[arcticbull]

Fine, but we absolutely do know for an absolute fact that -- it is not true 15-20% of people with nCoV-19 need a ventilator. We don't know what the number is but we 100% with absolute certainty know it is not 15-20%.

If we acquiesce to 70% of the US getting nCoV-19 as the epidemiologists are suggesting that would require 50 million ventilators. There are about 70,000 in the US. So we'd need almost 1000X as many ventilators as we have.

If that were true we've have the national guard locking people inside their houses, and the UK wouldn't be contemplating giving nCov-19 to everyone young to foster herd immunity.

[pbhjpbhj]

Well in China they seem to have forced everyone to stay home?

The UK appears to have decided allowing 500,000 of us to die was a bad idea and we're now on "lockdown". At least everyone is _advised_ to socially distance, because - it seems - then businesses can still fire people for not turning up to work, and insurers can avoid paying out ("you chose to stop the event, you weren't obliged to").

I'm not sure we can tell what the rates are, what's the testing false positive rate? UK gave up testing a while back (except emergency hospital admissions).

For the last week, at least, all new cases here are in theory emergency hospital admissions. 700 cases per day (and rising), 10% of our normal number of intensive care beds.

[arcticbull]

> Well in China they seem to have forced everyone to stay home?

Well, it's China.

> The UK appears to have decided allowing 500,000 of us to die was a bad idea and we're now on "lockdown".

500,000 people dying wasn't going to happen. Korea's death rate is closer to 0.4%, almost entirely the older folks who were to be quarantined at home during this process anyways. Korea's death rate for under-40's is 0-0.1%, so at worst, ignoring that vulnerable folks in those demographics would also be quarantined, the death toll would less than 50K -- probably much, much less, and not drastically out of line with a bad flu year.

> I'm not sure we can tell what the rates are, what's the testing false positive rate? UK gave up testing a while back (except emergency hospital admissions).

Supportive treatment is the only thing you can do anyways. Beyond that PCR tests will only tell you if you currently actively have the disease not if you had it before and recovered. We need antibody tests for that.

[lern_too_spel]

Where are you getting this 0.4% number from? Korea is testing extensively, so CFR is very close to IFR, and CFR is above 1%.

[easytiger]

No it isn't. If you are asking someone where they get numbers from them write some incorrect numbers in the pursuit of whatever agenda is not a good look.

As of Monday,

- 274,504 people tested

- 8,400 cases

- 81 deaths

- 0.96% CFR

> so CFR is very close to IFR

On what basis do you make that statement. It's clearly indefensible

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/coronav...

[lern_too_spel]

> If you are asking someone where they get numbers from them write some incorrect numbers in the pursuit of whatever agenda is not a good look.

> As of Monday

> - 81 deaths

> - 0.96% CFR

I should say the same of you. Why are you posting numbers from 5 days ago? As of yesterday when I made that comment, Korea has 102 deaths and 1.16% CFR.

>> so CFR is very close to IFR

> On what basis do you make that statement. It's clearly indefensible

On the basis of the beginning of that same sentence, which you inexplicably did not quote.

[easytiger]

That provides no basis? Feel free to elaborate

[arcticbull]

> Where are you getting this 0.4% number from? Korea is testing extensively, so CFR is very close to IFR, and CFR is above 1%.

That's not how CFR works, and I was referring to this data [1] which showed folks under 30 with a CFR of 0%, 30-50 at 0.1% and 50-59 at 0.4%, and a total of around 0.69% at the time the data was published.

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-death-rates-by-a...

[lern_too_spel]

> and I was referring to this data [1]

You were referring to data more than a week old, when the infected cases had neither time to recover nor time to die. The latest figure from yesterday is 1.16% of all cases according to JHU.

> That's not how CFR works

That is exactly how CFR works. If you test more people, C will be closer to I.

[arcticbull]

No cfr is only I at the end of the epidemic. Either way I slides the data based on those likely exposed.

[easytiger]

I can probably derive everything you believe from your flagrant mischaracterisation of the UKs policies.

It might help if you don't get all your news from Twitter