Quote Originally Posted by globaleconomicollaps View Post
Check out Chris Martenson's latest:
My point wasn't that no measures should be taken or measures should be relaxed, etc. I just think the epidemic might be further along than we believe and the death toll may not continue growing at the rate we extrapolate from current stats, which is potentially good news.


I am sure that some COVID-19 deaths aren't being counted as such. Especially by governments that want to keep their statistics "pretty." But IMO hospitalized persons with serious symptoms are much more likely to get tested. Thus I think on the whole selection bias is in the direction of testing those who are very sick and thus overestimating the death rate. It is uncertain by how much, but IMO infection rates are probably higher than we think and consequently the death rate is lower.


No doubt hospitals are overwhelmed. Theoretically the higher peak (as compared to say the flu) that we're trying to flatten may be due to higher R0 and/or higher death rate. I think our current statistics overestimate the death rate and underestimate R0. If we could test for anti-bodies to detect who's already had it and take some unbiased samples from around the world, it would give us a better idea of how far along we are. But given that the data are limited I think pre-cautions are justified.


I would also add that the economic displacement, the fear, the stress of lockdown, the news cycle has itself made people less resistant to infection. It's well known that stress reduces immunity. This stress has shaved off years of countless people's lives. We shouldn't only focus on the visible deaths, but the invisible effects as well, even though they're hard to measure.