| General > General Technical Chat |
| Covid 19 virus |
| << < (18/381) > >> |
| Wallace Gasiewicz:
Latest study from China: Mortality lower than 1% for covid19 https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/926089?src=WNL_trdalrt_200305_MSCPEDIT&uac=356862FZ&impID=2300885&faf=1 Wally |
| Cerebus:
--- Quote from: Wallace Gasiewicz on March 05, 2020, 11:18:01 pm ---Latest study from China: Mortality lower than 1% for covid19 https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/926089?src=WNL_trdalrt_200305_MSCPEDIT&uac=356862FZ&impID=2300885&faf=1 Wally --- End quote --- One of my pet hates, partial reporting of bad reporting of medical literature. Firstly, the original paper the medscape article is based on is here ("Clinical Characteristics of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in China") for anyone who wants to read it. Secondly the headline "Mortality lower than 1% for covid19" quoted above is actually "COVID-19 Mortality Rate May Be 'Considerably Less Than 1%'" in the Medscape article (Emphasis mine) and, as we will see, that is still inaccurate to the point of uselessness. Thirdly the phrase 'Considerably Less Than 1%' headlined as a quote in the Medline article doesn't appear anywhere in the actual original paper, it is from a secondary source and it's still a misquote of that source, which doesn't use the phrase either. The original paper found a death rate of 1.4% in the 1099 people in the study, 9% had recovered and 93.6% were still hospitalised, i.e. the outcome for these people still hospitalised is still unknown they may die and push up the mortality rate. Relevant figures from the actual paper: Bottom line, the paper adds to the data available; it neither establishes a final death rate for the disease nor reports a figure lower than 1% but instead higher. This is an almost perfect example of how information in a medical journal becomes misinformation once it has been through the hands of a so called journalist and then gets quoted on social media. Never believe a headline medical story until you have tracked down and read the original underlying paper that prompted the story. |
| angrybird:
How about: Never believe anything you read on the internet or see on TV. 99% of it is disinformation in one way or another :D |
| edy:
So I am seeing a bunch of different names for this... apparently "Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)" is now the virus (or disease?) previously known by the provisional name 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), or COVID-19!?! :-// Is that to highlight that it produces SARS disease and is basically SARS version 2? Weren't SARS and MERS also coronaviruses? But they were named differently... one based on severe acute, and other Middle East (geographic label)... perhaps those weren't the final names?!? |
| Bud:
The tonality of CBC, a major Canadian TV broadcaster and government puppet, has changed from the rosy "no worries" propaganda to "it is not a question that the virus will not come, it is when it will come" and "you may need to stock some food and supplies for at least two weeks". So much about listening to and trusting official sources. We have to take care of ourselves and follow our own judgement. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |