point of note - the mortality rate is slightly under .2% and that's only because of the heavily-weighted over 80yr old numbers.
The common seasonal flu has a mortality rate around .18 or so.
I just checked mortality rates last night and in the US it has climbed to 6%, at least as numbers are reported on worldometers.info
SD is .5% I bet you can tell me why. What are they doing differently there? Their results are not as good as Dr Z's, they're "only" 12 x better than the National average. They probably aren't all consistently following Dr Z's protocol like Brazil has done, to reduce their IFR by 95%. Still ...
The thing is that those numbers are misleading. They only include known tested positives AND the death rate includes some untested and some who had comorbidities that may have actually killed them, skewing it higher. So we have to include those who have it and haven’t been tested (hopefully to be found in other studies- they already imply its 30-50x higher).
Apples to oranges. The numbers I cited are good for comparative purposes, which is how I'm using them. That's perfectly valid. Give sick people medicine!
We can't speculate with numbers that haven't been tested. They're talking about doing random Nationwide antibody testing; we'll see if that produces anything usable for the purpose you're talking about. So far we don't have anything like that. One nurse in Chicago, a small area in LA and NYC, where else? These may prove to be the case in dense cities, that'd be great. It will probably prove to have no bearing on the vast portion of our Country that has 0-10 cases per County. Trying to turn the data they come up with into useful regions with boundaries guiding us into useful decisions will be an art rather than a science.
I seriously doubt it will ever tell us anything more useful than what was obvious before April 1: open up all Counties on April 1 that have 0-10 infected people, along with everyone recovered, virus-free and immune. Gather data about the second wave, and use that to guide opening our suburbs, 11 - X cases per County. That we didn't do this is irresponsible. We could've focused excess personnel and equipment on key areas, and had all our suburbs open by now. Armed with all that data we could be opening smaller cities very soon, in completely responsible fashion. Our largest cities will be the hardest, and this is where the antibody testing has been done so far.
Reasonable person: We did well considering mortality rates were expected to be around 5%.
The left: Less people died in Iceland.
Also the left: travel bans are racist, not eating Chinese food is racist, not going to Chinatown for lunar new year is racist.
Well, fuck most foreigners and their new year, the food can stay.
point of note - the mortality rate is slightly under .2% and that's only because of the heavily-weighted over 80yr old numbers. The common seasonal flu has a mortality rate around .18 or so.
Considering it is less than .03% to .1%, it's just a fucking common cold.
I just checked mortality rates last night and in the US it has climbed to 6%, at least as numbers are reported on worldometers.info
SD is .5% I bet you can tell me why. What are they doing differently there? Their results are not as good as Dr Z's, they're "only" 12 x better than the National average. They probably aren't all consistently following Dr Z's protocol like Brazil has done, to reduce their IFR by 95%. Still ...
The thing is that those numbers are misleading. They only include known tested positives AND the death rate includes some untested and some who had comorbidities that may have actually killed them, skewing it higher. So we have to include those who have it and haven’t been tested (hopefully to be found in other studies- they already imply its 30-50x higher).
Apples to oranges. The numbers I cited are good for comparative purposes, which is how I'm using them. That's perfectly valid. Give sick people medicine!
We can't speculate with numbers that haven't been tested. They're talking about doing random Nationwide antibody testing; we'll see if that produces anything usable for the purpose you're talking about. So far we don't have anything like that. One nurse in Chicago, a small area in LA and NYC, where else? These may prove to be the case in dense cities, that'd be great. It will probably prove to have no bearing on the vast portion of our Country that has 0-10 cases per County. Trying to turn the data they come up with into useful regions with boundaries guiding us into useful decisions will be an art rather than a science.
I seriously doubt it will ever tell us anything more useful than what was obvious before April 1: open up all Counties on April 1 that have 0-10 infected people, along with everyone recovered, virus-free and immune. Gather data about the second wave, and use that to guide opening our suburbs, 11 - X cases per County. That we didn't do this is irresponsible. We could've focused excess personnel and equipment on key areas, and had all our suburbs open by now. Armed with all that data we could be opening smaller cities very soon, in completely responsible fashion. Our largest cities will be the hardest, and this is where the antibody testing has been done so far.