The coronavirus epidemic is slowing down in China, and will not pose a risk to the majority of people, an Israeli Nobel Prize laureate has said.
In Wuhan, where the virus first emerged, the whole population theoretically was at risk of becoming infected, but only 3% were.
Diamond Princess: “Those are extremely comfortable conditions for the virus and still, only 20% were infected. It is a lot, but pretty similar to the infection rate of the common flu,” Levitt said. Based on those figures, his conclusion was that most people are simply naturally immune.
But old folks like me with pre-conditions belongs to the 3% of the Wuhan or 20% of Diamond Princess. Until the vaccine or cure is available, would be living in fear.
Italy’s higher death rate, he said, was likely due to the fact that elderly people make up a greater percentage of the population than they do in other countries such as China or France. “Furthermore, Italian culture is very warm, and Italians have a very rich social life.
Suspected that. Ditto for Spain.
He is referring to UK, Switzerland and Japan. Don’t go there and don’t buy their products.
When would it peak in Singapore?
Don’t know because Singaporeans love to travel overseas. New policy is no make-up pay and free hospitalization for those infected from overseas travel.
Refer to the attached table. The sudden flood of testing reduces the ratio of serious/critical over confirmed cases, and increases the ratio of deaths over closed cases. The ratio of deaths over closed cases will always be higher than the true ratio but should asymptotic (very close approximation) to the true ratio. Ratio of deaths over confirmed cases will be an under-estimate. From the data, the fatality rate should be somewhere between 3.9% to 8.5%.
Area under the two curves is about the same That is the number of cases would be the same regardless of what you do. So the goal is not to reduce the eventual number of cases but not to tax the healthcare system. Why? Is it because the serious/critical has a higher probability of survival? Or just a feel good?
Specifically because there are only so many ventillators available in the hospitals. Spread out the cases, and you may be able to have them available for anyone who needs them.
Why isn’t someone rushing to build 10,000s of these low cost ventilators and the FDA getting it approved instead of futzing around and crying we don’t have enough machines
Do we know for sure that not taxing the healthcare system would result in…
Any data that show ventilators did increase the probability? Somehow it doesn’t show out in the macro data, we now have nearly 200,000 cases, enough to see “population” attributes of the virus. Is why I ask,…
Could it be the reason why UK, Switzerland and Japan decided not to do containment as the economic cost is way too far high to justify for the “more will survive” based on “flattening the curve” would “increase the probability of survival” especially when most of the vulnerable are “not currently active contributors to the society”. Italy doesn’t want to bother with those 80+. Is it just/ fair to let productive elements shoulder a heavy burden?
The UK was considering sequestering the elderly and letting it run through the population. The guy who suggested that got blasted, but it wasn’t a bad suggestion IMO. Then herd immunity would protect the elderly.
One thing to consider though is just flattening the curve to allow hospital staff to catch it, be immune, and recover their strength is still helpful. I think we might’ve gotten into quarantine at just the right time for that.
That is the number of cases would be the same regardless of what you do. So the goal is not to reduce the eventual number of cases but not to tax the healthcare system. Why? Is it because the serious/critical has a higher probability of survival? Or just a feel good?
