Originally posted by kid_of_3NKi
reply to post by JustMike
109 dead out of 762,835 infected, thats 0,014 % !!
I realy don't see any reason to be concerned about this year's flu viruses.
Ko3
Your math might be sound, but you're overlooking some incredibly important details.
Firstly - the infected number takes into account ALL types of flu like infections. As sources have indicated that there may be 3 or possibly even 4
different diseases, then this number is very misleading.
Secondly - the death rate. That is how many dead over what period of time.
To clarify I will give you a likely scenario - then perhaps armed with this new model you might look at this outbreak with some new respect.
Lets make some assumptions (based on evidence that has been presented so far). Some might balk at the idea of assumptions, but all logic and all
scientific theory is predicated upon making assumptions, because unassailable facts cannot exist.
Assumptions;
1. The disease responsible for most of the death is a mutated flu virus, its basic characteristic is H1N1.
2. Three other viruses were introduced or appeared into Ukraine at about the same time. Two seasonal flu varieties, and the ho hum, run of the mill
H1N1. These maintain their normal characteristics, with fatality rates around 0.01% - therefore not responsible for many deaths.
3. Testing for H1N1 will detect the new virus, and not differentiate it from H1N1. That is, the testing kits or processes WILL detect the mutated
virus, but will incorrectly identify it as run of the mill H1N1.
4. The three basic flu strains were present in Ukraine, and after a period of time a mutation appeared, being the new deadly variety. It's
principal killing mechanism is cytokine storm - that is - over stimulation and inflammation of the immune system, so that the hosts immune system
kills them.
5. The initial number of infectious cases 4 weeks ago, was about 1,000. Of these reported cases, none of them was the mutated virus. (I made this
number up - it may be fairly wrong percentage wise, but its not important to the model, only that the number was low with respect to the current 1/2
million cases).
The figures included in the following example are roughly based on reported numbers, but rather than look them up exactly I will use round numbers and
estimates. This does not undermine the model - it is indicative, rather than empirical.
Now lets roll back time to 4 weeks ago.
Of 1,000 cases, none were deadly - death rates were 0.01% or thereabouts. At this point the new virus mutated into existence.
It began to infect the population, but was not symptomatic.
After 1 week, 3,000 flu cases had been identified, of these a small handful lets say 30 were the new strain.
One week later the fatality rate suddenly began to increase. This is because those who first contracted the new and deadly virus had become
symptomatic.
We can see that deaths were added daily. 1, 3, 5, 10, 30, 50, 80, 100. Those numbers I have posted are not accurate - but they indicate what I am
talking about.
The deaths have occurred over a very short period of time - and they are increasing quickly. The total population infected has also been increasing -
but the death rate is applicable to the infected population as it was when people first contracted the disease.
To determine the death rate, you have to have an idea how long it is from contracting the virus, until death.
Then you look back into the past and check how many people were infected at that time. Then you divide the numbers to get a result.
As my scenario suggests - the number infected is bloated by people who did not have the deadly infection - but rather had either a seasonal flu, or
the standard H1N1.
So use the 109 deaths I last saw reported to create a model regarding the death rate.
Lets assume;
1. It takes 2 weeks from infection to death.
2. A few weeks ago, 20% of recorded infected cases was the new virus.
3. For illustration I will make up some numbers for infected cases 2 weeks ago. Lets say it was 6,000.
Now, 20% were infected with the deadly virus, meaning 1,200 cases.
Now we have 109 dead. Lets allow that some were killed by seasonal flu and regular H1N1. So we allow 9 deaths for that.
Fatality rate then is 100/1,200 = 8%
If you wish, I suggest you go have a look at the actual infected number from 2 weeks ago.
Also the above model assumes that this new virus went from 0% of the infected population to 20% of the population in one week - unlikely. More likely
it was a much smaller percentage.
If you reduce the percentage of the population infected by the new virus, it increases its death rate.
For example; lets say that instead of 20% it was actually 5%
Now; 5% of 6,000 = 300
Fatality rate = 100/300 = 33%
I encourage people to go and have a look at the data and decide for themselves if they should be concerned or not.