Ebola has up to a 90 percent mortality rate. Before vaccine discovery, smallpox was a 90% killer. Those are at the high end extreme. Some of the mid level mortality viruses (30-50%) are ones like Hanta and Marburg. The first SARS is believed to be between 5-9% mortality. Right now the estimates are C-19 between .05% - 3%, so if we settled at 1.5%, even though that is likely much higher than actual, in the comparative scope of virus mortality it is on the very low end.Osodecentx said:I sure hope this is true. Where did you get the information?ATL Bear said:That link still uses the 35 million for flu infections when there weren't 35 million confirmed cases of flu. Under the metrics they advocate for (IFR), flu would still have a higher death rate by a multiple factor. No one has an assessment of how many actual cases of C-19 are out there, from South Korea to the US. One thing that is being borne out is fortunately it's a comparatively mild virus (mortality) by any standard of measure.Sam Lowry said:
We are not basing our policy on different metrics for measuring death rates. Approximately 1% is an estimate of the total infection fatality rate, not the diagnosed case fatality rate.
http://theconversation.com/the-coronavirus-looks-less-deadly-than-first-reported-but-its-definitely-not-just-a-flu-133526
Was It Worth It?
59,233 Views |
498 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by Waco1947
No. It uses the estimated 35 million number because that's what yields the infection fatality rate. CFR = confirmed deaths/confirmed cases (higher rate). IFR = confirmed deaths/estimated cases (lower rate). IFR = 0.1% for flu and 1% for coronavirus.ATL Bear said:That link still uses the 35 million for flu infections when there weren't 35 million confirmed cases of flu. Under the metrics they advocate for (IFR), flu would still have a higher death rate by a multiple factor. No one has an assessment of how many actual cases of C-19 are out there, from South Korea to the US. One thing that is being borne out is fortunately it's a comparatively mild virus (mortality) by any standard of measure.Sam Lowry said:
We are not basing our policy on different metrics for measuring death rates. Approximately 1% is an estimate of the total infection fatality rate, not the diagnosed case fatality rate.
http://theconversation.com/the-coronavirus-looks-less-deadly-than-first-reported-but-its-definitely-not-just-a-flu-133526
That's my exact point. If we measured flu mortality similar to how we're doing C-19, its mortality would look horrible. For example, if one were to estimate that right now 1 million people in the US have or had C-19, the current mortality rate would be .02%. If we took the number of hospitalizations from the flu and divided by deaths it would still have a high mortality. The missing number in this equation is an estimate of existing and past infections from C-19 since it was first confirmed in January.Kyle said:I'm not sure that's right. CDC estimates to-date there have been 38 million cases of the flu as well as 390K hospitalizations and 23K deaths. Wouldn't that 38M be the denominator of the IFR? The number of positive tests was much lower. Interestingly, if you look at the CDC site, its data shows 232,654 cases of positive flu tests for A&B with an estimated annual mortality of 23,000. So by CFR, that would put its mortality rate at 10%, which seems really high.ATL Bear said:That link still uses the 35 million for flu infections when there weren't 35 million confirmed cases of flu. Under the metrics they advocate for (IFR), flu would still have a higher death rate by a multiple factor. No one has an assessment of how many actual cases of C-19 are out there, from South Korea to the US. One thing that is being borne out is fortunately it's a comparatively mild virus (mortality) by any standard of measure.Sam Lowry said:
We are not basing our policy on different metrics for measuring death rates. Approximately 1% is an estimate of the total infection fatality rate, not the diagnosed case fatality rate.
http://theconversation.com/the-coronavirus-looks-less-deadly-than-first-reported-but-its-definitely-not-just-a-flu-133526
Do you have a link or is this your interpretation of data? I respect your opinion.ATL Bear said:Ebola has up to a 90 percent mortality rate. Before vaccine discovery, smallpox was a 90% killer. Those are at the high end extreme. Some of the mid level mortality viruses (30-50%) are ones like Hanta and Marburg. The first SARS is believed to be between 5-9% mortality. Right now the estimates are C-19 between .05% - 3%, so if we settled at 1.5%, even though that is likely much higher than actual, in the comparative scope of virus mortality it is on the very low end.Osodecentx said:I sure hope this is true. Where did you get the information?ATL Bear said:That link still uses the 35 million for flu infections when there weren't 35 million confirmed cases of flu. Under the metrics they advocate for (IFR), flu would still have a higher death rate by a multiple factor. No one has an assessment of how many actual cases of C-19 are out there, from South Korea to the US. One thing that is being borne out is fortunately it's a comparatively mild virus (mortality) by any standard of measure.Sam Lowry said:
We are not basing our policy on different metrics for measuring death rates. Approximately 1% is an estimate of the total infection fatality rate, not the diagnosed case fatality rate.
http://theconversation.com/the-coronavirus-looks-less-deadly-than-first-reported-but-its-definitely-not-just-a-flu-133526
Only because we don't have an estimate of actual current and past C-19 infections. Furthermore, in a micro study in a recent NYT article, of 508 patients hospitalized for C-19, 40 died. Compare that to CDC numbers of the flu (ratio of hospitalizations and deaths) and it's nearly identical.Sam Lowry said:No. It uses the estimated 35 million number because that's what yields the infection fatality rate. CFR = confirmed deaths/confirmed cases (higher rate). IFR = confirmed deaths/estimated cases (lower rate). IFR = 0.1% for flu and 1% for coronavirus.ATL Bear said:That link still uses the 35 million for flu infections when there weren't 35 million confirmed cases of flu. Under the metrics they advocate for (IFR), flu would still have a higher death rate by a multiple factor. No one has an assessment of how many actual cases of C-19 are out there, from South Korea to the US. One thing that is being borne out is fortunately it's a comparatively mild virus (mortality) by any standard of measure.Sam Lowry said:
We are not basing our policy on different metrics for measuring death rates. Approximately 1% is an estimate of the total infection fatality rate, not the diagnosed case fatality rate.
http://theconversation.com/the-coronavirus-looks-less-deadly-than-first-reported-but-its-definitely-not-just-a-flu-133526
A lot out there on Google and Wikipedia has a list I could link if needed on disease mortality. Here's just one to look at.Osodecentx said:Do you have a link or is this your interpretation of data? I respect your opinion.ATL Bear said:Ebola has up to a 90 percent mortality rate. Before vaccine discovery, smallpox was a 90% killer. Those are at the high end extreme. Some of the mid level mortality viruses (30-50%) are ones like Hanta and Marburg. The first SARS is believed to be between 5-9% mortality. Right now the estimates are C-19 between .05% - 3%, so if we settled at 1.5%, even though that is likely much higher than actual, in the comparative scope of virus mortality it is on the very low end.Osodecentx said:I sure hope this is true. Where did you get the information?ATL Bear said:That link still uses the 35 million for flu infections when there weren't 35 million confirmed cases of flu. Under the metrics they advocate for (IFR), flu would still have a higher death rate by a multiple factor. No one has an assessment of how many actual cases of C-19 are out there, from South Korea to the US. One thing that is being borne out is fortunately it's a comparatively mild virus (mortality) by any standard of measure.Sam Lowry said:
We are not basing our policy on different metrics for measuring death rates. Approximately 1% is an estimate of the total infection fatality rate, not the diagnosed case fatality rate.
http://theconversation.com/the-coronavirus-looks-less-deadly-than-first-reported-but-its-definitely-not-just-a-flu-133526
https://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/health-wellness/article/2163766/seven-most-deadly-viruses-ebola-rabies-hidden-killers-are
I think maybe you flipped IFR and CFR, which led to the confusion.ATL Bear said:That's my exact point. If we measured flu mortality similar to how we're doing C-19, its mortality would look horrible. For example, if one were to estimate that right now 1 million people in the US have or had C-19, the current mortality rate would be .02%. If we took the number of hospitalizations from the flu and divided by deaths it would still have a high mortality. The missing number in this equation is an estimate of existing and past infections from C-19 since it was first confirmed in January.Kyle said:I'm not sure that's right. CDC estimates to-date there have been 38 million cases of the flu as well as 390K hospitalizations and 23K deaths. Wouldn't that 38M be the denominator of the IFR? The number of positive tests was much lower. Interestingly, if you look at the CDC site, its data shows 232,654 cases of positive flu tests for A&B with an estimated annual mortality of 23,000. So by CFR, that would put its mortality rate at 10%, which seems really high.ATL Bear said:That link still uses the 35 million for flu infections when there weren't 35 million confirmed cases of flu. Under the metrics they advocate for (IFR), flu would still have a higher death rate by a multiple factor. No one has an assessment of how many actual cases of C-19 are out there, from South Korea to the US. One thing that is being borne out is fortunately it's a comparatively mild virus (mortality) by any standard of measure.Sam Lowry said:
We are not basing our policy on different metrics for measuring death rates. Approximately 1% is an estimate of the total infection fatality rate, not the diagnosed case fatality rate.
http://theconversation.com/the-coronavirus-looks-less-deadly-than-first-reported-but-its-definitely-not-just-a-flu-133526
Balanced by the ease of transmission. 1.5 % is still a big number if 100 million people get the disease..ATL Bear said:Ebola has up to a 90 percent mortality rate. Before vaccine discovery, smallpox was a 90% killer. Those are at the high end extreme. Some of the mid level mortality viruses (30-50%) are ones like Hanta and Marburg. The first SARS is believed to be between 5-9% mortality. Right now the estimates are C-19 between .05% - 3%, so if we settled at 1.5%, even though that is likely much higher than actual, in the comparative scope of virus mortality it is on the very low end.Osodecentx said:I sure hope this is true. Where did you get the information?ATL Bear said:That link still uses the 35 million for flu infections when there weren't 35 million confirmed cases of flu. Under the metrics they advocate for (IFR), flu would still have a higher death rate by a multiple factor. No one has an assessment of how many actual cases of C-19 are out there, from South Korea to the US. One thing that is being borne out is fortunately it's a comparatively mild virus (mortality) by any standard of measure.Sam Lowry said:
We are not basing our policy on different metrics for measuring death rates. Approximately 1% is an estimate of the total infection fatality rate, not the diagnosed case fatality rate.
http://theconversation.com/the-coronavirus-looks-less-deadly-than-first-reported-but-its-definitely-not-just-a-flu-133526
The confusion is there is no similar data point for IFR for C-19 as there is with the flu which has the biggest variant impact. The 38 million estimate for the flu is enormous from a ratio impact. The IFR on C-19 is only using known cases. But I think we'd all agree that there are thousands if not 10's or 100's of thousands of C-19 cases that haven't been found or were never logged as official as the symptoms were beaten/mild.Kyle said:I think maybe you flipped IFR and CFR, which led to the confusion.ATL Bear said:That's my exact point. If we measured flu mortality similar to how we're doing C-19, its mortality would look horrible. For example, if one were to estimate that right now 1 million people in the US have or had C-19, the current mortality rate would be .02%. If we took the number of hospitalizations from the flu and divided by deaths it would still have a high mortality. The missing number in this equation is an estimate of existing and past infections from C-19 since it was first confirmed in January.Kyle said:I'm not sure that's right. CDC estimates to-date there have been 38 million cases of the flu as well as 390K hospitalizations and 23K deaths. Wouldn't that 38M be the denominator of the IFR? The number of positive tests was much lower. Interestingly, if you look at the CDC site, its data shows 232,654 cases of positive flu tests for A&B with an estimated annual mortality of 23,000. So by CFR, that would put its mortality rate at 10%, which seems really high.ATL Bear said:That link still uses the 35 million for flu infections when there weren't 35 million confirmed cases of flu. Under the metrics they advocate for (IFR), flu would still have a higher death rate by a multiple factor. No one has an assessment of how many actual cases of C-19 are out there, from South Korea to the US. One thing that is being borne out is fortunately it's a comparatively mild virus (mortality) by any standard of measure.Sam Lowry said:
We are not basing our policy on different metrics for measuring death rates. Approximately 1% is an estimate of the total infection fatality rate, not the diagnosed case fatality rate.
http://theconversation.com/the-coronavirus-looks-less-deadly-than-first-reported-but-its-definitely-not-just-a-flu-133526
Even today due to the lack of available testing most people are being told to quarantine and only elevate if serious symptoms start to manifest. Many never experience them or require hospitalization so they never become a "stat" or are tested.
Ouch. Realize Social Security is not "social welfare", if government considers it that, I will opt to take the $228,000 that has already been extracted from myself and my employer for my social security, get it returned with the average interest you would earn in the stock market, and go on my happy way.BaylorTaxman said:Instead of interpreting what you said, I will just post it without any comment. I think it speaks for itself. As I said Sunday, you are on record (and from here on out always will be). This is your exact quote from Sunday morning:Bearitto said:PartyBear said:
You were posting that Sunday morning. Has your position changed since then? I don't pay much attention to your posts.
No, I wasn't. I never said let everyone die. I analyzed three approaches, over time. Worst case scenario if those who could succumb did. Worst case if we quarantine 100% of the population and then self quarantine for all susceptible with a system to support them remaining sequestered for months. Within the 100% quarantine scenario I repeatedly pointed out you can't stop nature from taking the lives of those with months or years to live and the 100% scenario isn't worth it. But I've never said let them all die.
But by all means, keep lying.
Bearitto said:
"It occurs to me that the Wuhan flu, if left to burn through the population, would not negatively impact school or working age adults in any long term significant manner. It will, instead, likely cull large portions of the population that are much older, infirm, using significant portions of medical bandwidth already and drawing on currently overtaxed social welfare systems like social security. Therefor, the losses we are all discussing are very unlikely to affect the productive population of the country and would likely reduce long term liabilities and stressors placed on the economy by the sickest among the elderly population."
You just can't look at older folks that way though. "Cull" them, they aren't a herd of cattle or sheep, they are human beings.
Thank you for bringing this horrid quote to my attention.
Very true. Like I had mentioned with Swine flu which affected 60,800,000 in the United States, if Corona was allowed to just run rampant like Swine flu, there would be many deaths.Booray said:Balanced by the ease of transmission. 1.5 % is still a big number if 100 million people get the disease..ATL Bear said:Ebola has up to a 90 percent mortality rate. Before vaccine discovery, smallpox was a 90% killer. Those are at the high end extreme. Some of the mid level mortality viruses (30-50%) are ones like Hanta and Marburg. The first SARS is believed to be between 5-9% mortality. Right now the estimates are C-19 between .05% - 3%, so if we settled at 1.5%, even though that is likely much higher than actual, in the comparative scope of virus mortality it is on the very low end.Osodecentx said:I sure hope this is true. Where did you get the information?ATL Bear said:That link still uses the 35 million for flu infections when there weren't 35 million confirmed cases of flu. Under the metrics they advocate for (IFR), flu would still have a higher death rate by a multiple factor. No one has an assessment of how many actual cases of C-19 are out there, from South Korea to the US. One thing that is being borne out is fortunately it's a comparatively mild virus (mortality) by any standard of measure.Sam Lowry said:
We are not basing our policy on different metrics for measuring death rates. Approximately 1% is an estimate of the total infection fatality rate, not the diagnosed case fatality rate.
http://theconversation.com/the-coronavirus-looks-less-deadly-than-first-reported-but-its-definitely-not-just-a-flu-133526
Globally we're at 275,000 cases since December. It's a long road to 100 million, especially if you're saying just in the US. The numbers just aren't trending that direction unless we have mass amounts of undiscovered infections, which if that's the case the silver lining is that mortality would be down near influenza A levels.Booray said:Balanced by the ease of transmission. 1.5 % is still a big number if 100 million people get the disease..ATL Bear said:Ebola has up to a 90 percent mortality rate. Before vaccine discovery, smallpox was a 90% killer. Those are at the high end extreme. Some of the mid level mortality viruses (30-50%) are ones like Hanta and Marburg. The first SARS is believed to be between 5-9% mortality. Right now the estimates are C-19 between .05% - 3%, so if we settled at 1.5%, even though that is likely much higher than actual, in the comparative scope of virus mortality it is on the very low end.Osodecentx said:I sure hope this is true. Where did you get the information?ATL Bear said:That link still uses the 35 million for flu infections when there weren't 35 million confirmed cases of flu. Under the metrics they advocate for (IFR), flu would still have a higher death rate by a multiple factor. No one has an assessment of how many actual cases of C-19 are out there, from South Korea to the US. One thing that is being borne out is fortunately it's a comparatively mild virus (mortality) by any standard of measure.Sam Lowry said:
We are not basing our policy on different metrics for measuring death rates. Approximately 1% is an estimate of the total infection fatality rate, not the diagnosed case fatality rate.
http://theconversation.com/the-coronavirus-looks-less-deadly-than-first-reported-but-its-definitely-not-just-a-flu-133526
ThanksATL Bear said:A lot out there on Google and Wikipedia has a list I could link if needed on disease mortality. Here's just one to look at.Osodecentx said:Do you have a link or is this your interpretation of data? I respect your opinion.ATL Bear said:Ebola has up to a 90 percent mortality rate. Before vaccine discovery, smallpox was a 90% killer. Those are at the high end extreme. Some of the mid level mortality viruses (30-50%) are ones like Hanta and Marburg. The first SARS is believed to be between 5-9% mortality. Right now the estimates are C-19 between .05% - 3%, so if we settled at 1.5%, even though that is likely much higher than actual, in the comparative scope of virus mortality it is on the very low end.Osodecentx said:I sure hope this is true. Where did you get the information?ATL Bear said:That link still uses the 35 million for flu infections when there weren't 35 million confirmed cases of flu. Under the metrics they advocate for (IFR), flu would still have a higher death rate by a multiple factor. No one has an assessment of how many actual cases of C-19 are out there, from South Korea to the US. One thing that is being borne out is fortunately it's a comparatively mild virus (mortality) by any standard of measure.Sam Lowry said:
We are not basing our policy on different metrics for measuring death rates. Approximately 1% is an estimate of the total infection fatality rate, not the diagnosed case fatality rate.
http://theconversation.com/the-coronavirus-looks-less-deadly-than-first-reported-but-its-definitely-not-just-a-flu-133526
https://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/health-wellness/article/2163766/seven-most-deadly-viruses-ebola-rabies-hidden-killers-are
My only answer is the unknown bearassnekkid, Say you had a friend, member of a motorcycle gang, committed murder a few years ago, has been let out, known him all your life, have absolutely no fear of him, because well, you know him, you know the setting, you know he isn't going to hurt you.bearassnekkid said:
The ONLY thing that could justify this kind of hysteria is mortality rate. Nothing else would excuse the self-imposed destruction we are wreaking on our society. So why is NOBODY talking about the fact that we are reporting mortality rate for corona in a completely different way than we track/report mortality rate for influenza?
In the case of corona, we are reporting deaths as a % of confirmed cases. For influenza we report deaths as a % of estimated cases. According to the CDC, so far this flu season we have done approximately 1.1 million flu tests in the U.S., and there have been approximately 265k positive results. They estimate flu deaths to be around 35,000. That is a mortality rate of 13.2% of confirmed cases. Except that's not how we report it.
The CDC estimates approximately 43 Million actual cases of influenza, and reports the death as a percentage of that . . . which makes the mortality rate 0.08%. But here we are reporting corona deaths with completely unknown data, at super high rates, using a totally different metric, and scaring the crap out of everyone and shutting down the entire economy. Why on earth would we do that? And why isn't anyone doing the macro analysis on the actual cost in human suffering of the measures we're taking vs. the cost in human suffering of the virus running its course with more reasonable measures taken that keep the economy intact? Does no one care about all the additional suicides? Or depression? Or chemical dependency? Of divorce rates? Or domestic abuse? Or all the other stress-related illnesses? All we care about is the virus itself? We're listening to virologists, who are only looking at one little piece of the puzzle? It is pure insanity.
Now, say there is a motorcycle gang member, never met him, he just committed murder, going to jail, now your son, got caught selling drugs, he was desperate, he is being sent to prison, he is being housed in the same cell as the motorcycle gang member who is a murderer.
Who are you going to fear more, even though they are basically the same person?
To take this back to the beginning, the exact same thing could have been said at the time for swine flu, bird, flu, MERS, etc. As noted above, it is killing < 1.5% of known cases (CFR). That will fall to well below < 1% from an IFR perspective. So why did we not see this level of hysteria in 2009 around swing flu or any of the others? There were (IIRC) 80M cases yet we did not declare any specific actions for months.Forest Bueller_bf said:My only answer is the unknown bearassnekkid, Say you had a friend, member of a motorcycle gang, committed murder a few years ago, has been let out, known him all your life, have absolutely no fear of him, because well, you know him, you know the setting, you know he isn't going to hurt you.bearassnekkid said:
The ONLY thing that could justify this kind of hysteria is mortality rate. Nothing else would excuse the self-imposed destruction we are wreaking on our society. So why is NOBODY talking about the fact that we are reporting mortality rate for corona in a completely different way than we track/report mortality rate for influenza?
In the case of corona, we are reporting deaths as a % of confirmed cases. For influenza we report deaths as a % of estimated cases. According to the CDC, so far this flu season we have done approximately 1.1 million flu tests in the U.S., and there have been approximately 265k positive results. They estimate flu deaths to be around 35,000. That is a mortality rate of 13.2% of confirmed cases. Except that's not how we report it.
The CDC estimates approximately 43 Million actual cases of influenza, and reports the death as a percentage of that . . . which makes the mortality rate 0.08%. But here we are reporting corona deaths with completely unknown data, at super high rates, using a totally different metric, and scaring the crap out of everyone and shutting down the entire economy. Why on earth would we do that? And why isn't anyone doing the macro analysis on the actual cost in human suffering of the measures we're taking vs. the cost in human suffering of the virus running its course with more reasonable measures taken that keep the economy intact? Does no one care about all the additional suicides? Or depression? Or chemical dependency? Of divorce rates? Or domestic abuse? Or all the other stress-related illnesses? All we care about is the virus itself? We're listening to virologists, who are only looking at one little piece of the puzzle? It is pure insanity.
Now, say there is a motorcycle gang member, never met him, he just committed murder, going to jail, now your son, got caught selling drugs, he was desperate, he is being sent to prison, he is being housed in the same cell as the motorcycle gang member who is a murderer.
Who are you going to fear more, even though they are basically the same person?
I was saying worldwide.ATL Bear said:Globally we're at 275,000 cases since December. It's a long road to 100 million, especially if you're saying just in the US. The numbers just aren't trending that direction unless we have mass amounts of undiscovered infections, which if that's the case the silver lining is that mortality would be down near influenza A levels.Booray said:Balanced by the ease of transmission. 1.5 % is still a big number if 100 million people get the disease..ATL Bear said:Ebola has up to a 90 percent mortality rate. Before vaccine discovery, smallpox was a 90% killer. Those are at the high end extreme. Some of the mid level mortality viruses (30-50%) are ones like Hanta and Marburg. The first SARS is believed to be between 5-9% mortality. Right now the estimates are C-19 between .05% - 3%, so if we settled at 1.5%, even though that is likely much higher than actual, in the comparative scope of virus mortality it is on the very low end.Osodecentx said:I sure hope this is true. Where did you get the information?ATL Bear said:That link still uses the 35 million for flu infections when there weren't 35 million confirmed cases of flu. Under the metrics they advocate for (IFR), flu would still have a higher death rate by a multiple factor. No one has an assessment of how many actual cases of C-19 are out there, from South Korea to the US. One thing that is being borne out is fortunately it's a comparatively mild virus (mortality) by any standard of measure.Sam Lowry said:
We are not basing our policy on different metrics for measuring death rates. Approximately 1% is an estimate of the total infection fatality rate, not the diagnosed case fatality rate.
http://theconversation.com/the-coronavirus-looks-less-deadly-than-first-reported-but-its-definitely-not-just-a-flu-133526
That sort of infection level is what is driving the decision-makers thinking--If we don't take extreme measures at least that many people will get it. I have no idea if they are right or just wildly spooked.
My only point is that if you assume they are right, even much lower mortality rates demand severely restrictively actions.
Basing an IFR only on known cases is a contradiction in terms. Can you show me where anyone is doing that?ATL Bear said:The confusion is there is no similar data point for IFR for C-19 as there is with the flu which has the biggest variant impact. The 38 million estimate for the flu is enormous from a ratio impact. The IFR on C-19 is only using known cases. But I think we'd all agree that there are thousands if not 10's or 100's of thousands of C-19 cases that haven't been found or were never logged as official as the symptoms were beaten/mild.Kyle said:I think maybe you flipped IFR and CFR, which led to the confusion.ATL Bear said:That's my exact point. If we measured flu mortality similar to how we're doing C-19, its mortality would look horrible. For example, if one were to estimate that right now 1 million people in the US have or had C-19, the current mortality rate would be .02%. If we took the number of hospitalizations from the flu and divided by deaths it would still have a high mortality. The missing number in this equation is an estimate of existing and past infections from C-19 since it was first confirmed in January.Kyle said:I'm not sure that's right. CDC estimates to-date there have been 38 million cases of the flu as well as 390K hospitalizations and 23K deaths. Wouldn't that 38M be the denominator of the IFR? The number of positive tests was much lower. Interestingly, if you look at the CDC site, its data shows 232,654 cases of positive flu tests for A&B with an estimated annual mortality of 23,000. So by CFR, that would put its mortality rate at 10%, which seems really high.ATL Bear said:That link still uses the 35 million for flu infections when there weren't 35 million confirmed cases of flu. Under the metrics they advocate for (IFR), flu would still have a higher death rate by a multiple factor. No one has an assessment of how many actual cases of C-19 are out there, from South Korea to the US. One thing that is being borne out is fortunately it's a comparatively mild virus (mortality) by any standard of measure.Sam Lowry said:
We are not basing our policy on different metrics for measuring death rates. Approximately 1% is an estimate of the total infection fatality rate, not the diagnosed case fatality rate.
http://theconversation.com/the-coronavirus-looks-less-deadly-than-first-reported-but-its-definitely-not-just-a-flu-133526
Even today due to the lack of available testing most people are being told to quarantine and only elevate if serious symptoms start to manifest. Many never experience them or require hospitalization so they never become a "stat" or are tested.
You're link. It has no corresponding estimates of non verified infections. It simply parrots something from the cruise ship and runs with 1%.Sam Lowry said:Basing an IFR only on known cases is a contradiction in terms. Can you show me where anyone is doing that?ATL Bear said:The confusion is there is no similar data point for IFR for C-19 as there is with the flu which has the biggest variant impact. The 38 million estimate for the flu is enormous from a ratio impact. The IFR on C-19 is only using known cases. But I think we'd all agree that there are thousands if not 10's or 100's of thousands of C-19 cases that haven't been found or were never logged as official as the symptoms were beaten/mild.Kyle said:I think maybe you flipped IFR and CFR, which led to the confusion.ATL Bear said:That's my exact point. If we measured flu mortality similar to how we're doing C-19, its mortality would look horrible. For example, if one were to estimate that right now 1 million people in the US have or had C-19, the current mortality rate would be .02%. If we took the number of hospitalizations from the flu and divided by deaths it would still have a high mortality. The missing number in this equation is an estimate of existing and past infections from C-19 since it was first confirmed in January.Kyle said:I'm not sure that's right. CDC estimates to-date there have been 38 million cases of the flu as well as 390K hospitalizations and 23K deaths. Wouldn't that 38M be the denominator of the IFR? The number of positive tests was much lower. Interestingly, if you look at the CDC site, its data shows 232,654 cases of positive flu tests for A&B with an estimated annual mortality of 23,000. So by CFR, that would put its mortality rate at 10%, which seems really high.ATL Bear said:That link still uses the 35 million for flu infections when there weren't 35 million confirmed cases of flu. Under the metrics they advocate for (IFR), flu would still have a higher death rate by a multiple factor. No one has an assessment of how many actual cases of C-19 are out there, from South Korea to the US. One thing that is being borne out is fortunately it's a comparatively mild virus (mortality) by any standard of measure.Sam Lowry said:
We are not basing our policy on different metrics for measuring death rates. Approximately 1% is an estimate of the total infection fatality rate, not the diagnosed case fatality rate.
http://theconversation.com/the-coronavirus-looks-less-deadly-than-first-reported-but-its-definitely-not-just-a-flu-133526
Even today due to the lack of available testing most people are being told to quarantine and only elevate if serious symptoms start to manifest. Many never experience them or require hospitalization so they never become a "stat" or are tested.
EDIT: For Covid-19 that is.
Click the link:ATL Bear said:You're link. It has no corresponding estimates of non verified infections. It simply parrots something from the cruise ship and runs with 1%.Sam Lowry said:Basing an IFR only on known cases is a contradiction in terms. Can you show me where anyone is doing that?ATL Bear said:The confusion is there is no similar data point for IFR for C-19 as there is with the flu which has the biggest variant impact. The 38 million estimate for the flu is enormous from a ratio impact. The IFR on C-19 is only using known cases. But I think we'd all agree that there are thousands if not 10's or 100's of thousands of C-19 cases that haven't been found or were never logged as official as the symptoms were beaten/mild.Kyle said:I think maybe you flipped IFR and CFR, which led to the confusion.ATL Bear said:That's my exact point. If we measured flu mortality similar to how we're doing C-19, its mortality would look horrible. For example, if one were to estimate that right now 1 million people in the US have or had C-19, the current mortality rate would be .02%. If we took the number of hospitalizations from the flu and divided by deaths it would still have a high mortality. The missing number in this equation is an estimate of existing and past infections from C-19 since it was first confirmed in January.Kyle said:I'm not sure that's right. CDC estimates to-date there have been 38 million cases of the flu as well as 390K hospitalizations and 23K deaths. Wouldn't that 38M be the denominator of the IFR? The number of positive tests was much lower. Interestingly, if you look at the CDC site, its data shows 232,654 cases of positive flu tests for A&B with an estimated annual mortality of 23,000. So by CFR, that would put its mortality rate at 10%, which seems really high.ATL Bear said:That link still uses the 35 million for flu infections when there weren't 35 million confirmed cases of flu. Under the metrics they advocate for (IFR), flu would still have a higher death rate by a multiple factor. No one has an assessment of how many actual cases of C-19 are out there, from South Korea to the US. One thing that is being borne out is fortunately it's a comparatively mild virus (mortality) by any standard of measure.Sam Lowry said:
We are not basing our policy on different metrics for measuring death rates. Approximately 1% is an estimate of the total infection fatality rate, not the diagnosed case fatality rate.
http://theconversation.com/the-coronavirus-looks-less-deadly-than-first-reported-but-its-definitely-not-just-a-flu-133526
Even today due to the lack of available testing most people are being told to quarantine and only elevate if serious symptoms start to manifest. Many never experience them or require hospitalization so they never become a "stat" or are tested.
EDIT: For Covid-19 that is.
Quote:
This statistic is harder to calculate, as it requires estimating the number of undetected infections. The Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) is the number of deaths divided by the true number of infections (including both confirmed and undiagnosed cases). One estimate of the IFR for COVID-19 puts this figure at 1%, and some new data suggests this is credible.
I think the questions from reasonable people start when they look at the costs from past pandemics and compare them to what we see now. Yes, the Spanish Flu of 1918 was very serious, but it's also unusual in the context of pandemics since then. So while no one should want to be careless with C-19 and its potential devastation, there is a natural question about why we should assume casualties in the millions when total cases worldwide have yet to reach a half million.
The difficulty is determining a a most-likely case. Neither the worst case we hear so much in the news, nor the best case we can hope for if everything-goes-right scenarios. As more and more regular people are exposed to the virus, we will find out if it is true that most people are healthy enough to resist the virus, to either repel it completely or suffer only mild effects. It is rational to expect that as time provides both more effective treatment options as well as a broader population base will result in lower infection rates as well as fewer deaths, but no one should gamble lives on such an assumption.
Frankly, predicting the deaths of millions of Americans is panic-mongering and useless for helping find solutions. But self-quarantine and social distancing are vital parts to resisting the spread of the virus, and while it must be acknowledged that shutting down social businesses takes a heavy cost on those businesses, and in many cases will kill those businesses and send hard-working people out of work, in some cases it is necessary for public safety. What we should discuss at this point is how to make things right for those who bear the cost of that decision.
The difficulty is determining a a most-likely case. Neither the worst case we hear so much in the news, nor the best case we can hope for if everything-goes-right scenarios. As more and more regular people are exposed to the virus, we will find out if it is true that most people are healthy enough to resist the virus, to either repel it completely or suffer only mild effects. It is rational to expect that as time provides both more effective treatment options as well as a broader population base will result in lower infection rates as well as fewer deaths, but no one should gamble lives on such an assumption.
Frankly, predicting the deaths of millions of Americans is panic-mongering and useless for helping find solutions. But self-quarantine and social distancing are vital parts to resisting the spread of the virus, and while it must be acknowledged that shutting down social businesses takes a heavy cost on those businesses, and in many cases will kill those businesses and send hard-working people out of work, in some cases it is necessary for public safety. What we should discuss at this point is how to make things right for those who bear the cost of that decision.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
I did and it's incomparable. Their IFR factor is .94% for Covid-19 whereas the flu in comparison is 13%. I also think they need to update their models with new data. Still using older China data.Sam Lowry said:Click the link:ATL Bear said:You're link. It has no corresponding estimates of non verified infections. It simply parrots something from the cruise ship and runs with 1%.Sam Lowry said:Basing an IFR only on known cases is a contradiction in terms. Can you show me where anyone is doing that?ATL Bear said:The confusion is there is no similar data point for IFR for C-19 as there is with the flu which has the biggest variant impact. The 38 million estimate for the flu is enormous from a ratio impact. The IFR on C-19 is only using known cases. But I think we'd all agree that there are thousands if not 10's or 100's of thousands of C-19 cases that haven't been found or were never logged as official as the symptoms were beaten/mild.Kyle said:I think maybe you flipped IFR and CFR, which led to the confusion.ATL Bear said:That's my exact point. If we measured flu mortality similar to how we're doing C-19, its mortality would look horrible. For example, if one were to estimate that right now 1 million people in the US have or had C-19, the current mortality rate would be .02%. If we took the number of hospitalizations from the flu and divided by deaths it would still have a high mortality. The missing number in this equation is an estimate of existing and past infections from C-19 since it was first confirmed in January.Kyle said:I'm not sure that's right. CDC estimates to-date there have been 38 million cases of the flu as well as 390K hospitalizations and 23K deaths. Wouldn't that 38M be the denominator of the IFR? The number of positive tests was much lower. Interestingly, if you look at the CDC site, its data shows 232,654 cases of positive flu tests for A&B with an estimated annual mortality of 23,000. So by CFR, that would put its mortality rate at 10%, which seems really high.ATL Bear said:That link still uses the 35 million for flu infections when there weren't 35 million confirmed cases of flu. Under the metrics they advocate for (IFR), flu would still have a higher death rate by a multiple factor. No one has an assessment of how many actual cases of C-19 are out there, from South Korea to the US. One thing that is being borne out is fortunately it's a comparatively mild virus (mortality) by any standard of measure.Sam Lowry said:
We are not basing our policy on different metrics for measuring death rates. Approximately 1% is an estimate of the total infection fatality rate, not the diagnosed case fatality rate.
http://theconversation.com/the-coronavirus-looks-less-deadly-than-first-reported-but-its-definitely-not-just-a-flu-133526
Even today due to the lack of available testing most people are being told to quarantine and only elevate if serious symptoms start to manifest. Many never experience them or require hospitalization so they never become a "stat" or are tested.
EDIT: For Covid-19 that is.Quote:
This statistic is harder to calculate, as it requires estimating the number of undetected infections. The Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) is the number of deaths divided by the true number of infections (including both confirmed and undiagnosed cases). One estimate of the IFR for COVID-19 puts this figure at 1%, and some new data suggests this is credible.
That just does not pass the smell test. Just apply common sense.Sam Lowry said:Click the link:ATL Bear said:You're link. It has no corresponding estimates of non verified infections. It simply parrots something from the cruise ship and runs with 1%.Sam Lowry said:Basing an IFR only on known cases is a contradiction in terms. Can you show me where anyone is doing that?ATL Bear said:The confusion is there is no similar data point for IFR for C-19 as there is with the flu which has the biggest variant impact. The 38 million estimate for the flu is enormous from a ratio impact. The IFR on C-19 is only using known cases. But I think we'd all agree that there are thousands if not 10's or 100's of thousands of C-19 cases that haven't been found or were never logged as official as the symptoms were beaten/mild.Kyle said:I think maybe you flipped IFR and CFR, which led to the confusion.ATL Bear said:That's my exact point. If we measured flu mortality similar to how we're doing C-19, its mortality would look horrible. For example, if one were to estimate that right now 1 million people in the US have or had C-19, the current mortality rate would be .02%. If we took the number of hospitalizations from the flu and divided by deaths it would still have a high mortality. The missing number in this equation is an estimate of existing and past infections from C-19 since it was first confirmed in January.Kyle said:I'm not sure that's right. CDC estimates to-date there have been 38 million cases of the flu as well as 390K hospitalizations and 23K deaths. Wouldn't that 38M be the denominator of the IFR? The number of positive tests was much lower. Interestingly, if you look at the CDC site, its data shows 232,654 cases of positive flu tests for A&B with an estimated annual mortality of 23,000. So by CFR, that would put its mortality rate at 10%, which seems really high.ATL Bear said:That link still uses the 35 million for flu infections when there weren't 35 million confirmed cases of flu. Under the metrics they advocate for (IFR), flu would still have a higher death rate by a multiple factor. No one has an assessment of how many actual cases of C-19 are out there, from South Korea to the US. One thing that is being borne out is fortunately it's a comparatively mild virus (mortality) by any standard of measure.Sam Lowry said:
We are not basing our policy on different metrics for measuring death rates. Approximately 1% is an estimate of the total infection fatality rate, not the diagnosed case fatality rate.
http://theconversation.com/the-coronavirus-looks-less-deadly-than-first-reported-but-its-definitely-not-just-a-flu-133526
Even today due to the lack of available testing most people are being told to quarantine and only elevate if serious symptoms start to manifest. Many never experience them or require hospitalization so they never become a "stat" or are tested.
EDIT: For Covid-19 that is.Quote:
This statistic is harder to calculate, as it requires estimating the number of undetected infections. The Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) is the number of deaths divided by the true number of infections (including both confirmed and undiagnosed cases). One estimate of the IFR for COVID-19 puts this figure at 1%, and some new data suggests this is credible.
1. I think we can all assume that given lack of testing, there are more cases than formally identified
2. The CFR mortality rate is 1.33% in the U.S.
3. Given the 15,000 cases in the U.S., that would mean that across the country there have only been 5,000 un-diagnosed cases since December.
4. Reasonbly, we probably have 4-5X confirmed cases, which will push the mortality rate to 0.5%.
We were talking at dinner tonight, including my son, we know four other kids that had bad, flu-like symptoms but tested negative for strep and flu. Realize flu tests are not 100% accurate, but decent chance they all had it but thought it was the flu.
I meant the link in the quote. Where do you get an IFR of 13% for the flu?ATL Bear said:I did and it's incomparable. Their IFR factor is .94% for Covid-19 whereas the flu in comparison is 13%. I also think they need to update their models with new data. Still using older China data.Sam Lowry said:Click the link:ATL Bear said:You're link. It has no corresponding estimates of non verified infections. It simply parrots something from the cruise ship and runs with 1%.Sam Lowry said:Basing an IFR only on known cases is a contradiction in terms. Can you show me where anyone is doing that?ATL Bear said:The confusion is there is no similar data point for IFR for C-19 as there is with the flu which has the biggest variant impact. The 38 million estimate for the flu is enormous from a ratio impact. The IFR on C-19 is only using known cases. But I think we'd all agree that there are thousands if not 10's or 100's of thousands of C-19 cases that haven't been found or were never logged as official as the symptoms were beaten/mild.Kyle said:I think maybe you flipped IFR and CFR, which led to the confusion.ATL Bear said:That's my exact point. If we measured flu mortality similar to how we're doing C-19, its mortality would look horrible. For example, if one were to estimate that right now 1 million people in the US have or had C-19, the current mortality rate would be .02%. If we took the number of hospitalizations from the flu and divided by deaths it would still have a high mortality. The missing number in this equation is an estimate of existing and past infections from C-19 since it was first confirmed in January.Kyle said:I'm not sure that's right. CDC estimates to-date there have been 38 million cases of the flu as well as 390K hospitalizations and 23K deaths. Wouldn't that 38M be the denominator of the IFR? The number of positive tests was much lower. Interestingly, if you look at the CDC site, its data shows 232,654 cases of positive flu tests for A&B with an estimated annual mortality of 23,000. So by CFR, that would put its mortality rate at 10%, which seems really high.ATL Bear said:That link still uses the 35 million for flu infections when there weren't 35 million confirmed cases of flu. Under the metrics they advocate for (IFR), flu would still have a higher death rate by a multiple factor. No one has an assessment of how many actual cases of C-19 are out there, from South Korea to the US. One thing that is being borne out is fortunately it's a comparatively mild virus (mortality) by any standard of measure.Sam Lowry said:
We are not basing our policy on different metrics for measuring death rates. Approximately 1% is an estimate of the total infection fatality rate, not the diagnosed case fatality rate.
http://theconversation.com/the-coronavirus-looks-less-deadly-than-first-reported-but-its-definitely-not-just-a-flu-133526
Even today due to the lack of available testing most people are being told to quarantine and only elevate if serious symptoms start to manifest. Many never experience them or require hospitalization so they never become a "stat" or are tested.
EDIT: For Covid-19 that is.Quote:
This statistic is harder to calculate, as it requires estimating the number of undetected infections. The Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) is the number of deaths divided by the true number of infections (including both confirmed and undiagnosed cases). One estimate of the IFR for COVID-19 puts this figure at 1%, and some new data suggests this is credible.
The numbers are adjusted for risk and for the fact that the data are older.Kyle said:That just does not pass the smell test. Just apply common sense.Sam Lowry said:Click the link:ATL Bear said:You're link. It has no corresponding estimates of non verified infections. It simply parrots something from the cruise ship and runs with 1%.Sam Lowry said:Basing an IFR only on known cases is a contradiction in terms. Can you show me where anyone is doing that?ATL Bear said:The confusion is there is no similar data point for IFR for C-19 as there is with the flu which has the biggest variant impact. The 38 million estimate for the flu is enormous from a ratio impact. The IFR on C-19 is only using known cases. But I think we'd all agree that there are thousands if not 10's or 100's of thousands of C-19 cases that haven't been found or were never logged as official as the symptoms were beaten/mild.Kyle said:I think maybe you flipped IFR and CFR, which led to the confusion.ATL Bear said:That's my exact point. If we measured flu mortality similar to how we're doing C-19, its mortality would look horrible. For example, if one were to estimate that right now 1 million people in the US have or had C-19, the current mortality rate would be .02%. If we took the number of hospitalizations from the flu and divided by deaths it would still have a high mortality. The missing number in this equation is an estimate of existing and past infections from C-19 since it was first confirmed in January.Kyle said:I'm not sure that's right. CDC estimates to-date there have been 38 million cases of the flu as well as 390K hospitalizations and 23K deaths. Wouldn't that 38M be the denominator of the IFR? The number of positive tests was much lower. Interestingly, if you look at the CDC site, its data shows 232,654 cases of positive flu tests for A&B with an estimated annual mortality of 23,000. So by CFR, that would put its mortality rate at 10%, which seems really high.ATL Bear said:That link still uses the 35 million for flu infections when there weren't 35 million confirmed cases of flu. Under the metrics they advocate for (IFR), flu would still have a higher death rate by a multiple factor. No one has an assessment of how many actual cases of C-19 are out there, from South Korea to the US. One thing that is being borne out is fortunately it's a comparatively mild virus (mortality) by any standard of measure.Sam Lowry said:
We are not basing our policy on different metrics for measuring death rates. Approximately 1% is an estimate of the total infection fatality rate, not the diagnosed case fatality rate.
http://theconversation.com/the-coronavirus-looks-less-deadly-than-first-reported-but-its-definitely-not-just-a-flu-133526
Even today due to the lack of available testing most people are being told to quarantine and only elevate if serious symptoms start to manifest. Many never experience them or require hospitalization so they never become a "stat" or are tested.
EDIT: For Covid-19 that is.Quote:
This statistic is harder to calculate, as it requires estimating the number of undetected infections. The Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) is the number of deaths divided by the true number of infections (including both confirmed and undiagnosed cases). One estimate of the IFR for COVID-19 puts this figure at 1%, and some new data suggests this is credible.
1. I think we can all assume that given lack of testing, there are more cases than formally identified
2. The CFR mortality rate is 1.33% in the U.S.
3. Given the 15,000 cases in the U.S., that would mean that across the country there have only been 5,000 un-diagnosed cases since December.
4. Reasonbly, we probably have 4-5X confirmed cases, which will push the mortality rate to 0.5%.
We were talking at dinner tonight, including my son, we know four other kids that had bad, flu-like symptoms but tested negative for strep and flu. Realize flu tests are not 100% accurate, but decent chance they all had it but thought it was the flu.
And still bull***** That's why "modeling" to predict global warming, global cooling, pandemics, etc., are fatally flawed - when you're incentive is to secure another government grant vs. solving an actual problem.Sam Lowry said:The numbers are adjusted for risk and for the fact that the data are older.Kyle said:That just does not pass the smell test. Just apply common sense.Sam Lowry said:Click the link:ATL Bear said:You're link. It has no corresponding estimates of non verified infections. It simply parrots something from the cruise ship and runs with 1%.Sam Lowry said:Basing an IFR only on known cases is a contradiction in terms. Can you show me where anyone is doing that?ATL Bear said:The confusion is there is no similar data point for IFR for C-19 as there is with the flu which has the biggest variant impact. The 38 million estimate for the flu is enormous from a ratio impact. The IFR on C-19 is only using known cases. But I think we'd all agree that there are thousands if not 10's or 100's of thousands of C-19 cases that haven't been found or were never logged as official as the symptoms were beaten/mild.Kyle said:I think maybe you flipped IFR and CFR, which led to the confusion.ATL Bear said:That's my exact point. If we measured flu mortality similar to how we're doing C-19, its mortality would look horrible. For example, if one were to estimate that right now 1 million people in the US have or had C-19, the current mortality rate would be .02%. If we took the number of hospitalizations from the flu and divided by deaths it would still have a high mortality. The missing number in this equation is an estimate of existing and past infections from C-19 since it was first confirmed in January.Kyle said:I'm not sure that's right. CDC estimates to-date there have been 38 million cases of the flu as well as 390K hospitalizations and 23K deaths. Wouldn't that 38M be the denominator of the IFR? The number of positive tests was much lower. Interestingly, if you look at the CDC site, its data shows 232,654 cases of positive flu tests for A&B with an estimated annual mortality of 23,000. So by CFR, that would put its mortality rate at 10%, which seems really high.ATL Bear said:That link still uses the 35 million for flu infections when there weren't 35 million confirmed cases of flu. Under the metrics they advocate for (IFR), flu would still have a higher death rate by a multiple factor. No one has an assessment of how many actual cases of C-19 are out there, from South Korea to the US. One thing that is being borne out is fortunately it's a comparatively mild virus (mortality) by any standard of measure.Sam Lowry said:
We are not basing our policy on different metrics for measuring death rates. Approximately 1% is an estimate of the total infection fatality rate, not the diagnosed case fatality rate.
http://theconversation.com/the-coronavirus-looks-less-deadly-than-first-reported-but-its-definitely-not-just-a-flu-133526
Even today due to the lack of available testing most people are being told to quarantine and only elevate if serious symptoms start to manifest. Many never experience them or require hospitalization so they never become a "stat" or are tested.
EDIT: For Covid-19 that is.Quote:
This statistic is harder to calculate, as it requires estimating the number of undetected infections. The Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) is the number of deaths divided by the true number of infections (including both confirmed and undiagnosed cases). One estimate of the IFR for COVID-19 puts this figure at 1%, and some new data suggests this is credible.
1. I think we can all assume that given lack of testing, there are more cases than formally identified
2. The CFR mortality rate is 1.33% in the U.S.
3. Given the 15,000 cases in the U.S., that would mean that across the country there have only been 5,000 un-diagnosed cases since December.
4. Reasonbly, we probably have 4-5X confirmed cases, which will push the mortality rate to 0.5%.
We were talking at dinner tonight, including my son, we know four other kids that had bad, flu-like symptoms but tested negative for strep and flu. Realize flu tests are not 100% accurate, but decent chance they all had it but thought it was the flu.
You can't observe global warming from beginning to end. We have observed many pandemics from beginning to end. It's well recognized that raw data tend to under-count CFR near the beginning.Kyle said:And still bull***** That's why "modeling" to predict global warming, global cooling, pandemics, etc., are fatally flawed - when you're incentive is to secure another government grant vs. solving an actual problem.Sam Lowry said:The numbers are adjusted for risk and for the fact that the data are older.Kyle said:That just does not pass the smell test. Just apply common sense.Sam Lowry said:Click the link:ATL Bear said:You're link. It has no corresponding estimates of non verified infections. It simply parrots something from the cruise ship and runs with 1%.Sam Lowry said:Basing an IFR only on known cases is a contradiction in terms. Can you show me where anyone is doing that?ATL Bear said:The confusion is there is no similar data point for IFR for C-19 as there is with the flu which has the biggest variant impact. The 38 million estimate for the flu is enormous from a ratio impact. The IFR on C-19 is only using known cases. But I think we'd all agree that there are thousands if not 10's or 100's of thousands of C-19 cases that haven't been found or were never logged as official as the symptoms were beaten/mild.Kyle said:I think maybe you flipped IFR and CFR, which led to the confusion.ATL Bear said:That's my exact point. If we measured flu mortality similar to how we're doing C-19, its mortality would look horrible. For example, if one were to estimate that right now 1 million people in the US have or had C-19, the current mortality rate would be .02%. If we took the number of hospitalizations from the flu and divided by deaths it would still have a high mortality. The missing number in this equation is an estimate of existing and past infections from C-19 since it was first confirmed in January.Kyle said:I'm not sure that's right. CDC estimates to-date there have been 38 million cases of the flu as well as 390K hospitalizations and 23K deaths. Wouldn't that 38M be the denominator of the IFR? The number of positive tests was much lower. Interestingly, if you look at the CDC site, its data shows 232,654 cases of positive flu tests for A&B with an estimated annual mortality of 23,000. So by CFR, that would put its mortality rate at 10%, which seems really high.ATL Bear said:That link still uses the 35 million for flu infections when there weren't 35 million confirmed cases of flu. Under the metrics they advocate for (IFR), flu would still have a higher death rate by a multiple factor. No one has an assessment of how many actual cases of C-19 are out there, from South Korea to the US. One thing that is being borne out is fortunately it's a comparatively mild virus (mortality) by any standard of measure.Sam Lowry said:
We are not basing our policy on different metrics for measuring death rates. Approximately 1% is an estimate of the total infection fatality rate, not the diagnosed case fatality rate.
http://theconversation.com/the-coronavirus-looks-less-deadly-than-first-reported-but-its-definitely-not-just-a-flu-133526
Even today due to the lack of available testing most people are being told to quarantine and only elevate if serious symptoms start to manifest. Many never experience them or require hospitalization so they never become a "stat" or are tested.
EDIT: For Covid-19 that is.Quote:
This statistic is harder to calculate, as it requires estimating the number of undetected infections. The Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) is the number of deaths divided by the true number of infections (including both confirmed and undiagnosed cases). One estimate of the IFR for COVID-19 puts this figure at 1%, and some new data suggests this is credible.
1. I think we can all assume that given lack of testing, there are more cases than formally identified
2. The CFR mortality rate is 1.33% in the U.S.
3. Given the 15,000 cases in the U.S., that would mean that across the country there have only been 5,000 un-diagnosed cases since December.
4. Reasonbly, we probably have 4-5X confirmed cases, which will push the mortality rate to 0.5%.
We were talking at dinner tonight, including my son, we know four other kids that had bad, flu-like symptoms but tested negative for strep and flu. Realize flu tests are not 100% accurate, but decent chance they all had it but thought it was the flu.
Anyway, I think the numbers show that healthcare systems are likely to be overwhelmed. You think the numbers show otherwise. So why do they keep getting overwhelmed?
And if this is all a plot to destroy the economy and defeat Trump, why is Trump now supporting it?
Not a single system is overwhelmed. In fact, my kid is having surgery next week. All media hype.Sam Lowry said:You can't observe global warming from beginning to end. We have observed many pandemics from beginning to end. It's well recognized that raw data tend to under-count CFR near the beginning.Kyle said:And still bull***** That's why "modeling" to predict global warming, global cooling, pandemics, etc., are fatally flawed - when you're incentive is to secure another government grant vs. solving an actual problem.Sam Lowry said:The numbers are adjusted for risk and for the fact that the data are older.Kyle said:That just does not pass the smell test. Just apply common sense.Sam Lowry said:Click the link:ATL Bear said:You're link. It has no corresponding estimates of non verified infections. It simply parrots something from the cruise ship and runs with 1%.Sam Lowry said:Basing an IFR only on known cases is a contradiction in terms. Can you show me where anyone is doing that?ATL Bear said:The confusion is there is no similar data point for IFR for C-19 as there is with the flu which has the biggest variant impact. The 38 million estimate for the flu is enormous from a ratio impact. The IFR on C-19 is only using known cases. But I think we'd all agree that there are thousands if not 10's or 100's of thousands of C-19 cases that haven't been found or were never logged as official as the symptoms were beaten/mild.Kyle said:I think maybe you flipped IFR and CFR, which led to the confusion.ATL Bear said:That's my exact point. If we measured flu mortality similar to how we're doing C-19, its mortality would look horrible. For example, if one were to estimate that right now 1 million people in the US have or had C-19, the current mortality rate would be .02%. If we took the number of hospitalizations from the flu and divided by deaths it would still have a high mortality. The missing number in this equation is an estimate of existing and past infections from C-19 since it was first confirmed in January.Kyle said:I'm not sure that's right. CDC estimates to-date there have been 38 million cases of the flu as well as 390K hospitalizations and 23K deaths. Wouldn't that 38M be the denominator of the IFR? The number of positive tests was much lower. Interestingly, if you look at the CDC site, its data shows 232,654 cases of positive flu tests for A&B with an estimated annual mortality of 23,000. So by CFR, that would put its mortality rate at 10%, which seems really high.ATL Bear said:That link still uses the 35 million for flu infections when there weren't 35 million confirmed cases of flu. Under the metrics they advocate for (IFR), flu would still have a higher death rate by a multiple factor. No one has an assessment of how many actual cases of C-19 are out there, from South Korea to the US. One thing that is being borne out is fortunately it's a comparatively mild virus (mortality) by any standard of measure.Sam Lowry said:
We are not basing our policy on different metrics for measuring death rates. Approximately 1% is an estimate of the total infection fatality rate, not the diagnosed case fatality rate.
http://theconversation.com/the-coronavirus-looks-less-deadly-than-first-reported-but-its-definitely-not-just-a-flu-133526
Even today due to the lack of available testing most people are being told to quarantine and only elevate if serious symptoms start to manifest. Many never experience them or require hospitalization so they never become a "stat" or are tested.
EDIT: For Covid-19 that is.Quote:
This statistic is harder to calculate, as it requires estimating the number of undetected infections. The Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) is the number of deaths divided by the true number of infections (including both confirmed and undiagnosed cases). One estimate of the IFR for COVID-19 puts this figure at 1%, and some new data suggests this is credible.
1. I think we can all assume that given lack of testing, there are more cases than formally identified
2. The CFR mortality rate is 1.33% in the U.S.
3. Given the 15,000 cases in the U.S., that would mean that across the country there have only been 5,000 un-diagnosed cases since December.
4. Reasonbly, we probably have 4-5X confirmed cases, which will push the mortality rate to 0.5%.
We were talking at dinner tonight, including my son, we know four other kids that had bad, flu-like symptoms but tested negative for strep and flu. Realize flu tests are not 100% accurate, but decent chance they all had it but thought it was the flu.
Anyway, I think the numbers show that healthcare systems are likely to be overwhelmed. You think the numbers show otherwise. So why do they keep getting overwhelmed?
And if this is all a plot to destroy the economy and defeat Trump, why is Trump now supporting it?
Who claimed it was an anti-Trump conspiracy? Besides, I thought he was an abject moron, so he would not even realize it right? I mean, he's no Maxine Waters or Sheila Jackson Lee.
That's the percentage of people estimated to be infected by the flu as a percentage of US population.Sam Lowry said:I meant the link in the quote. Where do you get an IFR of 13% for the flu?ATL Bear said:I did and it's incomparable. Their IFR factor is .94% for Covid-19 whereas the flu in comparison is 13%. I also think they need to update their models with new data. Still using older China data.Sam Lowry said:Click the link:ATL Bear said:You're link. It has no corresponding estimates of non verified infections. It simply parrots something from the cruise ship and runs with 1%.Sam Lowry said:Basing an IFR only on known cases is a contradiction in terms. Can you show me where anyone is doing that?ATL Bear said:The confusion is there is no similar data point for IFR for C-19 as there is with the flu which has the biggest variant impact. The 38 million estimate for the flu is enormous from a ratio impact. The IFR on C-19 is only using known cases. But I think we'd all agree that there are thousands if not 10's or 100's of thousands of C-19 cases that haven't been found or were never logged as official as the symptoms were beaten/mild.Kyle said:I think maybe you flipped IFR and CFR, which led to the confusion.ATL Bear said:That's my exact point. If we measured flu mortality similar to how we're doing C-19, its mortality would look horrible. For example, if one were to estimate that right now 1 million people in the US have or had C-19, the current mortality rate would be .02%. If we took the number of hospitalizations from the flu and divided by deaths it would still have a high mortality. The missing number in this equation is an estimate of existing and past infections from C-19 since it was first confirmed in January.Kyle said:I'm not sure that's right. CDC estimates to-date there have been 38 million cases of the flu as well as 390K hospitalizations and 23K deaths. Wouldn't that 38M be the denominator of the IFR? The number of positive tests was much lower. Interestingly, if you look at the CDC site, its data shows 232,654 cases of positive flu tests for A&B with an estimated annual mortality of 23,000. So by CFR, that would put its mortality rate at 10%, which seems really high.ATL Bear said:That link still uses the 35 million for flu infections when there weren't 35 million confirmed cases of flu. Under the metrics they advocate for (IFR), flu would still have a higher death rate by a multiple factor. No one has an assessment of how many actual cases of C-19 are out there, from South Korea to the US. One thing that is being borne out is fortunately it's a comparatively mild virus (mortality) by any standard of measure.Sam Lowry said:
We are not basing our policy on different metrics for measuring death rates. Approximately 1% is an estimate of the total infection fatality rate, not the diagnosed case fatality rate.
http://theconversation.com/the-coronavirus-looks-less-deadly-than-first-reported-but-its-definitely-not-just-a-flu-133526
Even today due to the lack of available testing most people are being told to quarantine and only elevate if serious symptoms start to manifest. Many never experience them or require hospitalization so they never become a "stat" or are tested.
EDIT: For Covid-19 that is.Quote:
This statistic is harder to calculate, as it requires estimating the number of undetected infections. The Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) is the number of deaths divided by the true number of infections (including both confirmed and undiagnosed cases). One estimate of the IFR for COVID-19 puts this figure at 1%, and some new data suggests this is credible.
Wow.Kyle said:Not a single system is overwhelmed. In fact, my kid is having surgery next week. All media hype.Sam Lowry said:You can't observe global warming from beginning to end. We have observed many pandemics from beginning to end. It's well recognized that raw data tend to under-count CFR near the beginning.Kyle said:And still bull***** That's why "modeling" to predict global warming, global cooling, pandemics, etc., are fatally flawed - when you're incentive is to secure another government grant vs. solving an actual problem.Sam Lowry said:The numbers are adjusted for risk and for the fact that the data are older.Kyle said:That just does not pass the smell test. Just apply common sense.Sam Lowry said:Click the link:ATL Bear said:You're link. It has no corresponding estimates of non verified infections. It simply parrots something from the cruise ship and runs with 1%.Sam Lowry said:Basing an IFR only on known cases is a contradiction in terms. Can you show me where anyone is doing that?ATL Bear said:The confusion is there is no similar data point for IFR for C-19 as there is with the flu which has the biggest variant impact. The 38 million estimate for the flu is enormous from a ratio impact. The IFR on C-19 is only using known cases. But I think we'd all agree that there are thousands if not 10's or 100's of thousands of C-19 cases that haven't been found or were never logged as official as the symptoms were beaten/mild.Kyle said:I think maybe you flipped IFR and CFR, which led to the confusion.ATL Bear said:That's my exact point. If we measured flu mortality similar to how we're doing C-19, its mortality would look horrible. For example, if one were to estimate that right now 1 million people in the US have or had C-19, the current mortality rate would be .02%. If we took the number of hospitalizations from the flu and divided by deaths it would still have a high mortality. The missing number in this equation is an estimate of existing and past infections from C-19 since it was first confirmed in January.Kyle said:I'm not sure that's right. CDC estimates to-date there have been 38 million cases of the flu as well as 390K hospitalizations and 23K deaths. Wouldn't that 38M be the denominator of the IFR? The number of positive tests was much lower. Interestingly, if you look at the CDC site, its data shows 232,654 cases of positive flu tests for A&B with an estimated annual mortality of 23,000. So by CFR, that would put its mortality rate at 10%, which seems really high.ATL Bear said:That link still uses the 35 million for flu infections when there weren't 35 million confirmed cases of flu. Under the metrics they advocate for (IFR), flu would still have a higher death rate by a multiple factor. No one has an assessment of how many actual cases of C-19 are out there, from South Korea to the US. One thing that is being borne out is fortunately it's a comparatively mild virus (mortality) by any standard of measure.Sam Lowry said:
We are not basing our policy on different metrics for measuring death rates. Approximately 1% is an estimate of the total infection fatality rate, not the diagnosed case fatality rate.
http://theconversation.com/the-coronavirus-looks-less-deadly-than-first-reported-but-its-definitely-not-just-a-flu-133526
Even today due to the lack of available testing most people are being told to quarantine and only elevate if serious symptoms start to manifest. Many never experience them or require hospitalization so they never become a "stat" or are tested.
EDIT: For Covid-19 that is.Quote:
This statistic is harder to calculate, as it requires estimating the number of undetected infections. The Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) is the number of deaths divided by the true number of infections (including both confirmed and undiagnosed cases). One estimate of the IFR for COVID-19 puts this figure at 1%, and some new data suggests this is credible.
1. I think we can all assume that given lack of testing, there are more cases than formally identified
2. The CFR mortality rate is 1.33% in the U.S.
3. Given the 15,000 cases in the U.S., that would mean that across the country there have only been 5,000 un-diagnosed cases since December.
4. Reasonbly, we probably have 4-5X confirmed cases, which will push the mortality rate to 0.5%.
We were talking at dinner tonight, including my son, we know four other kids that had bad, flu-like symptoms but tested negative for strep and flu. Realize flu tests are not 100% accurate, but decent chance they all had it but thought it was the flu.
Anyway, I think the numbers show that healthcare systems are likely to be overwhelmed. You think the numbers show otherwise. So why do they keep getting overwhelmed?
And if this is all a plot to destroy the economy and defeat Trump, why is Trump now supporting it?
Who claimed it was an anti-Trump conspiracy? Besides, I thought he was an abject moron, so he would not even realize it right? I mean, he's no Maxine Waters or Sheila Jackson Lee.
So, not an IFR and not the comparable number.ATL Bear said:That's the percentage of people estimated to be infected by the flu as a percentage of US population.Sam Lowry said:I meant the link in the quote. Where do you get an IFR of 13% for the flu?ATL Bear said:I did and it's incomparable. Their IFR factor is .94% for Covid-19 whereas the flu in comparison is 13%. I also think they need to update their models with new data. Still using older China data.Sam Lowry said:Click the link:ATL Bear said:You're link. It has no corresponding estimates of non verified infections. It simply parrots something from the cruise ship and runs with 1%.Sam Lowry said:Basing an IFR only on known cases is a contradiction in terms. Can you show me where anyone is doing that?ATL Bear said:The confusion is there is no similar data point for IFR for C-19 as there is with the flu which has the biggest variant impact. The 38 million estimate for the flu is enormous from a ratio impact. The IFR on C-19 is only using known cases. But I think we'd all agree that there are thousands if not 10's or 100's of thousands of C-19 cases that haven't been found or were never logged as official as the symptoms were beaten/mild.Kyle said:I think maybe you flipped IFR and CFR, which led to the confusion.ATL Bear said:That's my exact point. If we measured flu mortality similar to how we're doing C-19, its mortality would look horrible. For example, if one were to estimate that right now 1 million people in the US have or had C-19, the current mortality rate would be .02%. If we took the number of hospitalizations from the flu and divided by deaths it would still have a high mortality. The missing number in this equation is an estimate of existing and past infections from C-19 since it was first confirmed in January.Kyle said:I'm not sure that's right. CDC estimates to-date there have been 38 million cases of the flu as well as 390K hospitalizations and 23K deaths. Wouldn't that 38M be the denominator of the IFR? The number of positive tests was much lower. Interestingly, if you look at the CDC site, its data shows 232,654 cases of positive flu tests for A&B with an estimated annual mortality of 23,000. So by CFR, that would put its mortality rate at 10%, which seems really high.ATL Bear said:That link still uses the 35 million for flu infections when there weren't 35 million confirmed cases of flu. Under the metrics they advocate for (IFR), flu would still have a higher death rate by a multiple factor. No one has an assessment of how many actual cases of C-19 are out there, from South Korea to the US. One thing that is being borne out is fortunately it's a comparatively mild virus (mortality) by any standard of measure.Sam Lowry said:
We are not basing our policy on different metrics for measuring death rates. Approximately 1% is an estimate of the total infection fatality rate, not the diagnosed case fatality rate.
http://theconversation.com/the-coronavirus-looks-less-deadly-than-first-reported-but-its-definitely-not-just-a-flu-133526
Even today due to the lack of available testing most people are being told to quarantine and only elevate if serious symptoms start to manifest. Many never experience them or require hospitalization so they never become a "stat" or are tested.
EDIT: For Covid-19 that is.Quote:
This statistic is harder to calculate, as it requires estimating the number of undetected infections. The Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) is the number of deaths divided by the true number of infections (including both confirmed and undiagnosed cases). One estimate of the IFR for COVID-19 puts this figure at 1%, and some new data suggests this is credible.
That number is used in the IFR.Sam Lowry said:So, not an IFR and not the comparable number.ATL Bear said:That's the percentage of people estimated to be infected by the flu as a percentage of US population.Sam Lowry said:I meant the link in the quote. Where do you get an IFR of 13% for the flu?ATL Bear said:I did and it's incomparable. Their IFR factor is .94% for Covid-19 whereas the flu in comparison is 13%. I also think they need to update their models with new data. Still using older China data.Sam Lowry said:Click the link:ATL Bear said:You're link. It has no corresponding estimates of non verified infections. It simply parrots something from the cruise ship and runs with 1%.Sam Lowry said:Basing an IFR only on known cases is a contradiction in terms. Can you show me where anyone is doing that?ATL Bear said:The confusion is there is no similar data point for IFR for C-19 as there is with the flu which has the biggest variant impact. The 38 million estimate for the flu is enormous from a ratio impact. The IFR on C-19 is only using known cases. But I think we'd all agree that there are thousands if not 10's or 100's of thousands of C-19 cases that haven't been found or were never logged as official as the symptoms were beaten/mild.Kyle said:I think maybe you flipped IFR and CFR, which led to the confusion.ATL Bear said:That's my exact point. If we measured flu mortality similar to how we're doing C-19, its mortality would look horrible. For example, if one were to estimate that right now 1 million people in the US have or had C-19, the current mortality rate would be .02%. If we took the number of hospitalizations from the flu and divided by deaths it would still have a high mortality. The missing number in this equation is an estimate of existing and past infections from C-19 since it was first confirmed in January.Kyle said:I'm not sure that's right. CDC estimates to-date there have been 38 million cases of the flu as well as 390K hospitalizations and 23K deaths. Wouldn't that 38M be the denominator of the IFR? The number of positive tests was much lower. Interestingly, if you look at the CDC site, its data shows 232,654 cases of positive flu tests for A&B with an estimated annual mortality of 23,000. So by CFR, that would put its mortality rate at 10%, which seems really high.ATL Bear said:That link still uses the 35 million for flu infections when there weren't 35 million confirmed cases of flu. Under the metrics they advocate for (IFR), flu would still have a higher death rate by a multiple factor. No one has an assessment of how many actual cases of C-19 are out there, from South Korea to the US. One thing that is being borne out is fortunately it's a comparatively mild virus (mortality) by any standard of measure.Sam Lowry said:
We are not basing our policy on different metrics for measuring death rates. Approximately 1% is an estimate of the total infection fatality rate, not the diagnosed case fatality rate.
http://theconversation.com/the-coronavirus-looks-less-deadly-than-first-reported-but-its-definitely-not-just-a-flu-133526
Even today due to the lack of available testing most people are being told to quarantine and only elevate if serious symptoms start to manifest. Many never experience them or require hospitalization so they never become a "stat" or are tested.
EDIT: For Covid-19 that is.Quote:
This statistic is harder to calculate, as it requires estimating the number of undetected infections. The Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) is the number of deaths divided by the true number of infections (including both confirmed and undiagnosed cases). One estimate of the IFR for COVID-19 puts this figure at 1%, and some new data suggests this is credible.