Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hoa Hao who wrote (703070)	2/6/2020 12:56:18 AM
From: teevee	5 Recommendations Recommended By 3bar Hoa Hao LindyBill longz Thehammer Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793622

maybe real numbers here: taiwannews.com.tw a better match to all the videos coming out of China

To: Hoa Hao who wrote (703070)	2/6/2020 8:59:12 AM
From: skinowski	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793622

I don't think their China figures are accurate. The January 31st estimate was 11,000+ a bit. They seem to have gotten rid of their blog. They had a blog entry for January 31 that said that their estimate (not the reported # of 11,000+) for the actual infection total was 50,000 at that time. I suspect that by the time the new virus caught attention, the true number of infected people in Hubei must have been not 50,000, but 10 times as many, if not more. The number of very sick people - and the number of deaths in Hubei - were just the tip of the iceberg - the iceberg being a very large number of undiagnosed milder cases. This would explain the discrepancy in fatality between Hubei and other locations, including in China - which showed up when the disease was already feared, and everyone with flu-like symptoms, even mild ones, got tested. If the numbers posted on the Johns Hopkins site are fake, then we really have no idea what to expect. My overall sense is that they’re probably close to reality. They are, kind of, what one would expect in a situation like this.