I’m not doubting Q’s post as he was more correct than most back in January. 

However what decent evidence do we have, so far, for this claim? I genuinely lose track.

What on earth do you mean by "final" case fatality rate and who has calculated it at 0.2%?

We are a long way from determining anything like "final". The data from different countries currently varies enormously and largely depends on how much testing is done.

In Germany with all its testing the CFR looks like currently 3.3% - a long way from your quoted 0.2%

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/coronavirus-cfr?country=ITA+KOR+OWID_WRL+DEU+ISL+GBR

However the CFR is a poor measure of the risk of dying from Covid-19. We need to know the infection fatality rate which is largely unknowable at the moment.

https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus#what-do-we-know-about-the-risk-of-dying-from-covid-19

There is a lot of background noise at the moment with conflicting reports of good news on vaccine progress to worry about mutations to something worse.  The ones we believe depend upon on our mood that day and how optimistic/pessimistic we are feeling.  The reality as always is likely to be somewhere in between.  

My thoughts also. 

I feel dizzy and tired reading conflicting reports. It’s getting to the point where I just don’t know what to believe anymore. 

Possibly. You could also argue however that if all (or at least most) countries had contained the virus, then the problem would be significantly smaller.

Maybe the focus should change to production of CPAP and BiPAP hoods. 

(...)

For one thing, the thick mucus-like coating on the lungs developed by many Covid-19 patients impedes the lungs from taking up the delivered oxygen.

For another, unlike in other pneumonias the areas of lung damage in Covid-19 can sit right next to healthy tissue, which is elastic. Forcing oxygen-enriched air (in some cases, 100% oxygen) into elastic tissue at high pressure and in large volumes can cause leaks, pulmonary edema (swelling), and inflammation, among other damage, contributing to “ventilator-induced injury and increased mortality” in Covid-19, the researchers wrote.

“Invasive ventilation can be lifesaving, but can also damage the lung,” Schultz told STAT.

It’s important to highlight “aspects of Covid-19 that differ from other diseases that require respiratory support,” said Phil Rosenthal of the University of California, San Francisco, editor of the journal. Patients with Covid-19 pneumonia are often less breathless “compared to other patients with similar [blood oxygen] levels,” he said, adding that this difference “may allow physicians to avoid intubation/ventilator support in some patients.”

There is a growing recognition that some Covid-19 patients, even those with severe disease as shown by the extent of lung infection, can be safely treated with simple nose prongs or face masks that deliver oxygen.The latter include CPAP (continuous positive airway pressure) masks used for sleep apnea, or BiPAP (bi-phasic positive airway pressure) masks used for congestive heart failure and other serious conditions. CPAP can also be delivered via hoods or helmets, reducing the risk that patients will expel large quantities of virus into the air and endanger health care workers.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/21/coronavirus-analysis-recommends-less-reliance-on-ventilators/

There was a virologist on the radio this morning saying the mutations from Covid 19 are very slow compared to normal flu. He certainly didn't sound overly worried that it would become more deadly.

Whilst I am not an expert on virus evolution, Justin, there is a contrary view you may also have considered. In explaining this I do not want to suggest any intention or purpose to the virus, only the general rules which bear on random mutations and overall change of any living thing. A "good" pathogen does not kill off its host. The interplay of developing host immunity and pathogen change is what allows both to co-evolve and survive. A really virulent form of the pathogen would be a kamikaze, wiping out the host and dying with it. 

I'd be interested to be reminded of past human pandemics which have not declined in virulence with time. [Even if the damage caused at the peak was terrible.] Suggestions please.

Roger

Usually yes, but there are three factors working against:

a) The long incubation period means no selective pressure to stop it becoming more serious. If it takes 3 weeks to kill you and you can spread it around for at least a week, so becoming more deadly would not really be that harmful to the viruses ability to spread

b) There is evidence that it is mutating rather fast which means more possibilities are being explored, it increases the likelyhood of something bad happening before we get a vaccine.

c) Its everywhere. With so much viral material about and accounting for b) it is also more likely we hit the unlucky jackpot.

Equally of course the virus could become less deadly and more competitive. That's a definite possibility. The problem is though usually there are strong forces that would push a virus in that direction. The forces are still there but are alot weaker which means the opposite is alot more likely, and consequently the virus becoming less deadly (while still probably more likely than not) is less likely.

 I think if a virus is more infectious i.e Covid -19 it does not need to mutate fast as it has plenty of hosts . Less infectious , maybe Flu tends to mutate faster to continue to thrive.

Echo this.

It's not helped by those posters who have little interest in facts and only want to use this thread to exchange vitriolic political propaganda.

Yep. Herd immunity is a non starter. Those who have questioned the NZ approach long-term in here today need to read that article I reproduced earlier on.

No. If this thing doesn't give immunity, then it will be a disease the young - as with the old - get repeatedly. It will very much NOT be like chicken pox.

I think that's more of an irrational fear. It could also mutate to something less deadly. So far all we know is that its a relatively stable virus. 

Why? I thought as viruses mutate they get weaker and eventually disappear. That is what happened with Spanish Flu so why not Covid-19?

 Can some one who knows say what viruses or types of virus give no immunity at present?

Greece relies heavily on tourism, yet they are already saying that if there is no safe way to bring visitors from abroad, then they won't do it. 

They will hunker down until the possible vaccination and they will rely on domestic demand and the magic money tree in Frankfurt. 

 I thought that also and would suggest Q is very much on the pessimistic side although who knows atm?

Scotland

• 77 people have died in the last 24 hours


• 9,038 have tested positive for Covid-19 +366 from yesterday.


• 1,776 in hospital with a suspected or confirmed case - down 90


• 155 in intensive care - down 11

10,000 CPAP machines have already been produced by McClaren F1 and more will be produced.

But you are correct. Ventilators are the usual mechanism by which pulmonary pneumonia is treated and the medical world decided early on that it was the best available treatment for serious cases of COVID-19. However, as we learn more about the virus and the effects it has, that early decision on using ventilators is coming under scrutiny. It appears that in advanced cases, COVID-19 leads to a mucas deposit obstructing the normal mechanism by which oxygen is transferred from air in the lungs to the blood supply and that intubating someone with a ventilator can damage the lungs and cause problems. Using a CPAP machine in that case may be a better alternative.

It's been said a vaccine could be ready within 2 years

.

.

..

.

.

..

.

Oh hang on, that was the claim for HIV in 1984, sorry
https://www.niaid.nih.gov/diseases-conditions/hiv-vaccine-research-history

That is not a given. A virus will always mutate and as in all natural organisms, the mutations which guarantee greater reproductive potential will dominate. With a virus, killing too many hosts is a bad survival strategy and that is why mutations which succeed are usually those which produce fewer fatalities than otherwise. Plus, in the relationship between a host and a parasite, there generally comes about an accommodation whereby the hosts general survive with the parasite.

But none of that is a given - you could have a mutation which leads to a fatal outcome but which because the virus is so easily passed on, it does not matter. Fortunately, there appears to be a rule - the more fatal a virus, the less easy it is to catch it, but I am not familiar with why that should be.