Quote:
Originally Posted by EgoFG
I just quickly compare this to US Cases vss Hospitalisations (Sorry, US data is what I keep in my spreadsheet)
In the US between 3% and 5% of cases get hospitalised.
That study includes 33% hospitalised.
There sample is not only too small, it is not representative of real world case severity.
I am not disagreeing with the conclusion - I really have no idea of the likelihood of long term impacts.
But the data in this study should be only used to help see the need for a real study.
|
There are such huge holes in the data its ridiculous for media to even report on these things.
As I pointed out early , the vast majority of cases there is no further data about any aspect of the way it progresses.
Lets say a 30 year old guy feels sick and gets tested and is positive. He is told to isolate and no one ever speaks to him again unless he is dying. No records of how it progressed , no symptom checklists or even a personal journal , no record of how he treats himself which pills he tries what he eats who he had contact with before and after he was tested how long he felt sick . Multiply that by 200,000 + per day here in the states , there is no way anyone could follow up on any but the most serious cases and no weay to go back and connect any dots later.
Which is why when some fool on TV starts quoting studies during prime time the proper response is to shut the TV off.
No one is ever going to know about anything that happened to the non hospitalized patients and with the way our hospitals are slammed there is little chance anyone has the free time to delve into it.
All the data is just a big jumble of garbage