Jack: Lying- a tad harsh,perhaps? The seminal numbers in the link are
"The worldwide death toll crept toward 10,000 as the total number of infections topped 220,000................".
, this should have read "confirmed infections" - I'm sure that the "actual infection" numbers are much higher than reported making the morbidity rate lower.
Using the quoted numbers, that's a morbidity rate of about 4.5% - compared with the previously calculated rate of 3.7%. Yes it's a 22% increase but perhaps not surprising given Italy's ageing population (and yes, on a personal level because I come from Italian peasant stock-still an absolute tragedy for each death).
I don't want to demean the potential impact of the virus - but if the gaze is changed and the pandemic is viewed from an epidemiological perspective (and admittedly it's still early days in the progress of the worldwide infection) - with a world population in 2020 of about 7,800 million - the infection rate for mankind (is this a PC term that I can use in Uwe's bar -or, should I use "personkind"?) is 0.0028%.
The other interesting take-out from the link is this:
Italy, with a population of 60 million, recorded at least 3,405 deaths, or roughly 150 more than in China — a country with a population over 20 times larger.
If I use these numbers and if I assume that the Communist Government isn't fudging the figures - it means that strict population control results in a reduced death rate of about 2,000%. I know that it's heresy to suggest this - but I hope democracy can achieve the same type of population control that is evident in the Communist system
. Perhaps even Americans (Mike Ross?) will agree that in a pandemic, this may be the singular advantage of Chinese style government?
Of course, I'm only teasing and it's a rhetorical question - but a valid point , nevertheless !
Code:
Population Deaths Morbidity rate
Italy 60,000,000 3,405 0.00568%
Wuhan 1,200,000,000 3,255 0.00027%
Change 2,092%
Don