deuce
Grenade!
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2014
- Messages
- 17,203
- Reaction score
- 218
So lets say that we figure out the asymptomatic fraction. I'm never opposed to more data mind you, though I may object to how it's spun. So let's say that we determine that 50% of infections are asymptomatic. That means that our mortality rate drops from 4.0% worldwide to 2.0% (or 1.4% to 0.7% in the US). Then what?Perhaps drowning in data and starving for information. If testing were conducted on a consistent basis across a reasonably valid cross-section of the population - especially since there is a reasonable chance that many, many asymptomatic carriers are in general circulation - the data would be more useful. It still may be useful if the professionals know how to massage and scrub the data for all of those variables. But those data come with a boatload of embedded variation.
So people can claim "Hey! It's no deadlier than the flu!"?
Except that flu numbers are not predicated on calculating an asymptomatic fraction, so it would be like comparing apples to oranges. As I mentioned, if we determined the asymptomatic fraction of influenza viruses, death rates - on average- would also drop by about half ... which again would make coronavirus a much deadlier disease.
If it's used to develop a model to calculate herd immunity (though a simple antibody test won't prove immunity), that's one thing ... but the discussion was about "determining how deadly the disease is", and we already use standard metrics to make those calculations.