Quote:
Originally Posted by MAXUM
While at the moment those numbers may be accurate at the outset of H1N1 the mortality rate being observed was reported to be in a similar range as well but as time went on and it ran it's due course the actual numbers were far from that. In fact I recall where it was first observed the mortality rate was very high. It's all in how accurate the sampling is, as already noted by several doctors I have seen interviewed who appear to be interested in spreading fact not fear, many cases will be mild and as such may not be identified as COVID-19. Instead it seems quite plausible the numbers are skewed now because nobody has an accurate count of how many actually are infected or recovered.
It would be nice if there was more responsible reporting on this. Not to downplay the threat, but to put context to it. That way the focus can be placed on protecting those who's lives really do depend on protection from it. We are NOT in the midst of a Zombie Apocalypse as many would like you to believe.
|
This is completely reasonable, and it's critical that we have responsible reporting. But a central problem here is that it is extraordinarily difficult to predict or even understand exponential growth. So when we see something dangerous growing exponentially, it is responsible to sound the alarm.
Here's a bit of fun to illustrate the exponential growth problem--take a sheet of paper and fold it in half. Then fold it half again (so that the sheet is now 1/4 of it's original size and 4 sheets thick). Then fold it in half again, and again...Assuming we could fold the paper in half 40 times and then sit it on the a table, how tall would the stack be?
A beer on my porch in June awaits the first reasonably close guesser.