Jump to content

Coronavirus (COVID-19)


Webmaster

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, rob_shadows said:

Okay so after a quick Google search it turns out the reason that number seems very high is because it's completely b/s, the highest official estimates are up to 25% of people who get it are asymptomatic so it's just another idiot making up numbers.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/01/europe/iceland-testing-coronavirus-intl/index.html

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mistakey said:

nyc my neighborhood is 80% masks, went to the pharmacy today

Probably closer to 5-10% in my neck of the woods.  Suppose it will have to hit each area hard before people make the switch.

 

The other reason i haven't worn my mask is that it will protect me, but does little for others.  The vent port out the front tends to accrue condensation, and especially in colder areas (like my shop), drips off the front.  Doesn't seem the most sanitary.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TVScout said:

I'm not sure a country with a total population of 364,000 is a good sample size... Think I'd rather go with what we're seeing in the countries with 330 million (the u.s where the CDC estimates 25%) and 1.3 billion (China where studies showed about 20%).

Again I hope it is 50% but I doubt it.

Edited by rob_shadows
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, rob_shadows said:

I'm not sure a country with a total population of 364,000 is a good sample size... Think I'd rather go with what we're seeing in the countries with 330 million (the u.s where the CDC estimates 25%) and 1.3 billion (China there studies showed about 20%).

Again I hope it is 50% but I doubt it.

I think the main concern was that you could be asymptomatic and still infect others without realizing it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, rob_shadows said:

I'm not sure a country with a total population of 364,000 is a good sample size.

Not how it works. The Iceland study has better controls. CDC really has no idea because only a tiny fraction of the population has been tested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Xenos said:

I think the main concern was that you could be asymptomatic and still infect others without realizing it.

I realize that, but if half the people who get it don't even get sick it's still a silver lining... Probably a very small one since that obviously means increased transmission of the virus... But still a silver lining.

Edited by rob_shadows
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, TVScout said:

Not how it works. The Iceland study has better controls. CDC really has no idea because only a tiny fraction of the population has been tested.

I mean... In Iceland it was 5% of the population tested... Still a very small number. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, rob_shadows said:

I realize that, but if half the people who get it don't even get sick it's still a silver lining... Probably a very small one since that obviously means increased transmission of the virus... But still a silver lining.

Doesn't that mean that 50% aren't showing symptoms yet but might down the road?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, rob_shadows said:

Let's just agree that no one really knows how many there are........

We won't know until everybody is antibody tested. Testing for the virus is impossible because most of the population must be tested almost every day.That is both financially and logistically impossible. An antibody test might not enable a final conclusion because of the difficulties in defining what the symptoms are. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...