Richard Engel: "Don't panic. Doctors/ virologists I'm speaking to say 98% of people will be fine"

[Dennis Donovan]

Last edited Wed Feb 26, 2020, 06:05 PM - Edit history (1)

Link to tweet

Richard Engel ✔@RichardEngel

Don’t panic. Doctors/ virologists I’m speaking to say 98% of people will be fine, even if they get Covid-19. They expect it will go around the world, but that most people who get it will be a little sick, then recover. The danger is to vulnerable people. Hospitals/ old age homes.

3:53 PM - Feb 26, 2020

Link to tweet

Richard Engel ✔@RichardEngel

In this case, she’s Dr. Danielle Anderson. 20 yrs experience in the field, works directly with coronavirus. Top specialist. Duke. Harvard. She’ll be on Nightly News and was already on Msnbc. One of several Drs I’ve intervied on this today, and over last few days around the world.

5:04 PM - Feb 26, 2020

YES! Thank you Richard!

[GusBob]

1. I dont reckon this journalist did a follow-up question, such as

what is the risk of mutation and then what happens to those 98%?

[lame54]

2. Or the 6 plus million

[SCantiGOP]

28. The current numbers being put out there

Say the flu kills one in a thousand.
At 2% this new virus kills one in fifty.
Quite a difference.

[LiberalArkie]

74. Facts do not back you up at all./

C current Johns Hopkins stats are:

Total confirmed cases: 81,322

Total Recovered: 30,322

Total Deaths: 2.770

https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6

[defacto7]

80. Of patients with and outcome, recovered plus deaths

8% died. That number will probably fall but no one knows how much. The 2% figure is a guess of the final result.

[GemDigger]

131. One thing to remember about China and their reporting is

that they are only counting hospital deaths. They are not counting those that have died in their homes or on the streets.

[Perseus]

29. Get a can of Lysol spray, one you've had over a year, and you will see that one of the bacterias

Lysol kills is "Coronavirus". I am not saying people should not guard themselves, but I believe there is a lot of noise about it, I wish I knew the reason.

I do understand there are a few variations/mutations of the virus, but I think that what Engles is reporting is correct.

Also, before criticizing Richard Engle, watch the interview, maybe he did ask that follow-up question, and many more? Engle is one of the best reporters we have today, I worry all the time about his well being because he gets into very dangerous areas, and he has a wife and kid.

[Girard442]

33. Practically anything kills viruses. They're actually pretty fragile.

Killing all the viruses, not letting even a few sneak through -- well that's another story.

[marybourg]

41. Unfortunately,we can't go around spraying

the air in front of us with Lysol. This virus-not a bacterium- most likely spreads through the air.

[GusBob]

68. lysol huh?

Great advice!

Does it kill airborne viruses BTW?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

78. Muddy thinking is part of the panic. Coronavirus is NOT a bacteria. Your post wasn't a panic

... but I plead for all people to be precise and accurate about any statements about the Covid-19 virus.

[58Sunliner]

104. What do you propose?? That people walk with a can spraying the air?

[DENVERPOPS]

45. I would ask

what is USAMRID saying????????

[cwydro]

55. Richard Engel is a damn good journalist.

I’d believe him before any panic-monger here on DU.

[defacto7]

82. His statement is about as close to the fact as you can get.

Instead of looking at the stats from the point of illness he's stating from the point of wellness. Both perspectives are correct but his is the one less fearful. It's realistc.

[charliea]

95. As a scientist he's a good journalist...

Here's another take on the same data. "A contagious disease is spreading around the globe, cases currently appearing in more than 3 dozen countries, with a mortality rate at least 20 times greater than seasonal influenza. It is not contained as yet and it represents a potential pandemic. No vaccine is available."

[GusBob]

128. Yes I'm sure he's a hero

coupla problems: his first post sounds almost like dark humor sarcasm, at first blush that's how I took it. For a wordsmith you'd think he'd write more succinctly

He claims he spoke to multiple folks, but only cites one. She is familiar with corona virus, but how much experience has she with this one? There is much they don't know about it.



I don't know how many patients a journalist or an academic sees on a daily basis, but as a physician both of those numbers (98/2%) bother me very much. The 98% especially.

In the clinics we are all about caution and risks, to proclaim against such is a bad idea

[mahina]

86. "This journalist" - some background

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Engel
Richard Engel (born September 16, 1973) is an American journalist and author who is NBC News' chief foreign correspondent.[1] He was assigned to that position on April 18, 2008, after being the network's Middle East correspondent and Beirut Bureau chief. Engel was the first broadcast journalist recipient of the Medill Medal for Courage in Journalism for his report "War Zone Diary".[2]

Prior to joining NBC News in May 2003, he covered the start of the 2003 war in Iraq from Baghdad for ABC News as a freelance journalist. He speaks and reads Arabic fluently and is also fluent in Italian and Spanish. Engel wrote the book A Fist in the Hornet's Nest, published in 2004, about his experience covering the Iraq War from Baghdad. His newest book, And Then All Hell Broke Loose, published in 2016, is about his two decade career in the Middle East as a freelance reporter.

Engel is known for having covered the Iraq War, the Arab Spring and the Syrian Civil War.[3]

Awards
2006, RTNDA Edward R. Murrow Award[52]
2006, News & Documentary Emmy Award, Outstanding Coverage of a Breaking News Story in a Regularly Scheduled Newscast[14]
2007, Medill Medal for Courage in Journalism[52]
2008, Peabody Award, for his coverage of the Viper Company, a remote U.S. Army unit in Afghanistan[52]
2008, Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University Award[53]
2008, News & Documentary Emmy Award, Outstanding Continuing Coverage of a News Story in a Regularly Scheduled Newscast[14]
2008, News & Documentary Emmy Award, Outstanding Live Coverage of a Breaking News Story – Long Form[14]
2008, News & Documentary Emmy Award, Best Story in a Regularly Scheduled Newscast[14]
2009, George Foster Peabody Award[14]
2009, Edward R. Murrow Award[14]
2009, Society of Professional Journalism Award[14]
2009, News & Documentary Emmy Award, Outstanding Continuing Coverage of a News Story in a Regularly Scheduled Newscast[14]
2010, News & Documentary Emmy Award, Best Story in a Regularly Scheduled Newscast[14]
2010, News & Documentary Emmy Award, Outstanding News Discussion & Analysis[14]
2010, Gracie Award[14]
2010, OPC David Kaplan Award for spot news reporting for a series of three reports from Afghanistan[14]
2011, David Bloom Award, Radio and Television Correspondents' Association, for Excellence in Enterprise Reporting[52]
2011, Daniel Pearl Award[14]
2011, Overseas Press Club Award[14]
2012, Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University Award[54]
2013, "Tex McCrary Award for Journalism Excellence, Congressional Medal of Honor Society"[55]
2013, John Chancellor Award [56]
2014, Peabody Award for his comprehensive look at the rise of ISIS[57]
2015, Outstanding Coverage of a Breaking News Story in a Regularly Scheduled Newscast [58]
2015, Outstanding Hard News Report in a Regularly Scheduled Newscast[58]
2015, Fred Friendly First Amendment Award[59]

[Bernardo de La Paz]

112. Almost all mutations kill viruses. In most pandemics the virus weakens as it spreads. . . . nt

[TwilightZone]

3. Agreed.

The amount of misinformation and fear-mongering, including right here on DU, is appalling. The situation is bad enough without the nonsense that passes for "facts" making it worse.

Human nature, I guess.

[cwydro]

7. Yup.

People do love panic.

[nolabear]

9. Ain't it the truth. Hysteria rules the day.

Everything is apocalyptic and if not we’ll find a way to imagine it becoming that way.

[LisaL]

24. If death rate is 2 %, and everybody gets infected, we are getting 6 million dead people. But

that's no biggie, right?

[nolabear]

30. See, that's not what I said. Of course it's a "biggie."

And I’m absolutely for being prepared and taking all precautions and amping up research and ALL the things.

But being terrified and spreading terrifying speculation based on fear rather than knowledge makes it far harder for people to act rationally and to help one another rather than engender behavior that causes adjacent problems that also do harm.

[crimycarny]

84. THANK YOU!!!!

Not being panicked about coronavirus is not the same as being unconcerned.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

42. NOT everyone will become infected, there will likely be vaccine, and treatment options. . . . nt

[defacto7]

89. Your figures don't represent the facts. It doesn't work that way.

[herding cats]

4. He's saying 2% won't be.

Which is the (so far) assumed fatality rate of COVID-19.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. However, 2% is still potentially a lot of people.

There are 327,000,000 people in the US. If everybody gets it that's 6,558,000 dead. Realistically not everybody will get it, but even so, 2% mortality in a widespread pandemic could be pretty bad. The mortality rate for the 1917 flu pandemic was >2.5%, compared to <0.1% in other influenza pandemics, and total deaths were estimated at >50 million.

[unc70]

6. Not 3 billion in US

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. You're right, got one too many zeros. Fixed it. Still a lot of people.

[Jarqui]

12. That's between 62 and 109 million people dead world wide

using an estimated infection rate range of 40% to 70% of all people on the planet

And about 600 million to 1 billion people who get pretty darn sick with it.

This is going to be a massive, catastrophic event.

Anyone with frail, elderly people in their lives - there's a darn good chance they're going to lose them.

Never seen anything like this.

[onenote]

81. What is the basis for estimating an infection range of 40% to 70%?

The infection rate of the passengers/crew on the Diamond Princess, stuck in close quarters with one another, was around 19% with a mortality rate of around 0.7 percent (.007). That's still bad, but nowhere near some of the numbers being thrown around.

[defacto7]

83. World Health Organization

[Jarqui]

97. Some media attributed it to the CDC others to a Harvard epidemiologist

Nobody knows for sure at this point.

Just because the folks didn't get it on the ship, doesn't mean they won't get it. Or that their testing for it is that reliable yet.

I suspect, like life expectancy, folks who have good health care will do much better than folks in third world countries who do not have such care.

Regardless, the numbers are going to be bad.

[dewsgirl]

15. I've been using this everytime someone comes at me with,

but the flu.

[SDANation]

31. Highest estimation from the CDC for this flu seaon

Is 41,000 dead in America alone... but yeah no biggie it’s just the flu.

[JCMach1]

21. 2% is the rainbows and unicorns number

[SDANation]

40. 2.5% during a time where mass travel did not exist yet

Pretty freaking scary if you ask me. Some 500,000+ Americans died, primarily in the young <40. Right now the 2% is kind of inflated because it’s based of a population of 80000 confirmed cases, epidemiologists believe the closer number is probably over 100000 infected, it’s just the other case are in those with few or no symptoms.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

46. NOT applicable. Flu virus first grown 1931. 1918 knew very little about viruses, discovered in 1892.

In 1892, a "non-bacterial" agent was discovered in tobacco plants.

Another breakthrough came in 1931, when the American pathologist Ernest William Goodpasture and Alice Miles Woodruff grew influenza and several other viruses in fertilised chicken eggs.

The first significant step towards preventing influenza was the development in 1944 of a killed-virus vaccine for influenza by Thomas Francis, Jr. This built on work by Australian Frank Macfarlane Burnet, who showed that the virus lost virulence when it was cultured in fertilized hen's eggs.

[SDANation]

54. So 1918 is not valid because we developed a vaccine for

a virus that changes every year? 🤔

[Bernardo de La Paz]

57. You are not being logical. . . . nt

[Chemisse]

98. Since it will take at least a year to develop a vaccine, it's not so different from 1918.

It was all said and done in about a year, so a vaccine would not have helped much.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

100. Your assumption is incorrect. And in 1918, they couldn't even cultivate the virus in the lab: 1931.

There are so many differences between now and 1918, most of them in our favour.

[Chemisse]

103. How is my assumption incorrect?

It started in earnest in the fall of 1918 and ended in the summer of 1919. In today's scientific climate, that's just enough time to realize there is a big problem, sequence the genes, develop a vaccine and test it - just before the pandemic is over. Knowing about viruses would not have helped those poor people in the slightest.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

106. It will NOT take a year to develop a vaccine. Treatments today & testing are MUCH better.

Even under ordinary annual conditions it does NOT take a year to develop influenza vaccines.

Knowing about viruses would not have helped those poor people in the slightest.

You seem to be saying that scientific ignorance and knowledge don't matter.

Wow.

Doctors and scientists know so much more about viruses now that they can help even poor people and many others.

[Chemisse]

118. You are not employing logic. I bid you good evening. n/t

[Bernardo de La Paz]

119. I'm employing logic and FACTS. You have no counters. So be it. . . . nt

[JudyM]

133. The first potential vaccine was announced in the last week and the estimate was that approval likely

won’t come until December, and that’s fast tracking it and assuming it’s effective and not harmful.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

136. Thanks for update. I expect that if there is pandemic in US, then approval happen overnight.

It will depend on early trials.

Multiply a factor for good early results (scale -1.0 to +1.0) times a factor for severity of {epi/pan}demic (scale 0 to 1.0) and you will get the speed with which it will be approved.

[JudyM]

137. New, much better update here!

Israeli scientists: 'In a few weeks, we will have coronavirus vaccine’
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142438545

[Bernardo de La Paz]

52. Mass travel DID exist. Millions of people moved in WW1. It was just slower movement. . . . nt

[SDANation]

56. Exactly. By ship. That limited transmission

Which probably saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

59. Not logical. An infected ship spreads more infection than an infected airplane.

Slower modes of transportation did not stop the spread compared to faster modes.

[SDANation]

69. How so? It slowed the spread significantly which helped.

http://metabiota.com/1918-today-speed-of-spread

[Bernardo de La Paz]

72. It spread slowly & wide. You feel better about that than fast & wide? We respond much faster today.

Faster response may overcome faster spread better than slow uninformed response in 1918.

They only cultivated influenza virus in the lab in 1931!

[SDANation]

75. True. Just saying that if a highly pathogenic flu emerged again

And with our ability to travel rapidly now, our resources could be behind the 8 ball before, patient zero landed at their destination. On a plane leaving China, 1 person infects that whole plane, those people travel to their own destination and boom pandemic started.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

77. Actually, ... one person on a plane does NOT infect the whole plane. STOP panicking!

Only a few people get infected, but all the passengers have to be quarantined. Quarantined is not equivalent in any way to being infected.

[58Sunliner]

113. The only way you have a faster response is if you know there has been exposure.

Many of the stats are relevant to the symptomology. If you have a long incubation period before having symptoms, but are still able to transmit the virus, viral shedding, then that will affect the response time, or lack of, to an illness. Unless it has been documented that you have been exposed and test positive. Given the rate of transmission, you may not have enough resources to respond quickly enough, or as necessary for those that need intensive care. Comparing it to the flu of 1918 is faulty without knowing the many variables of that particular virus.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

114. Yes, spread is a deep concern. But your last sentence is spot on & panicked posters need to read it.

[58Sunliner]

108. How long is a ship journey?

An airplane will disembark and carry more passengers in hours. Not days. Those people can expose more people and the growth is exponential.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

109. Less time on board, less contact between passengers. 1918 didn't quarantine. . . . nt

[58Sunliner]

115. You are essentially in a metal tube with air currents. Shared air.

Soft fabrics and close proximity. You are joking.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

117. You are not sitting at tables sharing cards, meals, and aerosol. Airplane air is filtered.

Infected flights DO NOT have everyone come down, not even a majority, a small percentage.

Look at the rates of infection on the Yokohama docked ship versus air flights.

[SDANation]

58. People weren't changing 1 or more hemispheres in the matter of hours.

I wouldn’t considered a ship that takes a week or more to destination as mass travel as we have today.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

61. Speed of transportation is not a factor. Rates and dispersal are. Slow dispersal is just as infectio

[Bernardo de La Paz]

64. Panic is infecting your thinking. There is only one other hemisphere when you are in one. . . . nt

[SDANation]

71. Not panicked, meant time zones not hemispheres 🤦🏻‍♂️

[GulfCoast66]

120. That is incorrect. Because of WWI there was extensive travel.

Both internally around the country and back and forth to Europe. Over 1 million Americans went to Europe at the height of the epidemic. And were moved all over the states in preparation. And not just Americans. The British Empire was shipping Million of men from their colonies all around the world. If the mortality rate of this disease is close to 1917-18, which I doubt it will be, then the great flu will be very similar to what we will see. But I do not think it will be that bad. Germ theory was not universally accepted or understood then as it is now. And we did not even know about viruses.

Quarantine was considered but it would have wrecked the war effort so was never undertaken.

We’ve know for years a new pandemic was coming. It may well be here.

I’m just so happy we have competent and science believing leader in charge now...

[bronxiteforever]

10. The panic in not the disease but with Dolt45 & his war on science.

No confidence in truth telling from the WH or that it has a plan to deal with anything. Ask the soldiers who suffered traumatic brain injuries but “all is well”.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

47. +1. . . . nt

[MiniMe]

11. Define "vulnerable people"

I just had bypass surgery, and I think I probably qualify as "vulnerable"

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

13. I think they are most concerned about elderly people with existing chronic health problems

and others with compromised immune systems. Check with your doctor, but if your surgery was successful you no longer have a heart problem.

[geardaddy]

50. I'm vulnerable

I'm on immunosuppressants for a kidney transplant I had 27 years ago. Though I'm not as vulnerable now as I was right after transplant.

[totodeinhere]

105. I am vulnerable also. I have end stage renal disease and I'm on the transplant list. n/t

[geardaddy]

126. Hugs to you!

Good luck and I hope you get that transplant soon! It's a life changer!

[totodeinhere]

130. Thanks so much. Thank God I became eligible for Medicare due to my

kidney disease. It was a life saver for me. And based on my experience that's one reason why I support Medicare for All.

[geardaddy]

132. I know, I had Medicare for 18 months, I think during my transplant

process. And it covered my mom's donation surgery. Whoever set that up Medicare coverage for ESRD was a genius.

[JudyM]

134. Wishing you the best possible turns of good luck.

Strength and hope

[totodeinhere]

135. Thank you so much. n/t

[Duppers]

53. Bypass surgery! Hope your recovery is going well. nt

[Boomer]

60. Yeah, that would be me and my wife

We're both in our mid-60's with significant health issues. I have compromised lung function, asthma and heart issues; she has MS and diabetes, plus a life-long vulnerability for bronchitis.

Everyone else is welcome to be complacent, but in any given year we're vulnerable and adding covid-19 to the mix means our risks just went up.

[DanTex]

14. I really like Richard Engel, but I'm sorry, this tweet almost seems like a parody.

I agree about not panicking, but "98% of people will be fine" is not particularly comforting. That implies that 2% of people will not be fine, which is a pretty big fraction. For comparison, about 2% of Americans who served in Vietnam were killed.

[dewsgirl]

17. I usually am on board with everything he says, but yes

it's a bit unrealistic if you are following the details coming out of other parts of the world.

[bronxiteforever]

19. +1 That is a good point.

[Girard442]

34. Sorry for going full-on Sheldon Cooper here, but it doesn't "imply" 2% won't be fine.

It flat out says it.

[Chemisse]

99. I know. It seemed like dark humor to me. n/t

[Ex Lurker]

16. 2% fatality rate is very high in a contagious disease

It would mean hundreds of thousands up to several million deaths in the US alone. Engel is smarter than this.

[uponit7771]

62. +1

[stewrat]

18. The mortality rates being reported are skewed as they include current treating cases. The mortality

rate for the resolved cased, 30k or so, is 8%. Mainly elderly, mainly in China. It also has a higher reproduction rate than average influenza. Per the folks at WorldoMeter, of the 48k acitve cases, 18% are considered critical.

[defacto7]

85. Those (yours) are the stats and if people would just stick to that

the probabilities make themselves pretty clear.
So many are making up all sorts of numbers and skewing historic facts. It's unnecessary. History is history and the statistics are just what they are.

[JCMach1]

20. Mortality rate is still not certain 2-9%

But probably at the lower end of that

[LisaL]

22. Sucks for those 2 % that will die, but don't panic. No biggie.

[tandem5]

23. So he's saying 98% survival sounds better than 2% mortality?

Technically we still don't have a handle on what the true mortality rate is because we really don't know how many are infected overall.

[0rganism]

25. i detect satire

of course, it's hard to tell anymore, but imho "serious" journalists should probably avoid humorous takes, leave that to the professionals

[BusyBeingBest]

26. Not panicking for myself, but I do have immunosuppressed/elderly family

and that does make me worry for them.

[RGTIndy]

27. Don't worry! Those 2% were dead weight anyway

Look on the bright side.

[Submariner]

32. The danger is to vulnerable people. Hospitals/ old age homes

and hopefully the White House master bedroom occupant.

[SDANation]

35. 2% in a population of 80,000 "confirmed" cases

Epidemiologists estimate that number is probably closer to 100,000 plus infected, including those who did not seek treatment, due to few or no symptoms. As the virus moves further into the population and more are infected, that 2% will inevitably go down due to a myriad of factors (access to care, living conditions, prevention etc.)

[Bernardo de La Paz]

49. Correct. And most often viruses in pandemics weaken as they proliferate. . . . nt

[snowybirdie]

36. Not comforting

if you or loved ones are part of that vulnerable population.

[The empressof all]

37. Panic serves no one and could only make the bad far far worse.

Putting a rosy glow on the numbers is better spin on this than the hard numbers. Yes the reality is that we all may very well be touched by this epidemic in one way or another. We are already hearing stories of shortages of masks. The "authorities" do not need wide scale panic. They will have enough to deal with if the worse case scenario occurs.

I wish they were doing a better job in communicating how we can prepare. Just telling us to have a two week supply of food and water, and wash your hands really doesn't really tell us enough.

[Warpy]

38. When people are more than a little sick, they're knocked down

for 2-3 weeks, sometimes more, even if they're not ill enough to require hospitalization.

There's little to no sneezing with this one, which makes it less contagious than flu. However, it heads to the mid and lower parts of the respiratory system and that's what makes it dangerous for some.

Symptoms are fever, dry cough, and shortness of breath.

The good news is that the vaccine has entered limited human trials as of last week.

[dewsgirl]

63. The flu has an R0 of 1.5, the R0 for Coronavirus is between

3.0-5.0, if not higher. This is far more contagious.

[defacto7]

87. It's not less contagious than the flu. That's just incorrect.

[paulkienitz]

39. 98%? Whew, only 140,000,000 of us will die, tops.

[WheelWalker]

43. Unfortunately, the death rate for people like me is likely 100%.

[yaesu]

44. trying to save his 401k? but with a 3% mortality rate for 60 yr olds & a 10% for 80 yr olds

its not a walk in the park

[rateyes]

48. So, if a million Americans contract the disease,

20,000 will die.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

51. Not necessarily. Quite a number will not experience symptoms or worrisome symptoms. . . . nt

[Boomer]

70. And this will make them super-spreaders

Ironically, this is one of the reason that covid-19 may spread so much faster and farther than a more intense pathogen. If you're feeling really sick when you're contagious, you stay home and people know to avoid you. If you hardly notice you're ill while you're contagious, then you're out and about making everyone around you ill.

This increases the risk that you'll come into contact with elderly people, who then die.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

76. Sure, they might spread, but don't count on 2% of US being wiped out. Many fewer would die.

There is no logic in extending a 2% death rate in reported cases to assuming the entire population will be infected and assuming the entire population will develop symptoms and assuming the entire population will need treatment.

Most of the people surviving are doing so by staying home and receiving minimal treatment if at all.

[Boomer]

110. 2% or 1% or .5%

Doesn't matter, because I'm still most likely to be in the Fatality column than the Recovered column. I have too many risk factors.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

111. If I were a betting person I'd make money betting on you & similar people surviving. . . . nt

[Boomer]

121. Wow

That's an incredibly shitty thing to say to someone with compromised lung function, for whom pneumonia can easily be a death sentence.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

122. Sorry, I thought I was clear. It is my hope and wish and expectation that you will be fine.

I was not trying to be crude in any way.

I was wanting to convey that I am on your side, is all.

I apologize for having upset you.

[Boomer]

123. Thank you

I do appreciate your response and your good wishes.

Just for the record, I'm not in some fear-induced panic over CORVID-19, but I'm very much aware that I fall in the highest risk groups. I'm 65 years old, and I have a heart condition and reduced lung function. So when people dismiss the 2% mortality rate, or try to dismiss my concerns as unfounded, I tend to get a little grouchy.

[Chemisse]

101. You mean a carrier. A super spreader is a carrier who has an unusually high viral load. n/t

[killaphill]

96. 16,000 in the US have already died of the flu during the current season

n/t

[Miguelito Loveless]

65. Well, first the fatality rate is 3.4%, not 2%

81,406 cases
2,771 deaths

81,406/2,771=.03403

[defacto7]

90. WHO scrapped that calculation.

The rate is based on people with an outcome which is those who recovered plus those who died. It represents a number that closer to the final tally. That rate is 8% and is expected to drop. They don't know how much.

[alarimer]

66. I'm sure that's right, but what about people without insurance?

They’ll (maybe) get sicker without treatment. This is just more proof, as if we needed it, that we need true universal health care. Like Canada, or other civilized countries. I mean, there is no good argument against it, but public health should be right up there.

And if they are wrong? Lots of people will die unnecessarily.

I think the 2% was kind of high, the last I heard. Still, in a country of millions that could be lots of people.

[Hassler]

67. Does he know who the IMPOTUS is? Nothing is guaranteed

With Chump in charge.

[handmade34]

73. wash your hands, don't touch your face

compromised people have more concern... I am quite surprised at all the frantic talk lately

my late husband had a compromised system and got food poisoning (died from complications) everyone in the house ate the same food and we were fine...

my partner now has a compromised system and although we are thinking of moving, we may stay put for a bit, thinking rural Northern Vermont might be a bit safer for him...

[shenmue]

79. TWO PERCENT OF PEOPLE GONNA DIE

[Bernardo de La Paz]

88. No. Start thinking, not PANICKING. You ASSUME everyone will be infected & other assumptions.

1) Not everyone will become infected.

2) The 2% figure is based on reported cases. There are undoubtedly many unreported cases, which is a problem for containment but lowers the death rate.

3) Vaccines are being developed.

4) Perhaps US healthcare actually is better than China's.

[defacto7]

93. not likely

[58Sunliner]

91. Uhm, it must nice not to worry about dying.

Meanwhile many people who have pneumonia, which this virus can cause, and does so often enough, can have life long effects from such an illness. Maybe we should talk to medical doctors instead. Like pulmonologists, and internists.
The incidence of this virus jumped @13,332 new cases overnight after the Chinese started using CT scans to diagnose lung infections, or pneumonia. She won't worry about her family members dying, apparently, or whether or not she will have timely and necessary treatment. What is she, @ 42 years of age?? Looks like privilege syndrome to me. WTH she should know better than anyone that the real numbers have not been factored in and this thing could mutate.

[totodeinhere]

107. That's a very good point. A lot of people who get it and don't die will nevertheless have

very serious health consequences that might last a long time. Even if there is a 98% chance that it won't kill you it still isn't something that you would want to get obviously.

[58Sunliner]

116. No, you wouldn't.

[ThoughtCriminal]

92. By "Fine" he means "Not Dead"

It has a 2%+ MORTALITY rate. If 20 million get infected, that's 400,000 DEAD

And that average is for all ages. For older people, the mortality rate is several times that.

And it's not like it is a picnic for the other 98%.

Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

[Ilsa]

94. I heard it can frequently cause organ failure, like kidney failure. nt

[totodeinhere]

102. Actually, 2% is a very high rate for something like this.

The fatality rate for the common flu is less than 1/10 of 1%. If this virus has a 2% fatality rate that means that millions might die in a widespread global pandemic. And the fatality rate for older people over age 70 is much higher.

[Sloumeau]

125. This is exactly right.

A 2% mortality rate is about 20 times higher than some flu types. 2% may not sound like much, but for every million infected, that means 20,000 people die.

[ProfessorPlum]

124. Wow what a god damned fool

What he is describing is essentially the 1918 flu. Most people were "fine". The only downer was all of the dead people.

Main difference is that coronavirus kills much more slowly, so more easily passed around, and 1918 killed young healthy people.

[Firestorm49]

127. The 2% that will die is only 6,540,000 people.

Whew! What a relief!

[RhodeIslandOne]

129. So how come the doctor who discovered it died?

Didn’t take care of himself? He was 40 year old man.