Posted on 01/24/2020 5:03:00 PM PST by 11th_VA
... Reed wastes no time to get to his terrifying conclusion which is that if no change in control or transmission happens, then further outbreaks will occur in other Chinese cities, “and that infections will continue to be exported to international destinations at an increasing rate.”
As a result, in 10 days time, or by February 4, 2020, Reed‘s model predicts the number of infected people in Wuhan to be greater than 250 thousand (with an prediction interval, 164,602 to 351,396);
(Excerpt) Read more at finanz.dk ...
It’s difficult to know which is spreading faster, the disease or the massive hype.
I wonder what they predict for the other countries that this crap has shown up in. There has been a lot of infected people flying around infecting more on the planes.
A higher transmission rate means a lower fatality rate.
So: “good news, bad news”.
perhaps MSM is hyping to distract pop from impeachment debacle
My money is on mass hysteria.
At least that many are already infected and in incubation.
What’s important too is what is the mortality rate?
Are we talking something that has a 50 percent mortality rate.
That would be a major cause for concern.
What’s the mortality rate for the non elderly who are relatively healthy?
Ebola spreading by a cough or sneeze is pretty terrifying.
Other illnesses, not so much.
As a result, in 10 days time, or by February 4, 2020, Reed‘s model predicts the number of infected people in Wuhan to be greater than 250 thousand (with an prediction interval, 164,602 to 351,396);
Ten days will be February 3rd, 2020.
“It’s difficult to know which is spreading faster, the disease or the massive hype.”
The numbers so far indicate a 3-4% mortality, 14 day incubation and wildfire like spread.
There is good reason to be concerned.
Let’s just hope it’s not the biggest story around in a month.
“A higher transmission rate means a lower fatality rate.”
Please, if you have a basis for that assertion, share it.
I'll take the over .. (hype)
This may screw with my driving back to Alaska at the end of March. I can fly, but that leaves my new truck stranded down here.
I’m sure “GLOBAL WARMING” (hiding as climate change) will be blamed very soon.
I think it’s in the neighborhood of 2.76%, if we’ve been given good figures.
941/26
Please note the number of resolved cases. That could mean we could expect there to be more deaths in the infected group.
https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6
Will anyone remember this in ten days?
Lower mortality rate than SARs, but if it’s like the Spanish Flu (10% fatal), this thing could cause a lot of death - interrupt financial markets, etc
There is an old axiom that comes to mind in all of this..
Lies
Damned Lies
And Statistics
Not to be argumentative, but check this out.
The percent I came up with is based on information at the link provided for this post.
I agree we should have some concern.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3810775/posts?page=15#15
It’s easy to know who died of a disease, hard to know who didn’t.
No more needs to be said.
Estimates are estimates, and the easy ones are accurate.
Pray tell how could anyone, at this point, know who contracted this virus and didn’t die?
They can’t.
When the estimate of transmission is raised, the fatality rate has to also be reduced.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.