371–380 of 438 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There’s something off about Iran. Iran is a theocratic authoritarian regime under extreme international sanctions. Might have something to do with that. Iran also only has 0.2 hospital beds per 1k people.
It's in fact 1.5 beds per 1000 capita according to World Bank data. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.MED.BEDS.ZS
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/...
The general issue with this measure of mortality (dead/(infected + dead)) is that you're assuming that the infected won't die. In a disease that is exponentially growing, a better approximation of evaluating your survival chances is to look at the death to recovery rate (dead / (recovered + dead)). Based on the available data [1], we are closer to 7.8% than 2% mortality, which is closer to the final mortality rate of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There’s something off about Iran. Iran is a theocratic authoritarian regime under extreme international sanctions. Might have something to do with that. Iran also only has 0.2 hospital beds per 1k people.
A bit off topic but Iran is mostly only under American and Israeli sanctions at this point after Trump unilaterally pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal. The rest of the world can trade with Iran though many companies are still unwilling due to the American pressure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do have one question and I'm asking this seriously, not to start an argument or to attack someone. I also saw this here in a lot of the posts about covid-19. We have numbers, but every time people tend to ignore them or say we should not trust the numbers, take them with a grain of salt, "I think this is way worse, it's going to get way worse" and so on. It's like there is this thirst for disaster or some global dr…
The problem is in the healthcare capacities. I live in a country with ~2mio people. If you're patient zero here, you get a comfy private room, your own bed, 5 doctors, 10 nurses, whole research teams, respirators, priority with all the tests, examinations, etc. Same for patient 1, 2, 3. If 200k people get infected (10% of population), and only 10% of those need extra medical care, that's 20.000 people. We don't have…
The general issue with this measure of mortality (dead/(infected + dead)) is that you're assuming that the infected won't die. In a disease that is exponentially growing, a better approximation of evaluating your survival chances is to look at the death to recovery rate (dead / (recovered + dead)). Based on the available data [1], we are closer to 7.8% than 2% mortality, which is closer to the final mortality rate of…
5 people have died that were on the princess cruise out of 705 infected. At just over 1/2 a percent, it is more deadly than the flu, but not 2% and certainly not 7.8% The princess cruise gives us a crucial piece of information which is a fully tested population. 2 things to consider: 1) population is like older due to being a princess cruise which would increase death rate. 2) not everyone is cleared yet, so more dea…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can it be that smoking plays big part in this? As this also explains gender statistics.
Looking at the numbers from Wei-jie Guan et al ( https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.06.20020974v... ): nonsmokers = 927 cases, 793 non-severe, 134 severe exsmokers = 21 cases, 12 non-severe, 9 severe smokers = 137 cases, 108 non-severe, 29 severe That gives: nonsmokers: 14% severe cases of presented ex-smokers: 43% severe cases of presented smokers: 21% severe cases of presented The low number of ex-smok…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is interesting how in times of crisis, people start looking for a heavy handed, authoritative response to the situation. Moderates will be brushed aside as weak and impotent. I do not disagree with you on the point that China's response has been herculean, but we must not forget that this also comes at a hefty price, one that I am personally not willing to pay.
> I do not disagree with you on the point that China's response has been herculean, but we must not forget that this also comes at a hefty price, one that I am personally not willing to pay. One that you're not ever willing to pay, regardless of what you'd get for it? Even if it saved a million lives? Given N=1, we obviously don't currently know how effective these quarantine measures have been so far, compared to wh…
I meant the human rights violations perpetrated by the regime. This is always the price we seem to have to pay for a "competent crisis handling". I would indeed rather choose a free, but impotent country.
It is ironic that personal freedoms and public health are not often compatible. Doubly important to be aware of what we are being sold.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is in the healthcare capacities. I live in a country with ~2mio people. If you're patient zero here, you get a comfy private room, your own bed, 5 doctors, 10 nurses, whole research teams, respirators, priority with all the tests, examinations, etc. Same for patient 1, 2, 3. If 200k people get infected (10% of population), and only 10% of those need extra medical care, that's 20.000 people. We don't have…
I don't disagree with your position - if there's a wide-spread epidemic, things will go bad, especially as the healthcare system gets overwhelmed. But that's not a novel or interesting point of view, and I doubt many would disagree. So why go around inciting panic? Lets try some other numbers. If 1% of the population gets infected, and 1% needs extra medical care, that's 200 people. If 0.1% of the population is infec…
As to whether it will become widespread, the jury is still out. China appears to have gotten it under control, but it took drastic measures to do so. The rest of the world has yet to demonstrate an ability and willingness to do the same. There is a decent chance this will spread as widely as the swine flu did, but with more than 20x the case fatality rate, we would be looking at tens of millions of deaths worldwide.
The general issue with this measure of mortality (dead/(infected + dead)) is that you're assuming that the infected won't die. In a disease that is exponentially growing, a better approximation of evaluating your survival chances is to look at the death to recovery rate (dead / (recovered + dead)). Based on the available data [1], we are closer to 7.8% than 2% mortality, which is closer to the final mortality rate of…
I’m legitimately confused why we’re seeing these responses make top response on hn. It’s WEIRD
There seems to be many cases of young patients dying in Iran. Either because there are way more cases than being officially reported or (hopefully not) the virus has mutated to affect the young more, or both. The first hypothesis is likely based on the number of infections found in international travellers who went to Iran. We still cannot rule out the second hypothesis though. A 23-year-old woman soccer player: http…