General Discussion

SDANation

(431 posts)

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

Wed Feb 26, 2020, 05:22 PM

Feb 2020

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.)

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

137 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Richard Engel: "Don't panic. Doctors/ virologists I'm speaking to say 98% of people will be fine" [View all] Dennis Donovan Feb 2020 OP

I dont reckon this journalist did a follow-up question, such as GusBob Feb 2020 #1

Or the 6 plus million lame54 Feb 2020 #2

The current numbers being put out there SCantiGOP Feb 2020 #28

Facts do not back you up at all./ LiberalArkie Feb 2020 #74

Of patients with and outcome, recovered plus deaths defacto7 Feb 2020 #80

One thing to remember about China and their reporting is GemDigger Feb 2020 #131

Get a can of Lysol spray, one you've had over a year, and you will see that one of the bacterias Perseus Feb 2020 #29

Practically anything kills viruses. They're actually pretty fragile. Girard442 Feb 2020 #33

Unfortunately,we can't go around spraying marybourg Feb 2020 #41

lysol huh? GusBob Feb 2020 #68

Muddy thinking is part of the panic. Coronavirus is NOT a bacteria. Your post wasn't a panic Bernardo de La Paz Feb 2020 #78

What do you propose?? That people walk with a can spraying the air? 58Sunliner Feb 2020 #104

I would ask DENVERPOPS Feb 2020 #45

Richard Engel is a damn good journalist. cwydro Feb 2020 #55

His statement is about as close to the fact as you can get. defacto7 Feb 2020 #82

As a scientist he's a good journalist... charliea Feb 2020 #95

Yes I'm sure he's a hero GusBob Feb 2020 #128

"This journalist" - some background mahina Feb 2020 #86

Almost all mutations kill viruses. In most pandemics the virus weakens as it spreads. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Feb 2020 #112

Agreed. TwilightZone Feb 2020 #3

Yup. cwydro Feb 2020 #7

Ain't it the truth. Hysteria rules the day. nolabear Feb 2020 #9

If death rate is 2 %, and everybody gets infected, we are getting 6 million dead people. But LisaL Feb 2020 #24

See, that's not what I said. Of course it's a "biggie." nolabear Feb 2020 #30

THANK YOU!!!! crimycarny Feb 2020 #84

NOT everyone will become infected, there will likely be vaccine, and treatment options. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Feb 2020 #42

Your figures don't represent the facts. It doesn't work that way. defacto7 Feb 2020 #89

He's saying 2% won't be. herding cats Feb 2020 #4

However, 2% is still potentially a lot of people. The Velveteen Ocelot Feb 2020 #5

Not 3 billion in US unc70 Feb 2020 #6

You're right, got one too many zeros. Fixed it. Still a lot of people. The Velveteen Ocelot Feb 2020 #8

That's between 62 and 109 million people dead world wide Jarqui Feb 2020 #12

What is the basis for estimating an infection range of 40% to 70%? onenote Feb 2020 #81

World Health Organization defacto7 Feb 2020 #83

Some media attributed it to the CDC others to a Harvard epidemiologist Jarqui Feb 2020 #97

I've been using this everytime someone comes at me with, dewsgirl Feb 2020 #15

Highest estimation from the CDC for this flu seaon SDANation Feb 2020 #31

2% is the rainbows and unicorns number JCMach1 Feb 2020 #21

2.5% during a time where mass travel did not exist yet SDANation Feb 2020 #40

NOT applicable. Flu virus first grown 1931. 1918 knew very little about viruses, discovered in 1892. Bernardo de La Paz Feb 2020 #46

So 1918 is not valid because we developed a vaccine for SDANation Feb 2020 #54

You are not being logical. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Feb 2020 #57

Since it will take at least a year to develop a vaccine, it's not so different from 1918. Chemisse Feb 2020 #98

Your assumption is incorrect. And in 1918, they couldn't even cultivate the virus in the lab: 1931. Bernardo de La Paz Feb 2020 #100

How is my assumption incorrect? Chemisse Feb 2020 #103

It will NOT take a year to develop a vaccine. Treatments today & testing are MUCH better. Bernardo de La Paz Feb 2020 #106

You are not employing logic. I bid you good evening. n/t Chemisse Feb 2020 #118

I'm employing logic and FACTS. You have no counters. So be it. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Feb 2020 #119

The first potential vaccine was announced in the last week and the estimate was that approval likely JudyM Feb 2020 #133

Thanks for update. I expect that if there is pandemic in US, then approval happen overnight. Bernardo de La Paz Feb 2020 #136

New, much better update here! JudyM Feb 2020 #137

Mass travel DID exist. Millions of people moved in WW1. It was just slower movement. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Feb 2020 #52

Exactly. By ship. That limited transmission SDANation Feb 2020 #56

Not logical. An infected ship spreads more infection than an infected airplane. Bernardo de La Paz Feb 2020 #59

How so? It slowed the spread significantly which helped. SDANation Feb 2020 #69

It spread slowly & wide. You feel better about that than fast & wide? We respond much faster today. Bernardo de La Paz Feb 2020 #72

True. Just saying that if a highly pathogenic flu emerged again SDANation Feb 2020 #75

Actually, ... one person on a plane does NOT infect the whole plane. STOP panicking! Bernardo de La Paz Feb 2020 #77

The only way you have a faster response is if you know there has been exposure. 58Sunliner Feb 2020 #113

Yes, spread is a deep concern. But your last sentence is spot on & panicked posters need to read it. Bernardo de La Paz Feb 2020 #114

How long is a ship journey? 58Sunliner Feb 2020 #108

Less time on board, less contact between passengers. 1918 didn't quarantine. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Feb 2020 #109

You are essentially in a metal tube with air currents. Shared air. 58Sunliner Feb 2020 #115

You are not sitting at tables sharing cards, meals, and aerosol. Airplane air is filtered. Bernardo de La Paz Feb 2020 #117

People weren't changing 1 or more hemispheres in the matter of hours. SDANation Feb 2020 #58

Speed of transportation is not a factor. Rates and dispersal are. Slow dispersal is just as infectio Bernardo de La Paz Feb 2020 #61

Panic is infecting your thinking. There is only one other hemisphere when you are in one. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Feb 2020 #64

Not panicked, meant time zones not hemispheres 🤦🏻‍♂️ SDANation Feb 2020 #71

That is incorrect. Because of WWI there was extensive travel. GulfCoast66 Feb 2020 #120

The panic in not the disease but with Dolt45 & his war on science. bronxiteforever Feb 2020 #10

+1. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Feb 2020 #47

Define "vulnerable people" MiniMe Feb 2020 #11

I think they are most concerned about elderly people with existing chronic health problems The Velveteen Ocelot Feb 2020 #13

I'm vulnerable geardaddy Feb 2020 #50

I am vulnerable also. I have end stage renal disease and I'm on the transplant list. n/t totodeinhere Feb 2020 #105

Hugs to you! geardaddy Feb 2020 #126

Thanks so much. Thank God I became eligible for Medicare due to my totodeinhere Feb 2020 #130

I know, I had Medicare for 18 months, I think during my transplant geardaddy Feb 2020 #132

Wishing you the best possible turns of good luck. JudyM Feb 2020 #134

Thank you so much. n/t totodeinhere Feb 2020 #135

Bypass surgery! Hope your recovery is going well. nt Duppers Feb 2020 #53

Yeah, that would be me and my wife Boomer Feb 2020 #60

I really like Richard Engel, but I'm sorry, this tweet almost seems like a parody. DanTex Feb 2020 #14

I usually am on board with everything he says, but yes dewsgirl Feb 2020 #17

+1 That is a good point. bronxiteforever Feb 2020 #19

Sorry for going full-on Sheldon Cooper here, but it doesn't "imply" 2% won't be fine. Girard442 Feb 2020 #34

I know. It seemed like dark humor to me. n/t Chemisse Feb 2020 #99

2% fatality rate is very high in a contagious disease Ex Lurker Feb 2020 #16

+1 uponit7771 Feb 2020 #62

The mortality rates being reported are skewed as they include current treating cases. The mortality stewrat Feb 2020 #18

Those (yours) are the stats and if people would just stick to that defacto7 Feb 2020 #85

Mortality rate is still not certain 2-9% JCMach1 Feb 2020 #20

Sucks for those 2 % that will die, but don't panic. No biggie. LisaL Feb 2020 #22

So he's saying 98% survival sounds better than 2% mortality? tandem5 Feb 2020 #23

i detect satire 0rganism Feb 2020 #25

Not panicking for myself, but I do have immunosuppressed/elderly family BusyBeingBest Feb 2020 #26

Don't worry! Those 2% were dead weight anyway RGTIndy Feb 2020 #27

The danger is to vulnerable people. Hospitals/ old age homes Submariner Feb 2020 #32

2% in a population of 80,000 "confirmed" cases SDANation Feb 2020 #35

Correct. And most often viruses in pandemics weaken as they proliferate. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Feb 2020 #49

Not comforting snowybirdie Feb 2020 #36

Panic serves no one and could only make the bad far far worse. The empressof all Feb 2020 #37

When people are more than a little sick, they're knocked down Warpy Feb 2020 #38

The flu has an R0 of 1.5, the R0 for Coronavirus is between dewsgirl Feb 2020 #63

It's not less contagious than the flu. That's just incorrect. defacto7 Feb 2020 #87

98%? Whew, only 140,000,000 of us will die, tops. paulkienitz Feb 2020 #39

Unfortunately, the death rate for people like me is likely 100%. WheelWalker Feb 2020 #43

trying to save his 401k? but with a 3% mortality rate for 60 yr olds & a 10% for 80 yr olds yaesu Feb 2020 #44

So, if a million Americans contract the disease, rateyes Feb 2020 #48

Not necessarily. Quite a number will not experience symptoms or worrisome symptoms. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Feb 2020 #51

And this will make them super-spreaders Boomer Feb 2020 #70

Sure, they might spread, but don't count on 2% of US being wiped out. Many fewer would die. Bernardo de La Paz Feb 2020 #76

2% or 1% or .5% Boomer Feb 2020 #110

If I were a betting person I'd make money betting on you & similar people surviving. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Feb 2020 #111

Wow Boomer Feb 2020 #121

Sorry, I thought I was clear. It is my hope and wish and expectation that you will be fine. Bernardo de La Paz Feb 2020 #122

Thank you Boomer Feb 2020 #123

You mean a carrier. A super spreader is a carrier who has an unusually high viral load. n/t Chemisse Feb 2020 #101

16,000 in the US have already died of the flu during the current season killaphill Feb 2020 #96

Well, first the fatality rate is 3.4%, not 2% Miguelito Loveless Feb 2020 #65

WHO scrapped that calculation. defacto7 Feb 2020 #90

I'm sure that's right, but what about people without insurance? alarimer Feb 2020 #66

Does he know who the IMPOTUS is? Nothing is guaranteed Hassler Feb 2020 #67

wash your hands, don't touch your face handmade34 Feb 2020 #73

TWO PERCENT OF PEOPLE GONNA DIE shenmue Feb 2020 #79

No. Start thinking, not PANICKING. You ASSUME everyone will be infected & other assumptions. Bernardo de La Paz Feb 2020 #88

not likely defacto7 Feb 2020 #93

Uhm, it must nice not to worry about dying. 58Sunliner Feb 2020 #91

That's a very good point. A lot of people who get it and don't die will nevertheless have totodeinhere Feb 2020 #107

No, you wouldn't. 58Sunliner Feb 2020 #116

By "Fine" he means "Not Dead" ThoughtCriminal Feb 2020 #92

I heard it can frequently cause organ failure, like kidney failure. nt Ilsa Feb 2020 #94

Actually, 2% is a very high rate for something like this. totodeinhere Feb 2020 #102

This is exactly right. Sloumeau Feb 2020 #125

Wow what a god damned fool ProfessorPlum Feb 2020 #124

The 2% that will die is only 6,540,000 people. Firestorm49 Feb 2020 #127

So how come the doctor who discovered it died? RhodeIslandOne Feb 2020 #129