The CDC's New 'Best Estimate' Implies a COVID-19 Infection Fatality Rate Below 0.3%

  
Via:  badfish  •  one month ago  •  70 comments

By:   jacobsullum (Reason. com)

The CDC's New 'Best Estimate' Implies a COVID-19 Infection Fatality Rate Below 0.3%
That rate is much lower than the numbers used in the horrifying projections that shaped the government response to the epidemic.

Sponsored by group The Donald on Newstalkers

The Donald on Newstalkers


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



That rate is much lower than the numbers used in the horrifying projections that shaped the government response to the epidemic.


Jacob Sullum| 5.24.2020 5:35 PM

(Dgmate/Dreamstime)

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the current "best estimate" for the fatality rate among Americans with COVID-19 symptoms is 0.4 percent. The CDC also estimates that 35 percent of people infected by the COVID-19 virus never develop symptoms. Those numbers imply that the virus kills less than 0.3 percent of people infected by it—far lower than the infection fatality rates (IFRs) assumed by the alarming projections that drove the initial government response to the epidemic, including broad business closure and stay-at-home orders.

The CDC offers the new estimates in its "COVID-19 Pandemic Planning Scenarios," which are meant to guide hospital administrators in "assessing resource needs" and help policy makers "evaluate the potential effects of different community mitigation strategies." It says "the planning scenarios are being used by mathematical modelers throughout the Federal government."

The CDC's five scenarios include one based on "a current best estimate about viral transmission and disease severity in the United States." That scenario assumes a "basic reproduction number" of 2.5, meaning the average carrier can be expected to infect that number of people in a population with no immunity. It assumes an overall symptomatic case fatality rate (CFR) of 0.4 percent, roughly four times the estimated CFR for the seasonal flu. The CDC estimates that the CFR for COVID-19 falls to 0.05 percent among people younger than 50 and rises to 1.3 percent among people 65 and older. For people in the middle (ages 50-64), the estimated CFR is 0.2 percent.

That "best estimate" scenario also assumes that 35 percent of infections are asymptomatic, meaning the total number of infections is more than 50 percent larger than the number of symptomatic cases. It therefore implies that the IFR is between 0.2 percent and 0.3 percent. By contrast, the projections that the CDC made in March, which predicted that as many as 1.7 million Americans could die from COVID-19 without intervention, assumed an IFR of 0.8 percent. Around the same time, researchers at Imperial College produced a worst-case scenario in which 2.2 million Americans died, based on an IFR of 0.9 percent.

Such projections had a profound impact on policy makers in the United States and around the world. At the end of March, President Donald Trump, who has alternated between minimizing and exaggerating the threat posed by COVID-19, warned that the United States could see "up to 2.2 million deaths and maybe even beyond that" without aggressive control measures, including lockdowns.

One glaring problem with those worst-case scenarios was the counterfactual assumption that people would carry on as usual in the face of the pandemic—that they would not take voluntary precautions such as avoiding crowds, minimizing social contact, working from home, wearing masks, and paying extra attention to hygiene. The Imperial College projection was based on "the (unlikely) absence of any control measures or spontaneous changes in individual behaviour." Similarly, the projection of as many as 2.2 million deaths in the United States cited by the White House was based on "no intervention"—not just no lockdowns, but no response of any kind.

Another problem with those projections, assuming that the CDC's current "best estimate" is in the right ballpark, was that the IFRs they assumed were far too high. The difference between an IFR of 0.8 to 0.9 percent and an IFR of 0.2 to 0.3 percent, even in the completely unrealistic worst-case scenarios, is the difference between millions and hundreds of thousands of deaths—still a grim outcome, but not nearly as bad as the horrifying projections cited by politicians to justify the sweeping restrictions they imposed.

"The parameter values in each scenario will be updated and augmented over time, as we learn more about the epidemiology of COVID-19," the CDC cautions. "New data on COVID-19 is available daily; information about its biological and epidemiological characteristics remain[s] limited, and uncertainty remains around nearly all parameter values." But the CDC's current best estimates are surely better grounded than the numbers it was using two months ago.

A recent review of 13 studies that calculated IFRs in various countries found a wide range of estimates, from 0.05 percent in Iceland to 1.3 percent in Northern Italy and among the passengers and crew of the Diamond Princess cruise ship. This month Stanford epidemiologist John Ioannidis, who has long been skeptical of high IFR estimates for COVID-19, looked specifically at published studies that sought to estimate the prevalence of infection by testing people for antibodies to the virus that causes the disease. He found that the IFRs implied by 12 studies ranged from 0.02 percent to 0.4 percent. My colleague Ron Bailey last week noted several recent antibody studies that implied considerably higher IFRs, ranging from 0.6 percent in Norway to more than 1 percent in Spain.

Methodological issues, including sample bias and the accuracy of the antibody tests, probably explain some of this variation. But it is also likely that actual IFRs vary from one place to another, both internationally and within countries. "It should be appreciated that IFR is not a fixed physical constant," Ioannidis writes, "and it can vary substantially across locations, depending on the population structure, the case-mix of infected and deceased individuals and other, local factors."

One important factor is the percentage of infections among people with serious preexisting medical conditions, who are especially likely to die from COVID-19. "The majority of deaths in most of the hard hit European countries have happened in nursing homes, and a large proportion of deaths in the US also seem to follow
this pattern," Ioannidis notes. "Locations with high burdens of nursing home deaths may have high IFR estimates, but the IFR would still be very low among non-elderly, non-debilitated people."

That factor is one plausible explanation for the big difference between New York and Florida in both crude case fatality rates (reported deaths as a share of confirmed cases) and estimated IFRs. The current crude CFR for New York is nearly 8 percent, compared to 4.4 percent in Florida. Antibody tests suggest the IFR in New York is something like 0.6 percent, compared to 0.2 percent in the Miami area.

Given Florida's high percentage of retirees, it was reasonable to expect that the state would see relatively high COVID-19 fatality rates. But Florida's policy of separating elderly people with COVID-19 from other vulnerable people they might otherwise have infected seems to have saved many lives. New York, by contrast, had a policy of returning COVID-19 patients to nursing homes.

"Massive deaths of elderly individuals in nursing homes, nosocomial infections [contracted in hospitals], and overwhelmed hospitals may…explain the very high fatality seen in specific locations in Northern Italy and in New York and New Jersey," Ioannidis says. "A very unfortunate decision of the governors in New York and New Jersey was to have COVID-19 patients sent to nursing homes. Moreover,
some hospitals in New York City hotspots reached maximum capacity and perhaps could not offer optimal care. With large proportions of medical and paramedical personnel infected, it is possible that nosocomial infections increased the death toll."

Ioannidis also notes that "New York City has an extremely busy, congested public transport system that may have exposed large segments of the population to high infectious load in close contact transmission and, thus, perhaps more severe disease." More speculatively, he notes the possibility that New York happened to be hit by a "more aggressive" variety of the virus, a hypothesis that "needs further verification."

If you focus on hard-hit areas such as New York and New Jersey, an IFR between 0.2 and 0.3 percent, as suggested by the CDC's current best estimate, seems improbably low. "While most of these numbers are reasonable, the mortality rates shade far too low," University of Washington biologist Carl Bergstrom told CNN. "Estimates of the numbers infected in places like NYC are way out of line with these estimates."

But the CDC's estimate looks more reasonable when compared to the results of antibody studies in Miami-Dade County, Santa Clara County, Los Angeles County, and Boise, Idaho—places that so far have had markedly different experiences with COVID-19. We need to consider the likelihood that these divergent results reflect not just methodological issues but actual differences in the epidemic's impact—differences that can help inform the policies for dealing with it.


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
badfish
1  seeder  badfish    one month ago

This is bad news for the Branch Covidian economic death cult.

.3% fatality rate

Thank you for your hysteria! Get your ass back to work!

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  badfish @1    one month ago
3% fatality rate Thank you for your hysteria! Get your ass back to work!

Source please and I mean a medical journal. 

 
 
 
badfish
1.1.1  seeder  badfish  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1    one month ago

Linked in Article, from the CDC, I believe that's an acronym for the Center for Disease Control.

Parameter values are based on data received by CDC prior to 4/29/2020

Parameter values Table 1
Parameter Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5:

Current Best Estimate

R0

Source: Preliminary COVID-19 estimates, ASPR and CDC

2 2 3 3 2.5
Symptomatic Case Fatality Ratio, stratified by age in years

Source: Preliminary COVID-19 estimates, CDC

0-49: 0.0002

0-49: 0.0002

0-49: 0.001

0-49: 0.001

0-49: 0.0005

50-64: 0.001

50-64: 0.001

50-64: 0.006

50-64: 0.006

50-64: 0.002

65+: 0.006

65+: 0.006

65+: 0.032

65+: 0.032

65+: 0.013

Overall: 0.002

Overall: 0.002

Overall: 0.010

Overall: 0.010

Overall: 0.004

Symptomatic Case Hospitalization Ratio, stratified by age in years

Source: Preliminary COVID-19 estimates, CDC

0–49: 0.013

0–49: 0.013

0–49: 0.026

0–49: 0.026

0–49: 0.017

50–64: 0.036

50–64: 0.036

50–64: 0.057

50–64: 0.057

50–64: 0.045

65+: 0.052

65+: 0.052

65+: 0.10

65+: 0.10

65+: 0.074

Overall: 0.028

Overall: 0.028

Overall: 0.041

Overall: 0.041

Overall: 0.034

Percent of infections that are asymptomatic

Source: Preliminary COVID-19 estimates, ASPR and CDC

20% 50% 20% 50% 35%
Infectiousness of asymptomatic individuals relative to symptomatic individuals

Source: Assumption, ASPR and CDC

50% 100% 50% 100% 100%
 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.2  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  badfish @1.1.1    one month ago

I would like to have the link for context, please.

 
 
 
badfish
1.1.3  seeder  badfish  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.2    one month ago

It's in the article. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.4  Gordy327  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1    one month ago

Here is an updated Covid count

According to the CDC, here is the count:

Total Cases 
1,637,456 (15,342 New Cases)

Total Deaths 
97,669 (620 New Deaths)

That is a 5.9% fatality rate. Bear in mind, that is for the US only and cumulative from the beginning of the outbreak here, March 1, 2020. So over 1-1/2 million people have died within the span of about 3 months. By comparison, up to 62,000 people have died from Influenza over the course of 6 months, from October to April, even though actual flu cases are much higher. This shows covid is more virulent.

 
 
 
badfish
1.1.5  seeder  badfish  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.4    one month ago

First off find your adding maching, your math is bad, and it's only of people tested not the total number of infected. So it's worthless.

jrSmiley_123_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.6  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  badfish @1.1.3    one month ago

OK, so you kind of missed this at the top of the CDC chart:

Parameter values are based on data received by CDC prior to 4/29/2020

https://web.archive.org/web/20200521203901/https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html

So what's going on in Mexico and South America is not in that equation. You know, where they are not social distancing and not wearing masks. And this is only the beginning. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.7  Gordy327  replied to  badfish @1.1.5    one month ago
First off find your adding maching, your math is bad,

Oh, do tell.

and it's only of people tested not the total number of infected. So it's worthless.

Hardly worthless, considering the numbers show the virulence of Covid. Since it's likely there are more Covid cases than reported or detected, it's impossible to accurately determine the number of deaths from unreported cases. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.8  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  badfish @1.1.5    one month ago

There is no way to make these predictions until we have widespread antibody testing, which we do not have. So all of this is worthless. What we can do (sadly) is watch what the disease is doing in Brazil when left unchecked. Not even a month into this, and they already have 363,211 infected and 22,666 dead. They are going to be our test tube. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.1.9  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.4    one month ago

hat is a 5.9% fatality rate.

I don' think you understand how this works. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.1.10  Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.8    one month ago
. So all of this is worthless.

Glad science is now worthless when it goes against your preconceived notions.  

So yeah, let's listen to experts when their work is "worthless."

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.11  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.9    one month ago
I don' think you understand how this works.

Feel free to elaborate then.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.12  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.10    one month ago

First of all the report is now over a month old. Second, even on the  CDC site it says that they can't make an accurate conclusion until anti body testing. 

I have no preconceived notions Sean. I saw what it did in NY, and so far we have the most antibody testing going on and our population is showing only 20% infected. You do the math on that and tell me if these month old projections seem right to you.

What is worthless is that these are old projections. If you are going to quote me, do it in context.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
1.1.13  KDMichigan  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.7    one month ago
Since it's likely there are more Covid cases than reported or detected, i

You almost figured it out but then you failed miserably. Here is a clue okay, when you test more people and the cases of COVID19 go up what do you think that does do the death count. Oh that's right, the guy with lung disease because he smoked cigarettes for 50 years and had 3 strokes died from COVID19 right?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.14  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  KDMichigan @1.1.13    one month ago

Yeah he does, because had the disease not come around he wouldn't have died. And there are loads of totally healthy people dying of it, too. And btw, in a normal flu season, we count that smoker if he dies of the flu. You do know that, right?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.1.15  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.11    one month ago

do you think everyone who  has had covid has been tested?  

 
 
 
KDMichigan
1.1.16  KDMichigan  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.14    one month ago

What part of me acknowledging that did you miss?

So when they test everyone in Michigan and the Covid count jumps to lets say a million people in Michigan have had it what does it do to our death percentage?

You do understand that right?

From what I have seen places that are readjusting the death count from COVID it usually goes lower, the people infected....not so much.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
1.1.17  KDMichigan  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.15    one month ago

hell no

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.18  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.15    one month ago
do you think everyone who  has had covid has been tested?  

I didn't say they were. But again, we can only go by the numbers we currently have. As testing becomes more widespread and available, we'll have more accurate numbers.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.1.19  Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.12    one month ago
ar we have the most antibody testing going on and our population is showing only 20% infected. 

Cool give me the amount of deaths on the date that 20% test reflects and we will see what New Yorks CFR is. It will be higher than the national average becuase of what happened in the nursing homes, but still below 1%. 

worthless is that these are old projections

They are the most recent possible projections. They aren't going to change much with new data.  

You can't argue that are policy should be dictated by science and then simply ignore it. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.20  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  KDMichigan @1.1.16    one month ago

KD,

I didn't miss anything. 

So when they test everyone in Michigan and the Covid count jumps to lets say a million people in Michigan have had it what does it do to our death percentage?

It goes down. But so far, there has been no widespread antibody testing to prove that.

You do understand that right?

Now that was an unnecessary snipe. I'm an accountant, or did you forget that? And even if I wasn't, most people can grasp that concept.

From what I have seen places that are readjusting the death count from COVID it usually goes lower, the people infected....not so much.

Readjusting the death count, just means fudging the numbers, like not counting the smoker who is normally counted with flu deaths.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.21  Ozzwald  replied to  KDMichigan @1.1.13    one month ago
Here is a clue okay, when you test more people and the cases of COVID19 go up what do you think that does do the death count.

Which is why the federal government has abandoned COVID testing plans.

Oh that's right, the guy with lung disease because he smoked cigarettes for 50 years and had 3 strokes died from COVID19 right?

So you don't think it should count if COVID kills someone with extenuating circumstances?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.1.22  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.18    one month ago
t again, we can only go by the numbers we currently hav

But then why would you think the CFR is 5.9%?  That's not logical. I assume you understand the CFR counts asymptomatic cases too, right?

If you'd read the link, you'd understand what CFR is and how it attempts to capture the actual total number of infections, not the small subset that were tested when carrying the disease.  

It's why it's so funny to watch people cite reported numbers of cases as if they accurately capture the spread of the disease. It's why countries that don't test much  (even assuming good faith efforts to report numbers) don't have as many reported cases.  It's crazy how that works.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.1.23  Sean Treacy  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.22    one month ago

 I meant IFR, not CFR.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.24  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.22    one month ago
But then why would you think the CFR is 5.9%? 

97,669 is (approximately) 5.9% 0f 1,637,456.

 I assume you understand the CFR counts asymptomatic cases too, right?

If someone is asymptomatic, they are less likely to get tested or have a reason to be tested. But they can still transmit Covid.

If you'd read the link, you'd understand what CFR is and how it attempts to capture the actual total number of infections, not the small subset that were tested when carrying the disease. 

The actual number cannot be determined as of now. That's why I said we can only go by the numbers we currently have.

It's why it's so funny to watch people cite reported numbers of cases as if they accurately capture the spread of the disease. 

The numbers give an indication of the severity and spread of the disease within a population. Denser population areas are likely to have a higher infection rate.

It's why countries that don't test much  (even assuming good faith efforts to report numbers) don't have as many reported cases.  It's crazy how that works.

How other countries report their cases is up to them. That's why I focused on our own numbers. If you count other countries, then the total number of cases and deaths is of course higher.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.25  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.19    one month ago
Cool give me the amount of deaths on the date that 20% test reflects and we will see what New Yorks CFR is. It will be higher than the national average becuase of what happened in the nursing homes, but still below 1%. 

Well, first off sorry to disappoint, but it turns out that NYC had a lower death rate in nursing homes than states with less covid than we had. It turns out that it was just a small percentage of our total deaths. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=380&v=nMPL3L1Rd7U&feature=emb_title

The testing has shown that about 20% have had covid, and that falls in line with what we have actually seen. There are about 8 million people in NYC, so 20% would be 160,000 covid cases. The actual number of cases of covid was a little bit more, 196,098. 

The deaths have two numbers:

Confirmed deaths* Deaths following a positive COVID-19 laboratory test 16,482
Probable deaths Cause of death reported as "COVID-19" or equivalent, but no positive laboratory test 4,777

I will only use the confirmed number. Which means in NYC the death rate was somewhere around 8%. 

https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page

w orthless is that these are old projections They are the most recent possible projections. They aren't going to change much with new data.  

They are a month old and in a dynamic situation projections change all the time. That is why they are called projections and not fact. And we have seen that from the beginning. The projections were much higher than what we actually had. We will not know until this thing has had a year to brew, if even then and that we have more widespread testing.

You can't argue that are policy should be dictated by science and then simply ignore it. 

I never said that, did I? Where did I discuss policy?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.1.26  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.24    one month ago
omeone is asymptomatic, they are less likely to get tested or have a reason to be tested. But they can still transmit Covid

no kidding. But we are measuring the fatality rate for those who get infected. Do you get that? It's significantly less than 1%

al number cannot be determined as of now.

And it never will be. Perfect knowledge is unobtainable in this field.  What a silly objection. 

The numbers give an indication of the severity and spread of the disease within a population.

Not really. It's heavily dependent on testing, which is why testing numbers and positivity rates must be included to gain useful knowledge.. If you test a lot, you'll capture more mild cases then areas with limited testing.   

hat's why I focused on our own numbers.

But we don't, as you admit,  come close to capturing the actual number of infected, and since this article is about the actual infection fatality  rate, your numbers of reported cases are irrelevant to the matter at hand.  

 
 
 
TTGA
1.1.27  TTGA  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.7    one month ago
Hardly worthless, considering the numbers show the virulence of Covid.

No, it doesn't.  Virulence is only shown by matching numbers of deaths to the total number of people exposed to the disease, whether or not they show symptoms, or have mild enough symptoms so that they do not seek medical help.  I think that the CDC now estimates that number to be about 35% of cases, making the overall number of total cases much higher. Frankly, I think that they have underestimated the number of asymptomatic cases by a large number, but we can't get anything more definite until everybody can get a test on demand.  At present, the only people who have been tested are those who  have obtained medical help for a respiratory illness, and not all of them.

So over 1-1/2 million people have died within the span of about 3 months. By comparison, up to 62,000 people have died from Influenza over the course of 6 months, from October to April, even though actual flu cases are much higher. This shows covid is more virulent.

No Gordy, your math isn't that bad.  On the other hand, your reading skills need a little work.  You used the phrase "1 1/2 million people have died" and compared it to the total number of deaths from influenza.  Looks like you got the 1 1/2 million total deaths from the table you posted.  Problem is that those are not the "Total Deaths", they are the "Total Cases".  Number of deaths is 97,669.  While larger than the deaths attributed to influenza, the flu number doesn't include things like placing people known to be infected into living quarters known to be filled with people in the health group that is most at risk for mortality.  That idiotic decision did not come from the CDC, it did not come from the President; it came from the Governor of New York through the actions of his State Department of Public Health.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.1.28  Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.25    one month ago
It turns out that it was just a small percentage of our total deaths. 

At least 4,800 people have died in New York nursing homes.  And that doesn't even include nursing home residents who died in hospitals, who New York doesn't count  as Nursing home deaths. New York has had more nursing home deaths than all of the covid victims in  the entire states of California and Florida. How you can think that's not a problem is beyond me. 

There are about 8 million people in NYC, so 20% would be 160,000 covid cases.

That's not right at all. 

hat is why they are called projections and not fact

No, it's because perfect knowledge is unobtainable in this field. It's impossible to exactly how many people have been infected. It will always be an estimate. 

The projections were much higher than what we actually had

Yes, the initial projections of the IFR claiming the fatality rate was 2-3% were wrong. Now that there is better data, there is a more informed number. At this point, "more data" isn't going to change it a whole bunch. There were millions of infections when the report was issued. 

never said that, did I? Where did I discuss policy?

I'm one of those people who think informing policy is the point of data collection. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.29  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.28    one month ago
Th ere are about 8 million people in NYC, so 20% would be 160,000 covid cases. That's not right at all. 

How so?

Yes, the initial projections of the IFR claiming the fatality rate was 2-3% were wrong. Now that there is better data, there is a more informed number. At this point, "more data" isn't going to change it a whole bunch. There were millions of infections when the report was issued. 

And there are those in the medical community that are claiming that the numbers are wishful thinking. 

Another expert, University of Washington biologist Carl Bergstrom , said that even the CDC's worst-case scenario is realistically a best-case scenario. The agency's worst-case fatality rate, he noted, is more optimistic than recent, high-quality coronavirus data about the death rate in Spain .

"These [CDC] numbers are so far outside of the scientific consensus that this strikes me as a devious and cynical effort to manipulate not only federal modeling but the broader scientific discourse," Bergstrom wrote on Twitter.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/05/22/860981956/scientists-say-new-lower-cdc-estimates-for-severity-of-covid-19-are-optimistic

Here is the Spanish study he is referring to: 

https://english.elpais.com/society/2020-05-14/antibody-study-shows-just-5-of-spaniards-have-contracted-the-coronavirus.html

I'm one of those people who think informing policy is the point of data collection. 

So am I but the information has to be as good as it can be, and it isn't nor can it be until we get closer with more antibody testing. That is just plain good science. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.1.30  Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.29    one month ago

At least 4,800 people have died in New York nursing homes.

That's an outdated number I used. Per the AP, the number is now 5,700.

How so?

20% of 8 million is 1.6 million, not 160,000.

Here is the Spanish study he is referring to:

That may ultimately be true for Spain, with an older population base and an overwhelmed healthcare system. The IFR in Brazil will almost certainly higher than in America too. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.31  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.29    one month ago

Opps I missed this:

At least 4,800 people have died in New York nursing homes.  And that doesn't even include nursing home residents who died in hospitals, who New York doesn't count  as Nursing home deaths. New York has had more nursing home deaths than all of the covid victims in  the entire states of California and Florida. How you can think that's not a problem is beyond me. 

Did you watch that video I posted? First of all the number is not 4,800, but 3,094, but I will play with using your numbers. Also, NY has the hightest number of deaths of any state. Second NY was among a number of states who did this, which includes NJ, Washington State, and Cali. Despite that, NJ had higher nursing home deaths, 5,530, Mass, 3,375, Conn, 1,187.

Now look at these states total deaths versus nursing home deaths:

New York: 29,205/4,800 = 16.43 deaths in nursing homes.

New Jersey: 11,147/5,530, =49.60% 

Mass: 3,375/6,372= 52.96%

Conn: 1,187/3,693= 32.14%

btw, I double-checked these numbers just in case you claimed it was NYS propaganda and it isn't. 

https://www.wbur.org/news/2020/05/03/nursing-homes-covid-19-deaths-mass

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/05/11/854063582/new-jersey-investigates-states-nursing-homes-hotbed-of-covid-19-fatalities

https://ctmirror.org/2020/05/22/nearly-2500-nursing-home-and-assisted-living-facility-residents-have-died-from-coronavirus-in-ct/

So we can put this one to bed. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.32  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.31    one month ago
That's an outdated number I used. Per the AP, the number is now 5,700.

Of course the number gets outdated.... more people die daily. OK let's use your numbers: 

29,205/5,700 = 19.51% which is still lower than all those other states by a long shot. 

Now before you go all blue state on me, I would like to point out both Florida and Louisiana. Florida's nursing home death rate is at 40% of total death rates for the state. Louisiana is at 36.72%. 

So are we done now?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.33  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.30    one month ago
20% of 8 million is 1.6 million, not 160,000.

Ugh.. dumb mistake when transferring numbers. I copy and paste from my calculator and I dropped a zero. I bet that felt good. But please note, I did get the math right with all the other states I calculated for.

That may ultimately be true for Spain, with an older population base and an overwhelmed healthcare system. The IFR in Brazil will almost certainly higher than in America too. 

You can not say "America" because America is different things in different places with a lot of different conditions. NY is a perfect example. So far, (and I say so far because I saw a whole lot of dumb behavior on the news yesterday), NY and NJ are the worst hit, since we have similar density and both have a major international airport. But you can't say that the infection rate in NY is going to be the same in Vermont even though we border each other. Heck, the difference between upstate and down is huge (with the exception of Buffalo).

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.1.34  Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.32    one month ago
K let's use your numbers:

They are the AP's numbers.

uble-checked these numbers just in case you claimed it was NYS propaganda and it isn't

why would I claim a meaningless number is propaganda? Is that what the "defend New York at all costs" crowd  has been reduced to, minimizing the nursing homes deaths because so many other New Yorkers died too? Who cares about nursing home deaths as a percentage of total deaths? . Again, 5,000 deaths in nursing homes (and New York, unlike other states, doesn't count nursing homes residents who die in hospitals with this number) is more than have died in total in almost every other State in the Union.  That's horrific. Pretty much everyone in the country accepts that except for you, apparently. 

ld like to point out both Florida and Louisiana. Florida's nursing home death rate is at 40% of total death rates for the state. Louisiana is at 36.72%

So what? Barely a thousand people have died in Florida's nursing homes compared to 5,000 in NY .

Let that sink in

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.35  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.34    one month ago
why would I claim a meaningless number is propaganda? Is that what the "defend New York at all costs" crowd  has been reduced to, minimizing the nursing homes deaths because so many other New Yorkers died too? Who cares about nursing home deaths as a percentage of total deaths? . Again, 5,000 deaths in nursing homes (and New York, unlike other states, doesn't count nursing homes residents who die in hospitals with this number) is more than have died in total in almost every other State in the Union.  That's horrific. Pretty much everyone in the country accepts that except for you, apparently. 

Sean, 

Always with the moving goalposts. The point I am making is that other nursing homes followed the same procedure, which btw came from the top as it turns out. And yes other states do. Those links I provided are complaining about the high rate of death in nursing homes. And don't tell me what every other state does because you don't know what every other state does. In fact, Louisiana, didn't release their dead in nursing homes until they were forced to. Is the number horrific? Yes! All the numbers are horrific and yet you are trying to make this health crisis less than what it is. That is what we were discussing here until you brought up the nursing homes again to further your own little jabs at me about NY. 

Pretty much everyone in the country accepts that except for you, apparently.

Excuse me, but you don't get to speak for the whole country. This is your opinion and until I see Cuomo brought up on charges (which will not happen, since as I said this came from the top), I will say that it's sad all the way around, which is why I am debating this article. I think it is dangerous and only encourages more dangerous behavior, like we saw this weekend. 

So what? Barely a thousand people have died in Florida's nursing homes compared to 5,000 in NY . Let that sink in

And Florida has had only 2,252 deaths as opposed to NY who had 29,205 dead. Let that sink in. NY had almost 15 times the death then Florida. It's not even a comparison. I have lost 3 people that I am friends with, never mind the ones I know from other friends. How dare you! You have no freaking right to judge. In fact, you have never even brought your own home state into this. Why is that? So you can judge me in a vacuum?

If you want to keep defending the indefensible, I can't stop you.  What's next, the Captain of the Exxon Valdez really did a great job ? 

Sean, your insults grow worse by the day. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.1.36  Heartland American  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.24    one month ago

I am not at all surprised by how China reports theirs.  Talk about a propaganda mill.  That evil empire regime is manipulating all their numbers to gain political advantage vs other nations around the world

 
 
 
zuksam
1.1.37  zuksam  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.32    one month ago

There are a lot of ways to compile statistics that's why there seems to be discrepancies. The statistics quoted in the article were most likely taken from a poll like blind study where they picked random group of names tested everyone who was alive and counted those who had died from the virus, that way they were able to determine what percentage of the infected never had symptoms, had mild symptoms, had severe symptoms, Died. All the other studies get their figures from people who were either sick or made an effort to get tested and while that's the best we had early on it is not how scientific testing is done. To do it scientifically they need to test a random group in order to get an accurate cross-section of infected people to get accurate data. I had read that that they were doing something like this about a month ago it said they were testing whole blocks in the city and that could be where they got this data as that would be the best way to get an accurate cross-section since otherwise people who don't feel sick or only felt off for a day never get tested at all and that's why they were excluded from the less scientific studies.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.38  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  zuksam @1.1.37    one month ago

I totally agree with you zuksam. What you say makes total sense. Also, there will be subsets based on density, how many people followed guidelines and when, maybe even specific ethnic groups or races might have more natural immunity or be super spreaders. We really won't know anything for sure until we get widespread testing but I have to say that what you are describing sounds as close as we are going to get till then and would cause discrepancies.

My fear is that people, being people will get lax, and then we will have hot spots all over the US and the world. I don't think we should be hysterical, but I also don't think we should be having some of the parties I saw on TV this weekend. It's utter madness when we can clearly see what this disease can do, in China, Italy, NY, and now Brazil. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.1.39  Heartland American  replied to  Heartland American @1.1.36    one month ago

In the coils of the Red Dragon

The Chinese communist party wants to immediately enact a new “national security” law in Hong Kong. The law would effectively end Hong Kong’s independence as well as their civil liberties. Freedom is a dire threat to the Chicoms’ so-called ’security.’

china_infiltration_cartoon.jpg

President Xi, like the rest of his comrades in power, is an atheist and as such they only worship their own power. Ethics and conscience are superfluous. The Chicoms do not hesitate to arrest and imprison those who don’t obey completely. There is no real freedom in China—especially religious freedom. The communists want complete control of their citizenry. Through mass tracking and a social credit system, they have achieved that objective.

The Chinese are used to getting their way. Until Trump came to the White House, presidents caved in to China at every turn. Clinton even gave them missile technology. Biden engaged in nepotistic corruption with Beijing. The Democrats seem to love China. So does social media–especially Google and Facebook. Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Facebook, admires China and their form of censorship. He even asked President Xi to name his baby. Silicon Valley wants globalism and each human tracked, chipped, and controlled. They prefer censorship over our First Amendment.

A Chinese general once declared an intention to eventually wipe out Americans and invade our country. China is a crowded country and the general considered America to be the new ‘lebensraum.’ But a future threat from China is not what this cartoon is about. China has already been busy conquering us by stealing intellectual property, then using slave labor to crank out derivative products at a lower cost. They have spies everywhere all over the world. They pressure the media to cave into their demands. For example, we’re not allowed to say a virus emerged from China. Oh no—that’s ‘racist.’

Chicom operatives also make sure Hollywood does not produce anything that puts their country in a bad light. Hollywood always caves. After all, China is a big market for their films. Same with the NBA. They caved to evil, communist thugs without a second thought.

America won’t become China due to military defeat, but rather from within. People such as Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg and the Democrat socialists would love to emulate communist China right here in the USA. It’s unfortunate that so many citizens will obey them in lockstep and without question when they should be emulating the freedom fighters in Hong Kong.

—Ben Garrison     https://www.conservativedailynews.com/2020/05/red-dragon-ben-garrison-cartoon/

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.40  Dulay  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.4    one month ago

97,669 is 5.96467936% of 1,637,456

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.41  Dulay  replied to  Heartland American @1.1.39    one month ago

I find it interesting that the seeder found your comment on topic. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.42  Gordy327  replied to  Dulay @1.1.40    one month ago

Yes, thank you. I was merely keeping the number to the tenth decimal place.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.43  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @1.1.36    one month ago

I'm not sure why you're addressing that to me. I didn't say anything about China. In fact, I've largely kept focused on our own country and statistics. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.1.44  Heartland American  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.43    one month ago

Most on the progressive left want to ignore China’s role in creating this mess and spreading it and pretend like it’s all Trumps fault instead.  

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.45  Dulay  replied to  Heartland American @1.1.44    one month ago
Most on the progressive left want to ignore China’s role in creating this mess and spreading it and pretend like it’s all Trumps fault instead.

Most of the conservative right want to ignore Trump's role in this mess and pretend that it's all China's fault. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.46  Tessylo  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.4    one month ago

Never trust a libertarian.  They value money over life.  They value their lives over anyone else.

They lie all the time too.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.47  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @1.1.41    one month ago

Any stupid useless off topic meme is welcome on a BF seed, if it's a tRumpster posting.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.48  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @1.1.44    one month ago

Your sweeping generalization aside, it again does not address or relate to anything I said. At this point, you're just getting off topic and derailing.

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.1.49  Heartland American  replied to  Dulay @1.1.45    one month ago

It is all China’s fault.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.1.50  Heartland American  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.48    one month ago

You’re not one to be talking about others  derailing seeds!  [Deleted]

[Gordy and HA, no more meta, please.]

 
 
 
KDMichigan
1.2  KDMichigan  replied to  badfish @1    one month ago

You should see all the snowflakes triggering around Traverse City this weekend. I'm sure after  PoS Whitmer enjoys her time up north this weekend she will bring down the hammer, I mean people are walking around without masks FFS. And then to top it off some asshole is dragging around a big ass pro-Trump trailer downtown disrupting traffic. Word has it that the pussy hat crowd is going to dig out their gear and block the sidewalks and intersections.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.2.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  KDMichigan @1.2    one month ago
I mean people are walking around without masks FFS.

Hey good luck with that. It worked out so well in NYC/ sarc.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
1.2.2  KDMichigan  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.2.1    one month ago

And guess what? I made a choice to not go downtown during the fudgie season. Oh wait never mind, I always make that choice.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.2.3  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  KDMichigan @1.2.2    one month ago

I do not understand that reference. 

 
 
 
badfish
1.2.5  seeder  badfish  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.2.3    one month ago

It's Fudge season, you take the ferry to Mackinac Island and eat fudge. I've stayed at the Grand Hotel a few times.

Know your Fudge!

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.2.6  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  badfish @1.2.5    one month ago

Learn something new everyday.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
1.2.7  KDMichigan  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.2.6    one month ago

It's really not a derogative term, just means you are a tourist.

fudgie
A tourist to the northern lower, or eastern upper peninsula of Michigan, especially the Mackinac area. Often these tourist are from lower parts of Michigan, and are usually on vacation "up north". The name fudgie comes from the fact that many of these tourist like to spend lots of time in the many fudge shops in northern Michigan. Locals are generally not fond of fudgies, as they seem to have no small town driving abilities, and can sometimes be snobby or annoying. fudgies are identifiable by bright clothes, and the presence of cameras around their necks and the use of fanny packs. also, the use of shoes and sock at wholly inappropriate times, such as on the beach and the pronunciation "Mack-in-ack" are dead giveaways.
You don't have to use your blinker there! what the hell is he doing?
Calm down, its just another fudgie

Bahahahah the Mackinac reference is Hillaryious

 
 
 
badfish
1.2.8  seeder  badfish  replied to  KDMichigan @1.2.7    one month ago

I told make a wish my kid was dying of feline aids so we could take a free trip there.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
1.2.9  KDMichigan  replied to  badfish @1.2.8    one month ago

lol I can do the 'Mack-in-ack' in a day trip. I usually get dragged there kicking and screaming every couple years. The highlight of my trip is when i'm allowed to hit the Pink Pony.

 
 
 
TTGA
1.2.10  TTGA  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.2.1    one month ago
Hey good luck with that. It worked out so well in NYC/ sarc.

Actually not the same at all.  NYC is about the physical size of Grand Traverse County.  Unlike the Traverse City area, however, New York City packs in almost 11 million people (almost at the level of a petrie dish for spreading diseases).  On a really wild day during the summer, Traverse City might have 100,000 visitors.  That doesn't even count the fact that, in TC, no one is restricted to mass transportation.  In fact, there is no mass transportation; if you don't drive your car, you walk.  Since it's about 200 miles to the nearest equivalent of New York (Chicago or Detroit), walking is probably not the best choice.

From the article.

Ioannidis also notes that "New York City has an extremely busy, congested public transport system that may have exposed large segments of the population to high infectious load in close contact transmission and, thus, perhaps more severe disease. It's Fudge season, you take the ferry to Mackinac Island and eat fudge

Actually, most people don't go all the way to Mackinac Island to get fudge.  You can get perfectly good fudge (a LOT cheaper) in either Mackinac City or St. Ignace.

It's really not a derogative term, just means you are a tourist.

The Yoopers also call those of us living in the Lower Peninsula trolls, also not derogatory, Trolls are defined as creatures who live under bridges.  Therefore, anyone living under (south of) the Mackinac Bridge is a troll.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.2.11  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  TTGA @1.2.10    one month ago
Actually not the same at all.  NYC is about the physical size of Grand Traverse County.  Unlike the Traverse City area, however, New York City packs in almost 11 million people (almost at the level of a petrie dish for spreading diseases).  On a really wild day during the summer, Traverse City might have 100,000 visitors.  That doesn't even count the fact that, in TC, no one is restricted to mass transportation.  In fact, there is no mass transportation; if you don't drive your car, you walk.  Since it's about 200 miles to the nearest equivalent of New York (Chicago or Detroit), walking is probably not the best choice.

TTGA,

All of that is true. There are other cities in the US that are not so different from NY. The one thing left out of that equation was that NY was told that the virus came from China and so the over 4 million people who entered NY from Europe carrying the disease went unchecked due to bad information. That is a huge difference. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.2.12  Heartland American  replied to  KDMichigan @1.2    one month ago

As the people rebel and assert their God given natural rights in the certain dictatorship states the regime resorts to ever more repression and double down for presuming to dare to question their wisdom. Free people everywhere salute the people of your state as well as Pennsylvania, Illinois, and New Jersey in your defiance of your mayors and governors 

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.3  Heartland American  replied to  badfish @1    one month ago

Are we allowed an expression of relief or even a small moment of joy because of this good news.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
2  Dean Moriarty    one month ago

Yes in areas where many have been tested the results are low fatality rates. In my area the fatality rate is the lowest in the country at .15%. 

https://www.vaildaily.com/news/eagle-county-boasts-lowest-covid-19-fatality-rate-in-nation-at-less-than-15/

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Dean Moriarty @2    one month ago

Congrats. I knew that. I spoke to Mike L and he told me. Actually you guys both live in Vail. 

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
2.1.1  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1    one month ago

Wow that is fantastic. I thought he lived in Salt Lake City. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1.2  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Dean Moriarty @2.1.1    one month ago

No, I think that is Peter Faden.... geeze, I hope I don't have that mixed up! LOL!

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online






The Magic Eight Ball
loki12


31 visitors