News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:I have the coronavirus – So far, it isn't that bad by ackbar03 on Saturday February 29, 2020 @12:21AM (#22449043)
um mortality rate is something like 1% ... hardly high
Re:I have the coronavirus – So far, it isn't that bad by briffle on Saturday February 29, 2020 @12:32AM (#22449085)
The regular flu is 0.1%. The 1918 pandemic had a mortality rate of 2%, and killed 50 million people.
Re:I have the coronavirus – So far, it isn't that bad by Barrin92 on Saturday February 29, 2020 @12:46AM (#22449136)
The Spanish flu infected about 500 million people and killed about 50 million according to most estimations. That's a death rate of 10%.

It should also be said that the 1% rate for COVID-19 is probably too high because a lot of cases appear to be hardly symptomatic. The cruise ship had 3 deaths up until now, all over the age of 80.

Re:I have the coronavirus – So far, it isn't that bad by refurb on Saturday February 29, 2020 @12:38AM (#22449105)
In 1918 the world population was 1.8B. If every single person got infected, and the mortality rate was 2%, then that's 36M.

Something wrong with your numbers.

Re:I have the coronavirus – So far, it isn't that bad by Aeolun on Saturday February 29, 2020 @01:04AM (#22449221)
From wikipedia:

> It infected 500 million people around the world,[2] or about 27% of the then world population of between 1.8 and 1.9 billion, including people on isolated Pacific islands and in the Arctic. The death toll is estimated to have been 40 million to 50 million, and possibly as high as 100 million

Re:I have the coronavirus – So far, it isn't that bad by refurb on Saturday February 29, 2020 @02:36AM (#22449476)
Ok, if it infected 27% of 1.9 billion, that’s 500M people infected.

50-100M of those die, for a fatality rate of at 10 to 20%, not the 2% referenced in OP.

Re:I have the coronavirus – So far, it isn't that bad by PostOnce on Saturday February 29, 2020 @12:49AM (#22449148)
You're nitpicking for no reason; they're close approximations. maybe it was 2.1% or 1.9% maybe it was 40 million or 60 -- record keeping 1918 globally may not have been exactly computer-perfect. There was a war being recovered from, the world was still poor, and medical science inexact.

The GP's point stands, I think.

Re:I have the coronavirus – So far, it isn't that bad by refurb on Saturday February 29, 2020 @02:38AM (#22449485)
It’s not 1.9% or 2.1%, the fatality rate would have to be 10% for those numbers to work.
Re:I have the coronavirus – So far, it isn't that bad by natmaka on Saturday February 29, 2020 @01:00AM (#22449200)
Hypothesis: some were infected, survived, then reinfecterd and died.
Re:I have the coronavirus – So far, it isn't that bad by scarmig on Saturday February 29, 2020 @12:26AM (#22449062)
That is very high, both compared to influenza and to what our health care system is able to handle.

And when the case load is higher than what the health care system is able to handle, mortality jumps to 2% or higher.

Re:I have the coronavirus – So far, it isn't that bad by dragonwriter on Saturday February 29, 2020 @12:36AM (#22449099)
Also, caseload straining the healthcare system boosts mortality for other conditions.
Re:I have the coronavirus – So far, it isn't that bad by tingletech on Saturday February 29, 2020 @12:57AM (#22449184)
Re:I have the coronavirus – So far, it isn't that bad by onetimemanytime on Saturday February 29, 2020 @12:53AM (#22449170)
>>um mortality rate is something like 1% ... hardly high

Mortality is 100%...for the person that dies from it. And that 1% rate is so far, I hope we don't see what happens if 46 million people in USA get it and try going to the hospital.

Re:I have the coronavirus – So far, it isn't that bad by dblohm7 on Saturday February 29, 2020 @02:34AM (#22449470)
The Tail at Scale