world final tally ?

J

john luc

Registered User
Messages
482
GIven that the epicenter was first in China then Europe and the USA, if this moves to the poorer countries around the world we will see far worse death rates than we see now.
 
john luc said:
GIven that the epicenter was first in China then Europe and the USA, if this moves to the poorer countries around the world we will see far worse death rates than we see now.
Click to expand...

I'm following the FT analysis which also tracks Africa and Latin America. My gut feeling is that the global death tally could be massive if it becomes widespread in some of the large cities in both - high density populations with less infrastructure than Europe or US.

To put it in context, New York has 8.5 million people. Cairo and Lagos have about 18 million. Kinshasa and Jo'burg about 13 million. Mexico and Sao Paulo have >20 million. Rio, Bogota, Buenos Aires, Lima - all larger than NY

(all numbers approximate - I realise numbers change depending on whether you look at core or hinterland. Point stands I think)
 
Countries with no real public healthcare system, with cities without modern sewage systems and very cramped living conditions could see very high contagion rates. This is a very interesting article in the context of this thread.
 
The link in my previous post shows a study from Imperial College London which forecasts a global death toll of 40 million if the epidemic was completely unmitigated (no social distancing etc). That's only a half of one percent of the global population.
 
Purple said:
Countries with no real public healthcare system, with cities without modern sewage systems and very cramped living conditions could see very high contagion rates. This is a very interesting article in the context of this thread.
Click to expand...

Very high contagion rates yes, but will it translate into the death rates of western countries, maybe not.
Being clinical about it, from a demographic perspective, in such conditions where other infections etc are rampant, there may not be such large % of the population in vulnerable groups.
 
odyssey06 said:
Very high contagion rates yes, but will it translate into the death rates of western countries, maybe not.
Being clinical about it, from a demographic perspective, in such conditions where other infections etc are rampant, there may not be such large % of the population in vulnerable groups.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's highlighted in the linked article.
 
I'm reading an article in New Scientist. It says that in one Italian town Nembro, 158 people have died this year compared to annual average of 35.
Only 31 of these deaths is officially recorded as due to covid-19.

I think an assessment of excess mortality needs to be used along with the 'official' figures.
 
Roughly a quarter of cases are classed as healthcare workers is there any breakdown anywhere on this .Any idea how many are from nursing homes ?
 
World final tally = World population * percent that will be infected * infected fatality rate.

Ifr is likey .5%
Infected will likey be in range of 15 to 60p.c.
 
EmmDee said:
I'm following the FT analysis which also tracks Africa and Latin America. My gut feeling is that the global death tally could be massive if it becomes widespread in some of the large cities in both - high density populations with less infrastructure than Europe or US.

To put it in context, New York has 8.5 million people. Cairo and Lagos have about 18 million. Kinshasa and Jo'burg about 13 million. Mexico and Sao Paulo have >20 million. Rio, Bogota, Buenos Aires, Lima - all larger than NY

(all numbers approximate - I realise numbers change depending on whether you look at core or hinterland. Point stands I think)
Click to expand...

Looks like ICU usage in Mexico City, Sao Paulo, Lima and Santiago is at 90% or over - it's probably close to a tipping point in Latin America.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top