undefined | Better HN

0 pointsp1esk6y ago0 comments

When I looked at mortality rates I saw 0.6% in S. Korea where they do large scale testing.

0 comments

That's a lot higher than regular flu though.

The real issue with these numbers isn't whether it's larger or a lot larger than regular flu but to what extent any of these numbers are meaningful at all. The same virus supposedly causes death rates of between 0.5% and 5%, an order of magnitude difference. Seems more likely that nobody really knows.

p1eskOP6y ago

Also, we don't know how many people have been infected. I'm guessing for the flu we have better estimates, as it has been tracked for decades. Besides, "flu" has been a diagnosis commonly used by doctors whenever the symptoms fit. I was told I had a flu by a doctor more than once without any blood tests. So we might have another order of magnitude correction once more data is available.

Yes, it's better be safe than sorry, I get that. However we probably shouldn't use mortality rates as the main reason to panic (or not panic). I shouldn't have done that in my previous comments.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

thu21116y ago

That's a lot higher than regular flu though.

p1eskOP6y ago

Yes, it's better be safe than sorry, I get that. However we probably shouldn't use mortality rates as the main reason to panic (or not panic). I shouldn't have done that in my previous comments.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse