Scientific verifiable link please? ...With data support from authorities on the matter.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
What you need to know about the virus in China "2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV)"
- Thread starter andymok
- Start date
- Status
Scientific verifiable link please? ...With data support from authorities on the matter.
For the US, Social Security says:
If you are 80 to 89, you already have a 5.7 to 14.7% chance of dying within a year for males, 4.2% to 11.5% for females.
Temper the aged death rates with that.
If you are 80 to 89, you already have a 5.7 to 14.7% chance of dying within a year for males, 4.2% to 11.5% for females.
Temper the aged death rates with that.
- Thread Starter
- #803
1. There're many types of Cancer, many can be reduced by taking good care of yourself, that's why we have education
2. It doesn't transmit, mostly preventable by taking good care of yourself
3. Long term. It doesn't transmit, mostly preventable by taking good care of yourself, that's why we have education
4. That's why we help each other out
5. That's why we have vaccines, that's why we have education
6. That's why we put them in jail
7. It doesn't transmit, that's why we have education
And that's why we ask everything body to take good care of themselves and others by washing hands and wearing masks
we too are educating, and some didnt work on it even after being told and died
I don't see how that's mutually exclusive?
Newborns and up to age 9 are safe and exempt. The world is theirs.
That new death rate again ...
• https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-rate/
I guess the worry is because of the potential for exponential growth, and social and economic disruption. As for the mortality rate, that is an almost complete unknown, of course, precisely because it is a ratio between a known number (fatalities) and an unknown number (people infected). For that reason, I think the US numbers for fatalities and the high US corona mortality rate are already quite worrying, and suggest that many infections have gone undetected. But we shall see. On the other hand, thus far infections in the US seem remarkably concentrated among older cruise passengers etc, compared to the rather different demographic of those infected in the Netherlands: almost all of those have been on (skiing) holidays in the north of Italy and are far younger and fitter. Thus far there have been no fatalities. Of course it helps that people here do not have to worry about missing pay when they stay home sick, and because everybody has health insurance. So tests and treatment are paid for. But we shall have to wait to see how all these differences work out. Future historians can have a field day identifying these different effects.
Italy's infection rate took off. Wonder what the contributing factor(s) to that is. Population density probably plays a role.
Maybe it was population density in Italy (but there are more densely populated countries, such as the Netherlands). The most troubling thing is that the very early stages did not get detected in time and that the hospital became the source of further infection.
Another factor perhaps explaining the early growth is that public health care in Italy is largely a regional responsibility. The country does not have a strong central public health administration.
Another factor perhaps explaining the early growth is that public health care in Italy is largely a regional responsibility. The country does not have a strong central public health administration.
Now imagine if covid-19:
- took place in the whole wide world instead of just China
- no extreme measures like quarantining millions of people done to inhibit it
- could affect every one in the world like heart disease and diabetes
- spread from human to human without a vector like mosquito
I've seen better attempts at whataboutism at some random corners of the net. Perspective is needed indeed.
The previous link suggested that Chinese males smoke more (47.1%) than their female counterparts (1.8%) and that may explain the higher mortality rate between men and women in the study. I wonder if that hypothesis holds true between regions with more or less smokers (read: respiratory impairments).
Italy is a 24% and South Korea is at 27%.
Last edited:
Italy has the fifth highest life expectancy in the world, and almost five years better than the US. So it would be hard to argue that the country succumbed to this because it had an unfit population or an inadequate health care system (even though cheap by comparative standards).
Last edited:
Just imagine if those causes were highly infectious.
DKT88
Active Member
I see a lot of these arguments and while well-intentioned it is a form whataboutery. I think that in hindsight we may look at this epidemic as overblown. I sure hope so.
Not sure but I think correct perspective would be if 108 people died in china. How many in the same area and during same period died due to causes mentioned in the image data ? And how much risk that this new threat added to the population..
Regards.
"The current death rate for China in 2020 is 7.402 deaths per 1000 people, a 1.94% increase from 2019."
Population of China = 1,408,526,449
That's 1,408,526 thousands, times 7.402 = 10,425,909 deaths in a year, 28,564 per day.
If interested in a specific area, use the population of that area to estimate your answer.
---
Hubei Province - 58,500,000 population, 58,500 thousands, 433,017 deaths per year, 1,186 per day
If they had 2,902 CV deaths in the last 60 days, that's an extra 48 per day, for an estimated 1,234 per day.
Last edited:
DKT88
Active Member
Really I think we had enough of this whataboutism. I'm here in the middle of it and this is rather insulting. We all can do these calculations and they don't add anything to the conversations. I've been following this thread because a lot of people are posting news that is useful. This is not. For a science forum, which you promote this is infantile. I'm done.
Last edited:
We're all in the middle of it, just some more than others.
- Status