And some cases they are too deadly.  It's hard for something to spread when it kills the host quickly.

[Link: cidrap.umn.edu]

This is a useful source of information that is not politically biased or in the business of keeping eyeballs on advertisements.

I don't want to get into the tinfoil hat stuff, but many people like to compare it to SARS.  i.e.- "Why didn't we do this for SARS?"


SARS was certainly deadly.  It had a 15% mortality rate and lasted 2 years.  However, it was more difficult to spread, and didn't "thrive" in the human body.

So, in the end the global death rate for SARS was under 780.  For approximately infected cases 8100 cases.

Corona Virus has a lower mortality rate, but it infects more people, and passed up the 2 year mortality rate of SARS, and it only took it three weeks.

This is cute and i am sure those who suffer with reading and comprehensions issues will fall for it.

H1N1: April 12, 2009 to April 10, 2010

COVID-19: January 2020 - ????

FYI US cases are now at 10000 with 155 dead.

I'm no Obama fan, but let's not do the "The Flu kills 30,000 people per year" and then show Obama "totally chill" when 12000 people died because of H1N1.

Wouldn't everyone be totally chill? If we're not concerned about the 30,000 flu deaths? Why would anyone care about 12,000?

You're comparing something that ended, with something that really hasn't even started yet.

It makes zero sense.

Not exactly sure how you are trying to help by posting this.

It pushes partisanship because that is certainly more importantly than dealing with the massive problem lying on US's doorstep right now.

Math time:

H1N1 mortality rate at 12469 of 60.8M = 0.02%

Current US COVID-19 mortality rate is 1.3%, Global is 4.1%, Italy is 8.3%

Same number of COVID-19 infections in US as H1N1 at 1.3% results in 790,400 deaths.

See the difference?

You guys need to lay off the fear porn.

Too bad none of you see the bigger picture, but that's prolly to be expected.

Bill Gates is loving this.

For christ's sake, and for the last time: "Prolly" is not a word.

Repeat after me: "Probably". Not "Prolly". Easy, eh?

And why, please tell, would Bill Gates be loving this? As with most conspiracy theories, this makes no sense at all. It's sort of like Tom Hanks being "cured" of Covid-19 with help from George Soros so they can get back to operating the pedophile-child-kidnapping-murder ring. Hillary can't do it alone!

I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, so tell me: what’s the “bigger picture” I’m not seeing?

Is this just a drive-by post or could you explain the bigger picture, in all seriousness I do want to know your point.

Which rather exemplifies the point I was trying to make. Statistical analysis based upon incomplete data is fraught with pitfalls and can lead to wildly varying results. How, for example, can one make conclusions about death rates when when there is no certainty over how many people are actually infected?



At the outset the author claimed his views to be mere observations, which is no different to your 'opinion'. It may be 'uneducated', but it's no more reckless than 'educated' claims based upon incomplete data. That's my opinion.

Your first premise is the data is incomplete. Please show me why you think the data is incomplete or off in the Imperial College paper. Assuming the data is somehow incomplete, what is the proof that the data can't be analyzed without producing wildly varying results.

According to this book, publish by Jason W. Osborne. (Associate Provost and Dean of the Graduate School at Clemson University in Clemson, South Carolina, Professor of Applied Statistics in the Department of Mathematical Sciences), data is capable of being analyzed in a variety of ways even if it is incomplete.

[Link: sagepub.com]


You also stated, that:

'It may be 'uneducated', but it's no more reckless than 'educated' claims based upon incomplete data.'

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but opinion would go further if could show me some factual/scientific proof of anything that you posted now or earlier.

Maybe we will have to agree to disagree, but I would like to understand better how you came to your opinion.