Replies

Yes I saw how you did the math, it’s flawed. It’s simplistic and misleading.

How many medical experts are claiming the death rate will be 30 percent?

The 1917-18 flu epidemic is the worst on record. It claimed 50 million dead of 500 million infected — 10 percent, in a time when health care and sanitary practices were arguably much worse than even Wuhan, China.

I believe the “deaths” number, on the condition the data is reliable (not really, but it’s the best we have).

The “recovered” number is for those officially certified as “recovered” and that is most likely composed of the majority of people that were sick and required hospitalization. There are many thousands that never went to the hospital and recovered, because they were never stricken so severely that they required hospitalization. Or they were never counted because they shied away from the authorities, fearing being arrested and put into isolation. For various reasons they didn’t get a “recovered” certification.

And what about the other 40,000 known infected? They will either die or recover, but it’s way too early to come up with a number, and regardless the number is much larger than the low numbers you are using.

The fact that the Chinese are, for example, welding doors shut on apartment buildings for quarantine purposes suggests that the numbers of dead will be inflated in the quarantined areas, since the people trapped inside with the infected are much more likely to fall ill, and will be denied help. But from the Communist leadership’s view, better to have more die in isolation than to risk Shanghai and Beijing having similar outbreaks. After all, Chairman Mao starved millions of his own people to death in the Great Leap Forward. So you might say the Communists are allowing the per captita death rate to soar as an alternative to the certainty of a much larger uncontained pandemic.