-
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
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
How do you figure? There are apparently only 100 million people over age 60 in India. So there are about 1.2 billion under 60. 60% is 720million.
Optimistically (meaning, it is definitely not a correct assumption) assuming a 0.1% fatality rate for people under age 60, that's 720k dead.
It is true that that is > 100k, I suppose.
I think it's pretty likely that a few million would die, assuming that they perfectly protected the elderly population.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Yes - that's what makes it depressing / scary. Infact - just thinking about my friends/relatives I don't know of any household that is not multi-generational !
Ofcourse, the reason the epidemiologist was hopeful is because 90% of the population < 60 years. So, in theory, they could build up herd immunity with just the < 60. But a sizeable portion of the > 60 will get infected and that will push the fatalities to millions.
How do you figure? There are apparently only 100 million people over age 60 in India. So there are about 1.2 billion under 60. 60% is 720million.
Optimistically (meaning, it is definitely not a correct assumption) assuming a 0.1% fatality rate for people under age 60, that's 720k dead.
It is true that that is > 100k, I suppose.
I'm using the figures from the article. BTW, IFR for < 60 is probably quite a bit below 0.1 (esp considering a very large portion of them are < 30).
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Yeah, pretty sure that guy hasn't worked out the numbers. (The article did say a few hundred thousand which is guess may be within an order of magnitude.) This is a pretty crazy statement:
"Dr Muliyil says India has a great advantage over countries like the US, UK, Italy, Spain and France because of the age profile of its population. Close to 90% of Indians are under 60. He says the experience of the virus in all other countries has established that people under 60, because of their resilience, either do not get infected or are infected only sub-clinically. However, a small percentage of this age group will develop the disease and an even smaller fraction of them will die"
Yikes. Seems like maybe he needs to go back and review the statistics a bit more closely. The virus appears to kill about 1% of the people who are in their 50s and become infected. And something like 0.2-0.5% of the people in their 40s. Rough numbers.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Doggydogworld
Active Member
Lockdowns aren't the only form of supression. Look at Taiwan and South Korea.
Harvard prof on CNN today estimated 150k are infected each day in the US. That requires 2m tests/day to reach a Germany-level 7% positive hit rate. Australia and South Korea run below 1% these days.
We will not test at those levels any time soon. An app is our only hope, but nobody is really pushing one.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Depends.
Dutch antibody study of blood donors reveals 3% infection rate and very low IFR for those under 70. : COVID19
Age group Hospitalization rate Mortality rate
20-29 0.2% 0.004%
30-39 0.3% 0.007%
40-49 0.8% 0.014%
50-59 1.9% 0.103%
60-69 3.4% 0.492%
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
I would be a bit surprised if that ended up being true.
Let's assume no one in India dies below the age of 35 (half the population of 1.3 billion). There are 100 million people over the age of 60. So that leaves 600 million people between 35 and 60.
In Washington State, 8% (47) of the 585 deaths and 34% (4080) of the 12000 cases are between 40 and 59. That's a CFR of 1% and it'll probably go up a bit from that. So IFR is very likely greater than 0.1% for this age group of 40-59.
So let's assume in India that people between 35 and 60 have a 0.1% IFR.
That's 600k deaths.
I think that's pretty optimistic too.
Optimistically, you'd expect about 0.01% of the 650 million less than 35 to die, so that adds another 65k minimum.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
C'mon. Let's see the test specificity... This does not seem to be consistent with the reality of what we are seeing in NYC. These numbers do not "feel" right to me; they seem way too optimistic.
In NYC, they're seeing death rates of 100 per 100k people (of that age, in NYC) for ages between 45 and 64! And they're not even fully infected yet, nor have all the currently infected people in this age bracket kicked the bucket yet! For a 60% herd-immunity-infected population (I will assume this age group is 30% infected already), I would therefore estimate they'd end up at 300-400 deaths per 100k (0.4%) people between 45 and 64 (that's considerably higher than the numbers above, once you weight IFRs in the age groups by their population proportion, and take into account that that Netherlands data above include the 65-69 group as a dominant portion of the 0.492% estimated IFR).
COVID-19: Data - NYC Health
There are 188 million such people between 45 and 64 in India (2011), and we've already accounted for the 60% in the death rate per 100k, assuming herd immunity infection level infection:
Extrapolate to India: 300 deaths /100k * 188e6 = 564k
If New York City in this age group is actually 60% infected right now (seems unlikely), then this drops to a mere 300k deaths. But I think that's really unlikely.
In India, using same method extrapolating from NYC @ 30% infected currently, add another 30 deaths/100k for the 357 million (2011) between 19 and 44.
That's about 100k additional.
I'd be shocked if this strategy is attempted in India, and it results in fewer than a million deaths (assuming perfect shielding of those over 64, which of course would not be successful at all, and would turn into a sh*tshow of epic proportions).
Anyway, really need those serology tests from New York City and then doing all these calculations will be really easy.
Last edited:
The spread of COVID-19 is based on two factors:
1. How dense the population is.
2. How dense the population is.
1. How dense the population is.
2. How dense the population is.
Last edited:
There was a covid-19 Q&A session in Los Angeles today that included one of the lead researchers on the LA antibody study.
The protocol is different from the Stanford study -- they sought to randomly select subjects from a third-party database, and then imposed quotas based on sex, age and race/ethnicity.
At about 18:20 on the video linked below there is a discussion of the test
At about 29:00 there is a discussion of how they recruited test subjects
There are other discussions sprinkled throughout the Q&A.
Los Angeles County on Twitter
The protocol is different from the Stanford study -- they sought to randomly select subjects from a third-party database, and then imposed quotas based on sex, age and race/ethnicity.
At about 18:20 on the video linked below there is a discussion of the test
At about 29:00 there is a discussion of how they recruited test subjects
There are other discussions sprinkled throughout the Q&A.
Los Angeles County on Twitter
Last edited:
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
What's the IFR for people over 69? When were the samples taken?
There have been 219 deaths per million in The Netherlands so 3% infected would imply a population IFR of 0.66% (sample being taken earlier would make this lower, many people not recovered yet would make it higher).
And of course what kind of antibody test did they use?
Re questions of why serology tests are being posted before peer review, there is a two part answer.
First. We are in a pandemic. Almost all scientific studies are being posted before peer review. Why should serology tests be any different?
Second. The data from these studies have immediate implications for public health. For example, it is important to let people know that the disease is much more widespread than might be suggested from the official statistics. It would be irresponsible to keep this information from the public in the midst of a raging pandemic.
First. We are in a pandemic. Almost all scientific studies are being posted before peer review. Why should serology tests be any different?
Second. The data from these studies have immediate implications for public health. For example, it is important to let people know that the disease is much more widespread than might be suggested from the official statistics. It would be irresponsible to keep this information from the public in the midst of a raging pandemic.
Last edited:
No one will be happy with how this all ends. And how could anyone be anyway?
One thing I assume we can all agree on: the entire system, CDC at the front, completely screwed the pooch on the testing front. We have been flailing about in the dark, forced to make truly earth shattering decisions with woefully incomplete information.
Accurate and plentiful testing mobilized the moment this new disease appeared would have allowed for exactly what we have not had - informed decisions. It would have also indicated a leadership that possessed competence and vision. Or at least one that followed a well established playbook for dealing with an outbreak, or paid attention to at least one of the multiple bad virus movies they had watched.
We have all the technology and tools we need to have defeated this virus from the start. The failure here is complete. This virus could have been so much worse. In the end it is taking it easy on us, perhaps feeling some pity for the host warm bloods as they convulse in their ineptitude.
We had a full two months warning it was coming and completely failed at preparation. Now we bankrupt entire industries, starve people out and shred our constitutions in an attempt to get the best of the situation.
Well, as long as someone gets to make a buck, I guess all is good. Because that seems to be all anyone gives a f#*k about anyway.
One thing I assume we can all agree on: the entire system, CDC at the front, completely screwed the pooch on the testing front. We have been flailing about in the dark, forced to make truly earth shattering decisions with woefully incomplete information.
Accurate and plentiful testing mobilized the moment this new disease appeared would have allowed for exactly what we have not had - informed decisions. It would have also indicated a leadership that possessed competence and vision. Or at least one that followed a well established playbook for dealing with an outbreak, or paid attention to at least one of the multiple bad virus movies they had watched.
We have all the technology and tools we need to have defeated this virus from the start. The failure here is complete. This virus could have been so much worse. In the end it is taking it easy on us, perhaps feeling some pity for the host warm bloods as they convulse in their ineptitude.
We had a full two months warning it was coming and completely failed at preparation. Now we bankrupt entire industries, starve people out and shred our constitutions in an attempt to get the best of the situation.
Well, as long as someone gets to make a buck, I guess all is good. Because that seems to be all anyone gives a f#*k about anyway.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
One thing we don't know is - to what extent IFRs are translatable between countries. A lot more people in US (even WA) are obese compared to India, for eg.
If we assume nobody under 30 dies - and we have to reach 60% to get herd immunity - we are looking at 360 M population left. With a IFR of 0.05%, it gets fatalities to 180k. If IFR is 0.1% - we get to 360k.
Anyway, its all academic. They can't protect > 60 when so many younger people are getting infected. They also can't let > 100k die without paying a very heavy price at the polls. The federal government is in a very tough spot. Ofcourse there is also the usual politics between the federal government run by BJP and many larger state governments run by opposition parties - not unlike US.
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
He says they got 4.1% positive test results. What I would have asked is what percentage of the people contacted volunteered to be tested and what was the wording of the question? Also, why didn't you take a random sample of the positive results and verify them with a more accurate antibody test?
Of course I remain skeptical since these results would imply that NYC has a 100% infection rate and that South Korea missed an implausible number of cases. I will be very happy for my friend in New York if this is true! He's only leaving his apartment once every two weeks right now (his mother in law is living there as well and has a pre-existing condition).
Last edited:
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
What would be irresponsible is pushing out this information and then immediately saying right afterwards that because this result implies that a large portion of people have had the disease already, it is actually not really any worse than the flu, in terms of IFR.
That would be irresponsible.
I think the mainstream media has been pretty good about making clear that likely we are only capturing a fraction of the cases. I’ve heard that discussed many times. I think it helps calm people down - without that knowledge it would appear that 10% of the people with the disease are dying.
But you have to wonder about the motivation of datasets and research that suggest an IFR of 0.1% or 0.2%. Especially when they imply that 100% of NY has been infected and is somehow still producing large numbers of new cases.
I forgot to add a smiley so you would ponder the various meanings of 'dense'...
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Oh well ...
Here's a prediction.
Older people will heed the call, go out in large numbers and get infected - and get hospitalized or worse. Yet come November will vote for the people who advocated to break social-distancing orders. That's how dense the people are ...
Similar threads
