Mens Tennis Forums banner

101 - 120 of 366 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,353 Posts
Discussion Starter #101
That millions of people will die from this is a really irresponsible thing to say. Italy is the worst, and they've had 5000 deaths.

Assuming everywhere ends up just like Italy gets us around 600k deaths worldwide. It's not going to reach that though, not everywhere is Italy, and this has already been contained. You'd have to see deaths around 10k in Italy before you'd even consider that maybe 1 million people might die of this, worldwide.

The other thing the Italians are going to be bumping up pretty quickly, (and why this is unlikely to double up again), is that there's just not enough sick people out there who are really ill that would be likely to die from coronavirus.

Say Italy triples, to say, around 15k deaths or so. That would give us an estimate of around 1.5 million. That would be your worst case.

Best case, 100k? Even that would be pretty unprecedented.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,141 Posts
Best case, 100k? Even that would be pretty unprecedented.
In the recent times, Spanish flu was estimated to have killed at least 50 million people, in 1918, about a century ago. The Black Death Plague seemed to have killed about the same number, i.e., around 50 million people; but Black Death happened in the 14th century, so, those numbers were unconfirmed. The two deadliest viruses in the history of mankind.

This is not unprecedented.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
378 Posts
In the recent times, Spanish flu was estimated to have killed at least 50 million people, in 1918, about a century ago. The Black Death Plague seemed to have killed about the same number, i.e., around 50 million people; but Black Death happened in the 14th century, so, those numbers were unconfirmed. The two deadliest viruses in the history of mankind.

This is not unprecedented.
The Spanish flu was unusual in that it caused an auto-immune reaction that killed young people in huge numbers. Most young people with no existing conditions will get through this with mild or even no symptoms whatsoever.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,353 Posts
Discussion Starter #104
In the recent times, Spanish flu was estimated to have killed at least 50 million people, in 1918, about a century ago. The Black Death Plague seemed to have killed about the same number, i.e., around 50 million people; but Black Death happened in the 14th century, so, those numbers were unconfirmed. The two deadliest viruses in the history of mankind.
These numbers are unconfirmed and again, this is not 1918. 1918 is closer to Napoleon than to us. We hear every year that flu is going to be a repeat of 1918. It's not true and the numbers at present do not support it. Coronavirus is going to come up against some hard limits pretty soon here.

What we do know about coronavirus is that if you're under 60, you're not going to die from it, you will get a bad case of the flu for about a week or so and then you'll recover. Over 60, it's possible you could die from it.

Right now the virus is still in the expansion phase where it can colonize areas that don't really have coronavirus.

Taking a look at the US for example, 15,000 cases are in New York state alone. Only three states rise to the level where it should be closing schools, New York State, Washington State and New Jersey.

11 states have almost no infections, Hawaii, Alaska, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, West Virginia, Delaware, Vermont.

Those with fewer than 100, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Oklahoma, Kansas, New Mexico, Iowa, Missouri, Kentucky. That is 20 states.

Mean average for the states is 174, which is South Carolina. Basically coronavirus is a disease that is relevant to you if you live in the NY city metro area and Washington.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,190 Posts
These numbers are unconfirmed and again, this is not 1918. 1918 is closer to Napoleon than to us. We hear every year that flu is going to be a repeat of 1918. It's not true and the numbers at present do not support it. Coronavirus is going to come up against some hard limits pretty soon here.

What we do know about coronavirus is that if you're under 60, you're not going to die from it, you will get a bad case of the flu for about a week or so and then you'll recover. Over 60, it's possible you could die from it.

Right now the virus is still in the expansion phase where it can colonize areas that don't really have coronavirus.

Taking a look at the US for example, 15,000 cases are in New York state alone. Only three states rise to the level where it should be closing schools, New York State, Washington State and New Jersey.

11 states have almost no infections, Hawaii, Alaska, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, West Virginia, Delaware, Vermont.

Those with fewer than 100, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Oklahoma, Kansas, New Mexico, Iowa, Missouri, Kentucky. That is 20 states.

Mean average for the states is 174, which is South Carolina. Basically coronavirus is a disease that is relevant to you if you live in the NY city metro area and Washington.
This is not how things work with epidemics. You are again overly optimistic. Look again at the graph in my post.
Epi-curve (epidemic curve) has almost the same form in nearly every community, because, well, it is the representation of the behavior of the same pathogen. Low numbers in certain states only mean that they are still early on in the epidemic. The curve becomes relevant once the 100 cases have been reached, and from then on it is the doubling of numbers every 2 to 7 days. US is currently approaching Italy's numbers, and is yet to fully explode.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,340 Posts
These numbers are unconfirmed and again, this is not 1918. 1918 is closer to Napoleon than to us. We hear every year that flu is going to be a repeat of 1918. It's not true and the numbers at present do not support it. Coronavirus is going to come up against some hard limits pretty soon here.

What we do know about coronavirus is that if you're under 60, you're not going to die from it, you will get a bad case of the flu for about a week or so and then you'll recover. Over 60, it's possible you could die from it.

Right now the virus is still in the expansion phase where it can colonize areas that don't really have coronavirus.

Taking a look at the US for example, 15,000 cases are in New York state alone. Only three states rise to the level where it should be closing schools, New York State, Washington State and New Jersey.

11 states have almost no infections, Hawaii, Alaska, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, West Virginia, Delaware, Vermont.

Those with fewer than 100, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Oklahoma, Kansas, New Mexico, Iowa, Missouri, Kentucky. That is 20 states.

Mean average for the states is 174, which is South Carolina. Basically coronavirus is a disease that is relevant to you if you live in the NY city metro area and Washington.
You can certainly die under the effects caused or compounded by covid-19 while aged under 60. It just that dying [from contracting the virus] rarely happens and pretty much mostly (or only?) to people that suffer other medical conditions or are in bad shape otherwise.

It's not a virus that rises to the level of an extinction event, but it should be taken seriously. Unfortunately, the general responses to it seem to be either "shut everything down" or "who cares, it's just a bad flu". Neither one is desirable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,353 Posts
Discussion Starter #107
It's not a virus that rises to the level of an extinction event, but it should be taken seriously. Unfortunately, the general responses to it seem to be either "shut everything down" or "who cares, it's just a bad flu". Neither one is desirable.
It's still an open question as to whether Coronavirus will rise to become as dangerous in the aggregate to people as the seasonal flu this year. Hence why the comparison to 1918 as a whole is not justified. We'd be looking at around 80k deaths worldwide from Flu as a whole vs about 10k for Coronavirus. And that's if we're counting all the co-morbidities against Coronavirus, and not the other conditions. Which, I'm not sure if it is a correct assumption from a medical perspective.

If it does cross 100k, then I could certainly see the comparisons with H1N1 being trotted out. But 1918 is a whole different story. It's like the boy who cried wolf. Comparisons to 1918 aren't really helpful at this point at helping people make good decisions as to what to do with their lives.

Like I said before, there is still nothing to justify (in most places), treating this any different from the flu. Some areas and jurisdictions are justified in enacting quarantines, but at least for the US, these should be local quaranties, confined to the cities of Seattle metro area and New York City. That's what I would do and I think that would be a sensible response. Further isolation measures should be taken across the US, which break the chain of infection with nursing homes, and encouraging the self-isolation with older people with their families and caregivers.

It's what we've done with my family and my parents and grandparents. But an overall shutdown of the economy? No. It's a bullet that you can only fire once, and only for a particular length of time. People need to work and stuff is going to start up pretty soon here. The government can't pay for everyone's bills, certainly not more than a couple of weeks or so. If people run out of money and need food, they are going to take measures into their own hands, coronavirus or not, whatever the law is going to be or not, etc. This is why it's so important to save these drastic measures for when they are truly needed. Doing it too early just means that when the disease is still cresting, people are going to be going to work, etc. And you're going to have to give up on your quarantine, making the whole task completely worthless and counterproductive.

But, I guess if it makes us feel good and safe, it's the right thing to do right? ;) Anyways, we shall see how things end up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,975 Posts
I really hesitate to post this as I suppose this is a place for light relief so if mods think this is inappropriate please delete the post.

Tennis is now irrelevant as is who is or isn't GOAT. If anyone goes on Wikipedia and looks at the black plague and pneumonic plague you will see in the last 2000 years there have been three plagues and the common theme is starting in China then entering Europe through Italy. In the 1300's over about a 7 year period 200 million people died. The population then was much lower than now.

A 4th plague that was resistant to antibiotics was predicted by some. My fear is this is what this is, the 4th plague and over next few years billions of us will die. If you think we have had weird weather patterns in recent years and massive heatwaves due to global warming. There are some so called experts who claim a massive human cull is nature's way of cooling the planet as it will lead to a reforestation of the planet and a sort of 'Little Ice Age'.

I love the tennis banter here, but it feels so empty now. Never felt so low. Obviously I hope the above is total nonsense.
Some this, some that. A classic straw-man at work, create a fictional claim and than take off that as a true fact 🤦

Some also predicted that Budadi would make a single post without mindlessly attacking anyone and we all know how that went
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,151 Posts
These numbers are unconfirmed and again, this is not 1918. 1918 is closer to Napoleon than to us. We hear every year that flu is going to be a repeat of 1918. It's not true and the numbers at present do not support it. Coronavirus is going to come up against some hard limits pretty soon here.

What we do know about coronavirus is that if you're under 60, you're not going to die from it, you will get a bad case of the flu for about a week or so and then you'll recover. Over 60, it's possible you could die from it.

Right now the virus is still in the expansion phase where it can colonize areas that don't really have coronavirus.

Taking a look at the US for example, 15,000 cases are in New York state alone. Only three states rise to the level where it should be closing schools, New York State, Washington State and New Jersey.

11 states have almost no infections, Hawaii, Alaska, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, West Virginia, Delaware, Vermont.

Those with fewer than 100, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Oklahoma, Kansas, New Mexico, Iowa, Missouri, Kentucky. That is 20 states.

Mean average for the states is 174, which is South Carolina. Basically coronavirus is a disease that is relevant to you if you live in the NY city metro area and Washington.
Still a higher mortality than the normal flu. And even if you survive, could still be left with severe damage to your lungs. This happening to people in their 40's and 50's:


As of Friday, Louisiana was reporting 479 confirmed cases of COVID-19, one of the highest numbers in the country. Ten people had died. The majority of cases are in New Orleans, which now has one confirmed case for every 1,000 residents. New Orleans had held Mardi Gras celebrations just two weeks before its first patient, with more than a million revelers on its streets.

I spoke to a respiratory therapist there, whose job is to ensure that patients are breathing well. [...] His patients were usually older, with chronic health conditions and bad lungs.

Since last week, he’s been running ventilators for the sickest COVID-19 patients. Many are relatively young, in their 40s and 50s, and have minimal, if any, preexisting conditions in their charts. He is overwhelmed, stunned by the manifestation of the infection, both its speed and intensity. The ICU where he works has essentially become a coronavirus unit. He estimates that his hospital has admitted dozens of confirmed or presumptive coronavirus patients. About a third have ended up on ventilators.

[...]

“Reading about it in the news, I knew it was going to be bad, but we deal with the flu every year so I was thinking: Well, it’s probably not that much worse than the flu. But seeing patients with COVID-19 completely changed my perspective, and it’s a lot more frightening.”

“I have patients in their early 40s and, yeah, I was kind of shocked. I’m seeing people who look relatively healthy with a minimal health history, and they are completely wiped out, like they’ve been hit by a truck. This is knocking out what should be perfectly fit, healthy people. Patients will be on minimal support, on a little bit of oxygen, and then all of a sudden, they go into complete respiratory arrest, shut down and can’t breathe at all.”

[...]

We go and check vitals on patients every four hours, and some are on a continuous cardiac monitor, so we see that their heart rate has a sudden increase or decrease, or someone goes in and sees that the patient is struggling to breathe or is unresponsive. That seems to be what happens to a lot of these patients: They suddenly become unresponsive or go into respiratory failure.”

“It’s called acute respiratory distress syndrome, ARDS. That means the lungs are filled with fluid.
And it’s notable for the way the X-ray looks: The entire lung is basically whited out from fluid. Patients with ARDS are extremely difficult to oxygenate. It has a really high mortality rate, about 40%. The way to manage it is to put a patient on a ventilator. The additional pressure helps the oxygen go into the bloodstream.

“Normally, ARDS is something that happens over time as the lungs get more and more inflamed. But with this virus, it seems like it happens overnight.

[...]

“With our coronavirus patients, once they’re on ventilators, most need about the highest settings that we can do. About 90% oxygen, and 16 of PEEP, positive end-expiratory pressure, which keeps the lung inflated. This is nearly as high as I’ve ever seen. The level we’re at means we are running out of options.

“In my experience, this severity of ARDS is usually more typical of someone who has a near drowning experience — they have a bunch of dirty water in their lungs — or people who inhale caustic gas. Especially for it to have such an acute onset like that. I’ve never seen a microorganism or an infectious process cause such acute damage to the lungs so rapidly. That was what really shocked me.”

“It first struck me how different it was when I saw my first coronavirus patient go bad. I was like, Holy shit, this is not the flu. Watching this relatively young guy, gasping for air, pink frothy secretions coming out of his tube and out of his mouth. The ventilator should have been doing the work of breathing but he was still gasping for air, moving his mouth, moving his body, struggling. We had to restrain him. With all the coronavirus patients, we’ve had to restrain them. They really hyperventilate, really struggle to breathe. When you’re in that mindstate of struggling to breathe and delirious with fever, you don’t know when someone is trying to help you, so you’ll try to rip the breathing tube out because you feel it is choking you, but you are drowning.

“When someone has an infection, I’m used to seeing the normal colors you’d associate with it: greens and yellows. The coronavirus patients with ARDS have been having a lot of secretions that are actually pink because they’re filled with blood cells that are leaking into their airways. They are essentially drowning in their own blood and fluids because their lungs are so full. So we’re constantly having to suction out the secretions every time we go into their rooms.”

[...]

“But we are trying to wean down the settings on the ventilator as much as possible, because you don’t want someone to be on the ventilator longer than they need to be. Your risk of mortality increases every day that you spend on a ventilator. The high pressures from high vent settings is pushing air into the lung and can overinflate those little balloons. They can pop. It can destroy the alveoli. Even if you survive ARDS, although some damage can heal, it can also do long-lasting damage to the lungs. They can get filled up with scar tissue. ARDS can lead to cognitive decline. Some people’s muscles waste away, and it takes them a long time to recover once they come off the ventilator.

[...]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,190 Posts
It's still an open question as to whether Coronavirus will rise to become as dangerous in the aggregate to people as the seasonal flu this year. Hence why the comparison to 1918 as a whole is not justified. We'd be looking at around 80k deaths worldwide from Flu as a whole vs about 10k for Coronavirus. And that's if we're counting all the co-morbidities against Coronavirus, and not the other conditions. Which, I'm not sure if it is a correct assumption from a medical perspective.
There are cases here in Serbia already of people in their 40s and younger developing severe complications from full health with no co-morbidities. It is a game of probability, within certain empirical rules derived from experience so far, and that is that severity of symptoms rises with age roughly after 55 years old. My son's friend and his mother caught Corona. With him it passed in a couple of days with a low fever, and she had a fever for over a week ultimately developing a pneumonia and finally being hospitalized, fortunately not being put on a respirator. But due to restrictive policy of testing because of shortage of tests here, they both will not be tested and will not make it into official statistics, even though their clinical symptoms are every bit those of Corona.

US does not do widespread testing. I know for sure that a lot of immigrants there are even avoiding being tested, fearing from deportation. So numbers for the USA are only tip of the iceberg. With a lot of people getting sick rapidly, economy will suffer either way, with or without the measures forced by the state. Health and safety are not at the top of priorities for most of the employers if it is not directly related to working duties (safety equipment).

Like I said before, there is still nothing to justify (in most places), treating this any different from the flu. Some areas and jurisdictions are justified in enacting quarantines, but at least for the US, these should be local quaranties, confined to the cities of Seattle metro area and New York City. That's what I would do and I think that would be a sensible response. Further isolation measures should be taken across the US, which break the chain of infection with nursing homes, and encouraging the self-isolation with older people with their families and caregivers.
No no and no, this should not be treated the same as flu, this is a completely different pathogen with a different development (life cycle) even though the symptoms resemble that of flu. Forget every rule applicable to flu. Flu is also controlled quite successfully with a seasonal vaccine, but there is no vaccine for Corona, nor can it be expected in mass quantities within a year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
378 Posts
It's still an open question as to whether Coronavirus will rise to become as dangerous in the aggregate to people as the seasonal flu this year. Hence why the comparison to 1918 as a whole is not justified. We'd be looking at around 80k deaths worldwide from Flu as a whole vs about 10k for Coronavirus. And that's if we're counting all the co-morbidities against Coronavirus, and not the other conditions. Which, I'm not sure if it is a correct assumption from a medical perspective.

If it does cross 100k, then I could certainly see the comparisons with H1N1 being trotted out. But 1918 is a whole different story. It's like the boy who cried wolf. Comparisons to 1918 aren't really helpful at this point at helping people make good decisions as to what to do with their lives.

Like I said before, there is still nothing to justify (in most places), treating this any different from the flu. Some areas and jurisdictions are justified in enacting quarantines, but at least for the US, these should be local quaranties, confined to the cities of Seattle metro area and New York City. That's what I would do and I think that would be a sensible response. Further isolation measures should be taken across the US, which break the chain of infection with nursing homes, and encouraging the self-isolation with older people with their families and caregivers.

It's what we've done with my family and my parents and grandparents. But an overall shutdown of the economy? No. It's a bullet that you can only fire once, and only for a particular length of time. People need to work and stuff is going to start up pretty soon here. The government can't pay for everyone's bills, certainly not more than a couple of weeks or so. If people run out of money and need food, they are going to take measures into their own hands, coronavirus or not, whatever the law is going to be or not, etc. This is why it's so important to save these drastic measures for when they are truly needed. Doing it too early just means that when the disease is still cresting, people are going to be going to work, etc. And you're going to have to give up on your quarantine, making the whole task completely worthless and counterproductive.

But, I guess if it makes us feel good and safe, it's the right thing to do right? ;) Anyways, we shall see how things end up.
At the moment, there seems to be some absurd sort of contest between governments to outdo each other in imposing increasingly draconian measures on their citizens. Here (the uk) the press is constantly asking government officials why aren't they doing the same as France, Germany, Italy etc... The problem is that very few people (and if they do they get shouted down) are weighing up the costs of shutting down society for an indefinite length of time. These measures have a very real human cost as well as economic cost. Poverty can kill. The suicide rate will rise as well, as those with mental health problems get worse. And what about the elderly who are expected to be under virtual house arrest. What about the 85 year old who's only social contact is a pint and a game of dominoes with his mates down the pub? We're supposed to be taking these measures to make the most vulnerable like him safer but did anyone ask him? Loneliness can kill too. At some point (and I'm not sure exactly when that is) the "cure" will be worse than the disease. No one is even considering these questions. Instead all we hear is the hysterical mob on facebook shouting "full lockdown now!". It won't be long before we have people demanding that anyone seen outside without a good reason be shot on sight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,353 Posts
Discussion Starter #112
Flu is also controlled quite successfully with a seasonal vaccine, but there is no vaccine for Corona, nor can it be expected in mass quantities within a year.
'Controlled'? If we had as many flu deaths as coronavirus we'd be off the charts panicking. Flu shots aren't that great at controlling it, due to the fact that the strain changes every year, and last year's shots won't match up with this years.

As for coronavirus, it will be interesting to see what the treatment regime becomes as health professionals become more familiar with this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,353 Posts
Discussion Starter #113
Some good news. Italian cases peaked at 6k on the 21st. Down to 4.5k today down from 5.5k. If this is the case then Italy, like South Korea, China and Japan has coronavirus licked. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,190 Posts
'Controlled'? If we had as many flu deaths as coronavirus we'd be off the charts panicking. Flu shots aren't that great at controlling it, due to the fact that the strain changes every year, and last year's shots won't match up with this years.

As for coronavirus, it will be interesting to see what the treatment regime becomes as health professionals become more familiar with this.
Flu is not controlled that good with a vaccine because of the low level of coverage, not because of its ineffectiveness (looking at you, stupid antivaxers), since it is not mandatory in any jurisdiction that I know of. One time atempt was made with a swine flu (which BTW was A-H1N1, the same one as the Spanish fever, for those who don't know), that failed miserably because of spectacular misunderstanding of the general population, and yes - stupid antivaxers! It's true that flu virus strains change almost yearly, but so is the vaccine composition changing accordingly, thanks to the fact that flu is seasonal. So every time the new composition is prepared for the northern hemisphere based on strains from the southern hemisphere season, and vice versa. It may not be 100% effective (no vaccine is), but it's enough to maintain collective immunity so that it doesn't spiral out of control. I take a shot every year for years now, here and there comes a year when I catch it anyway, but even then it passes way more mild then before I started getting vaccinated regularly. Again, it is helpful that flu is different in the sense that it has the distinctive season. Corona on the other hand, as we can witness, is spreading at the same pace on both the northern and southern hemisphere; it has no distinctive season! Whatever applies to the flu, don't, please don't think it can be extrapolated to the Corona.

In case everybody wonders if I'm pulling info out of my ass, my field of expertise is not medicine but my wife is an epidemiologist so I have somebody reliable from whom I can learn a thing or two. In fact, one may say I'm working/volunteering part-time for her institute, as she is not very apt with computers. She is having the hardest time of her professional life right now - nuff said...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,568 Posts
Flu shots aren't that great at controlling it, due to the fact that the strain changes every year, and last year's shots won't match up with this years.

The effectiveness rate is especially poor among older adults. For instance, in the U.S. during the 2018 to 2019 flu season, for adults over 50 the flu shot had a meager 24% effectiveness rate against all types of influenza, according to the CDC. In fact, they even said: “More effective influenza vaccines are needed.” :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,190 Posts
The effectiveness rate is especially poor among older adults. For instance, in the U.S. during the 2018 to 2019 flu season, for adults over 50 the flu shot had a meager 24% effectiveness rate against all types of influenza, according to the CDC. In fact, they even said: “More effective influenza vaccines are needed.” :p
That may be the case due to inadequate/obsolete composition of virus strains in the vaccine. Development costs for the vaccine may be prohibitive for the companies so I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to get away with a shortcuts - use whatever you have left over from the previous season and Hail Mary. Costs are huge, but the profit per dose is low. I have my suspicions for a long time that antivaxers are in fact sponsored by none others then the pharmaceutical companies. Here's an example. How come when a colleague of mine shared with me an antivaxer site and I opened it, that in the matter of hours my e-mail started being approached by a representative of the pharmaceutical company?! Mind you, it was my business email that I use very restrictively, almost exclusively for internal communication, not some wide open google account! There is no way that a said representative could have gotten to that email other then by me visiting that site from a company domain.

Imagine being a CEO of a pharma company. You have two (main) business branches to maintain. One is producing vaccines - which cost a fortune to develop, and you can sell them at a rate of 1 per person per lifetime, to at most 1 per person per year. The other branch is vitamins, supplements, generic painkillers and anti-fever drugs, for which there is practically no development cost as their patents have expired long time ago, but you can sell them by the buckets (advertisement helps). What branch would you opt for to generate your profit, bonuses?! Yeah, I thought so...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,693 Posts
That millions of people will die from this is a really irresponsible thing to say. Italy is the worst, and they've had 5000 deaths.

Assuming everywhere ends up just like Italy gets us around 600k deaths worldwide. It's not going to reach that though, not everywhere is Italy, and this has already been contained. You'd have to see deaths around 10k in Italy before you'd even consider that maybe 1 million people might die of this, worldwide.

The other thing the Italians are going to be bumping up pretty quickly, (and why this is unlikely to double up again), is that there's just not enough sick people out there who are really ill that would be likely to die from coronavirus.

Say Italy triples, to say, around 15k deaths or so. That would give us an estimate of around 1.5 million. That would be your worst case.

Best case, 100k? Even that would be pretty unprecedented.
" Italy is the worst, and they've had 5000 deaths.
Assuming everywhere ends up just like Italy gets us around 600k deaths worldwide"



India has a population over 1 billion, Brazil over 200 millions.


Stick to tennis.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,693 Posts
Concerns at the WHO regarding Brazil which does not respect any of the recommendations.

Note that President Bolsonaro announced that "COVID-19 was a scam created by the hysterical media", that it was only a "little flu" exploited by its political opponents.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,885 Posts
" Italy is the worst, and they've had 5000 deaths.
Assuming everywhere ends up just like Italy gets us around 600k deaths worldwide"



India has a population over 1 billion, Brazil over 200 millions.


Stick to tennis.
And today Italy can have 7000! 6000 already...
Miniature Lichtenshtein have 50 infected.
 
101 - 120 of 366 Posts
Top