So basically no quarantine h1n1 basically hospitalized and killed people just as much as this virus will come June. like i said its only been sending people to the hospital for one month and we're at 20k, and we're adding thousands more every day. If we didn't shut a goddamn thing down, we probably would already be at 250k US by now
We MAY have been at 250K. Or not. If the infection rate is as high as is claimed, then no, lack of quarantine would not have led to 250K hospitalizations, because even in only 30% of the US is currently infected you would have run out of people before hitting 250K hospitalizations.
It's like a commenter here yesterday tried to extrapolate based on 50K hospitalizations per day in new york, and how if that rate continued for a week new york would have X fatalities, without realizing that at the mathematical rate new york would have a 100% infection rate by the end of day 3 based on current hospitalization rates, which are likely weighed in favor of hospitalized people because...say it with me....there is a shortage of testing all over new york.
We know, based on how other coronaviruses and less infectious flu strains spread, that Coronavirus has managed to infect tens of millions to spread as far as it has to so many parts of the US. A mere 90K infections would not be able to touch 90% of US counties with a small handful of infections per area, ESPECIALLY a virus more infectious then the flu. The most conservative math would still show millions infected. The worst case scenario is that we are only seeing 15% of total cases with testing, the likely percentage is below 5%.
Interesting. Yes, I realize that the proportion of people tested to the general populace is very small. Still, the very low detection rate, especially compared to places like Italy where a similar number of daily tests can bring up 50 times as many positive results, makes me wonder.
So to offer a few counterpoints, based on what I gather: the Koreans are of course acutely aware of what is going on and still have an oubreak of MERS in memory, plus they have constant access to information about the localization of latest detections, so many people suffering from what appears to be a cold will want to get tested rather than take the risk. Testing facilities are said to be widespread and easily available. Some people are being proactively contacted by Korean epidemiological services (I don't know on what criteria and with what frequency though). Those too old or too ill to go out can be tested at home. And I don't think Korea is on lockdown like many European states, so people remain mobile, driving to work and on errands, so they can easily go to a drive-by station and take a few minutes to get tested.
Testing stations are widespread and easily available, and yet they have only managed to test 1.35% of their population assuming all their tests would be accurate into the future (EG a person that tests negative in January would not catch the disease in march), assuming they had been testing since late December, assuming they never tested the same person more then once, and assuming 0 false negatives or positives.
AKA a totally unrealistic scenario. We know they are testing medical personnel frequently, as well as first responders, and its likely that active members of society are getting tested several times. And testing has not been going since late december at the current rate either. The likely result is less then 1% of south korea has been tested. A virus could easily avoid testing numbers like that. The US regularly tests over 10% of its population for flus during outbreaks like 2009, and even then there were infections that were missed.
As you said, the proportion of tested citizens is very low, and their testing rate wasnt always this high. The disease could have spread in january/february, and none of those who recovered would test positive today. Testing 1% of the population over 3 months with a test that will only show positive if the virus is still active will not produce an accurate picture.
While I agree with
@Otterly that this still presents an unclear and fragmentary image and all we have is guesses, it still seems unlikely that given the above, the Koreans are missing some ongoing massive spread right under their noses. It's conjecture, yes, but then what lets some places keep up while others explode with detections and have their hospitals overloaded?
If you assume that South korea is an accurate representation of case fatality, then simply increase total cases in places like italy until fatality and hospitalization numbers line up. That would give Italy something along the lines of 900K-1M active current infections just to match Koreas numbers. That would be why they are having a massive death toll, the virus is spreading far beyond testing limits. After all, italy has little public testing and even serious cases are being passed up due to limited testing per capita.
Italy has many vectors that would allow corona to run rampant for weeks before detection. It would not surprise me at all if their actual death rate is way lower then current percentages and the majority of cases are never tested.
Another piece of data to chew. Assuming worst case scenario and that we are detecting 15% of total cases, based on current reported case numbers, that would give coronavirus a 0.8% fatality rate, lower then even south korea has managed. If you go with more realistic 10% numbers, that fatality rate drops even lower. Words can barely describe how absolutely blind the world is to current infection numbers, especially given how infectious corona is, and how long it has been spreading. This is why so many experts are now saying 60-70% of their countries have already been exposed, the infectious rate of corona doesnt line up at all with reported case numbers, which leads to only one conclusion: that case numbers are orders of magnitude higher then reported by testing, and since there are not hundreds of thousands of people in hospitals with mysterious pneumonia coughs in every single country, this leads to the logical conclusion that corona is nowhere nearly as deadly as testing would show due to how poorly balanced testing currently is. It would be like if you only tested patients hospitalized for flu to confirm infection then concluded that the flu had a 30% fatality rate.