[joe_the_user]

The one credible source among your links talks about surveying a population and seeing of those testing positive for Covid are asymptomatic or have cold symptoms.

But this finding is not extrapolated to mean that the vast majority won't require hospitalization. There's a reason. When the virus is growing exponentially, most people have just gotten the virus and haven't gone the 2-3 weeks typical for becoming so sick that you require hospitalization. Exponential growth means 3-week old cases are rare. A weekly doubling time 1/16 of the cases of the cases are three weeks old. If 1/5 of those cases require hospitalization eventually, you will wind-up with only 1/80 of those cases seeming to require hospitalization if you're just taking a survey.

Some of my references are extrapolating things (correctly) but others are citing recognized authorities. Your entire argument is basically incorrect extrapolation based on not taking into account exponential growth.

This article widely read article summarizes the quandary we're in and how to extrapolate the current data.

https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-peop...

People need to read it and stop with the destructive misinformation.

https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-peop...

[easytiger]

> If 1/5 of those cases require hospitalization eventually

They won't, they don't, and you have no basis for making that claim. I don't know what your agenda is here but it is entirely clear you have no desire to honestly engage regarding the facts. Certainly a complete misreading, at best, of data presented.

It clearly deals with the symptoms during the while life cycle of the disease.

What precisely is your goal with this misinformation?

[joe_the_user]

They won't, they don't, and you have no basis for making that claim.

All the links in my original post are the basis of my claim - the WHO finding in China is very plausible and says exactly what I say - so saying I have "no basis" is clearly misrepresenting my above post.

I believe I'm characterizing your claim and their links as well as I can while vehemently disagreeing. As far as I can tell, you cite a survey finding many asymptomatic cases and think that proves things will stay that way but fail to consider the properties of a growing infected group. I'm entirely hostile to your position but I know only substantial arguments can help here.

My main goal is to make clear the urgency of this situation. There's a debate about whether the virus needs to be actively suppressed and I want to make it clear that this is indeed necessary. Basically, not seeing the American Health Care system collapse and hundreds of thousands of people die is my motivate. For that, we have to realize how many people will be coming in (though that's visible in Italy).

You talk of "engaging with the facts" but you don't present either facts or arguments in this post - plus alleging motives, etc.

Edit: Looking further at your link, you're describing the (important testing approach in the village of Vo). You can say "as 10%" were symptomatic but this is in the context of the virus being spread by them, again, not in the context of the people not getting sick later. There's really no reference to exactly what percentage of people go seriously sick.

[chimprich]

The Imperial College study, which seems well-received, and which caused the UK government to change strategy, estimates a hospitalisation rate of 4.4%.

This is on page 5 of the paper.

Edit: link https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/s...

[chrisseaton]

> My main goal is to make clear the urgency of this situation.

It’s not ok to deliberately over-estimate numbers in order to achieve this goal. That was my original point at the top of this thread.

You may think it’s ok because the ends justify the means, but it’s still wrong and dangerous.

[joe_the_user]

It’s not ok to deliberately over-estimate numbers in order to achieve this goal. That was my original point at the top of this thread.

I have given the reasons that I believe 1/5 is in no way overestimate. I don't have any to think you are arguing in bad faith yourself, simply that you're mistaken on a very important point. However, you are resorting imputing bad faith on my part simply through your disagreement with my argument. That's a pretty bad way to argue and I think indicates a poor approach to this critical question.

[easytiger]

> have given the reasons that I believe 1/5 is in no way overestimate

No. You have not.

[easytiger]

> You talk of "engaging with the facts" but you don't present either facts or arguments in this post - plus alleging motives, etc.

You are clearly or for an argument. 1/5th cases are not as you say. That's a lie. Plain and simple