81–90 of 146 posts
For those who want something a little more mobile-friendly, we just built a similar map over the weekend: https://coronavirus.app/
This looks a lot more serious compared to a week ago.
The media sell stories. People click on those stories, the stories that get clicked on most get other stories written on the topic. This is how the industry works. It's actually quite a simple model.
Human beings are fucking terrible at risk assessment. What do people here think the risk is for them of dying of coronavirus compared to say dying in a traffic accident? Which is more likely to happen to you by a few magnitudes?
So based on the outcome so far (107 deaths, 63 fully recovered) the survival rate is 37%?
Patients outside of China do not seem to have serious illness so far. https://www.reddit.com/r/China_Flu/comments/euvexx/current_s... But there are two few confirmed cases to understand the mortality rate. Might be there are additional factors unique to China that is causing a higher death rate.
For those who want something a little more mobile-friendly, we just built a similar map over the weekend: https://coronavirus.app/
I died laughing at this! It of course is very serious and not funny, but I still laughed at this detail.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely. It's marketing bullshit. Nobody has current figures. In fact, multiple specialist academics said ~3 days ago that only 5% of cases are confirmed, now may be less due to reports of equipment shortages, the additional time the virus has had to disperse geographically, and Chinese New Year. Therefore, we can multiply any official figures by 20x. Official figures are nearing 5,000 cases, which extrapolating f…
The exponential growth always slows at some point, so unconditionally multiplying by 20 is unrealistic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The exponential growth always slows at some point, so unconditionally multiplying by 20 is unrealistic.
If you're suggesting the virus is approaching population saturation levels in Wuhan, then 20 is far too low a number
Even if they do, why is 20 a "low" number? They are talking about estimating the current real figure, from the current laboratory-confirmed figure. 20 seems pretty reasonable if a little high, assuming the epidemic is indeed still in the exponential phase.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is incorrect. If we assume that this virus is as infectious as the common cold, we can expect the infection rate within a household to be approximately 25% of contacts. That means that of the people you LIVE with, 25% will catch it from you. 50% infection rate in a large, distributed population like China would be very extreme.
Not to mention people and the government are being a lot more careful than if this was a common cold.
One minor note is that the "real time" nature of this map is a bit deceiving at the moment, at least to me. While the specific figures imply that it's pulling data at a near real-time basis, it's still dependent on countries posting the latest figures in batch, and then being updated as last indicated in the top right. As of now, it seems verbal announcements precede the digital announcements and as such I've found j…
Absolutely. It's marketing bullshit. Nobody has current figures. In fact, multiple specialist academics said ~3 days ago that only 5% of cases are confirmed, now may be less due to reports of equipment shortages, the additional time the virus has had to disperse geographically, and Chinese New Year. Therefore, we can multiply any official figures by 20x. Official figures are nearing 5,000 cases, which extrapolating f…
If this whistleblower [0] is to be believed, then the Chinese may be downplaying this [0] - https://twitter.com/Terrence_STR/status/1221100970521829377