|
|
Post by fschmidt on Apr 7, 2020 19:25:34 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by karl on Apr 7, 2020 19:53:42 GMT
If we are to trust the latest numbers from Iceland, the mortality is 0,378%, although given that the total number of deaths is 6, and 11 patients are in a critical state, that number might rise substantially. Since it takes some days from someone is infected to that person having died from it, one would expect that the actual mortality rate is a little bit higher than the one registered in the thick of it. (Premising that there has been massive testing, like in Iceland, otherwise one would expect the real mortality rate to be lower.)
Let's say the mortality rate is 0,4%. That number premises that the health care system isn't overwhelmed. I think one can be fairly certain of that the real mortality rate is considerably higher than 0,4% in Italy, where the measured rate is over 12%. This due to that not everyone who needed it got the necessary treatment.
You wrote that this is like a bad flu. A flu has a mortality rate of 0,1%. It's also far less contagious. Around 900 people die every year in my country from the flu. For one to reach herd immunity in regards to the corona virus, it's estimated that 40% has to be infected by it. And if 0,4% of those will die, then that amounts to 9000 people. -Ten times as many as from the flu.
(Never mind the post below. I just ran into some editing problems due to the system clock not being set right.)
|
|
|
|
Post by karl on Apr 7, 2020 19:57:46 GMT
If we are to trust the latest numbers from Iceland, the mortality is 0,378, although given that the total number of deaths is 6, and 11 patients are in a critical state, that number might rise substantially. Since it takes some days from someone is infected to that person having died from it, one would expect that the actual mortality rate is a little bit higher than the one registered in the thick of it. (Premising that there has been massive testing, like in Iceland, otherwise one would expect the real mortality rate to be lower.)
Let's say the mortality rate is 0,4%. That number premises that the health care system isn't overwhelmed. I think one can be fairly certain of that the real mortality rate is considerably higher than 0,4% in Italy, where the measured rate is over 12%. This due to that not everyone who needed it got the necessary treatment.
You wrote that this is like a bad flu. A flu has a mortality rate of 0,1%. It's also far less contagious. Around 900 people die every year in my country from the flu. For one to reach herd immunity in regards to the corona virus, it's estimated that 40% has to be infected by it. And if 0,4% of those will die, then that amounts to 9000 people. -Ten times as many as from the corona virus. |
|
|
|
Post by fschmidt on Apr 7, 2020 21:35:52 GMT
If we are to trust the latest numbers from Iceland, the mortality is 0,378%, although given that the total number of deaths is 6, and 11 patients are in a critical state, that number might rise substantially. It might also fall since those who catch it first probably have weak immune systems. Italy's mortality rate numbers are meaningless because they don't count those without symptoms. What is meaningful is that deaths in Italy are already declining with current deaths being only 0.02% of the population. That is far below what current models predict and is similar to the flu. |
|
|
|
Post by karl on Apr 7, 2020 23:27:01 GMT
If we are to trust the latest numbers from Iceland, the mortality is 0,378%, although given that the total number of deaths is 6, and 11 patients are in a critical state, that number might rise substantially. It might also fall since those who catch it first probably have weak immune systems. Italy's mortality rate numbers are meaningless because they don't count those without symptoms. What is meaningful is that deaths in Italy are already declining with current deaths being only 0.02% of the population. That is far below what current models predict and is similar to the flu.
Italy has a death rate from the flu of 8,15/100.000 per year, which translates to about 5000. So far, over 17.000 have died from the corona virus.
The percentage of the Italian population that has died so far is far closer to 0,03% than 0,02%. 17.127/60.350.000=0,0284%
That the number of deaths per day is declining, probably has something to do with that the country is on lockdown. And even so, another 604 died last day.
Back to the Icelandic statistics. Even if we are to presume that its mortality rate is also the mortality rate in Italy, that is 0,378%, and one needs 40% of a population to be infected to achieve herd immunity, then the number of deaths would be: 60.350.000*0,00367*0,4=88.594.
That is 17 times the number of people dying every year in Italy from the flu. And given that the Italian health care system is overwhelmed, and they haven't even had ventilators for all the patients needing intensive care, it's implausible that the mortality rate is even as low as that.
|
|
|
|
Post by fschmidt on Apr 8, 2020 0:35:24 GMT
Italy has a death rate from the flu of 8,15/100.000 per year, which translates to about 5000. So far, over 17.000 have died from the corona virus. This doesn't seem right. In the 2017-2018 flu season, 60K people died of flu in the US. The US is about 5X the population of Italy, so Italy should have had about 12K flu deaths. Probably not considering that countries without lockdown aren't doing worse. I addressed this here: undepraved.mikraite.org/Witch-Doctors-Fight-Coronavirus-tp16p17.htmlWe have no idea what the real R0 is, and therefore don't know what percentage of exposure is needed. I assume it is much lower than most current guesses based on how quickly the curves are flattening out. The West has become totally incompetent, so even a slight variation from the norm causes panic. So I can't take information like this very seriously. Even those promoting lockdown and other restrictions say that this will only flatten the curve, not change the final outcome that much. So if they are right, the flattened curve should take a long time to go into decline. If I am right and these restriction do nothing of value, then we should see the curve go into decline quickly (within weeks). So let's see what happens. |
|
|
|
Post by karl on Apr 8, 2020 1:16:55 GMT
Italy has a death rate from the flu of 8,15/100.000 per year, which translates to about 5000. So far, over 17.000 have died from the corona virus. This doesn't seem right. In the 2017-2018 flu season, 60K people died of flu in the US. The US is about 5X the population of Italy, so Italy should have had about 12K flu deaths. Probably not considering that countries without lockdown aren't doing worse. I addressed this here: undepraved.mikraite.org/Witch-Doctors-Fight-Coronavirus-tp16p17.htmlWe have no idea what the real R0 is, and therefore don't know what percentage of exposure is needed. I assume it is much lower than most current guesses based on how quickly the curves are flattening out. The West has become totally incompetent, so even a slight variation from the norm causes panic. So I can't take information like this very seriously. Even those promoting lockdown and other restrictions say that this will only flatten the curve, not change the final outcome that much. So if they are right, the flattened curve should take a long time to go into decline. If I am right and these restriction do nothing of value, then we should see the curve go into decline quickly (within weeks). So let's see what happens.
The deaths/capita of people dying from the flu is not the same for every country. In the US it's on average 14,91/100.000 (This is the equivalent of 50.000 per year in the US. So according to your figures, 2017/2018 must have been a bit worse than normal.), while in Italy it's 8,15/100.000.
It was only early on that the countries imposing a lockdown only aimed to flatten the curve. Norway and Denmark, for example, have now the stated goal of defeating the virus, which means to get the infection rate below 1,0. And the Norwegian government declared recently that the infection rate had been lowered from 2,3 to 0,7.
Sweden has not imposed a lockdown, and so far, 591 people are dead, as opposed to 89 in Norway. Only yesterday, 114 more people were reported dead from the virus in Sweden, with the equivalent number in Norway being 13. Adjusting for that Sweden has twice the population of Norway, leads to a difference in total number of deaths by a factor of over 3.
I agree that we can't know exactly what the RO is, but I chose a fairly low number in suggesting that 40% of the population needs to be infected to reach herd immunity. The number you're referring to in that article was 66%. It's hard to imagine that it would be much lower than 40%, given how contagious this virus is, that someone can infect others for 14 days without symptoms, with an average incubation time of 4-5 days, and that the virus can still be active on some surfaces after three days.
I also agree that we'll find out soon enough. I will keep an eye on the figures for Sweden, as opposed to those for Norway and Denmark, in the coming days and weeks.
|
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Apr 8, 2020 19:34:18 GMT
Despite Its NewSpeak Name, "Pollution" Is Antiseptic
Common sense and freedom of thought would allow the unorthodox idea that auto emissions have wiped out all plagues since they reached levels above those of 1918, the year of the Spanish Flu holocaust. So the cessation of economic activity is healthy only for the virus. Gasoline in Italy costs three times what it does in the United States, so they need to drive more and open up other emission outlets if they want to kill off this Postmodern Black Death.
|
|
