Jump to content

Covid II: Medical Info and Implications


Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, pogi said:

Where did I disagree with the 10% figure?  

I am not insisting on using reported infections (unless you want to calculate the CFR - case fatality rate).  I am suggesting that if you want to use the estimated infections (as you have done) in the calculation, that is fine but you then also have to use the estimated death count (which you did not do).  Again this is called the IFR - Infection Fatality Ratio.  And if you want to use the reported infections, then you also have to use the reported death count.  Again, this is called the CFR. Your calculation is not representative of the IFR or the CFR.  I think I made this pretty clear.

Yes, it is just an estimate, just like the 10% figure.  I don't recall giving you an estimate, so I don't know what you mean.

By "worse", you mean more accurate, right?

Why do insist on flubbing the numbers to make it seems less severe? 

No, I just want true calculations for CFRs and IFRs.  I want science and not politics and personal interests to determine the risks.  You are not being true with your calculation.   You are not calculating the CFR or the IFR.  Your figure is a worthless manipulation.

When have I suggested you can't go about your business?  I am talking about CFRs, INR's and effectiveness of masks and prevention measures.  Don't change the topic.

Remember that article you linked to where the WHO estimated that 10% of the population has been infected.  Interesting that you forgot to include this:

 

So, they estimate that both infections and deaths are undercounted, yet you attempt to calculate the estimated infections with the undercounted deaths.  Come on Robert, lets get honest here.  You know that will give you a misguided death ratio - downplaying the risk. 

I have noted that you still have not provided the CFR.  I have also noted that you have still not retracted the claim.  Do one or the other or I will report you. 

as to expecting all those who are at increased risk to live in a bubble while the rest of you run around maskless (unless you are "forced"), sorry.  Not realistic.  You are showing your lack of understanding of how this disease works. 

 

 

So, what is the proper number?  You have to multiply the number of worldwide reported deaths by a factor of 7 in order to get an IFR over 1%.  I don't think there are 7 million deaths from this but China and other countries could be hiding the numbers from everyone.  Do you have better numbers as far as the deaths from this?  What is your estimate?

Go ahead and report me to the teacher if it makes you feel better regarding your CFR.  This is comical.  I thought I was engaging with adults.

If you have to suffer by wearing a mask at home and everywhere, let all suffer, right?

I don't know how politics can be taken out of the equation when an election is going on.  It seems like most of the Democratic Governors want to keep things locked down or go back to lock down and the Republican Governors like in Florida want to open up.  Maybe report how politics is contaminating the Sars-covid-2 discussion to the Utah Governor?

  • Like 1
Link to post

Who has said anything about requiring anyone wearing a mask at home? 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Robert J Anderson said:

So, what is the proper number?  You have to multiply the number of worldwide reported deaths by a factor of 7 in order to get an IFR over 1%.  I don't think there are 7 million deaths from this but China and other countries could be hiding the numbers from everyone.  Do you have better numbers as far as the deaths from this?  What is your estimate?

Go ahead and report me to the teacher if it makes you feel better regarding your CFR.  This is comical.  I thought I was engaging with adults.

If you have to suffer by wearing a mask at home and everywhere, let all suffer, right?

I don't know how politics can be taken out of the equation when an election is going on.  It seems like most of the Democratic Governors want to keep things locked down or go back to lock down and the Republican Governors like in Florida want to open up.  Maybe report how politics is contaminating the Sars-covid-2 discussion to the Utah Governor?

I don't have an estimated death count.  I am not the one making ridiculous/misleading/downplaying/unsubstantiated/unsupported by any health institutions, claims about 99.9% survival rate.   

You state that we would have to multiply the reported deaths by a factor of 7 in order to get an IFR over 1%.  True.  We would also have to multiply the reported infections (43 million) by a factor of 18 in order to get to 10% of the population (759 Million).  I don't see it as unreasonable to assume that if infections are underreported by a factor of 18 that deaths could be underreported by at least a factor of 7.   If we are undercounting infections by 716 MILLION cases (only 43 million reported) worldwide, how unreasonable is it to assume that at least 1% of those unreported infections died from it?  Especially considering that 2.7% of reported cases have died from it!  I think that is a fairly conservative estimate, honestly.  If people are dying from it in Sudan or North Korea, how would we know if they aren't even testing?  You wouldn't.  I think our best estimate, for now, is the CFR (reported cases/ reported deaths).  Everything else is largely just guess work.  

Can you at least admit that your calculation is not likely even close to accurate?  

In the US alone we are currently at nearly 300,000 excess deaths in the US for 2020.  The CDC states that 66% of those are attributed to Covid.  That is 198,000 under-reported deaths in the US alone!  That is under-reported deaths by a factor of nearly 2 (and that is in the US where we have better reporting and testing then most!)  Think of West Africa, China, India, etc.!  

Here is my source:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6942e2.htm

Where is your source?

Edited by pogi
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

Who has said anything about requiring anyone wearing a mask at home? 

 

And who said anything about "suffering" from wearing a mask?  It makes me more then a little upset that people won't wear a mask unless "forced" because wearing a mask is "suffering", when those who are truly suffering are in the ICU Covid unit at any one of the over-burdened hospitals in Utah right now.  Patients and nurses alike.  And he accuses me of being hysterical.  He is being hysterical about the burden of wearing a simple face covering while Utah hospitals are at the point of rationing care.    

Edited by pogi
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
2 hours ago, Robert J Anderson said:

Go ahead and report me to the teacher if it makes you feel better regarding your CFR.  This is comical.  I thought I was engaging with adults.

It is sad when adults can't follow simple board guidelines that they agreed to upon registering, isn't it?  Not the shining example of personal integrity.   I have reported you for failing to answer the CFR and failing to retract your comment. 

Edited by pogi
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
16 hours ago, pogi said:

It is sad when adults can't follow simple board guidelines that they agreed to upon registering, isn't it?  Not the shining example of personal integrity.   I have reported you for failing to answer the CFR and failing to retract your comment. 

Good job.

Link to post
17 hours ago, pogi said:

I don't have an estimated death count.  I am not the one making ridiculous/misleading/downplaying/unsubstantiated/unsupported by any health institutions, claims about 99.9% survival rate.   

You state that we would have to multiply the reported deaths by a factor of 7 in order to get an IFR over 1%.  True.  We would also have to multiply the reported infections (43 million) by a factor of 18 in order to get to 10% of the population (759 Million).  I don't see it as unreasonable to assume that if infections are underreported by a factor of 18 that deaths could be underreported by at least a factor of 7.   If we are undercounting infections by 716 MILLION cases (only 43 million reported) worldwide, how unreasonable is it to assume that at least 1% of those unreported infections died from it?  Especially considering that 2.7% of reported cases have died from it!  I think that is a fairly conservative estimate, honestly.  If people are dying from it in Sudan or North Korea, how would we know if they aren't even testing?  You wouldn't.  I think our best estimate, for now, is the CFR (reported cases/ reported deaths).  Everything else is largely just guess work.  

Can you at least admit that your calculation is not likely even close to accurate?  

In the US alone we are currently at nearly 300,000 excess deaths in the US for 2020.  The CDC states that 66% of those are attributed to Covid.  That is 198,000 under-reported deaths in the US alone!  That is under-reported deaths by a factor of nearly 2 (and that is in the US where we have better reporting and testing then most!)  Think of West Africa, China, India, etc.!  

Here is my source:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6942e2.htm

Where is your source?

 

In the first highlighted section you're estimating like I was based on imperfect data.  Should I report you to the teacher?  Retract your guess or else. LOL.

Is it possible that the excess deaths are from something else other than covid?  Perhaps these deaths are a result of the very lock-downs that you probably support?  People are suffering mentally as well, and focusing on numbers of cases, not on people who actually get sick, and hyping death numbers when one cannot really say what the real percentage is, is part of the problem in my opinion.  Let's keep our heads and let's look at all the science.

  • Like 1
Link to post
20 minutes ago, Robert J Anderson said:

 

In the first highlighted section you're estimating like I was based on imperfect data.  Should I report you to the teacher?  Retract your guess or else. LOL.

Is it possible that the excess deaths are from something else other than covid?  Perhaps these deaths are a result of the very lock-downs that you probably support?  People are suffering mentally as well, and focusing on numbers of cases, not on people who actually get sick, and hyping death numbers when one cannot really say what the real percentage is, is part of the problem in my opinion.  Let's keep our heads and let's look at all the science.

I take it you don't have faith in science. You're not a flat earther are you? ;)

Link to post
1 hour ago, Robert J Anderson said:

 

In the first highlighted section you're estimating like I was based on imperfect data.  Should I report you to the teacher?  Retract your guess or else. LOL.

Is it possible that the excess deaths are from something else other than covid?  Perhaps these deaths are a result of the very lock-downs that you probably support?  People are suffering mentally as well, and focusing on numbers of cases, not on people who actually get sick, and hyping death numbers when one cannot really say what the real percentage is, is part of the problem in my opinion.  Let's keep our heads and let's look at all the science.

The difference is that I framed my statement as MY estimate and assumption based on imperfect data.   You framed your statement as fact, without reference.  I haven't broken any board rules...you did when you failed to provide a reference or retract when asked to.

Let me get this straight though, you insist that the survival rate is 99.9%.  You refuse to provide a reference for it, and you refuse to retract your comment, yet here you seem to suggest that "one cannot really say what the real percentage is".  Seems ironic.  How can you say that I am "hyping" the numbers when you are the one dividing reported deaths by estimated cases to manipulate and deflate the numbers in a way that doesn't represent the CFR or the IFR?  I have not even attempted to calculate an IFR.  I have only provided the CFR which is based on reported deaths and reported cases.  What is wrong with my calculation?   Yes, lets look at the science!  Show me any science that backs up your claim of 99.9%.  Lets be honest here Robert, you are manipulating numbers to make it seems as if it is not as serious as it really is.  That is not how you calculate IFR.   Just admit it so we can move on. 

 

Edited by pogi
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
19 minutes ago, pogi said:

The difference is that I framed my statement as MY estimate and assumption based on imperfect data.   You framed your statement as fact, without reference.  I haven't broken any board rules...you did when you failed to provide a reference or retract when asked to.

Let me get this straight though, you insist that the survival rate is 99.9%.  You refuse to provide a reference for it, and you refuse to retract your comment, yet here you seem to suggest that "one cannot really say what the real percentage is".  Seems ironic.  How can you say that I am "hyping" the numbers when you are the one dividing reported deaths by estimated cases to manipulate and deflate the numbers in a way that doesn't represent the CFR or the IFR?  I have not even attempted to calculate an IFR.  I have only provided the CFR which is based on reported deaths and reported cases.  What is wrong with my calculation?   Yes, lets look at the science!  Show me any science that backs up your claim of 99.9%.  Lets be honest here Robert, you are manipulating numbers to make it seems as if it is not as serious as it really is.  That is not how you calculate IFR.   Just admit it so we can move on. 

 

I will change the number from 99.9% to 99.4% if you like.  Clearly, my math was off given the number of worldwide reported deaths of 1,166,932 and the 760,000,000 estimated exposure number.  I should have stated a 99.8464563157894799% chance of survival if exposed.  

After our exchange, you pointed out that the number of deaths could be understated and so for the sake of harmony, I will agree that the possibility of survival may be actually 99.4% if exposed.  This is from using a generous death count of 4,560,000 unfortunate deaths (hopefully that makes you happy even though there is absolutely no basis for the number, yet, you seem bent on bringing the survival rate down so let's pretend) and using the same estimate of 760,000,000 exposures (a number you accepted).  1 - (4,560,000/760,000,000 X 100%) = 99.4%

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Robert J Anderson said:

I will change the number from 99.9% to 99.4% if you like.  Clearly, my math was off given the number of worldwide reported deaths of 1,166,932 and the 760,000,000 estimated exposure number.  I should have stated a 99.8464563157894799% chance of survival if exposed.  

After our exchange, you pointed out that the number of deaths could be understated and so for the sake of harmony, I will agree that the possibility of survival may be actually 99.4% if exposed.  This is from using a generous death count of 4,560,000 unfortunate deaths (hopefully that makes you happy even though there is absolutely no basis for the number, yet, you seem bent on bringing the survival rate down so let's pretend) and using the same estimate of 760,000,000 exposures (a number you accepted).  1 - (4,560,000/760,000,000 X 100%) = 99.4%

Lets focus on US numbers since that is where we live.  Based on reported infections and reported deaths in the US, the ratio is 2.6%   Somehow I think your "generous" 0.6% is not that generous after all.   

Lets look at the numbers in the US a little closer.  

Total reported infections: 8,617,022

Total reported deaths: 224,601

Total US population: 328.2 million

If we are going to assume that 10% of the US population has been infected, that would put the total infections in the US at 32.8 million.  If we multiply that by 0.6% (which you assume) fatality rate, that would give us a total of 196,920 deaths.  That is lower then even the reported deaths from Covid (224,601) in the US so far - which "for the sake of harmony" you point out could be "understated".  If they are understated, then 0.6% CANNOT be the actual fatality rate.  I therefore reject your 0.6% fatality rate.  That is not possible.  The numbers simply don't add up if we are assuming 10% of population is infected with a 0.6% fatality rate. 

If 32.8 million people have been infected in the US, that means that 24.2 million infections are unaccounted for.  Even if we assume a low 0.6% death rate, then that would mean around 145,200 (24.2 M X 0.6%) of those unreported infections are also unreported deaths.

If we add 145,200 (which happens to closely coincide with the CDC estimates that there are 198,081 unreported deaths from Covid in US) to the already reported 224,601 deaths, we get 369,801 total deaths in the US. 

To get the IFR for the US we would divide the 32.8 million total infected by the 369,801 total deaths and get an IFR of 1.12%  Again, we came to this figure using a low 0.6% death rate for the 24.2 Million undercounted infections.  If we use the 1.12% figure, the total deaths and IFR would be even higher. 

The important figure out of all of this is 369,801 total deaths.

If we are using CDC estimates, they place the total US death count at 422,682 (reported deaths, 224,601 + unreported deaths, 198,081).  That is nearly half a million dead in the US in under 1 year.

Edited by pogi
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
42 minutes ago, pogi said:

Lets focus on US numbers since that is where we live.  Based on reported infections and reported deaths in the US, the ratio is 2.6%   Somehow I think your "generous" 0.6% is not that generous after all.   

Lets look at the numbers in the US a little closer.  

Total reported infections: 8,617,022

Total reported deaths: 224,601

Total US population: 328.2 million

If we are going to assume that 10% of the US population has been infected, that would put the total infections in the US at 32.8 million.  If we multiply that by 0.6% fatality rate, that would give us a total of 196,920 deaths.  That is lower then even the reported deaths from Covid (224,601) in the US so far - which "for the sake of harmony" you point out could be "understated".  If they are understated, then 0.6% CANNOT be the actual fatality rate.  I therefore reject your 0.6% fatality rate.  That is not possible.  The numbers simply don't add up if we are assuming 10% of population is infection with a 0.6% fatality rate. 

If 32.8 million people have been infected in the US, that means that 24.2 million infections are unaccounted for.  Even if we assume a low 0.6% death rate, then that would mean around 145,200 (24.2 M X 0.6%) of those unreported infections are also unreported deaths.

If we add 145,200 (The CDC estimates that there are 198,081 unreported deaths from Covid in US - so that is actually fairly close) to the already reported 224,601 deaths, we get 369,801 total deaths in the US. 

To get the IFR for the US we would divide the 32.8 million total infected by the 369,801 total deaths and get an IFR of 1.12%  Again, we came to this figure using a low 0.6% death rate for the 24.2 Million undercounted infections.  If we use the 1.12% figure, the total deaths and IFR would be even higher. 

224,601 reported deaths / 32,800,000 estimated exposures X 100% = 0.6847591463414634% death rate per estimated exposure.  So, perhaps a 99.3% chance of survival in the U.S. given exposure (and one must assume that the number of exposures is increasing as well and so that may increase slightly the true survival rate).

"24.2 million infections are unaccounted for" - aren't most of the infected asymptomatic or have mild symptoms and therefore do not get tested and are not reported?  This has to be the case if one is to believe the 760,000,000 exposures worldwide.

"Even if we assume a low 0.6% death rate, then that would mean around 145,200 (24.2 M X 0.6%) of those unreported infections are also unreported deaths ..... (The CDC estimates that there are 198,081 unreported deaths from Covid in US - so that is actually fairly close) "  How does the CDC come up with the undercount?  Please provide the basis for this. 

Is the CDC being generous with what is defined as a covid 19 death, such as, if someone tests positive but has a heart attack and dies, is that a covid-19 death because who knows if covid-19 could have caused the death that looks like a heart attack caused death?

Edited by Robert J Anderson
Link to post
40 minutes ago, Robert J Anderson said:

224,601 reported deaths / 32,800,000 estimated exposures X 100% = 0.6847591463414634% death rate per estimated exposure.  So, perhaps a 99.3% chance of survival in the U.S. given exposure (and one must assume that the number of exposures is increasing as well and so that may increase slightly the true survival rate).

Once again, you are trying to manipulate the numbers by calculating the estimated infections by reported deaths.  This is the problem I have had with your original calculation, and now you are attempting to do it again.  Get real.  That is not how you calculate the CFR or the IFR.  That is wrong.  I thought you were going to assume that the deaths were underreported?  Why aren't you doing so here?  I will also point out that I am being VERY generous by assuming that 10% of the US population has been infected.  We have much better testing here than anywhere else in the developing world where most of the world population is, so I think we are not close to 10% yet. 

40 minutes ago, Robert J Anderson said:

"24.2 million infections are unaccounted for" - aren't most of the infected asymptomatic or have mild symptoms and therefore do not get tested and are not reported?  This has to be the case if one is to believe the 760,000,000 exposures worldwide.

That is not always why they are not testing.  If you don't know already, I am a nurse involved in the Utah Covid response doing contact tracing.  I can't tell you how many people don't test just because they assume they have it, even though they have more serious symptoms like shortness of breath, chest pain, dizziness, and confusion.  These are people that probably should be in the hospital, but they won't even get themselves to test!  I speak with them all the time.  

40 minutes ago, Robert J Anderson said:

How does the CDC come up with the undercount?  Please provide the basis for this. 

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6942e2.htm

40 minutes ago, Robert J Anderson said:

Is the CDC being generous with what is defined as a covid 19 death, such as, if someone tests positive but has a heart attack and dies, is that a covid-19 death because who knows if covid-19 could have caused the death that looks like a heart attack?

That is not determined by the CDC.  That is determined by the death certificate.  Death counts are always fluctuating.  It depends on how the state reports it, and I think it differs slightly for each state.  Initially, the person may be reported as a Covid death if they die for any reason and have Covid, depending on which state they live in (this is the case with all infectious diseases including the flu - it is a quick picture for decision makers that need fast information when processing death certificates can take months.)  Once the death certificate is processed and it is determined that the death was caused by heart attack, or suicide, or something else, that case is removed from the Covid death count.   It is not the CDC who defines how a person died, it is the coroners and physicians attending to the patient at the time of death.  They are the ones who write the death certificate.  Once it is processed, then the numbers change.  Cause of death is ultimately based on the best medical judgment of the attending physician or coroner.  It is no different than it ever has been for any death from any disease or cause.  It is as accurate as anything else. 

 

Edited by pogi
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Quote

U.S. hospitals are reaching their limits in some areas. The Salt Lake Tribune reported Sunday that Utah’s hospitals are preparing to ration care as a record number of coronavirus patients flood their ICUs. The Kansas City Star found that some hospitals in the Kansas City area have been “bursting at the seams,” turning away severely ill patients who arrive in ambulances.

Maury Regional Health in Tennessee announcedthat it was suspending all elective procedures beginning this week to focus on a record number of patients hospitalized with COVID-19. News 4 in Tennessee found that the number of available beds in Davidson County hospitals has dropped to 5 percent. “Our Middle Tennessee hospitals are sounding the warning,” said Alex Jahangir, MD, chair of Nashville’s Metro Coronavirus Task Force

From my EDH update

Link to post
1 hour ago, pogi said:

Once again, you are trying to manipulate the numbers by calculating the estimated infections by reported deaths.  This is the problem I have had with your original calculation, and now you are attempting to do it again.  Get real.  That is not how you calculate the CFR or the IFR.  That is wrong.  I thought you were going to assume that the deaths were underreported?  Why aren't you doing so here?  I will also point out that I am being VERY generous by assuming that 10% of the US population has been infected.  We have much better testing here than anywhere else in the developing world where most of the world population is, so I think we are not close to 10% yet. 

That is not always why they are not testing.  If you don't know already, I am a nurse involved in the Utah Covid response doing contact tracing.  I can't tell you how many people don't test just because they assume they have it, even though they have more serious symptoms like shortness of breath, chest pain, dizziness, and confusion.  These are people that probably should be in the hospital, but they won't even get themselves to test!  I speak with them all the time.  

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6942e2.htm

That is not determined by the CDC.  That is determined by the death certificate.  Death counts are always fluctuating.  It depends on how the state reports it, and I think it differs slightly for each state.  Initially, the person may be reported as a Covid death if they die for any reason and have Covid, depending on which state they live in (this is the case with all infectious diseases including the flu - it is a quick picture for decision makers that need fast information when processing death certificates can take months.)  Once the death certificate is processed and it is determined that the death was caused by heart attack, or suicide, or something else, that case is removed from the Covid death count.   It is not the CDC who defines how a person died, it is the coroners and physicians attending to the patient at the time of death.  They are the ones who write the death certificate.  Once it is processed, then the numbers change.  Cause of death is ultimately based on the best medical judgment of the attending physician or coroner.  It is no different than it ever has been for any death from any disease or cause.  It is as accurate as anything else. 

 

I don't know why you object to my IFR calculation when I used a denominator provided by the WHO (760,000,000 exposures) and you didn't object to that and I used a death estimate 4X higher (4,600,000 unfortunate deaths) because you complained about an undercount that really has no way at this point of being validated other than excess deaths.  Incidentally, these excess deaths could be caused by something other than covid 19.  We don't know.  Yet, you want to claim they are all caused by covid 19 because it seems for some reason you want to hype the death rate.  In reality, I think your problem is with the estimate of 760,000,000 people exposed worldwide.  It isn't my number, but from the WHO.

Edited by Robert J Anderson
Link to post
3 minutes ago, Robert J Anderson said:

I don't know why you object to my IFR calculation when I used a denominator provided by the WHO (760,000,000 exposures) and you didn't object to that and I used a death estimate 4X higher (4,600,000 unfortunate deaths) because you complained about an undercount that really has no way at this point of being validated other than excess deaths.  Incidentally, these excess deaths could be caused by something other than covid 19.  We don't know.  Yet, you want to claim they are all caused by covid 19 because it seems for some reason you want to hype the death rate.  In reality, I think your problem is with the estimate of 760,000,000 people exposed worldwide.  It isn't my number, but from the WHO.

 

You have put forth your claims more than enough times without engaging with Pogi's commentary.

All this is repetition now.

I see no benefit to this subtopic continuing.  

This request is to both you and Pogi, please stop.  

Start your own thread if you must continue the conversation, as the thread starter by board rules (probably not in guidelines but it is what the mods have been acting on for years), I have the right to limit discussion in a thread I start as anyone else does for a thread they start.

 

Link to post
24 minutes ago, Robert J Anderson said:

I don't know why you object to my IFR calculation when I used a denominator provided by the WHO (760,000,000 exposures) and you didn't object to that and I used a death estimate 4X higher (4,600,000 unfortunate deaths)

I don't know what you are talking about.  This is what I am responding to - this was your last and most up-to-date estimate, and how you derived that number:

1 hour ago, Robert J Anderson said:

224,601 reported deaths / 32,800,000 estimated exposures X 100% = 0.6847591463414634% death rate per estimated exposure. 

 

24 minutes ago, Robert J Anderson said:

Incidentally, these excess deaths could be caused by something other than covid 19.  We don't know.  Yet, you want to claim they are all caused by covid 19 because it seems for some reason you want to hype the death rate.  In reality, I think your problem is with the estimate of 760,000,000 people exposed worldwide.  It isn't my number, but from the WHO.

We have a pretty dang good idea that they are not, however.  It is incredibly unlikely that deaths from heart disease or other causes are dramatically higher (by the hundreds of thousands in one single year) when they are fairly consistent over time. 

I am not hyping the death rate.  I am simply reporting what the CDC is stating.  I am listening to the best estimates by the best professionals we have on the job who are assessing and compiling all the data and using the best algorithms to determine their numbers.  You are pulling numbers out of your hat (4,600,000).  There is REASON for their numbers.  You have NO REASON for your numbers.  You just make crap up with no rational foundation whatsoever.  

I have never once stated a problem with the worldwide 10% figure.  That is not my problem.  My problem is the figure you are dividing it by.

 

 

Edited by pogi
  • Upvote 2
Link to post

I think the stats that most people really care about is ; If I get tested for covid , what are the chances that a:I actually have covid ?

and b. what are the chances I will die from it/ have long term damage from it ? 

There is enough of a sample size now to get a reasonably good handle on those numbers.

Part b. is the more needed. Those stats hover around 3 % at least where developed countries are concerned. This of course varies by age and fitness.

Apparently , one of the collateral damage areas ( shameless plug ) is arguing over who has the best stats. 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
42 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Those stats hover around 3 % at least where developed countries are concerned.

That seems pretty high.  Do you have a reference for this?  How did you come to that figure? 

Edited by pogi
Link to post
59 minutes ago, pogi said:

Do you have a reference for this?  How did you come to that figure? 

In case you missed it, scroll way down until you come to the stats of 218 countries to see the mortality rates. Best not to go to Yemen - 30% yikes. 

https://www.covid-19canada.com/

Edited by strappinglad
  • Upvote 1
Link to post

New possibility uncovered for what is causing the lingering problems with Covid survivors. The virus might be triggering and creating autoimmune diseases.

A small sample size of Covid survivors with severe symptoms found that about half (all with no previous known autoimmune problems) had this condition:

Quote

In the new study, the researchers looked at 52 patients within the Emory health care system in Atlanta who were classified as having either severe or critical Covid-19, but who had no history of autoimmune disorders.

They found autoantibodies that recognize DNA in nearly half of the patients. They also found antibodies against a protein called rheumatoid factor and others that help with blood clotting. Among the top half of the most seriously ill patients, more than 70 percent had autoantibodies against one of the targets tested, Dr. Woodruff said.

This is believed to cause some of the cardiovascular symptoms some survivors have experienced. It is not known yet how long this response endures. It may be temporary or it may be akin to lupus and continue throughout the patient's life. There is also no data on whether this problem could occur in 

This is early stuff so it may come to nothing or the sample size might be skewed and the response is rare but thought some might be interested.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/health/covid-antibodies-autoimmunity.html

Link to post

On another note, it just may be possible with winter here (not officially...but just seemed that way at 30 degrees at the self storage tonight...a hoodie is not enough suddenly, wasn’t it two weeks ago it was too much...weird, weird weather) and Covid surges eagerly popping up all over, people may get nervous about getting emergency supplies stocked up for winter storms, lockdowns (oh please let’s hope we are sane enough to avoid those...wear those masks!), private island parties (if you don’t know what I am referring to, be grateful your news feed avoids the more useless stuff), broken supply chains, etc.  
 

In an effort to be helpful and keep the panic to a low level, a brilliant innovation has appeared to ease our anxieties about the fundamental question of life, just how much toilet paper do you really need?

https://howmuchtoiletpaper.com/
 

I expect the appropriate thanks for your first worry free sleep in months. 

Link to post
8 hours ago, Calm said:

On another note, it just may be possible with winter here (not officially...but just seemed that way at 30 degrees at the self storage tonight...a hoodie is not enough suddenly, wasn’t it two weeks ago it was too much...weird, weird weather) and Covid surges eagerly popping up all over, people may get nervous about getting emergency supplies stocked up for winter storms, lockdowns (oh please let’s hope we are sane enough to avoid those...wear those masks!), private island parties (if you don’t know what I am referring to, be grateful your news feed avoids the more useless stuff), broken supply chains, etc.  
 

In an effort to be helpful and keep the panic to a low level, a brilliant innovation has appeared to ease our anxieties about the fundamental question of life, just how much toilet paper do you really need?

https://howmuchtoiletpaper.com/
 

I expect the appropriate thanks for your first worry free sleep in months. 

Sorry, I've been worry free. I got a bidet.... https://www.bestbuy.com/site/luxe-neo-320-non-electric-self-cleaning-nozzle-universal-fit-bidet-toilet-attachment-w-warm-water-white/6408500.p?skuId=6408500 although I think it was $50 at the time....

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...