my next thing to do after stepping on their land is to fly back
But once you're there, you're not getting out, lol. The whole area is quarantined.
I can fly back right away if I refuse to sign their contract of being stucked in there..
ok. this thread is meant to stay in Wuhan until the vaccine which I don't want to. recently, they said that it will take 10+ weeks to finish the research and trials, there's a chance that I'll get stuck in there for a whole year.
If I had a pack of 40 water bottles and 1 was poisoned, would you take a drink?
What I'm saying is that I think the Coronavirus is not a death threatening sickness. If I was given a pack of 40 water bottles and 1 had the common flue in it, would I drink it in exchange for 1M$?
If I had ONE water bottle, and I had 100% certenity that it had the flue in it, I would also drink it for 1M$ since I catch the flue every year and it never has even kept me in bed for more than one night.
Looking at the death rate of the coronavirus there is no reason to think it would cause me more harm than the common flue. The only difference —and the reason the world is alarmed— is becasue it is a new virus.
So the worst that could happen in this scenario is the hassle of been in a quarentined city, in China. It would be a very unconfortable situation that could last for a few weeks. I don't think it would be a threat to my life, or even a serious threat to my health. Just a major inconvenience. One I would probably take in exchange for an ammount of $ that would surely change my life for the better.
@buckwheat: Mathematically, you're twice as likely to die from corona virus if we run your numbers. It's still a small percentage of people overall, but if you're the type who catches the flu every year because you don't have the immune response to tank it (lots of people are exposed to flu but don't get sick), you should be worried.
No. I don't want to go to China.
I just finished listening to this episode of the Patrick Coffin Show:
Mathematically, you're twice as likely to die from corona virus if we run your numbers. It's still a small percentage of people overall, but if you're the type who catches the flu every year because you don't have the immune response to tank it (lots of people are exposed to flu but don't get sick), you should be worried.
As of today I've had 0% chances of diying of the Seasonal Flue. So, mathematically, double that would still be a very low possibilty.
According to the University of Edinburg there's about a 2% possibility of diying of the flue:
We estimated an average of 389 000 (uncertainty range 294 000-518 000) respiratory deaths were associated with influenza globally each year during the study period, corresponding to ~ 2% of all annual respiratory deaths. Of these, 67% were among people 65 years and older.
But as you can see, the risk is for older persons with frail health. And I'm sure a big % also correspond to very young kids and babues.
The death rate does not translate equaly to healthy individuals around their 30s.
The rate, as you can see is not so different for the new Coronavirus than it is for the flue.
Besides, OP does not say you must contract the virus. Just travel to the city. With proper care I'm sure you could go there and return without becoming infected.
> As of today I've had 0% chances of diying of the Seasonal Flue. So, mathematically, double that would still be a very low possibilty.
This is such a butchering of statistical likelihood that I cringed hard enough to make my neck cramp. No, seriously, I couldn't move for a couple minutes. Do you also think you have 0% chance of dying in a car accident because you've never died in one before? If you were in 30 car accidents and lived, do you think that reduces the chances of dying to 0%?
> According to the University of Edinburg there's about a 2% possibility of diying of the flue:
Eh at this point I'm just wondering which set of numbers you actually believe. Your original stats put the risk at 1.3% and now it's 2% but okay.
> The rate, as you can see is not so different for the new Coronavirus than it is for the flue.
Yeah, I didn't realize we're switching our numbers around. It still doesn't help your case. Your own article: However, it may be too early to estimate fatality rates for the new coronavirus as we are still in the early stages of the outbreak. Literally anyone with a basic understanding of statistics can guess that the dependent variable won't show a full effect when you've just introduced an independent variable that's contingent on time. You're using corona's early 2% fatality rate as a comparison to the well-documented seasonal influenza. You don't have to change your answer as to whether or not you'd take the dare, and you can take all the precautions the OP would allow, but your attempt at using math in saying it isn't a serious threat to your health is statistical gibber gabber. Take care.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment