The public certainly will be. And if/when they bounce right back no problem, fear of this virus is likely to take a big drop.
The public certainly will be. And if/when they bounce right back no problem, fear of this virus is likely to take a big drop.
Although successful surveillance systems have long existed for influenza, the disease is confirmed by a laboratory in a tiny minority of cases. In the U.S., for example, so far this season 1,073,976 specimens have been tested and 222,552 (20.7%) have tested positive for influenza. In the same period, the estimated number of influenza-like illnesses is between 36,000,000 and 51,000,000, with an estimated 22,000 to 55,000 flu deaths.Surely this is interesting.In an autopsy series that tested for respiratory viruses in specimens from 57 elderly persons who died during the 2016 to 2017 influenza season, influenza viruses were detected in 18% of the specimens, while any kind of respiratory virus was found in 47%. In some people who die from viral respiratory pathogens, more than one virus is found upon autopsy and bacteria are often superimposed. A positive test for coronavirus does not mean necessarily that this virus is always primarily responsible for a patient’s demise.
I hate to be simplistic, but perhaps conditions in China and Italy are different than those in Missouri, where there are 16 confirmed cases.
Culturally, economically, and politically, China and Italy are different than Missouri every year. And we don't know that this virus is more dangerous than a typical strain of flu, because the data is shit. Really, break down and read the paper: In the coronavirus pandemic, we're making decisions without reliable data
How do you know that? How do you KNOW that this virus wasn't there in 2017? And how do you KNOW that this virus was the only factor in the deaths attributed to it?