To: Black Agnes
Actually, the previous numbers were 1%-2%. This is 2 times worse than those numbers.
Advise.?
Actually, the previous numbers were 24% (when I started following this news), and slowly down to 9.5% as China pushed out more fake numbers.
This study supposedly comes from 50M patients, yet, according to the official Johns Hopkins numbers, there's only been 27M recoveries, and 2700 deaths? (Fatality rate of 8.9%, not 4.8%.) So that means this study looked at an additional 20M patients who are currently infected and haven't died nor recovered, so how does it include them in the mortality rate? They can't predict the future, so they just lumped them all in as recovered? Even though around 2000 of them will likely die?
To: Svartalfiar
So that means this study looked at an additional 20M patients who are currently infected and haven't died nor recovered, The study didn't look at any cases. It was a meta-study based on other studies. Without those other studies it is completely speculative and probably junk. Anyone can preprint an article online, it means nothing.
106 posted on
02/25/2020 4:27:32 AM PST by
palmer
(Democracy Dies Six Ways to Sunday)
To: Svartalfiar
My numbers started in the 50s and dropped to about 9% recently.
Better treatment, better genetics?
Or just ChiCom lies?
112 posted on
02/25/2020 6:07:23 AM PST by
null and void
(By the pricking of my lungs, Something wicked this way comes ...)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson