Quote:
Originally Posted by
tallison
Ah, oops. It looks like the true cfr is likely *much* higher than I used to calculate this number (I based it on the early stats coming out of Germany where there was reason to believe testing had been very good. The problem is, they started testing long before they had *any* fatalities and an article in the Lancet pointed out that if testing like this is reliable you have to look at today‘s number of deaths divided by the infection rate 10 days ago - approx - that article suggests 5% as the most accurate estimate of cfr based on current data - and it’s not even worth typing what that would mean if this thing is just left to run it’s course and infects 70% of Americans - *it won’t do that because we won’t just sit still*, but this might certainly help some of you understand why the drastic actions being taken may, in fact, be far, far better than the alternative even if they create economic turmoil that then itself has to be managed...)
From the only good data set we've got:
Quote:
As you might imagine, before they knew it was a problem, the epidemic raged on the ship, with infected crew members cooking and cleaning for the guests, people all eating together, close living quarters, lots of social interaction, and a generally older population. Seems like a perfect situation for an overwhelming majority of the passengers to become infected.
And despite that, some 83% (82.7% – 83.9%) of the passengers never got the disease at all … why?