``````````
Whoooooa there big fella. The mortality rate is 15% (initial estimates had it at 2-3%) of Chinese people admitted to that particular hospital in China.
Think about all the people possibly sitting at home, waiting out their illness. That would drive the denominator down a bit.
Also, maybe the hospital is known specifically for addressing patients that are critically ill --thus biasing the sample population.
What if it's a crappy hospital with crappy practitioners --more bias.
41 of 59 patients did not have coronavirus by RT-PCR, could be the incubation period, but RT-PCR should be ble to detect very low titers of virus. So 69% of pneumonia patients had coronavirus, while 31% did not.
Again, maybe we should panic, but maybe not. I always considered The LANCET the most politically-charged left leaning "top-tier" medical journal, even beyond JAMA and NEJM. It always seemed to provide data showing the superiority/positives of the British government-run health system. I have not however, looked at it for 10 years.
Lies
Damn lies
Statistics for liberals
oopsie, the denominator would be larger, the % would go down.
I looked at the Lancet article. Medicalese is hard to read but basically a study of 41 patients, as you said at one hospital, many had unerlying health issues.
Until non-Chinese sources, based on larger patient pool, have some info, it remains “wait and see” to me.
Again, maybe we should panic, but maybe not. I always considered The LANCET the most politically-charged left leaning “top-tier” medical journal, even beyond JAMA and NEJM. It always seemed to provide data showing the superiority/positives of the British government-run health system. I have not however, looked at it for 10 years.
Thanks, I appreciate that info.
Lefties do that kind of stuff.
I think it is overblown too.
Common sense would to use same precautions as normal for flu.