The coronavirus

mrussel1

Gern Blansten said:

dignin said:

Gern Blansten said:

yeah they make you think you will projectile vomit and diarrhea and bleed from your eyes

it's the flu 

The myth that this is the flu has been talked about on this thread at length.

for all intents and purposes it's the goddamn flu

Not at all.  The flu has both an effective preventative shot and we have tamiflu to control the symptoms.  There's really no connection to the flu at all, other than both have been pandemics.  

dignin

Gern Blansten said:

dignin said:

Gern Blansten said:

yeah they make you think you will projectile vomit and diarrhea and bleed from your eyes

it's the flu 

The myth that this is the flu has been talked about on this thread at length.

for all intents and purposes it's the goddamn flu

Except it is far more deadly. So no, it's not the gaddamn flu.

tempo_n_groove

dignin said:

Gern Blansten said:

dignin said:

Gern Blansten said:

yeah they make you think you will projectile vomit and diarrhea and bleed from your eyes

it's the flu 

The myth that this is the flu has been talked about on this thread at length.

for all intents and purposes it's the goddamn flu

Except it is far more deadly. So no, it's not the gaddamn flu.

Can we say it's deadlier even though the flu has killed more people than the corona virus?

mace1229

nicknyr15 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Here ya go @Halifax2TheMax
Page said the county learned about the father-daughter dance on Sunday and officials told the man "to stay home or they will issue a formal quarantine that will require him and the rest of his family to stay home by the force of law."

They were given a choice though, weren’t they? Would you have recommended they have been picked up and detained somewhere? You never answered my question regarding mandatory hospitalization or self-isolation. Again, if your ass was on the boat, I could only imagine your posts.

And to your bolded part, and people thought it was Obama setting up the involuntary detention camps. In a red state no less.

I've been in situations before beyond my control and rode it out knowing that it was only temporary and things would go back to normal.  My 10 weeks in Iraq is a testament to that type of thinking.  I would be fine on that ship.

I didn't see you ask a question about hospitalization.  You mentioned wanting to be able to go to one but nothing about it being mandatory?  Re ask the question please.

Being court ordered to stay home to stop the spread of a virus during the incubation period IN YOUR OWN HOME, shouldn't be that hard to do.

Does Coronavirus cure stupidity?

Huh?

Regarding the idiot in Missouri going to the father/daughter dance. Then again, it’s a red state.

Disgusting. Is it ok to call someone an idiot if they believe in god? Or if they think they’re the opposite sex? Why is ok to completely trounce and abuse someone based on their political belief? The hypocrisy is insane and Dems like you are gonna screw us with another 4 years

Unfortunately I've seen many people here call others an idiot for believing in God.

Gern Blansten

dignin said:

Gern Blansten said:

dignin said:

Gern Blansten said:

yeah they make you think you will projectile vomit and diarrhea and bleed from your eyes

it's the flu 

The myth that this is the flu has been talked about on this thread at length.

for all intents and purposes it's the goddamn flu

Except it is far more deadly. So no, it's not the gaddamn flu.

No it isn't....the stats are currently reflecting that because the stats DO NOT INCLUDE ALL OF THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE IT THAT DON'T EVEN FUCKING KNOW IT BECAUSE IT IS A MILD FLU

Gern Blansten

For example.....

If 200 die from coronavirus and there are 2,000 known cases that is a 10% death rate.

Except it is more likely that 20,000 people have it.  That's a 1% death rate.

mrussel1

Gern Blansten said:

For example.....

If 200 die from coronavirus and there are 2,000 known cases that is a 10% death rate.

Except it is more likely that 20,000 people have it.  That's a 1% death rate.

Even if your data is right, that's 10x higher mortality than the flu.  

Gern Blansten

So far, the new coronavirus has led to more than 100,000 illnesses and more than 3,000 deaths worldwide. But that's nothing compared with the flu, also called influenza. In the U.S. alone, the flu has caused an estimated 34 million illnesses, 350,000 hospitalizations and 20,000 deaths this season, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 

https://www.livescience.com/new-coronavirus-compare-with-flu.html

dignin

Gern Blansten said:

So far, the new coronavirus has led to more than 100,000 illnesses and more than 3,000 deaths worldwide. But that's nothing compared with the flu, also called influenza. In the U.S. alone, the flu has caused an estimated 34 million illnesses, 350,000 hospitalizations and 20,000 deaths this season, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 

https://www.livescience.com/new-coronavirus-compare-with-flu.html

Nice cherry pick, you should read a little further down.

From the same source

Death rate

The death rate from seasonal flu is typically around 0.1% in the U.S., according to The New York Times. 

The death rate for COVID-19 appears to be higher than that of the flu. 

In the study published Feb. 18 in the China CDC Weekly, researchers found a death rate from COVID-19 to be around 2.3% in mainland China. Another study of about 1,100 hospitalized patients in China, published Feb. 28 in the New England Journal of Medicine, found that the overall death rate was slightly lower, around 1.4%.

Still, the death rate for COVID-19 appears to vary by location and an individual's age, among other factors. For instance, in Hubei Province, the epicenter of the outbreak, the death rate reached 2.9%; in other provinces of China, that rate was just 0.4%, according to the China CDC Weekly study. In addition, older adults have been hit the hardest. The death rate soars to 14.8% in those 80 and older; among those ages 70 to 79, the COVID-19 death rate in China seems to be about 8%; it’s 3.6% for those ages 60 to 69; 1.3% for 50 to 59; 0.4% for the age group 40 to 49; and just 0.2% for people ages 10 to 39. No deaths in children under 9 have been reported. 

Though the death rate for COVID-19 is unclear, most research suggests it is higher than that of the seasonal flu.

Virus transmission

The measure scientists use to determine how easily a virus spreads is known as the "basic reproduction number," or R0 (pronounced R-nought). This is an estimate of the average number of people who catch the virus from a single infected person, Live science previously reported. The flu has an R0 value of about 1.3, according to The New York Times.

Researchers are still working to determine the R0 for COVID-19.  Preliminary studies have estimated an R0 value for the new coronavirus to be between 2 and 3, according to the JAMA review study published Feb. 28. This means each infected person has spread the virus to an average of 2 to 3 people.

It's important to note that R0 is not necessarily a constant number. Estimates can vary by location, depending on such factors as how often people come into contact with each other and the efforts taken to reduce viral spread, Live Science previously reported.

Gern Blansten

I didn't cherry pick....it definitely varies by age.  The flu numbers I posted don't break it down by age but obviously the elderly would be a higher death rate.

dignin

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

For example.....

If 200 die from coronavirus and there are 2,000 known cases that is a 10% death rate.

Except it is more likely that 20,000 people have it.  That's a 1% death rate.

Even if your data is right, that's 10x higher mortality than the flu.  

And that's the lowest of estimates, not to mention coronavirus is more infectious than the flu.

mrussel1

Gern Blansten said:

For example.....

If 200 die from coronavirus and there are 2,000 known cases that is a 10% death rate.

Except it is more likely that 20,000 people have it.  That's a 1% death rate.

I guess you can argue that the flu is deadlier than Ebola under this logic.  But I can assure you that I'd rather have the flu than Ebola.  

benjs

dignin said:

Gern Blansten said:

So far, the new coronavirus has led to more than 100,000 illnesses and more than 3,000 deaths worldwide. But that's nothing compared with the flu, also called influenza. In the U.S. alone, the flu has caused an estimated 34 million illnesses, 350,000 hospitalizations and 20,000 deaths this season, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 

https://www.livescience.com/new-coronavirus-compare-with-flu.html

Nice cherry pick, you should read a little further down.

From the same source

Death rate

The death rate from seasonal flu is typically around 0.1% in the U.S., according to The New York Times. 

The death rate for COVID-19 appears to be higher than that of the flu. 

In the study published Feb. 18 in the China CDC Weekly, researchers found a death rate from COVID-19 to be around 2.3% in mainland China. Another study of about 1,100 hospitalized patients in China, published Feb. 28 in the New England Journal of Medicine, found that the overall death rate was slightly lower, around 1.4%.

Still, the death rate for COVID-19 appears to vary by location and an individual's age, among other factors. For instance, in Hubei Province, the epicenter of the outbreak, the death rate reached 2.9%; in other provinces of China, that rate was just 0.4%, according to the China CDC Weekly study. In addition, older adults have been hit the hardest. The death rate soars to 14.8% in those 80 and older; among those ages 70 to 79, the COVID-19 death rate in China seems to be about 8%; it’s 3.6% for those ages 60 to 69; 1.3% for 50 to 59; 0.4% for the age group 40 to 49; and just 0.2% for people ages 10 to 39. No deaths in children under 9 have been reported. 

Though the death rate for COVID-19 is unclear, most research suggests it is higher than that of the seasonal flu.

Virus transmission

The measure scientists use to determine how easily a virus spreads is known as the "basic reproduction number," or R0 (pronounced R-nought). This is an estimate of the average number of people who catch the virus from a single infected person, Live science previously reported. The flu has an R0 value of about 1.3, according to The New York Times.

Researchers are still working to determine the R0 for COVID-19.  Preliminary studies have estimated an R0 value for the new coronavirus to be between 2 and 3, according to the JAMA review study published Feb. 28. This means each infected person has spread the virus to an average of 2 to 3 people.

It's important to note that R0 is not necessarily a constant number. Estimates can vary by location, depending on such factors as how often people come into contact with each other and the efforts taken to reduce viral spread, Live Science previously reported.

I've heard that since South Korea is the only country to have a statistically significant sampling of their population based on their testing protocols, their death rate is likely closest to the 'true' death rate. This number I believe was at 0.6% last I checked. As has been said, this varies greatly based on your age and the strength of your immune system. 

Gern Blansten

benjs said:

dignin said:

Gern Blansten said:

So far, the new coronavirus has led to more than 100,000 illnesses and more than 3,000 deaths worldwide. But that's nothing compared with the flu, also called influenza. In the U.S. alone, the flu has caused an estimated 34 million illnesses, 350,000 hospitalizations and 20,000 deaths this season, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 

https://www.livescience.com/new-coronavirus-compare-with-flu.html

Nice cherry pick, you should read a little further down.

From the same source

Death rate

The death rate from seasonal flu is typically around 0.1% in the U.S., according to The New York Times. 

The death rate for COVID-19 appears to be higher than that of the flu. 

In the study published Feb. 18 in the China CDC Weekly, researchers found a death rate from COVID-19 to be around 2.3% in mainland China. Another study of about 1,100 hospitalized patients in China, published Feb. 28 in the New England Journal of Medicine, found that the overall death rate was slightly lower, around 1.4%.

Still, the death rate for COVID-19 appears to vary by location and an individual's age, among other factors. For instance, in Hubei Province, the epicenter of the outbreak, the death rate reached 2.9%; in other provinces of China, that rate was just 0.4%, according to the China CDC Weekly study. In addition, older adults have been hit the hardest. The death rate soars to 14.8% in those 80 and older; among those ages 70 to 79, the COVID-19 death rate in China seems to be about 8%; it’s 3.6% for those ages 60 to 69; 1.3% for 50 to 59; 0.4% for the age group 40 to 49; and just 0.2% for people ages 10 to 39. No deaths in children under 9 have been reported. 

Though the death rate for COVID-19 is unclear, most research suggests it is higher than that of the seasonal flu.

Virus transmission

The measure scientists use to determine how easily a virus spreads is known as the "basic reproduction number," or R0 (pronounced R-nought). This is an estimate of the average number of people who catch the virus from a single infected person, Live science previously reported. The flu has an R0 value of about 1.3, according to The New York Times.

Researchers are still working to determine the R0 for COVID-19.  Preliminary studies have estimated an R0 value for the new coronavirus to be between 2 and 3, according to the JAMA review study published Feb. 28. This means each infected person has spread the virus to an average of 2 to 3 people.

It's important to note that R0 is not necessarily a constant number. Estimates can vary by location, depending on such factors as how often people come into contact with each other and the efforts taken to reduce viral spread, Live Science previously reported.

I've heard that since South Korea is the only country to have a statistically significant sampling of their population based on their testing protocols, their death rate is likely closest to the 'true' death rate. This number I believe was at 0.6% last I checked. As has been said, this varies greatly based on your age and the strength of your immune system. 

Sounds about right.

If all of us posting here got the coronavirus it is likely that 80% of us would still show up to work.  We would think we just have a cough.

dignin

benjs said:

dignin said:

Gern Blansten said:

So far, the new coronavirus has led to more than 100,000 illnesses and more than 3,000 deaths worldwide. But that's nothing compared with the flu, also called influenza. In the U.S. alone, the flu has caused an estimated 34 million illnesses, 350,000 hospitalizations and 20,000 deaths this season, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 

https://www.livescience.com/new-coronavirus-compare-with-flu.html

Nice cherry pick, you should read a little further down.

From the same source

Death rate

The death rate from seasonal flu is typically around 0.1% in the U.S., according to The New York Times. 

The death rate for COVID-19 appears to be higher than that of the flu. 

In the study published Feb. 18 in the China CDC Weekly, researchers found a death rate from COVID-19 to be around 2.3% in mainland China. Another study of about 1,100 hospitalized patients in China, published Feb. 28 in the New England Journal of Medicine, found that the overall death rate was slightly lower, around 1.4%.

Still, the death rate for COVID-19 appears to vary by location and an individual's age, among other factors. For instance, in Hubei Province, the epicenter of the outbreak, the death rate reached 2.9%; in other provinces of China, that rate was just 0.4%, according to the China CDC Weekly study. In addition, older adults have been hit the hardest. The death rate soars to 14.8% in those 80 and older; among those ages 70 to 79, the COVID-19 death rate in China seems to be about 8%; it’s 3.6% for those ages 60 to 69; 1.3% for 50 to 59; 0.4% for the age group 40 to 49; and just 0.2% for people ages 10 to 39. No deaths in children under 9 have been reported. 

Though the death rate for COVID-19 is unclear, most research suggests it is higher than that of the seasonal flu.

Virus transmission

The measure scientists use to determine how easily a virus spreads is known as the "basic reproduction number," or R0 (pronounced R-nought). This is an estimate of the average number of people who catch the virus from a single infected person, Live science previously reported. The flu has an R0 value of about 1.3, according to The New York Times.

Researchers are still working to determine the R0 for COVID-19.  Preliminary studies have estimated an R0 value for the new coronavirus to be between 2 and 3, according to the JAMA review study published Feb. 28. This means each infected person has spread the virus to an average of 2 to 3 people.

It's important to note that R0 is not necessarily a constant number. Estimates can vary by location, depending on such factors as how often people come into contact with each other and the efforts taken to reduce viral spread, Live Science previously reported.

I've heard that since South Korea is the only country to have a statistically significant sampling of their population based on their testing protocols, their death rate is likely closest to the 'true' death rate. This number I believe was at 0.6% last I checked. As has been said, this varies greatly based on your age and the strength of your immune system. 

Okay, take that as the number then, which is quite different than China's numbers, and that's still 6x's more deadly than the flu.

There is apparently at least 2 different strains of the virus too, 1 being more deadly than the other. The one in Korea could be that strain. All speculation but would make sense given the discrepancy in numbers.

rgambs

It isn't an influenza. Flu is short for influenza.

Gern Blansten

Another recent study, considered the largest on COVID-19 cases to date, researchers from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Protection, analyzed 44,672 confirmed cases in China between Dec. 31, 2019 and Feb. 11, 2020. Of those cases, 80.9% (or 36,160 cases) were considered mild, 13.8% (6,168 cases) severe and 4.7% (2,087) critical. "Critical cases were those that exhibited respiratory failure, septic shock, and/or multiple organ dysfunction/failure," the researchers wrote in the paper published in China CDC Weekly.

From my link above....

Gern Blansten

The CDC estimates that there have been 20,000 to 40,000 deaths in the United States so far this year (from the flu).

Just for comparison, that's a thousand times more deaths in the United States than have been blamed on the coronavirus so far.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/03/09/813641072/u-s-flu-season-beginning-to-ease-modelers-say?utm_campaign=npr&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_term=nprnews

dignin

Gern Blansten said:

Another recent study, considered the largest on COVID-19 cases to date, researchers from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Protection, analyzed 44,672 confirmed cases in China between Dec. 31, 2019 and Feb. 11, 2020. Of those cases, 80.9% (or 36,160 cases) were considered mild, 13.8% (6,168 cases) severe and 4.7% (2,087) critical. "Critical cases were those that exhibited respiratory failure, septic shock, and/or multiple organ dysfunction/failure," the researchers wrote in the paper published in China CDC Weekly.

From my link above....

What's your point? 

If you have been following the thread this has been gone through and is common knowledge. Nobody is disputing that stat.

And if you want to take the China stats, you are cherry picking the ones that fit your belief and ignoring the ones that don't.

mrussel1

Gern Blansten said:

The CDC estimates that there have been 20,000 to 40,000 deaths in the United States so far this year (from the flu).

Just for comparison, that's a thousand times more deaths in the United States than have been blamed on the coronavirus so far.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/03/09/813641072/u-s-flu-season-beginning-to-ease-modelers-say?utm_campaign=npr&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_term=nprnews

/Dude... you're a smart guy.  It's not about total deaths, it's about mortality rate.  And this is just ramping up.  We're at the end of the flu season.  

mace1229

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

For example.....

If 200 die from coronavirus and there are 2,000 known cases that is a 10% death rate.

Except it is more likely that 20,000 people have it.  That's a 1% death rate.

Even if your data is right, that's 10x higher mortality than the flu.  

So if virus A has a 3% death rate and infects 1,000,000 people and 30,000 die. Virus B has a death rate of 0.1 % and infects 500,000,000 people and 500,000 die.
Everyone seems to be arguing that virus A is deadlier because of that 3%. I would argue virus B is much worse, and be much more afraid of virus B.
That's just me and a few others, seems like most want to get all worked up over virus A though.

Gern Blansten

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

The CDC estimates that there have been 20,000 to 40,000 deaths in the United States so far this year (from the flu).

Just for comparison, that's a thousand times more deaths in the United States than have been blamed on the coronavirus so far.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/03/09/813641072/u-s-flu-season-beginning-to-ease-modelers-say?utm_campaign=npr&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_term=nprnews

/Dude... you're a smart guy.  It's not about total deaths, it's about mortality rate.  And this is just ramping up.  We're at the end of the flu season.  

Right and my point is that the mortality rate isn't too far off from the flu.  Am I wrong?

I'm talking the real mortality rate which we might not even know yet except for the South Korean rate.

mrussel1

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

For example.....

If 200 die from coronavirus and there are 2,000 known cases that is a 10% death rate.

Except it is more likely that 20,000 people have it.  That's a 1% death rate.

Even if your data is right, that's 10x higher mortality than the flu.  

So if virus A has a 3% death rate and infects 1,000,000 people and 30,000 die. Virus B has a death rate of 0.1 % and infects 500,000,000 people and 500,000 die.
Everyone seems to be arguing that virus A is deadlier because of that 3%. I would argue virus B is much worse, and be much more afraid of virus B.
That's just me and a few others, seems like most want to get all worked up over virus A though.

You're comparing an emerging virus vs one that has a long history of mature data to evaluate (influenza).  

jeffbr

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

For example.....

If 200 die from coronavirus and there are 2,000 known cases that is a 10% death rate.

Except it is more likely that 20,000 people have it.  That's a 1% death rate.

Even if your data is right, that's 10x higher mortality than the flu.  

So if virus A has a 3% death rate and infects 1,000,000 people and 30,000 die. Virus B has a death rate of 0.1 % and infects 500,000,000 people and 700,000 die.
Everyone seems to be arguing that virus A is deadlier because of that 3%. I would argue virus B is much worse, and be much more afraid of virus B.
That's just me and a few others, seems like most want to get all worked up over virus A though.

How have you been able to determine the future infection numbers for COVID-19? Just curious, as this is a new virus (hence the name novel coronavirus). With no vaccine and no viral treatment, coupled with our inability to test due to lack of proper handling by the administration, we are in the dark here, and are dealing with this as it continues to spread and grow. The measures we take now are not in an attempt to cure, beat or even contain this thing. The measures we take now are in an effort to slow the transmission rate so that we can buy time for treatments to be developed, vaccines to be developed, and to not overwhelm the hospitals all at once. I have no idea why you and Trump want to downplay this thing, but by downplaying or ignoring it, you contribute to a more rapid transmission rate and a higher death count. So if that's your objective, keep doing what you're doing.

myoung321

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

For example.....

If 200 die from coronavirus and there are 2,000 known cases that is a 10% death rate.

Except it is more likely that 20,000 people have it.  That's a 1% death rate.

Even if your data is right, that's 10x higher mortality than the flu.  

So if virus A has a 3% death rate and infects 1,000,000 people and 30,000 die. Virus B has a death rate of 0.1 % and infects 500,000,000 people and 700,000 die.
Everyone seems to be arguing that virus A is deadlier because of that 3%. I would argue virus B is much worse, and be much more afraid of virus B.
That's just me and a few others, seems like most want to get all worked up over virus A though.

For the last time.. the term "flu" or "B" you keep using is incorrect. What we call the seasonal flu is from numerous known viruses, not 1 virus.............Covid19 is 1 NEW virus

mace1229

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

For example.....

If 200 die from coronavirus and there are 2,000 known cases that is a 10% death rate.

Except it is more likely that 20,000 people have it.  That's a 1% death rate.

Even if your data is right, that's 10x higher mortality than the flu.  

So if virus A has a 3% death rate and infects 1,000,000 people and 30,000 die. Virus B has a death rate of 0.1 % and infects 500,000,000 people and 500,000 die.
Everyone seems to be arguing that virus A is deadlier because of that 3%. I would argue virus B is much worse, and be much more afraid of virus B.
That's just me and a few others, seems like most want to get all worked up over virus A though.

You're comparing an emerging virus vs one that has a long history of mature data to evaluate (influenza).  

I agree. This may prove to be much worse than the flu in the future. But as of today and right now, it isn't. There is no reason to do anything that you wouldn't do for the flu/ That includes travel and attending sporting events and so on.
I wouldnt travel anywhere I wouldnt want to be stuck for an additional 2 weeks though.

mrussel1

Gern Blansten said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

The CDC estimates that there have been 20,000 to 40,000 deaths in the United States so far this year (from the flu).

Just for comparison, that's a thousand times more deaths in the United States than have been blamed on the coronavirus so far.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/03/09/813641072/u-s-flu-season-beginning-to-ease-modelers-say?utm_campaign=npr&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_term=nprnews

/Dude... you're a smart guy.  It's not about total deaths, it's about mortality rate.  And this is just ramping up.  We're at the end of the flu season.  

Right and my point is that the mortality rate isn't too far off from the flu.  Am I wrong?

I'm talking the real mortality rate which we might not even know yet except for the South Korean rate.

Well it depends, if we use the SK data as the proxy, it's about 6x.  If you use China, it's orders of magnitude higher.  If you use Italy, which is not a closed society, it's almost 5%!  They have 9000 cases and 463 deaths.  So again, the data cannot be completely evaluated.  You also can't say necessarily "how many people have it and don't know"... that may be true, but lots of people get influenza and that data is never collected either.  

Gern Blansten

myoung321 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

For example.....

If 200 die from coronavirus and there are 2,000 known cases that is a 10% death rate.

Except it is more likely that 20,000 people have it.  That's a 1% death rate.

Even if your data is right, that's 10x higher mortality than the flu.  

So if virus A has a 3% death rate and infects 1,000,000 people and 30,000 die. Virus B has a death rate of 0.1 % and infects 500,000,000 people and 700,000 die.
Everyone seems to be arguing that virus A is deadlier because of that 3%. I would argue virus B is much worse, and be much more afraid of virus B.
That's just me and a few others, seems like most want to get all worked up over virus A though.

For the last time.. the term "flu" or "B" you keep using is incorrect. What we call the seasonal flu is from numerous known viruses, not 1 virus.............Covid19 is 1 NEW virus

you sure it's "the last time"?

myoung321

Gern Blansten said:

myoung321 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

For example.....

If 200 die from coronavirus and there are 2,000 known cases that is a 10% death rate.

Except it is more likely that 20,000 people have it.  That's a 1% death rate.

Even if your data is right, that's 10x higher mortality than the flu.  

So if virus A has a 3% death rate and infects 1,000,000 people and 30,000 die. Virus B has a death rate of 0.1 % and infects 500,000,000 people and 700,000 die.
Everyone seems to be arguing that virus A is deadlier because of that 3%. I would argue virus B is much worse, and be much more afraid of virus B.
That's just me and a few others, seems like most want to get all worked up over virus A though.

For the last time.. the term "flu" or "B" you keep using is incorrect. What we call the seasonal flu is from numerous known viruses, not 1 virus.............Covid19 is 1 NEW virus

you sure it's "the last time"?

for me it is...haha

mrussel1

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

For example.....

If 200 die from coronavirus and there are 2,000 known cases that is a 10% death rate.

Except it is more likely that 20,000 people have it.  That's a 1% death rate.

Even if your data is right, that's 10x higher mortality than the flu.  

So if virus A has a 3% death rate and infects 1,000,000 people and 30,000 die. Virus B has a death rate of 0.1 % and infects 500,000,000 people and 500,000 die.
Everyone seems to be arguing that virus A is deadlier because of that 3%. I would argue virus B is much worse, and be much more afraid of virus B.
That's just me and a few others, seems like most want to get all worked up over virus A though.

You're comparing an emerging virus vs one that has a long history of mature data to evaluate (influenza).  

I agree. This may prove to be much worse than the flu in the future. But as of today and right now, it isn't. There is no reason to do anything that you wouldn't do for the flu/ That includes travel and attending sporting events and so on.
I wouldnt travel anywhere I wouldnt want to be stuck for an additional 2 weeks though.

I can tell you that my company and every company I work with has suspended travel.  However, I will continue to travel.  But I would not allow my elderly mother to travel, whereas I would normally during flu season because she gets a flu shot.  While I know that's not 100%, it typically controls type A fairly well.