ERICOPOLY Posted April 23, 2020 Posted April 23, 2020 they dipstick, mortality rate is a % of infected, not a % of population. elementary common sense No, Case fatality rate is a % of known infected. Mortality rate is a % of population.
Dalal.Holdings Posted April 23, 2020 Posted April 23, 2020 everyone like dalal has been quoting a mortality rate of 3-4% for covid, which is too high by at least 5X. Dalal, I don't think he is smart enough to know the difference between CFR and IFR. So he might actually believe this B.S. Like I said, we leave the “best of the best” of this forum to do what they do best: the blind leading the blind! Often wrong, never in doubt! I do not respond to such individuals any longer on this forum, they earn the consequences of their thinking.
patience_and_focus Posted April 23, 2020 Posted April 23, 2020 Remember, the sensitivity and specificity of these antibody tests matters a lot, and NYC is very different from the rest of the country, as the epicenter of the epidemic. There's got to be a lot of false positives in those tests even if 99%, and you can't extrapolate it to the rest of the country. who needs to extrapolate to the rest of the country, for goodness sakes!!! apples to apples. NYC is the epicenter of the crisis, and because major media is NYC-centric, the mass hysteria was exported. why does the governor of michigan go stalinesque? because she wants to look like she is on top of things like cuomo. so of course this doesnt have to be extrapolated nationwide, because NYC's experience isn't the nation's experience. this 20% antibody positive rate makes covid less deadly than the flu. and if this result doesnt comport with how you want to think, then just call it a bad test. an inhale some more sand NYC: 11,267 deaths divided by 21% of 8,000,000 people=mortality rate of 0.67%. just like the flu. WRONG Reported flu mortality is 0.1% (https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html) in 2018-2019 season (~34000 of 35 million died). This number does *NOT* take into account asymptomatic subjects. See my earlier post about it. UK flu study: Many are infected, few are sick https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2014/03/uk-flu-study-many-are-infected-few-are-sick Original study in the Lancet: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(14)70034-7/fulltext 75% of flu cases are asymptomatic, because only those who show symptoms are tested. Which means that if 10000 are reported to have flu after testing and 0.1% of them die (10 patients / 10000), when asymptomatic subjects are taken into account the denominator is closer to 40000 implying deaths of 10 / 40000 = 0.025%. Last time I checked 0.67 / 0.025 = 26X.
Liberty Posted April 23, 2020 Posted April 23, 2020 Remember, the sensitivity and specificity of these antibody tests matters a lot, and NYC is very different from the rest of the country, as the epicenter of the epidemic. There's got to be a lot of false positives in those tests even if 99%, and you can't extrapolate it to the rest of the country. who needs to extrapolate to the rest of the country, for goodness sakes!!! apples to apples. NYC is the epicenter of the crisis, and because major media is NYC-centric, the mass hysteria was exported. why does the governor of michigan go stalinesque? because she wants to look like she is on top of things like cuomo. so of course this doesnt have to be extrapolated nationwide, because NYC's experience isn't the nation's experience. this 20% antibody positive rate makes covid less deadly than the flu. and if this result doesnt comport with how you want to think, then just call it a bad test. an inhale some more sand As we've seen at the country level, the hardest hit places are just showing other places what their futures will look like if they don't take measures to prevent it. Thankfully, most places took measures and we're starting to see them work. As for your hand waving of the error rate on these tests (which may be lower than 99% accurate, with a disease that is present in low-single digits of the sample, which means that actual false positives may be 50% or more), I think it says more about how you have a conclusion and try to back-fill the details rather than look at the data.
clutch Posted April 23, 2020 Posted April 23, 2020 I'd say that's better than 3-4%. Nobody ever had a 3-4% IFR estimate. You are conflating CFR with IFR. The estimated IFR was always around 0.65%. My bad. I'd still take these study results as a good sign than a bad one. I'd rather have fewer people die over the period of this pandemic, even if only by fewer percentages.
Guest cherzeca Posted April 23, 2020 Posted April 23, 2020 if you look back at past flu epidemics (and there were 80K deaths in US in 2018), there was more fatalities for children and non-elderly than covid. so what we did here was panic, based upon an assumed 3-4% mortality rate of those infected, not appreciating the number of infected without symptoms was much greater than assumed, and instituted an unprecedented lock down of our entire economy, when we should have realized based upon early covid evidence that a focus upon elderly was most efficacious. and then we ignored the elderly largely by not ordering a no-visitation policy until late in the game. we should admit our own deadly ignorance even as most of you kowtow to "experts". shame on all of us. for those who think visions of "1984" (the book) in US are a bit much, here is your precedent. politicians love power, and the greatest power is to tell you what to do in its most intimate details, all based upon "scientific fact" and the "wisdom of experts". deblasio wants to have people report distancing violations to a special hot line....ooooh, how Stasi of us, isn't this wonderful!!!
Cigarbutt Posted April 23, 2020 Posted April 23, 2020 Dont think this was posted before but this does put some trade offs within perspective. Avg length of stay once in a nursing home before death was 5 months. https://www.geripal.org/2010/08/length-of-stay-in-nursing-homes-at-end.html End of life was pulled forward ~5 months for the vast majority of COVID19 deaths it seems. The economic vs life cost discussion can get ugly but..... I find this aspect relevant. In my province (beside clutch's Ontario), 80% of CV deaths occur in retirement homes and in 50% of those cases (more frail, chronic care, poor autonomy) life expectancy is similar. However, the "average" statistics here are skewed because a significant number of older people that are transferred to these chronic care institutions after a hospital stay have a poor prognosis and then it represents end of life care. It looks like median survival is somewhat higher even in these specific institutions. Life expectancy in other retirement homes is much higher. Using good methodology about comorbidities, the typical patient admitted for CV in a NY City hospital has about an expected 50% 10-yr survival. All that to say that about 50% (perhaps slightly more) who die from CV (main disease or multi-organ failure trigger) have a relatively poor quality of life (sick and cognitive impairment) and would have died anyways shortly after. But the loss of life expectancy for the rest is more significant and includes a period of reasonable or good quality of life. Another concern (based on similar epidemic episodes or the COVID-19 episode that happened elsewhere before), it appears that sub-optimal (to be defined) policies (on top of causing more deaths) cause the mortality curve to shift to younger and 'healthier' (relatively) populations.
DooDiligence Posted April 23, 2020 Posted April 23, 2020 if you look back at past flu epidemics (and there were 80K deaths in US in 2018), there was more fatalities for children and non-elderly than covid. so what we did here was panic, based upon an assumed 3-4% mortality rate of those infected, not appreciating the number of infected without symptoms was much greater than assumed, and instituted an unprecedented lock down of our entire economy, when we should have realized based upon early covid evidence that a focus upon elderly was most efficacious. and then we ignored the elderly largely by not ordering a no-visitation policy until late in the game. we should admit our own deadly ignorance even as most of you kowtow to "experts". shame on all of us. for those who think visions of "1984" (the book) in US are a bit much, here is your precedent. politicians love power, and the greatest power is to tell you what to do in its most intimate details, all based upon "scientific fact" and the "wisdom of experts". deblasio wants to have people report distancing violations to a special hot line....ooooh, how Stasi of us, isn't this wonderful!!! LOL, is this your way of easing into saying you're wrong?
Guest cherzeca Posted April 23, 2020 Posted April 23, 2020 @cigarbutt and so how does a nationwide lockdown make sense, if one could use limited resources to at least try to ring fence the elderly? it is all about power of politicians and it should make us all most concerned
Guest cherzeca Posted April 23, 2020 Posted April 23, 2020 if you look back at past flu epidemics (and there were 80K deaths in US in 2018), there was more fatalities for children and non-elderly than covid. so what we did here was panic, based upon an assumed 3-4% mortality rate of those infected, not appreciating the number of infected without symptoms was much greater than assumed, and instituted an unprecedented lock down of our entire economy, when we should have realized based upon early covid evidence that a focus upon elderly was most efficacious. and then we ignored the elderly largely by not ordering a no-visitation policy until late in the game. we should admit our own deadly ignorance even as most of you kowtow to "experts". shame on all of us. for those who think visions of "1984" (the book) in US are a bit much, here is your precedent. politicians love power, and the greatest power is to tell you what to do in its most intimate details, all based upon "scientific fact" and the "wisdom of experts". deblasio wants to have people report distancing violations to a special hot line....ooooh, how Stasi of us, isn't this wonderful!!! LOL, is this your way of easing into saying you're wrong? no? doo yourself
KCLarkin Posted April 23, 2020 Posted April 23, 2020 if you look back at past flu epidemics (and there were 80K deaths in US in 2018), there was more fatalities for children and non-elderly than covid. so what we did here was panic, based upon an assumed 3-4% mortality rate of those infected, not appreciating the number of infected without symptoms was much greater than assumed, and instituted an unprecedented lock down of our entire economy, when we should have realized based upon early covid evidence that a focus upon elderly was most efficacious. and then we ignored the elderly largely by not ordering a no-visitation policy until late in the game. Okay, this is the last time I will correct you for a few weeks. The experts prediction of both mild/asymptomatic cases and IFR are accurate. Maybe it is your lack of expertise that is the issue (for example not knowing the difference between IFR and CFR)? The original model presented by the White House estimated 1.5M-2.2M deaths, if there was no mitigation. Guess how many deaths there would be assuming your 0.67% "mortality rate" and an attack rate of 70% (rough estimate of infection rate needed for herd immunity)? 328M * 0.7 * .0067 = 1.5M Seems pretty accurate to me. Maybe the experts know more about this pandemic than Cerzeca?
clutch Posted April 23, 2020 Posted April 23, 2020 if you look back at past flu epidemics (and there were 80K deaths in US in 2018), there was more fatalities for children and non-elderly than covid. so what we did here was panic, based upon an assumed 3-4% mortality rate of those infected, not appreciating the number of infected without symptoms was much greater than assumed, and instituted an unprecedented lock down of our entire economy, when we should have realized based upon early covid evidence that a focus upon elderly was most efficacious. and then we ignored the elderly largely by not ordering a no-visitation policy until late in the game. Okay, this is the last time I will correct you for a few weeks. The experts prediction of both mild/asymptomatic cases and IFR are accurate. Maybe it is your lack of expertise that is the issue (for example not knowing the difference between IFR and CFR)? The original model presented by the White House estimated 1.5M-2.2M deaths, if there was no mitigation. Guess how many deaths there would be assuming your 0.67% "mortality rate" and an attack rate of 70% (rough estimate of infection rate needed for herd immunity)? 328M * 0.7 * .0067 = 1.5M Seems pretty accurate to me. Maybe the experts know more about this pandemic than Cerzeca? Something doesn't seem right though, so help me understand. The same White House model projected that 100,000 and 240,000 would die with the mitigation measures in place. Are they speculating that there will be a vaccine available before the US reaches the attack rate? Another possible explanation -- If you flatten the curve, you might be able to avoid some deaths due to the healthcare system overflow, but I expect that the area under the curve would still be similar (compared to when you have a spike). So are they saying that they would save an order of magnitude of lives by keeping the health care system below the threshold? Part of my problem with these projections is that there is no transparency or explanation whatsoever...
RichardGibbons Posted April 23, 2020 Posted April 23, 2020 Richard, there are 800k+ confirmed covid cases in the US. Some of the population studies that have recently come to light over the past week suggest that 10x or 20x the confirmed number might be carrying antibodies. If that's actually true (big if), the number of people in the US with antibodies today could be 8 to 16 million. Now, suppose the number of cases has been doubling every week for the past 3 weeks while we have all been social distancing. Working the exponential growth backwards, how many people had antibodies on April 2 if there actually are 8m to 16m that have antibodies today? My rough math is 1 or 2 million in the US? How is that inconsistent with hundreds of thousands or millions during March? The answer is that we know what it looks like when there are hundreds of thousands of cases--like NYC. If one's going to claim that hundreds of thousands of cases were in the USA with nobody noticing, you'd have to have those cases distributed mostly evenly across the country, which is quite implausible (because of density, how people arrive in the country, what subsequent outbreaks looked like, the low number of healthcare professionals who have got sick with it outside of places with a known outbreaks etc.) I think the back of the napkin math assumes roughly even distribution, and that doesn't seem to be at all how disease transmission actually works. So me, the balance of evidence by far suggests that the antibody tests are questionable (the math saying you can't accurately measure accurately if the false positive rate is at all close to the actual infection rate). But even if it weren't, I think it's quite difficult to extrapolate the results to the rest of the country. (It's also worth noting that Orthopa's argument wasn't simply that there were a bunch of cases that were about to cause an explosion because they were asymptomatic and about to become symptomatic. It was that there were already a bunch of cases that had happened, and it wasn't a big deal--implying that a bunch of people had recovered, and the system had handled them without even noticing. So for practical purposes, you'd have to push the timeframe back even farther than March.)
UK Posted April 23, 2020 Posted April 23, 2020 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-04-23/wuhan-s-return-to-life-temperature-checks-and-constant-anxiety
Liberty Posted April 23, 2020 Posted April 23, 2020 if you look back at past flu epidemics (and there were 80K deaths in US in 2018), there was more fatalities for children and non-elderly than covid. so what we did here was panic, based upon an assumed 3-4% mortality rate of those infected, not appreciating the number of infected without symptoms was much greater than assumed, and instituted an unprecedented lock down of our entire economy, when we should have realized based upon early covid evidence that a focus upon elderly was most efficacious. and then we ignored the elderly largely by not ordering a no-visitation policy until late in the game. we should admit our own deadly ignorance even as most of you kowtow to "experts". shame on all of us. for those who think visions of "1984" (the book) in US are a bit much, here is your precedent. politicians love power, and the greatest power is to tell you what to do in its most intimate details, all based upon "scientific fact" and the "wisdom of experts". deblasio wants to have people report distancing violations to a special hot line....ooooh, how Stasi of us, isn't this wonderful!!! LOL, is this your way of easing into saying you're wrong? People who constantly talk about what we don't know usually do it when what we do know goes against what they'd like to believe. If the data supported them, they'd talk about "let's look at the facts, gents". But when it doesn't, they talk about what we don't know. It's a fairly effective technique if you don't know about it.
clutch Posted April 23, 2020 Posted April 23, 2020 So me, the balance of evidence by far suggests that the antibody tests are questionable (the math saying you can't accurately measure accurately if the false positive rate is at all close to the actual infection rate). But even if it weren't, I think it's quite difficult to extrapolate the results to the rest of the country. I hope these antibody tests are conducted across the country (countries) so we can get a much clearer picture and these speculative debates are no longer needed.
Casey Posted April 23, 2020 Posted April 23, 2020 So me, the balance of evidence by far suggests that the antibody tests are questionable (the math saying you can't accurately measure accurately if the false positive rate is at all close to the actual infection rate). But even if it weren't, I think it's quite difficult to extrapolate the results to the rest of the country. I hope these antibody tests are conducted across the country (countries) so we can get a much clearer picture and these speculative debates are no longer needed. Indiana trying to do a big random sample!
rb Posted April 24, 2020 Posted April 24, 2020 if you look back at past flu epidemics (and there were 80K deaths in US in 2018), there was more fatalities for children and non-elderly than covid. so what we did here was panic, based upon an assumed 3-4% mortality rate of those infected, not appreciating the number of infected without symptoms was much greater than assumed, and instituted an unprecedented lock down of our entire economy, when we should have realized based upon early covid evidence that a focus upon elderly was most efficacious. and then we ignored the elderly largely by not ordering a no-visitation policy until late in the game. Okay, this is the last time I will correct you for a few weeks. The experts prediction of both mild/asymptomatic cases and IFR are accurate. Maybe it is your lack of expertise that is the issue (for example not knowing the difference between IFR and CFR)? The original model presented by the White House estimated 1.5M-2.2M deaths, if there was no mitigation. Guess how many deaths there would be assuming your 0.67% "mortality rate" and an attack rate of 70% (rough estimate of infection rate needed for herd immunity)? 328M * 0.7 * .0067 = 1.5M Seems pretty accurate to me. Maybe the experts know more about this pandemic than Cerzeca? Something doesn't seem right though, so help me understand. The same White House model projected that 100,000 and 240,000 would die with the mitigation measures in place. Are they speculating that there will be a vaccine available before the US reaches the attack rate? Another possible explanation -- If you flatten the curve, you might be able to avoid some deaths due to the healthcare system overflow, but I expect that the area under the curve would still be similar (compared to when you have a spike). So are they saying that they would save an order of magnitude of lives by keeping the health care system below the threshold? Part of my problem with these projections is that there is no transparency or explanation whatsoever... The reason for the discrepancy is that in the white house models and what we see is that in those models they assumed a 50% compliance with the shelter in place/whatever you may call them orders. What was observed is that the compliance rate is around 90%. So big miss on the assumption there. You basically have the numbers coming below the model because the quarantine is working way better because the people are behaving much, much better than assumed. They are taking it more seriously than the government assumed and that is making the quarantine much more effective.
RichardGibbons Posted April 24, 2020 Posted April 24, 2020 Either way, COVID-19 seems much less deadly than expected, perhaps an order of magnitude, which is a good thing. Would you agree? No, this is horrible! The estimated IFR has been 0.65-1% since at least early March. 0.67%* is devastatingly high. If we want herd immunity (say 70% infected), that would be over 1.5M deaths in the U.S. Yeah, this. My best guess today based on what I've been reading is that it's below 0.5%. Like maybe 0.3%. The argument you need make, Cherzera, is that it's 0.5% at most, and we don't really care about the people who die because most of them were going to die in the near future anyway, while the people who die from the economic impact/shutting down society are more likely to be young. That's a pretty defensible position, I think.
clutch Posted April 24, 2020 Posted April 24, 2020 if you look back at past flu epidemics (and there were 80K deaths in US in 2018), there was more fatalities for children and non-elderly than covid. so what we did here was panic, based upon an assumed 3-4% mortality rate of those infected, not appreciating the number of infected without symptoms was much greater than assumed, and instituted an unprecedented lock down of our entire economy, when we should have realized based upon early covid evidence that a focus upon elderly was most efficacious. and then we ignored the elderly largely by not ordering a no-visitation policy until late in the game. Okay, this is the last time I will correct you for a few weeks. The experts prediction of both mild/asymptomatic cases and IFR are accurate. Maybe it is your lack of expertise that is the issue (for example not knowing the difference between IFR and CFR)? The original model presented by the White House estimated 1.5M-2.2M deaths, if there was no mitigation. Guess how many deaths there would be assuming your 0.67% "mortality rate" and an attack rate of 70% (rough estimate of infection rate needed for herd immunity)? 328M * 0.7 * .0067 = 1.5M Seems pretty accurate to me. Maybe the experts know more about this pandemic than Cerzeca? Something doesn't seem right though, so help me understand. The same White House model projected that 100,000 and 240,000 would die with the mitigation measures in place. Are they speculating that there will be a vaccine available before the US reaches the attack rate? Another possible explanation -- If you flatten the curve, you might be able to avoid some deaths due to the healthcare system overflow, but I expect that the area under the curve would still be similar (compared to when you have a spike). So are they saying that they would save an order of magnitude of lives by keeping the health care system below the threshold? Part of my problem with these projections is that there is no transparency or explanation whatsoever... The reason for the discrepancy is that in the white house models and what we see is that in those models they assumed a 50% compliance with the shelter in place/whatever you may call them orders. What was observed is that the compliance rate is around 90%. So big miss on the assumption there. You basically have the numbers coming below the model because the quarantine is working way better because the people are behaving much, much better than assumed. They are taking it more seriously than the government assumed and that is making the quarantine much more effective. No, that doesn't address my question. I'm not questioning the discrepancy between the projection and actual data here (although that is also important). I'm curious how the experts came to project a much lower number of deaths with the mitigation in place. KCLarkin suggested that the projection of 1.5M-2.2M deaths was based on: 328M * 0.7 * .0067 = 1.5M assuming that people die until the US reaches the herd immunity, without any mitigation measures. But how is the number reduced to 100,000-240,000 with the mitigation measures? Does this mean we do not reach the herd immunity in this case? Then, why would the death number stop at 100,000-240,000? Are they banking on a potential cure or vaccine? If so, have they indicated this at any time?
clutch Posted April 24, 2020 Posted April 24, 2020 Either way, COVID-19 seems much less deadly than expected, perhaps an order of magnitude, which is a good thing. Would you agree? No, this is horrible! The estimated IFR has been 0.65-1% since at least early March. 0.67%* is devastatingly high. If we want herd immunity (say 70% infected), that would be over 1.5M deaths in the U.S. Yeah, this. My best guess today based on what I've been reading is that it's below 0.5%. Like maybe 0.3%. The argument you need make, Cherzera, is that it's 0.5% at most, and we don't really care about the people who die because most of them were going to die in the near future anyway, while the people who die from the economic impact/shutting down society are more likely to be young. That's a pretty defensible position, I think. And if you really care about equally saving lives, across the world: https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/22/africa/coronavirus-famine-un-warning-intl/index.html
DooDiligence Posted April 24, 2020 Posted April 24, 2020 if you look back at past flu epidemics (and there were 80K deaths in US in 2018), there was more fatalities for children and non-elderly than covid. so what we did here was panic, based upon an assumed 3-4% mortality rate of those infected, not appreciating the number of infected without symptoms was much greater than assumed, and instituted an unprecedented lock down of our entire economy, when we should have realized based upon early covid evidence that a focus upon elderly was most efficacious. and then we ignored the elderly largely by not ordering a no-visitation policy until late in the game. we should admit our own deadly ignorance even as most of you kowtow to "experts". shame on all of us. for those who think visions of "1984" (the book) in US are a bit much, here is your precedent. politicians love power, and the greatest power is to tell you what to do in its most intimate details, all based upon "scientific fact" and the "wisdom of experts". deblasio wants to have people report distancing violations to a special hot line....ooooh, how Stasi of us, isn't this wonderful!!! LOL, is this your way of easing into saying you're wrong? People who constantly talk about what we don't know usually do it when what we do know goes against what they'd like to believe. If the data supported them, they'd talk about "let's look at the facts, gents". But when it doesn't, they talk about what we don't know. It's a fairly effective technique if you don't know about it. Yeah, and it seems like this guy is seriously conflicted with his reference to Orwell. HUGE LOL.
arcube Posted April 24, 2020 Posted April 24, 2020 if you look back at past flu epidemics (and there were 80K deaths in US in 2018), there was more fatalities for children and non-elderly than covid. so what we did here was panic, based upon an assumed 3-4% mortality rate of those infected, not appreciating the number of infected without symptoms was much greater than assumed, and instituted an unprecedented lock down of our entire economy, when we should have realized based upon early covid evidence that a focus upon elderly was most efficacious. and then we ignored the elderly largely by not ordering a no-visitation policy until late in the game. we should admit our own deadly ignorance even as most of you kowtow to "experts". shame on all of us. for those who think visions of "1984" (the book) in US are a bit much, here is your precedent. politicians love power, and the greatest power is to tell you what to do in its most intimate details, all based upon "scientific fact" and the "wisdom of experts". deblasio wants to have people report distancing violations to a special hot line....ooooh, how Stasi of us, isn't this wonderful!!! LOL, is this your way of easing into saying you're wrong? +1. Hahahaha. Can't believe that they are letting 12 year old kids on this forum. Calling everyone a dip...
UK Posted April 24, 2020 Posted April 24, 2020 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-23/coronavirus-dies-fastest-under-light-warm-and-humid-conditions?srnd=premium-europe
DooDiligence Posted April 24, 2020 Posted April 24, 2020 if you look back at past flu epidemics (and there were 80K deaths in US in 2018), there was more fatalities for children and non-elderly than covid. so what we did here was panic, based upon an assumed 3-4% mortality rate of those infected, not appreciating the number of infected without symptoms was much greater than assumed, and instituted an unprecedented lock down of our entire economy, when we should have realized based upon early covid evidence that a focus upon elderly was most efficacious. and then we ignored the elderly largely by not ordering a no-visitation policy until late in the game. we should admit our own deadly ignorance even as most of you kowtow to "experts". shame on all of us. for those who think visions of "1984" (the book) in US are a bit much, here is your precedent. politicians love power, and the greatest power is to tell you what to do in its most intimate details, all based upon "scientific fact" and the "wisdom of experts". deblasio wants to have people report distancing violations to a special hot line....ooooh, how Stasi of us, isn't this wonderful!!! LOL, is this your way of easing into saying you're wrong? +1. Hahahaha. Can't believe that they are letting 12 year old kids on this forum. Calling everyone a dip... I know, right.
Recommended Posts