death. With 50% of the confirmed cases on her having no symptoms at all. That logically says the actual number of cases is higher than 600 so the death rate will be lower. You can twist and dance all you want but The math is not going to fit your narrative,
