[yeron]

National Geographic

The novel coronavirus that originated in Wuhan, China, has swept across the globe, infecting about 31,500 people as of press time. But a persistent question has permeated the public consciousness: Is this new viral terror less or more dangerous than other infectious diseases?

Every major epidemic spawns some brand of this mental exercise, and for good reason. Health officials and regular citizens set their priorities based on the general risk to the public. This week, the World Health Organization announced plans to dole out $675 million on the barely month-old outbreak of novel coronavirus. By contrast, the agency has raised a third of this amount from international partners to combat the Ebola epidemic in central Africa, which has been raging since August 2018.

Even a simple comparison of death rates can struggle to yield a judgment on the worst infectious foe. For example, influenza—whether it be seasonal or an emerging strain like H1N1—can infect millions of people, but it kills a relatively low portion of its cases, about 0.1 percent. Pandemic coronaviruses—like SARS, MERS, and the novel strain from China—are far more severe. SARS killed about 10 percent of its cases, but it only created about 8,000 confirmed infections.

#chiny #wirus #nationalgeographic #koronawirus

[Kami-chan]

Fajnie przedstawiono wykresy, w ten sposób łatwiej sobie zobrazować skalę i śmiertelność niż na klasycznym wykresie,

Edit: Na tyle na ile oficjalne dane są wiarygodne

[imateapot]

@Kami-chan: spójrz na prawy dolny róg i zobacz ile było oficjalnie głodzonych śmierci, a na ile później oficjalnie oszacowali to Amerykanie (CDC)

[Kami-chan]

@imateapot: widziałam dlatego edytowałam komentarz