You need a different test for that (antibody.) But yes, that would be good.john61ct said:Really the effective regime would be X% of the population tested **every Y weeks**, resulting in **everyone** getting tested every Z months.
is that 0.3 of the people who are affected , carry the Covid-19 virus .... Die
speedmd said:is that 0.3 of the people who are affected , carry the Covid-19 virus .... Die
That is .3%, correct? If so that would be close to the 0.5% that has been reported - confirmed in many other countries.
speedmd said:is that 0.3 of the people who are affected , carry the Covid-19 virus .... Die
That is .3%, correct? If so that would be close to the 0.5% that has been reported - confirmed in many other countries. Cali, has a much more open social living (less confined, stale air) conditions than most of the older - colder cities that have had major out breaks, but this falls in the range. Assuming we all get it....
0.003 x 325,000,000 = 975,000 dead.
.005 x 325,000,000 = 1,625,000 Dead.
Both the House and Senate have extended their recesses until May 4 due to the dangers of coronavirus, lengthening the break by two weeks.
john61ct said:Testing stats https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104645/covid19-testing-rate-select-countries-worldwide/
https://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1556169#p1556169ScooterMan101 said:speedmd,
Well acually I thought I heard the stanford researcher say 0.03 % , or 0.003 % ,
but I thought ... that low ??? Am I hearing her right ?
so
I wrote 0.3 % .
It could really be 0.03 % , or 0.003 % , I am now trying to find the news clip , but only came up with another one from the Local News Channel KTVU 2
https://www.ktvu.com/news/stanford-antibody-study-suggests-covid-19-more-widespread-than-official-confirmed-cases