-
Isn’t the issue the difference between fatality and mortality here. The latter being once it’s over?
I interpreted (because that what you have to do with Trump) to mean people will go to work with it perfectly fine. Which I’d say is the problem we face. He perhaps should have been more explicit about that not being a good idea... but with their workers rights maybe he can’t say that!?
GoatandTricycle-
Isn’t the issue the difference between fatality and mortality here. The latter being once it’s over?
Picking the right number for the denominator is the hard part of epidemiology and gets easier with time, but as time goes on picking the right number of the numerator becomes harder - did this person die of Covid-19 or the long term illness that had them at death's door anyway?
An R0 of 1.8 and a mortality rate of 3.4% would be very bad, you'd be looking at ~2% of the UK population dying from it all within the next 6-12 months.
Greenbank
There's no excuse for calling it corona flu but, in the massively inarticulate way the gibbering fucknugget talks, he was actually vaguely right in trying to correct the news channel on their clickbait reporting of a "3.4% mortality rate" in the same way that the 3.4% rate has been discussed in this thread. The actual mortality rate will be quite a bit lower than this as there are many many mild cases that haven't (and won't) be identified.
Also saying it was fine to go to work with 'conona flu' is a fucking stupid thing to say too.