Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

Recommended by:

Bruce L

To: Katelew who wrote (708910)	3/29/2020 4:33:12 PM
From: skinowski	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) of 793990

The high negative rate is probably related to the fact that they tested anyone willing to fill out an online form. In other words, lots of basically healthy people. This way, an unusual percent of the positives were mild and asymptomatic cases. Gives us a glimpse at how many of them may actually exist out there. I think the major point is in the stats among the positives - out of 737 found to be positive, only 15 needed to be hospitalized - and only 2 required ICU care. I think this is a remarkable finding - out of the 737 who tested positive, 720 did not require hospital care! This is as strong a suggestion as I’ve seen that the disease “on average” is relatively mild. 97.7% did not need to be in the hospital. I think that is an amazing finding. This wasn’t an entirely random group - it was a self selected group. But, IMO it’s random enough. I’ll dig into it more... there ought to be more detailed reports than this article in Fortune. I don’t know what percent of those who test positive for flu end up in the hospital. Would be interesting to know. I still think that CoViD is probably worse.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next