Medical research is difficult because there is a strong possibility that many mild versions of the virus are not reported (because their symptoms can come across as a common cold). So while this might sound scary at first glance, it might well be that if the virus is more prominent than otherwise known, that the amount of mild cases might actually be higher than 80%.
The bulk of those people who get the virus in a more severe form, are not dying. There can be lung damage associated with this virus, but it's still too early to determine either the severity or to what degree this lung damage is permanent. Like the flu and other cold type viruses, severe cases can morph into pneumonia, kidney problems, or other issues (which again would be tied fairly tightly with the health of the patient).
The most recent determination out of China is that there is a mortality rate between 1% and 2% but that it is highly tied to the health of the person who get's the virus. A healthy younger person who gets the virus is much less likely to die, than someone who is older or otherwise suffering from other health issues. So there is little question that the mortality rate in China might be overstated due to the fact that well over 50% of their citizens smoke (68% of Chinese Men smoke). Certainly someone with lung damage from smoking (or even from second hand smoke) is more susceptible to dying from this virus.
Moreover, the more recent cases that have been reported (where proper treatment has been provided) that fatality rate in China drops to approximately 0.7% (or about 7 per 1000). There has been no fatalities of children or teens, and the fatality rate for people under the age of 40 stands at 0.2% which is closer to that of the flu which has in many years gotten up to 0.1%.
So this is not a plague here. The world's population is not going to be purged by the coronavirus. Yes, it's a serious health concern, but no more serious than many other forms of viruses and diseases. The United States and the world should definitely take this seriously, but we probably don't need to panic at this point. After all, we have great scientists who tell us all the time that with a little bit of money and power, they can change the earth's climate. Controlling a little virus would be elementary for them!
7 comments:
The facts about Coronavirus might surprise people...
What surprises me more than anything is the tripe you just wrote in this POS!!!!! Spreading false information and your opinion is pure BULLSHIT!!! Not the plague or ebola either....the 2% fatality numbers reported so far are exponentially worse than a cold or even the flu!!!!!! Keep to posting politics, your medical expertise is dangerous to weak minded idiots like cramps and the goat fucker who thinks this virus is a yawn!!!!!!!
Buttigieg drops out
Spreading false information
What's false about it?
On the other hand the 2% you quote is the high-end of the fatality rate and 1. That was in China and 2 it was an estimate. China recently revised the fatality rate down to 1.4 percent.
In China, the death rate has been reported as zero in children under 10 and very low, 0.2 percent, in healthy adults. Unfortunately, the rate is far higher, as high as 14.8 percent, in the sick and elderly (though as is always the case in outbreaks like this, it is hard to know how many of these older and often chronically ill hospitalized patients died with COVID-19, not of COVID-19). The reported overall death rate of 2 percent is essentially a weighted average of these numbers.
The good news is this virus is so mild in young healthy people that they recover without a doctors care.
The not so good news is that these same cases go unreported.
Anyway when you factor in the estimated number of unreported case the fatality rate goes down further.
What's false about it?
His opinion about comparisons to other virus's and his speculation on its mortality rates.....sorry cramps.....it is total bullshit that you are wading into.....!!!!!
the other hand the 2% you quote is the high-end of the fatality rate
On the other hand....you have absolutely no basis for making that statement other than your opinion.....like Lil Schitty, you are making shit up!!!!!!
The asshattery continues and the slurpers swallow another load.......idiots
Hiroko Tabuchi
By Hiroko Tabuchi
March 2, 2020
Updated 8:15 a.m. ET
224
An official at the Interior Department embarked on a campaign that has inserted misleading language about climate change — including debunked claims that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is beneficial — into the agency’s scientific reports, according to documents reviewed by The New York Times.
Looking for more political news? We can help.
Yes
The misleading language appears in at least nine reports, including environmental studies and impact statements on major watersheds in the American West that could be used to justify allocating increasingly scarce water to farmers at the expense of wildlife conservation and fisheries.
The effort was led by Indur M. Goklany, a longtime Interior Department employee who, in 2017 near the start of the Trump administration, was promoted to the office of the deputy secretary with responsibility for reviewing the agency’s climate policies. The Interior Department’s scientific work is the basis for critical decisions about water and mineral rights affecting millions of Americans and hundreds of millions of acres of land.
The wording, known internally as the “Goks uncertainty language” based on Mr. Goklany’s nickname, inaccurately claims that there is a lack of consensus among scientists that the earth is warming. In Interior Department emails to scientists, Mr. Goklany pushed misleading interpretations of climate science, saying it “may be overestimating the rate of global warming, for whatever reason;” climate modeling has largely predicted global warming accurately. The final language states inaccurately that some studies have found the earth to be warming, while others have not.
He also instructed department scientists to add that rising carbon dioxide — the main force driving global warming — is beneficial because it “may increase plant water use efficiency” and “lengthen the agricultural growing season.” Both assertions misrepresent the scientific consensus that, overall, climate change will result in severe disruptions to global agriculture and significant reductions in crop yields.
Post a Comment