In the US of the closed cases 125 recovered, and 218 died.

If you think 0.15% is the mortality rate, you are ignoring figures like this.

0.15% of the officially infected figure of 14373 is 21 fatalities, so you would have to estimate that 10 times the number of people have it than are officially tested as having it. But as you say, there has been no such testing to show how widespread this is in the public not showing symptoms.

This will end up being incalculable, as once all the ventilators are in use, someone with say a heart attack who dies because they couldn't get a ventilator wont officially be recorded as a coronavirus victim, but could in many ways be seen as one, as they could have had life saving treatment but for the virus.

But until the random testing comes in, it is silly to speculate on infection figures and fatality percentages, the only accurate figures available are tested people, and their outcomes.

The UK's premier live poker tour, the GUKPT, announced yesterday that all major live tournaments, ~£100 to £2000 buy ins, have moved to online until further notice.

https://www.gukpt.com/announcement-m...moving-online/

They are also offering on line equivalents of live cash games, so the same rake structure as live and live cash loyalty points, but interestingly they are continuing to also still run 8 handed live cash games.

As probably already stated ITT, a lot of businesses are most likely not closing their doors yet until ordered to do so by the government, for fear of invalidating their business interruption insurance or through fear of then not being eligible for government financial aid. Details of the £320bn aid/rescue package for the UK are due to be fully announced on Monday.

Jay Why: You're obviously not capable of understanding the difference between determining a mortality rate on the subset of infected individuals who express severe disease and so get tested for the presence of the virus and the true mortality rate, measured from all infected individuals whether tested or not. Hint: the number of infected people far, far exceeds the number who have been tested and the subset of those who have tested positive. So I'll stop here.

If you are going to try to talk about this, it would be helpful if you used the right terms. There is a CFR (case fatality rate) and an IFR (Infection Fatality Rate). Everyone knows that the IFR is always much lower than the CFR. The rate that everyone is discussing and calling the mortality rate is the CFR, fatalities as a function of diagnosed cases. No one, but no one will know the IFR until after the whole thing is done and they can do population testing for antibodies to figure out what the true infection rate was. Arguing that people have the CFR wrong because the IFR will be lower is ignorant. Of course the IFR will be lower.

Everyone is citing the example of Korea as a success story. And they are right to do so. But then they paradoxically used this example to argue for a completely different solution.

Korea did not rely on lockdowns. They relied on testing and tracing. Italy is relying on lockdowns, which thus far appear to have been a complete failure.

So why are we following the example of Italy and not Korea?

Thanks for introducing the terminology. But it's the IFR that matters most to those of us discussing the mortality rate from CoV-2. People want to know that if they become infected with CoV-2, what's the chance they'll die from it. It's the metric that's most commonly used to address the mortality from various strains of influenza, with an array of epidemiological methods applied to estimate the overall numbers of infected individuals, and the understanding that only a fraction of infected people meet with a healthcare professional and are confirmed as having the flu.

It's why many epidemiologists want a study performed for CoV-2 in which a sampling of the general population is used, rather than the small subset experiencing severe disease, and in which the same individuals are sampled over time - to determine the overall mortality rate for all those infected, and for measuring the risk of transmission. Public policy decisions being made now and in the near-term future depend on data on the total number of people likely to become infected, and their risk of death from the infection, in addition to the CFR data being collected now that helps guide certain healthcare policies.

Actually if you actually read what I said, you would have realised I do understand that point.

But until the random testing comes in, it is silly to speculate on infection figures and fatality percentages, the only accurate figures available are tested people, and their outcomes.

The more one looks at this the more serious it becomes. Watching an Italian doctor say no patients on ventilators have recovered and come off them makes it look as though there is no hope once it gets to that stage. One then wonders if it is less a case of the Italian patients dying naturally, more their oxygen is being turned off.

The available information suggests that about 10% of symptomatic COVID-19 cases have severe disease. This makes it trivial to use mortality rate data from severe cases to estimate the mortality rate for symptomatic individuals, which works out to ~0.15%. But the overall mortality rate (referred to above as IFR) is even lower, since an undefined proportion of people carrying CoV-2 infections are minimally symptomatic for it, or misidentified as having a cold or flu instead, in the absence of more widespread testing.

I am not sure where you get your figures, I am going on

Active Cases 156,419
Currently Infected Patients 148,952 (95%) in Mild Condition

7,467 (5%) Serious or Critical

Yes, I know this is the tested figures, so excludes those infected, but undetected, but logic suggests the heavily infected people will be tested as they show symptoms.

There are lots of thresholds, age thresholds, severity thresholds, which would have a relevance depending on ones circumstances. If one is a healthy 20 year old this virus is not that scary for ones personal future, but a unhealthy 80 year old will be deeply concerned.

100,460 Cases which had an outcome:89,920 (90%) Recovered / Discharged

10,540 (10%) Deaths

The problem seems to be the 7,467 (5%) Serious or Critical don't recover, and then over time many of the currently mild will deteriorate, plus new cases will become serious or critical, so the current 10% is constantly escalating.

The only sensible approach is to avoid company until a cure is found, and to use that time talking with Bobo Fett.

Easy answer, because they don't have the tests.
Even if they had the tests who is gonna pay for them.
Korea is pretty rich, one or the booming countries in asia.
Guess they are not blowing all their money on stuff.

You should look at how Singapore solved it. I think they are a success story too.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...nsmission.html

If this is still valid, and people are really most contagious when most symptoms are present, and if this disease really resembles the flu, big families staying at home should be at a very increased risk of catching disease (without widespread testing of everyone including healthy people).

IMHO staying at home, as being implemented in many countries including mine, without telling families how hazardous this might be if they do not take care of avoiding contact, not eating or sleeping together on the same table/bed, even same room if possible etc, might be as disastrous as if the countries didn´t do anything.

My 2c

South Korea was able to successfully rely on testing, contact tracing and isolation, plus self-imposed social distancing, wide application of disinfectant and self-imposed isolation. It was successful because they started upon arrival of their first imposed case and everyone (almost) voluntarily complied. They had learned their lesson from the original SARS outbreak.

I'm not discussing CFR. I'm discussing IFR, the best example being South Korea, where it is not unreasonable to assume that those numbers are approximately the same because of the amount of testing that has been done, as I described in my last post. Their mortality rate is about 1%. It will probably run higher in Italy, France, UK, Spain and US and other places based on the likelihood of the collapse of the health system in each (Italy being and example of one place that has already occurred).

There is no natural "peak" to the spread. It "peaked" in China because they locked 60 million+ people in their homes and went door to door to track down everyone with symptoms and those in close contact with them. Those people weren't allowed to go out to work, food or anything else, except emergency medical care (which might have been more like jail than care).

It has not "peaked" in Italy. Their CFR looks like it running in the 10-15% range. Their new cases per day is increasing daily, with the latest published figure at 5,322 yesterday. The health system is overburdened, with emergency care unavailable for anything else for the most part. Infections are rampant among their health professionals, who then have to self-isolate. This is what we can look forward to in U.S. unless everyone starts complying with social distancing, etc. Government officials in the U.S. are getting more and more stringent with their imposition of forced orders because so many aren't, the latest being the stay-at-home order for all of California.

Finally closing.

627 new deaths in Italy. Anyone still asleep on this, wake the fk up.

...and 5986 new confirmed cases in Italy today.

You are right with Korea learned their lesson from from the sars outbreak as did probably Singapore. Even China is getting better with communication globally. It was bad in 2003.

What I meant by peak is over is that the virus is spreading very fast initially to many people.
Then it takes some time... patients don't die fast it takes a long time. If that makes any sense.

Then you have the peak of CFR after some time. And that time is reached for China. And I think for Italy too. That's why scientists say that the peak is over. Even China has announced that the peak is over. So the number of cfr goes down as a whole. Of course you will have more cases but the number will not peak anymore. (If contained )


Unfortunately the peak has yet to come for the rest of Europe and US.

Or that Stars pre-Black Friday is the same as Stars today, because it isn't in every possible way

I read this is the same way sars reacted in 2003
It was at 2% CFR for a while (logically) and then jumped to 10% by the time it was over.

Peak in this context can be understood as a graph it goes up and peaks, then slows down, or slighty moves a little higher.

True enough, but many of the people presenting with symptoms and therefore tested have not had time to die; those cases, being the most serious, will have a higher death rate.

I do not think we will see a CFR less than 1.5 per cent in USA#9, and likely more than that in regions where hospitals get overwhelmed.

All pubs, restaurants, cafes, gyms etc including casinos to close in the UK after tonight indefinitely. Just had my European flights for the end of April cancelled.

I have no idea why you'd think this when their numbers continue to increase every day. Worldometers also quotes a source that suggests tentative estimates are that the "peak could be 2 weeks from now". No idea how reliable that source is, and I hope their estimate is wrong, but there's nothing to suggest the peak has been reached. Highest number of cases and deaths yet for them today.

I'm not interested in praising or bashing the S.Korean response. But a lot of what you have said here is inaccurate.

S. Korea didn't learned its lesson from the SARS outbreak in 2002. They learned it (perhaps) from the MERS outbreak in 2015.

https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/...-health-system

The rest of my commentary derives from info at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_c...in_South_Korea

The first confirmed case of COVID-19 in S.Korea was on 1/20/20.

S. Korea did not start to take it really seriously for a whole month until 2/23/20...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-51603251

Not everyone thinks S. Korea did such a great job in the early days of the outbreak...

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...virus-outbreak

Now, everything said here and elsewhere about S.Korea's ability to implement a testing framework quickly, and perhaps even what has gone on over the last month with regard to its citizens' behavior to help stem the tide of the outbreak may in fact be true. And there may be lessons to learn from S.Korea, as there ought to be by studying what has happened in any country. But I feel like S.Korea has been held up as some sort of example of "doing it right" in an attempt to paint how many other countries, or the US, in particular, are "doing it wrong". If you look at the history of the outbreak in the US here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_c..._United_States

... the timelines of government action are not any worse, and in some cases better than anything that occurred in S. Korea. What we can say for certain in the US is that making testing available in quick order did not go well initially. This is from the wiki:

"Although the U.S. government was initially quick to develop a diagnostic test for the coronavirus, American testing efforts from mid-January to late-February lost pace compared to the rest of the world. When the World Health Organization distributed 1.4 million coronavirus tests in February, the U.S. chose instead to use its own tests. At that time, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had produced 160,000 coronavirus tests, but soon it was discovered that many were defective and gave inaccurate readings. As a result, less than 4,000 tests were *****cted in the U.S. by February 27, with U.S. state laboratories only *****cting around 200. In this period, academic laboratories and hospitals had developed their own tests, but were not allowed to use them until February 29, when the Food and Drug Administration issued approvals for them and private companies."

This was a bureaucratic failure... but not evidence of willful indifference as some have suggested.

So, yeah, not everything has gone perfectly with the US government's response to this crisis. But to my knowledge, there is no example of a perfect response out there. Those who think there is should point to evidence as opposed to just statements of highly questionable fact.