> Same thing happened everywhere else with a suddenly-noticed largeish outbreak.
I’ve been paying pretty close attention since early on and nowhere else with a suddenly-noticed largish outbreak had a temporary death rate remotely close to 20%. Not even in Wuhan. In fact 12 deaths currently ranks #3 on the global death count chart when each Chinese province is counted as a separate entity, and any comparable entity has an order of magnitude more cases at least.
Also, it was 8 deaths out of 43 yesterday, so 61 isn’t growing faster than 12.
Without more info, I blame this on shitty medical treatment. 20% roughly matches the percentage of severe cases elsewhere.
I’ve seen that terrible argument with “closed figures” a couple of times now but don’t really have the time or patience to write a long rebuttal.
That, and the fact that the post you responded to is comparing apples to apples and does not rely on the validity of any one fatality rate estimation methodology.
I’ve been paying pretty close attention since early on and nowhere else with a suddenly-noticed largish outbreak had a temporary death rate remotely close to 20%. Not even in Wuhan. In fact 12 deaths currently ranks #3 on the global death count chart when each Chinese province is counted as a separate entity, and any comparable entity has an order of magnitude more cases at least.
Also, it was 8 deaths out of 43 yesterday, so 61 isn’t growing faster than 12.
Without more info, I blame this on shitty medical treatment. 20% roughly matches the percentage of severe cases elsewhere.