Right. Yet, that is how you worded how you got to 2%.Speaker to Animals wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:46 amYou cannot divide the current fatalities by the current infected count. It's a trivial math error.
SARS Pt. 2 - Wuhan Boogaloo
-
- Posts: 3657
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2016 11:15 am
Re: SARS Pt. 2 - Wuhan Boogaloo
-
- Posts: 38685
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:59 pm
Re: SARS Pt. 2 - Wuhan Boogaloo
That is how the MSM is getting the 2%. It's not correct. You can only do that after the pandemic is over and you have the permanent total counts. Anyhoo..
-
- Posts: 3657
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2016 11:15 am
Re: SARS Pt. 2 - Wuhan Boogaloo
Let's just agree on that then and move on.
-
- Posts: 38685
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:59 pm
-
- Posts: 7571
- Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2017 7:54 pm
Re: SARS Pt. 2 - Wuhan Boogaloo
He was a boy, she was a girl,
Can I make it anymore obvious?
Shikata ga nai
-
- Posts: 38685
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:59 pm
Re: SARS Pt. 2 - Wuhan Boogaloo
I don't even know what to think anymore.
We really aren't going to know how bad this is until it breaks out of China.
We really aren't going to know how bad this is until it breaks out of China.
-
- Posts: 38685
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:59 pm
Re: SARS Pt. 2 - Wuhan Boogaloo
Another fun thought for so-called conservatives..
Given that this disease spreads so quickly (it has an unbelievable r0 value of over 4.0), early detection is critical. But for many Americans, the cost of showing up at an emergency room starts around several hundred dollars and can easily exceed a thousand. Because we have this insane for-profit health care system, people who need to present to doctors in order to contain this fucking thing are quite a lot less likely to do so because they can't afford health care.
Given that this disease spreads so quickly (it has an unbelievable r0 value of over 4.0), early detection is critical. But for many Americans, the cost of showing up at an emergency room starts around several hundred dollars and can easily exceed a thousand. Because we have this insane for-profit health care system, people who need to present to doctors in order to contain this fucking thing are quite a lot less likely to do so because they can't afford health care.
-
- Posts: 5377
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2016 5:04 am
Re: SARS Pt. 2 - Wuhan Boogaloo
Solution is to break up the monoploies and looking to use usuary laws - healthcare can’t be an unregulated ed market bc demand is inelastic for most items/services.Speaker to Animals wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 5:40 pmAnother fun thought for so-called conservatives..
Given that this disease spreads so quickly (it has an unbelievable r0 value of over 4.0), early detection is critical. But for many Americans, the cost of showing up at an emergency room starts around several hundred dollars and can easily exceed a thousand. Because we have this insane for-profit health care system, people who need to present to doctors in order to contain this fucking thing are quite a lot less likely to do so because they can't afford health care.
-
- Posts: 38685
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:59 pm
Re: SARS Pt. 2 - Wuhan Boogaloo
Zlaxer wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2020 4:54 amSolution is to break up the monoploies and looking to use usuary laws - healthcare can’t be an unregulated ed market bc demand is inelastic for most items/services.Speaker to Animals wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 5:40 pmAnother fun thought for so-called conservatives..
Given that this disease spreads so quickly (it has an unbelievable r0 value of over 4.0), early detection is critical. But for many Americans, the cost of showing up at an emergency room starts around several hundred dollars and can easily exceed a thousand. Because we have this insane for-profit health care system, people who need to present to doctors in order to contain this fucking thing are quite a lot less likely to do so because they can't afford health care.
The part where you place a cost upfront for poor people to get treatment still escapes you..
-
- Posts: 2434
- Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 10:34 pm
Re: SARS Pt. 2 - Wuhan Boogaloo
Really you'd have to look at how many people survived vs how many died. "Infections" are irrelevant until they either die or recover as far as a fatality statistic is concerned.PartyOf5 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:56 amRight. Yet, that is how you worded how you got to 2%.Speaker to Animals wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:46 amYou cannot divide the current fatalities by the current infected count. It's a trivial math error.
Last numbers I saw were just under 2400 "recovered", just over 700 dead. That's a 25% fatality rate.
Obviously it won't be accurate, that probably only accounts for hospitalization patients... Who knows how many got it but had strong immune systems and perhaps fought it off like a mild flu, or how many avoided the hospital but died at home, etc.
"People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome."