Researcher Predicts Over 250,000 Chinese Will Have Coronavirus In Ten Days

https://finanz.dk ^ | Jan 24, 2020

[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);

[Clean_Sweep]

It up to 42 deaths currently.

[Drago]

On the plus side...this could help with the trade deficit...Chinese GDP will be reduced with millions sick at home. Less product to export.

[null and void]

Bommer ~ San Fran will be an interesting place to keep your eye on.

Right_Wing_Madman ~ Now might be good time to prohibit all air travel between the United States and China.

Now might be good time to prohibit all air travel between the United States and California...

[null and void]

Bring Out Your Dead

Post to me or FReep mail to be on/off the Bring Out Your Dead ping list.

The purpose of the “Bring Out Your Dead” ping list (formerly the “Ebola” ping list) is very early warning of emerging pandemics, as such it has a high false positive rate.

So far the false positive rate is 100%.

At some point we may well have a high mortality pandemic, and likely as not the “Bring Out Your Dead” threads will miss the beginning entirely.

*sigh* Such is life, and death...

If a quarantine saves just one child's life, it's worth it.

[MarMema]

No, actually. Where did you get this idea?

[Jim Noble]

Yes.

[phoneman08]

In addition to the human suffering and death, this virus is becoming more and more likely to have a major effect on the economy of the world.

[mrsmith]

It has to do with numerators and denominators.
Very confusing for some, apparently...

[Black Agnes]

This Lancet paper indicates that a 15% mortality rate so far has been documented:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30183-5/fulltext

[mrsmith]

You both see my point, I’m sure.
What am I doing wrong?

[MarMema]

They are two different and subject to change characteristics.

[technically right]

I’ve never had the Corona virus but I have suffered from the Crown Royal flue on several occasions.

[mrsmith]

Exactly.
And using new info to change one, but not the other, is misleading.

[MarMema]

If a virus has a rapid easy and highly effective transmission it will reach more people and include more highly vulnerable populations - who will die more easily. So the more effective the transmission, the higher the mortality rate.

All of the scientific (not msm) folk are saying it is way too early to call either one. Here’s an example

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/01/416511/mysterious-coronavirus-spreads-infectious-disease-expert-explains-what-you

I personally am enjoying watching China suffer on the whole. I have no doubt the wolf pups and koalas at that market were at least intended to be hung and blowtorched alive just as they do to millions of dogs every year.
The bats were certainly boiled alive as they do to millions of cats and small mammals each year.

[DoughtyOne]

Yes, that’s true...

YOU!!!!

LOL

[DoughtyOne]

Saw that.

The last numbers work out to a 03.14% mortality rate.

[AlaskaErik]

I’ll bet there are thousands more stories like yours. We’re glad you’re special. 👍

Not claiming to be special, but a border shutdown would impact me and many others.

[mrsmith]

Nope.
the ‘rate’ is a fraction.

Increased transmission means more deaths, but not a higher fatality rate.

It’s simple math, very simple.

[MarMema]

I aced calculus in college so you’re not impressing me, ok?

You’re also not making any sense. So I’m calling this discussion quits.

[mrsmith]

But there is no way to know who was infected and survived.
Only one of the numbers in the ‘fatality rate’ is reliable.