[gas_dr]

So using your logic you make the supposition that the numbers for tatown are way off. There is strong opposition that the numbers being used to calculate the death scare rate are way off (90% of patients have mild or no symptoms). Therefore for each 1 case we hear about there are 90 we don’t. Therefore the total cases are much higher therefore the death rate is lower and comparable to other respiratory diseases

QED

I was waiting for your argument to pop up to refute with the truth

[tatown]

It’s extremely telling that when confronted with the actual hard data (truth) these folks get hostile. It is EXACTLY the same reaction that global warming zealots have when confronted with the truth. The meltdown when data is provided that doesn’t support their end of the world dogma.

Why the moderators put up with this emotional insanity is beyond me.

[Drago]

Yes, the denominator is way off for US cases...not so much for South Korean cases ...much more testing done there...use those numbers and you get 0.9%. Main point here is that the original post indicated “hard numbers, no estimates”, and then proceeded to use a fatality estimate. Only hard #’s available for common flu is pediatric fatalities.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html

[null and void]

So using sub-clinical infections for the denominator for Corona virus gives a lower fatality rate that using only clinical cases for the denominator for the seasonal flu.

Makes sense to me...

[lepton]

There is strong opposition that the numbers being used to calculate the death scare rate are way off (90% of patients have mild or no symptoms).

---

The usual numbers given are 80% have no symptoms or symptoms which do not require hospitalization, with the remainder worse. 30% have “severe” respiratory symptoms, but many of these do not require hospitalization.

Therefore for each 1 case we hear about there are 90 we don’t.

---

Based upon your numbers, there might be 9 you don’t, not 90 - and even that is dubious.