Is Coronavirus a biological weapon?

[Memphis]

Those are closed cases dude To be fair death is the number one case closer, of that we can agree. The mortality rate in the UK using those number is around 5%.

[Memphis]

For what it's worth I don't see the value in what Alpha posted either. It being or not being a HCID is neither here nor there. No one has ever claimed that corona virus = death. Is it by those metrics a high consequence disease? They say no. Are the consequences of this high, fuck yeah. Two different things.

[Alpha]

For what it's worth I don't see the value in what Alpha posted either. No one has ever claimed that corona virus = death.

I'm not saying they claimed that. But by classifying it as a HCID under their own definition it states:

Typically has a high case-fatality rate.

Some more information:

https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...e-2018-to-2019



From the CDC:

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden...-estimates.htm

[Memphis]

I'm not quite sure what those images and figures are supposed to show? UK all cause mortality shows no excess. We've got 500 deaths in the UK. Stick 500 deaths on the expected and that might mean something, maybe, possibly? Also factor in no one is going anywhere or doing anything so being robbed of the opportunity of getting killed in much cooler ways. I'm guessing the general gist is nothing doing here, no one is dying to excess? I'm not sure if that's the case or if it matters.

The CDC one. I'm no statistician or mathematician but US figures

Flu (lowest number) 23000 deaths, 38000000 cases = 0.06 mortality rate. The 38000000 is estimated.

Corona 1177 deaths, 82177 cases = 1.43 mortality rate. The 82177 are confirmed cases.

The mortality rate for Corona Virus is significantly higher.

Is the argument here that more people get flu therefor more people die? True, over all. I'll be honest, I've only looked at a dozen or so weekly reports so I'm probably off base. The number I was seeing was around 11-12000 confirmed cases of flu per week nationwide. When was the first case of corona Virus in the US? Start of March? lets say 4 weeks ago? And now 82000 confirmed cases, 20000 per week.

P4P, corona kicks flu's ass.

Again I'm no stato, probably got all that wrong but meh, we're all board, killed a bit of time. I said the same thing early doors, Pah!! it's interim flu.

[TitoFan]

P4P, corona kicks flu's ass.

Kudos for putting the boxing stamp on it.

[iwng100]

Those are closed cases dude To be fair death is the number one case closer, of that we can agree. The mortality rate in the UK using those number is around 5%.

The only statistic we can make is on closed cases, we can only make estimations for the active cases. The right formula for MR would be the number of death from the close cases + the number of patients who will die from the active cases, all this divided by total persons infected. If you divide only the deaths from the closed cases to the total existed cases is like you predict that all patients from the active cases will recover.

[iwng100]

I know in UK like in Canada there is still a big fluctuation of MR, not like in Italy or Spain were it seams the MR is stabilized for one week around 40-45 % , look at the last graphics (deaths/recovers ) in those countries.

[Memphis]

That makes no sense to me whatsoever to be honest but I'm no mathematician. Why cant you take X number of people that have it, and Y number of people that have died and Y as a percentage of X is the mortality rate? Forget assumptions and guesswork. This many have it, this many died, thats your number, no?

That percentage is far more in line with WHO to be fair and no where near the 60% which is utterly bonkers.

[iwng100]

That makes no sense to me whatsoever to be honest but I'm no mathematician. Why cant you take X number of people that have it, and Y number of people that have died and Y as a percentage of X is the mortality rate? Forget assumptions and guesswork. This many have it, this many died, thats your number, no?

That percentage is far more in line with WHO to be fair and no where near the 60% which is utterly bonkers.

Sorry mate but I don't know how to explain better than I already did especially because English is not my first language, not even the second one , I will try though.

MR = TD (total death) / TC (total cases)
TD = TAD (total persons already death) + TWD (total persons who will die from the active cases).
MR = TAD / TC only if TWD = 0

I really hope I'm wrong and you're wright

[Memphis]

It's cool mate

I wasn't questioning the formula or language, just why those numbers would actually be used and the end result.

[iwng100]

It's cool mate

I wasn't questioning the formula or language, just why those numbers would actually be used and the end result.

I think these numbers will decrease in time, because I think there are more recovers who are not confirmed yet, but is still very disquieting for everybody, especially
for people like me, almost 60 with heart problems.

[X]

I don't know about other countries, but mass testing has not taken place on the UK. In fact, the only cases reported in the numbers are those people who HAVE been definitively tested as positive ..... and that is only some of those people who have actively presented in hospital or doctor surgeeries.

That means nobody really knows the total number of cases, yes?

The true number of cases is almost certainly higher, by many multiples. But nobody knows how many. Similarly, there will be cases who have fully recovered and aren't in these numbers.

How on earth is it possible to Calculate a % mortality rate (and compare it across countries) when we don't know the vital figure of total number of infections.?

Equally, you do know that different countries have different testing methods, different definitions of what 'infected' means and also different attitudes towards mass testing? Some countries will also simply lie about their numbers.

That chart is essentially meaningless as it is not comparing like for like. The numbers are not consistently arrived at so no comparison is possible.

Drawing any sort of conclusions from such flawed data is a castle built on sand.

Iwng100 ..... yes, this whole thing is disquieting buddy. Try not to fuel your (very understandable) anxiety by looking at idiots' so called science on the internet 👍🏼

[Memphis]

It's cool mate

I wasn't questioning the formula or language, just why those numbers would actually be used and the end result.

I think these numbers will decrease in time, because I think there are more recovers who are not confirmed yet, but is still very disquieting for everybody, especially
for people like me, almost 60 with heart problems.

Absolutely. The overwhelming majority of cases wont even make it onto the radar I'd imagine. Come and go with mild discomfort.

Take care of yourself mate.

[TitoFan]

It's cool mate

I wasn't questioning the formula or language, just why those numbers would actually be used and the end result.

I think these numbers will decrease in time, because I think there are more recovers who are not confirmed yet, but is still very disquieting for everybody, especially
for people like me, almost 60 with heart problems.

Not bad for English being your 3rd language.

The virus is disquieting for most of us, save the usual exceptions out there in the fringes.

As most here have said, it's tough getting a true handle on the mortality rate of this thing. All we can say for sure is that it seems to vary widely based on age, and apparently by country also.

It's definitely not a static number, as there are so many unknowns in the equation.

The number of people who get the virus changes dramatically daily. Those who recover and those who die are also rapidly changing numbers. Deaths must be carefully cataloged and attributed correctly, as victims may actually die from other pre-existing conditions.

The thing is the contagiousness of the disease. Which is why our adult kids are staying away from us... we're staying away from our own elderly parents... etc, etc. It seems like the responsible and caring thing to do.