⤺ reposted by @0x1bc7KH from Right but at what stage do they make that call? Did they think he was going to die?

Wow…

Lancet published a recent study showing the coronavirus achieving a 15% death rate among those who are infected.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30183-5/fulltext

The same source, the WHO, also says “82 per cent of cases are mild.”

WHO, claims the death rate is only 2%.

This means, of course, that 18% of coronavirus cases are either “serious” or “critical,” since those are the other two designations which are possible.

Based on a small sample of discharged patients from Wuhan, the city at the centre of the outbreak, Wang said that about 6 per cent had recovered after being in a serious condition, while less than one per cent had recovered after being classed as in critical condition.

Only in China could a 6% survival rate for “serious” patients be considered good news. Similarly, a 1% survival rate for “critical” patients is also being spun as good news.

This shows that cases in serious and critical conditions can be treated and discharged from hospital after receiving proactive treatment, and that has given us great confidence,” said Wang Guoqiang. I’m not sure what medical school Mr. Wang graduated from, but a 1% – 6% survival rate among those patients shouldn’t give any doctor “great confidence.

If you do the math, this means that 94% of patients in “serious” condition don’t recover, which means they die. Similarly, 99% of those in “critical” condition also die.

Out of every 100 infected people, we now know that 82 will be classified as “mild,” and we also know that 18 will be either “serious” or “critical,” but we’re not yet sure exactly how many will be “serious” vs. “critical.” For this investigation, we’ll have to estimate that. So we’ll be conservative and estimate that, out of the 100 original patients, 14 end up in serious condition and 4 in critical.

For every 100 infected people:

82 = Mild status

14 = Serious status

4 = Critical status

Now, let’s assume that 100% of the “mild” status patients survive. We also know, from Wang Guoqiang, above, the survival rates of those in “serious” or “critical” conditions:

Survival rates:

Mild status (82 / 100) = 100% survival

Serious status (14 / 100) = 6% survival

Critical status (4 / 100) = 1% survival

With these data outlined, then, what is the total number of deaths per 100 people who are infected?

To get the answer, we first calculate the number of survivors: (0.82 x 100) + (0.06 x 14) + (0.01 * 4) = 82 + 0.84 + 0.04 = 82.88

So we know there are 83 survivors out of every 100 infected patients.

That means there are 17 who do not survive (i.e. deaths). That’s another way of saying the mortality rate is 17%, by the way.

The “leaked” data from China showed a 16% mortality rate

On top of all that, remember the “leaked” data set that appeared last week, revealing how China actually has two databases that track infections and deaths? One database is the “real” numbers, while another database contains all the fudged numbers for the public to see.

The leaked numbers showed 154,023 infections and 24,589 deaths.

If you do the math on that, it comes to a 16% mortality rate.

It’s also very consistent with the early study out of The Lancet that documented a 15% mortality rate among those who are infected. That study is found here:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30183-5/fulltext

the real numbers now look a lot closer to 15% – 17%, at least for anyone who can do math.

The leaked numbers showed 154,023 infections and 24,589 deaths.

If you do the math on that, it comes to a 16% mortality rate.

Also the math might be wrong, if the leaked TENCENT numbers just represented one city or province. Since video footage of doctors state the the official numbers are decentralized

⤻ reposted @AriesAzazel to Lancet published a recent study showing the coronavirus achieving a 15% death rate among those who are infected.