|
|
|
|
|
by MyelinatedT
2299 days ago
|
|
> an estimated 30% of infected people need hospital treatment, which is surely more than the usual flu That sounds like an extraordinarily high estimate. How could we have an accurate estimate of hospitalisation proportions without even knowing how many infections are out in the community? It seems very, very likely that we are missing the vast majority of cases given the tests are pretty inaccurate, and we only bother administering them to people who are either extremely sick already, or who have been in an "affected region" (realistically, every region is "affected" at this point). |
|
But what I read in the UK was that looking increasingly like 'about 50%' would be infected, 'but only 30%' of those would actually need medical attention. Something similar came from the US with '40-70%' instead of 'about 50'.
But yes, a large part of the concern, particularly for government bodies coming out with these figures is preparedness; so they probably are erring on the side of 'more resources needed' in these estimates. But why not? Better over-prepared than under, not that that's looking likely.