Probably so. But I'm excluding all speculations and assumptions at this point.
It's not just an assumption. It is a
fact that most people who report to their doctor by phone that they have a cough, a fever, a running nose, all of the above,... are just being told to stay home. They aren't being tested.
Surely some of them would test positive, were they tested.
Then there is also the
known fact that plenty of people
don't even notice that they were infected. They simply have NO symptoms and do NOT feel sick AT ALL. Yet, they are infected and they can pass on the virus to others. This is why restaurants and schools and whatnot are closing down. It's because of
those people who are infected
and aren't noticing it because they don't become sick.
It's hard to tell how many of those there are, but it's clear it's going to be quite a lot. Enough for whole countries to shut down public life.
Again, this is not an assumption. It's a fact that plenty of people are infected and not counted as being infected, because they aren't tested and aren't being reported.
I just came back from the doctor with my son. He had a high fever, running nose and cough. He wasn't tested. The doctor *thinks* it's a common flu, but it *could* be corona as well.
But he's a healthy 4-year old kid. He's not having problems breathing. He's not a risk patient. So he's just send home and we are being told to avoid contact with anyone. That's it.
Does my kid have covid19? Maybe. If he does, then I do to. So does my wife. So does his sister. So do his cousins with whom he's been playing all weekend. And likely so will a couple of his friends from school (friday was the last day of school here in belgium). His cousins have no symtoms. Does that mean they aren't infected? No.
See....
I'm also excluding the assumption that every single infected person will recover, which is why the estimate of 1% to 5% is an "assumed" figure.
Again, the reported % is anything but assumption. The mortality rate of a desease is the amount of dead relative to the amount infected.
The number is correct. Subject to change, obviously, but correct nonetheless.
Your "50%" isn't correct in any way whatsoever.
...I'm going on "facts". In real time.
You aren't. The facts support the 1 to 3% figure. No facts support 50%
I'm excluding all assumptioms, probabilities, and guessess, and going off actual 'facts' in 'real time'.
You aren't, because you are ignoring the total amount infected.
You are only looking at cured vs dead while we are still in full incubation period. Being killed by the virus goes waay faster then curing from it. So obviously in full incubation period, the dead will come first and then people will start curing.
Depending on the profile, death can be the result in a matter of days.
While curing (to the point of being confirmed and reported as "cured") takes 3 to 4 weeks.
To illustrate with numbers....
Say today 1000 people get infected.
Next week, 30 of those die.
3 weeks after that, the other 970 are cured.
So during those 3 weeks, you'll have figures saying this:
1000 infected
30 dead
0 cured
In your "logic", this would equate to a 100% mortality rate.
Obviously you should be able to see how utterly ridiculous that is.
We hope so. But that's not fact-based evidence.
Yes it is. You might not notice it though, if that data is among the facts that you choose to simply ignore.
I'm going with the actual, recorded numbers and following them wherever they go.
That IS what the actual, recorded numbers are saying.
