My take on the Wuhan Virus

[Olde Europe]

I fail to understand how, after weeks when coronavirus was all the rage, one can so ignorant about it.

About 15% fall seriously ill.

About 10 to 15% seek medical treatment.

About 1 in 100 die. The recent study in New York found a death rate of 0.76%.

Most deaths are in the older cohorts and those - also younger - with preexisting conditions.

The threat to the younger is very real. They die less often, but fall seriously ill at quite a considerable rate, including needing a ventilator. At one point, 40% of those on a ventilator were from the 20 to 45 years old cohort. Also, those younger facing serious illness continue to live with a significantly reduced lung function. Whether that will eventually go away we - obviously - don't know yet.

Well, if you want to know what the percentage of mortality is, just remember the math they taught you in school. Take the death rate and divide it by the number of cases, and that will give you the mortality percentage.

Today, the US had a total of 911K virus cases. The current death toll is 51,516.

Divide 51,516 by 911,000 and you end up with 0.05654, which means the mortality rate is right around 5 1/2 percent.

Yes, that would be the observed fatality rate. Yet, with most infected being asymptomatic, and not tested, the count of infected in reality is far higher. That means, in turn, the real fatality rate is far lower.

If you look at the link to Johns Hopkins (h/t to Syriously), the case-fatality rate ranges from 0.1% (Singapore) to 27.3% (Nicaragua). It's the same virus, as deadly here as there. The difference is testing, and widely varied observed infected counts.

Think about it, Sailor: If we tested only the dead, we'd get an observed fatality rate of 100%.

 

[jwoodie]

Have you asked that segment of the population how they feel about being selected to be “casualties”?

Have you?

 

[bluzman61]

It is a viral contagion that makes about one in 10 people have serious symptoms, one in 100 sick enough to seek medical treatment and one in 1,000 die prematurely. It's principal danger is to older people with preexisting conditions who are susceptible to pneumonia-like infections. The actual threat to the general population is minimal.

Agree/disagree? (Please explain.)

That pretty much covers it, j. Nice post.

 

[Syriusly]

Have you asked that segment of the population how they feel about being selected to be “casualties”?

Have you?

Still waiting for you to provide anything- anything- to support the numbers you provided in your OP.

Despite repeatedly having this pointed out to you- you avoid providing any facts.

Its almost like you don't really want to 'debate' how to deal with the Wuhan virus, but just provide your unsubstantiated opinion.

 

[Syriusly]

It is a viral contagion that makes about one in 10 people have serious symptoms, one in 100 sick enough to seek medical treatment and one in 1,000 die prematurely. It's principal danger is to older people with preexisting conditions who are susceptible to pneumonia-like infections. The actual threat to the general population is minimal.

Agree/disagree? (Please explain.)

That pretty much covers it, j. Nice post.

lol
Nice post.

Without a single piece of evidence to support it.

Pretty sure that the people who have died and their families consider the threat to be more than 'minimal'

 

[Syriusly]

I fail to understand how, after weeks when coronavirus was all the rage, one can so ignorant about it.

About 15% fall seriously ill.

About 10 to 15% seek medical treatment.

About 1 in 100 die. The recent study in New York found a death rate of 0.76%.

Most deaths are in the older cohorts and those - also younger - with preexisting conditions.

The threat to the younger is very real. They die less often, but fall seriously ill at quite a considerable rate, including needing a ventilator. At one point, 40% of those on a ventilator were from the 20 to 45 years old cohort. Also, those younger facing serious illness continue to live with a significantly reduced lung function. Whether that will eventually go away we - obviously - don't know yet.

Well, if you want to know what the percentage of mortality is, just remember the math they taught you in school. Take the death rate and divide it by the number of cases, and that will give you the mortality percentage.

Today, the US had a total of 911K virus cases. The current death toll is 51,516.

Divide 51,516 by 911,000 and you end up with 0.05654, which means the mortality rate is right around 5 1/2 percent.

Yes, that would be the observed fatality rate. Yet, with most infected being asymptomatic, and not tested, the count of infected in reality is far higher. That means, in turn, the real fatality rate is far lower.

If you look at the link to Johns Hopkins (h/t to Syriously), the case-fatality rate ranges from 0.1% (Singapore) to 27.3% (Nicaragua). It's the same virus, as deadly here as there. The difference is testing, and widely varied observed infected counts.

Think about it, Sailor: If we tested only the dead, we'd get an observed fatality rate of 100%.

All good points- which just points out once again that the OP is not supported by any actual facts. We don't know yet what the actual mortality rate is, we don't even know what the actual infection rate is- but the OP has declared- unilaterally- that the danger to Americans is 'minimal'.

 

[Coyote]

Have you asked that segment of the population how they feel about being selected to be “casualties”?

Have you?

I am not the one who suggested they should “give their lives” for the cause.

 

[Olde Europe]

All good points- which just points out once again that the OP is not supported by any actual facts. We don't know yet what the actual mortality rate is, we don't even know what the actual infection rate is- but the OP has declared- unilaterally- that the danger to Americans is 'minimal'.

As far as I am aware, there are two representative anti-body studies, one in Heinsberg, Germany, the other in New York. The fatality rates they found were 0.37% and 0.76%, respectively. Both studies have their weaknesses, but these are the best figures we have.

Now, at about 50,000 dead, that would indicate an infected count between 6,500,000 and 13,500,000.

Swine flu infected 60 million Americans - without social distancing, etc. Coronavirus is way more contagious than the flu, and it doesn't seem to slow down significantly in a warmer climate. If it rages through all of America, the fatality count would be 1.2 million with the lower death rate mentioned above. Otherwise 2.5 million.

As usual on the right, all things are fine, not a threat, not even a worry, "minimal", if only they can exclude Those people from consideration. In this case, Those people, the ones not worthy of empathy and concern, would be the ones who unwisely contracted a preexisting condition, like higher age. They have no one other than themselves to blame.

 

[candycorn]

Pretty much sums it up perfectly when you try to talk to a blob supporter:

'What are we doing this for?': Doctors are fed up with conspiracies ravaging ERs

"I left work and I felt so deflated," one doctor said about an effort to counter misinformation he saw on Facebook. "I let it get to me."

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Picaro]

Another entire thread pointing out the susceptibility of 'science' to PC Ness, right or left wing versions, and verifying the validiity of F. A. Hayek's criticism of the failures of 'rational constructionist' ideologies to actually produce rational results and objective data that isn't skewed by purely irrational political agendas.

 

[Picaro]

As usual on the right, all things are fine, not a threat, not even a worry, "minimal", if only they can exclude Those people from consideration. In this case, Those people, the ones not worthy of empathy and concern, would be the ones who unwisely contracted a preexisting condition, like higher age. They have no one other than themselves to blame.

As if left wing hysterical politicization and Trump bashing is producing marvelously positive results. lol another failed attempt at 'rationalizations' in the above cite.

 

[Picaro]

I'd be willing to agree with that, but the problem is, there have been several children who have caught the virus and died. The latest one was a 5 year old girl who was the daughter of a firefighter and a police officer.

Then, there was the infant that died.

There have also been many cases requiring hospitalization of people under the age of 30.

Have you even looked into these deaths?

The infant case alone it turns out that the baby died of something else, and they think C19 might have been involved, but not the actual cause of death.

Pretty much like about 70% of the listed fatalities.

I don't remember where I read it so if you really want to know the truth, you'll have to go look for it yourself.

Sorry, but there have been several infant deaths due to COVID 19.

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Overview

COVID-19 is a new type of coronavirus that causes mild to severe cases. Here’s a quick guide on how to spot symptoms, risk factors, prevent spread of the disease, and find out what to do if you think you have it.

www.webmd.com

Newborn baby in Louisiana dies, health officials say cause of death was COVID-19

A woman in Louisiana, who tested positive with COVID-19, went into preterm labor. The baby did not survive.

www.thedenverchannel.com

In both of the above cases, the infants tested positive for the virus, and that was the cause of death. There are lots more out there, but you can google them yourself.

At least I provide links to back up my claims, you apparently don't have that skill.

So, what were the extenuating circumstances? You see, I hear all the time about children and normal adults getting it and dying. Later it is revealed that they had other issues and the C19 may or may not have been a mitigating factor.

We really need to force these people to report the deaths in two categories.

Died OF covid-19

Died WITH covid-19.

There are some kids who are so weak and immune deficient they have to essentially live their short lives in a bubble. They are just as likely to die of Covid-19 as a common cold. There is also so much political interest in skewing the data toward Covid-19 deaths, the prudent approach would be to not jump to conclusions. The devil is always in the details.

Ah well, then,let's just send teams of gunmen around to nursing homes and schools and finish them off quickly, so we can save tax dollars.

 

[beagle9]

I fail to understand how, after weeks when coronavirus was all the rage, one can so ignorant about it.

About 15% fall seriously ill.

About 10 to 15% seek medical treatment.

About 1 in 100 die. The recent study in New York found a death rate of 0.76%.

Most deaths are in the older cohorts and those - also younger - with preexisting conditions.

The threat to the younger is very real. They die less often, but fall seriously ill at quite a considerable rate, including needing a ventilator. At one point, 40% of those on a ventilator were from the 20 to 45 years old cohort. Also, those younger facing serious illness continue to live with a significantly reduced lung function. Whether that will eventually go away we - obviously - don't know yet.

Well, if you want to know what the percentage of mortality is, just remember the math they taught you in school. Take the death rate and divide it by the number of cases, and that will give you the mortality percentage.

Today, the US had a total of 911K virus cases. The current death toll is 51,516.

Divide 51,516 by 911,000 and you end up with 0.05654, which means the mortality rate is right around 5 1/2 percent.

Yes, that would be the observed fatality rate. Yet, with most infected being asymptomatic, and not tested, the count of infected in reality is far higher. That means, in turn, the real fatality rate is far lower.

If you look at the link to Johns Hopkins (h/t to Syriously), the case-fatality rate ranges from 0.1% (Singapore) to 27.3% (Nicaragua). It's the same virus, as deadly here as there. The difference is testing, and widely varied observed infected counts.

Think about it, Sailor: If we tested only the dead, we'd get an observed fatality rate of 100%.

All good points- which just points out once again that the OP is not supported by any actual facts. We don't know yet what the actual mortality rate is, we don't even know what the actual infection rate is- but the OP has declared- unilaterally- that the danger to Americans is 'minimal'.

Oh you mean just like Fauci and everyone else has done while riding the roller coaster ? LOL

 

[Syriusly]

I fail to understand how, after weeks when coronavirus was all the rage, one can so ignorant about it.

About 15% fall seriously ill.

About 10 to 15% seek medical treatment.

About 1 in 100 die. The recent study in New York found a death rate of 0.76%.

Most deaths are in the older cohorts and those - also younger - with preexisting conditions.

The threat to the younger is very real. They die less often, but fall seriously ill at quite a considerable rate, including needing a ventilator. At one point, 40% of those on a ventilator were from the 20 to 45 years old cohort. Also, those younger facing serious illness continue to live with a significantly reduced lung function. Whether that will eventually go away we - obviously - don't know yet.

Well, if you want to know what the percentage of mortality is, just remember the math they taught you in school. Take the death rate and divide it by the number of cases, and that will give you the mortality percentage.

Today, the US had a total of 911K virus cases. The current death toll is 51,516.

Divide 51,516 by 911,000 and you end up with 0.05654, which means the mortality rate is right around 5 1/2 percent.

Yes, that would be the observed fatality rate. Yet, with most infected being asymptomatic, and not tested, the count of infected in reality is far higher. That means, in turn, the real fatality rate is far lower.

If you look at the link to Johns Hopkins (h/t to Syriously), the case-fatality rate ranges from 0.1% (Singapore) to 27.3% (Nicaragua). It's the same virus, as deadly here as there. The difference is testing, and widely varied observed infected counts.

Think about it, Sailor: If we tested only the dead, we'd get an observed fatality rate of 100%.

All good points- which just points out once again that the OP is not supported by any actual facts. We don't know yet what the actual mortality rate is, we don't even know what the actual infection rate is- but the OP has declared- unilaterally- that the danger to Americans is 'minimal'.

Oh you mean just like Fauci and everyone else has done while riding the roller coaster ? LOL

No- Fauci has responded with the best information and advice that he had on-hand within the restrictions put on him by the Trump Administration. That is not the same thing as posting a supposed mortality to start a thread with absolutely no citation to support it.

The difference between the OP's 'take on the virus' and Dr. Fauci's- is that Dr. Fauci is both a medical doctor and an expert in viral infections- the OP- and not one of us responding are not doctors or experts.

 

[Picaro]

Latest stats show a big spike from 60,000 'normal' deaths a year over the last 4 years to 80,000 just in the first 3 months of 2020 here in the U.S. While it's true the Covid virus is probably not a leading cause, just a contributing factor, it's obviously serious enough a problem that it needs addressing as a public health issue, in any case. A bunch of 'open carry' halfwits running around a courthouse in Michigan waving their penis subsitutes at public officials doesn't really change that, except lose votes for conservative candidates to left wing loons.

 

[Deleted member 73486]

It is a viral contagion that makes about one in 10 people have serious symptoms, one in 100 sick enough to seek medical treatment and one in 1,000 die prematurely. It's principal danger is to older people with preexisting conditions who are susceptible to pneumonia-like infections. The actual threat to the general population is minimal.

Agree/disagree? (Please explain.)

Your premise is all wrong. The true death rate is probably somewhere around 1%, not 0.1%. The symptoms seem to vary wildly, and permanent lung damage is one possible result. PERMANENT!

 

[initforme]

80000 dead? Well it's all a conspiracy? It's planned. It's a hoax. It's no worse than the flu. What other asinine labels can you add?

 

[Picaro]

80000 dead? Well it's all a conspiracy? It's planned. It's a hoax. It's no worse than the flu. What other asinine labels can you add?

What are you babbling about? 20,000 more deaths over the last 3 years' average of 60,000, only 3 months into the year, is not a 'hoax', and it's not a flu virus. It is indeed 'worse than the flu', when it can overwhelm hospitals in urban areas and be a major contributor to significantly higher death tolls. Does it have to be the black plague from the Dark ages to require a response?

 

[beagle9]

80000 dead? Well it's all a conspiracy? It's planned. It's a hoax. It's no worse than the flu. What other asinine labels can you add?

I must be living in an alternate universe, because no one I know has gotten this thing yet, and we have never skipped a beat in my town (everyone working). We haven't changed our lifestyles here or our daily routines. Some safety measures have been adopted, but for the most part everyone is doing great (knock on wood). Praying for all who have been affected to get well soon. Just be smart people, and do the safety stuff to some degree in order to remain covid-19 free, and to protect others when go out and about. Each state, town, city, along with it's rural areas should be left alone while focusing on the hot spots.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The biggest problem is every death is now a Wuflu death. Worse every positive test counts as someone actually sick. The stories have gotten totally out of the realm of sanity. Every day is a new symptom. We're now up to demonic possession.