Once you've liked, helped, or informed on a particular process, it seems redundant to mark the followups even though they are informative and you look forward to seeing them.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Coronavirus
- Thread starter Wenche
- Start date
CDC new best estimate for SYMPTOMATIC Case Fatality Ratio is 0,4%
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
And 35% asymptomatic meaning 0,26% IFR, as I've said many times, the world has seen influenza seasons as deadly as this one, except this time we introduced an exogenous factor called Lockdown+Fear, killing many others for lack of proper medical care.
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
And 35% asymptomatic meaning 0,26% IFR, as I've said many times, the world has seen influenza seasons as deadly as this one, except this time we introduced an exogenous factor called Lockdown+Fear, killing many others for lack of proper medical care.
Aren't you forgetting that there was zero distancing for flu and that flu deaths occur over months rather than weeks?
Once again im 100% sure you didn't read my previous posts. I've shown that TOTAL DEATHS FROM WEEK 40 TO WEEK 20 increased maximum by 1.5% compared to both 2014/2015 and 2017/2018. This covers the WHOLE FLU SEASON. For 2019/2020 it includes BOTH Influenza and COVID. Deaths are already at baseline as you can see on CDC and on Euromomo.
Something that kills within this range is incomparable to the harm we do to 70% of all deaths that we have every year: Cardiovascular and Cancer. We worsened their probabilities, and we already killed some earlier than they should. I wouldn't be surprised at all if this 1.5% compared to previous seasons is not due to the lockdown measures.
Total deaths in Sweden prove exactly the same thing, its absolutely the same. We have something that kills like a *Very strong* influenza season, but on top of that we decided to introduce exogenous factors that also kill now, and will kill in the future.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
You ignore the fact that locking down has reduced regular flue deaths, traffic deaths, work deaths, and who knows how many other causes of death.
I have been expecting a report like this to come out.
Those interested in chaos would seem to find it irresistible to use the many sides of a purely scientific issue like pandemic and to attempt to link it to a divisive issue like politics. Just seems a natural and has been done before to generate up suspicions and anxiety.
Nearly Half of Twitter Accounts Pushing To Reopen America May Be Bots - Slashdot
YMMV
Those interested in chaos would seem to find it irresistible to use the many sides of a purely scientific issue like pandemic and to attempt to link it to a divisive issue like politics. Just seems a natural and has been done before to generate up suspicions and anxiety.
Nearly Half of Twitter Accounts Pushing To Reopen America May Be Bots - Slashdot
YMMV
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
I agree but your logic seems to be that having fewer COVID deaths is actually bad. By your logic countries like South Korea with ~260 deaths or Australia with ~100 deaths actually have the worst government policies because certainly deaths from many other causes exceed those numbers.
People being scared to go to the hospital is a problem but I'm not sure why you think they would be less scared if sit down restaurants and movie theaters were open.
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
Ahem . . . HOT OFF THE PRESSES
https://www.thelancet.com/lancet/article/s0140673620311806
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/05/22/hydroxychloroquine-coronavirus-study/
https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/86642
Antimalarial drug touted by Trump linked to increased risk of death in coronavirus patients, study says
96,000 patients from 671 hospitals. 15,000 treated with HCQ/CQ +/- an antibiotic (azithro)
8% on HCQ developed a heart arrythmia (compared to 0.3% of the control group)
Chance of death on HCQ - twice that of the control study.
There is your massively statistically-significant study with proper control groups.
https://www.thelancet.com/lancet/article/s0140673620311806
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/05/22/hydroxychloroquine-coronavirus-study/
https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/86642
Antimalarial drug touted by Trump linked to increased risk of death in coronavirus patients, study says
96,000 patients from 671 hospitals. 15,000 treated with HCQ/CQ +/- an antibiotic (azithro)
8% on HCQ developed a heart arrythmia (compared to 0.3% of the control group)
Chance of death on HCQ - twice that of the control study.
There is your massively statistically-significant study with proper control groups.
There's a little bit of impact on R subscript at 20-25% folks having antibodies but you don't really see a serious impact on transmission chains assuming normal social transaction until you get to something like 80% with a highly transmissible organism like the virus in covid-19. But it does make it a little bit easier to keep your R subscript under one.
Brazil is in deep s***. They've got a lunatic sociopath at the helm who's probably worse than Trump, if that's possible, a divided federal system like ours, much poorer Health Care, significantly greater poverty with urban overcrowding that makes social distancing virtually impossible, more health illiteracy, more rampant populism that their idiot president has tapped into, and significant obesity, smoking, and comorbidities. It's a perfect storm for a covid-19 disaster. I worry that they may see a staggering case and death rate increase in the coming two weeks to a month.
Norbert
TSLA will win
I didn't have time to delve into what those "pandemic planning scenarios" in that link are, but a straightforward calculation of the case fatality ratio is to take the actual worldometers numbers for the US for deaths and positive test cases:
As of right now: 96,432 deaths and 1,623,352 cases. That's a CFR (case fatality ratio) of 5.94% in the US.
More than 10 times your number, not even accounting for lag in time to death.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Bergstrom thread on planning scenarios. Looks like we may have a problem with the CDC.
Carl T. Bergstrom on Twitter
“These 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.”
Personally, I think it is time to sign off here, since the states appear to be mixing antibody and PCR test results for their case numbers (I have heard this to be true but have no idea whether it is), making following those numbers pointless, and the CDC appears to have been infected.
I guess we’ll all just see how things are going in a few months.
The Lancet study is a real eye-opener. It shows first of all that the odds ratio for all of the chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine combinations either with or without a macrolide is roughly the same in other words you have about 1.3 to 1.4 times the chance of dying if you're on those medicines. The worst combination of all although it's not statistically significantly different from the other combinations is the hydroxy plus azithromycin that has become kind of the most popular cocktail. This really underscores the staggering foolishness of our chief executive and of those who advocated in the absence of good data for this combination has any version of a game changer. Looks like it's a "game changer" in the reverse direction, although again with a modest odds ratio.
The other interesting stuff is in terms of protective factors and risk factors. Being on an ACE inhibitor looks like it's significantly more protective than an angiotensin-receptor blocker which looks like it's a wash, despite the fact that both affect the ACE2 downstream pathways/signals. Being female as we've known all along is protective, and then you have the usual comorbidities being risk factors for mortality. This table is particularly informative.
Great catch on that study by @dkp_duke
Last edited:
Norbert
TSLA will win
CDC made some good calculations, but their quality seems to vary wildly, their recent death count was around 60,000 when everyone else was counting around 90,000. (EDIT: They explained that by saying that it would take them so long to get the data from the states, or something like that.)
Now that the "task force" is picking on them, it'll surely get worse. I'm glad we still have people like Bergstrom who don't give up "Calling Bullshit" from a scientific point of view.
Last edited:
It raises a lot of questions about who at the CDC has their thumb on the scale so to speak. This would need to be somebody in an administrative or executive position who believes that it is expedient to indulge President Trump's proclivities. Any ideas on that?
You are ignoring the fact that the number of deaths by exogenous factors are absolutely nothing compared to untreated diseases. And some the exogenous factors are increasing ( suicides ) not all of them are decreasing.
Attachments
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
This has been the same story since the first week of March. We decided not to have any coordinated testing effort, so citing case stats is less than pointless. All you can do is count the bodies and make educated assumptions about infections.
People trying to peg down a nationwide CFR go down one peg in my mind, it should be an obvious non-starter.
People trying to peg down a nationwide CFR go down one peg in my mind, it should be an obvious non-starter.
But you have time to assume the IFR for influenza from the same source ( CDC ) ? Lets be consistent.
Making CFR calculations from Worldometers is ridiculous to say the least.
Similar threads
