Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

    • CommentAuthorAsterix
    • CommentTimeJun 15th 2020
     
    •  
      CommentAuthoralsetalokin
    • CommentTimeJun 15th 2020 edited
     
    with regional estimates of the predicted COVID-19 IFR ranging from 0.43% in Western Sub-Saharan Africa to 1.83% for Eastern Europe.


    Those numbers, which presumably include asymptomatic cases in the denominator, are horrible.
  1.  
    But every set of numbers I run seems to be converging on about 3 percent.

    On screen right now is a banner shouting "Alabama sees over 27,000 cases; 800+ deaths."

    'They'll Understand In The Long Run': Mayor Issues Mask Order | Rachel Maddow | MSNBC
    • CommentAuthorBigOilRep
    • CommentTimeJun 19th 2020
     
    Data from early in the pandemic overestimated how deadly the virus was, and then later analyses underestimated its lethality. Now, numerous studies — using a range of methods — estimate that in many countries some 5 to 10 people will die for every 1,000 people with COVID-19. “The studies I have any faith in are tending to converge around 0.5–1%,” says Russell.



    Kilpatrick and others say they are eagerly awaiting large studies that estimate fatality rates across age groups and among those with pre-existing health conditions, which will provide the most accurate picture of how deadly the disease is. One of the first studies to account for the effect of age was posted on a preprint server last week. The study, based on seroprevalence data from Geneva, Switzerland, estimates an IFR of 0.6% for the total population, and an IFR of 5.6% for people aged 65 and older.

    The results have not been peer reviewed, but Kilpatrick says the study addresses many of the issues in previous seroprevalence surveys. "This study is fantastic. It’s precisely what should be done with all of the serological data," he says.


    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01738-2
    •  
      CommentAuthoralsetalokin
    • CommentTimeJun 19th 2020 edited
     
    There is something more than a little morbid about "eagerly awaiting" widespread death statistics. Fantastic!
    • CommentAuthorBigOilRep
    • CommentTimeJun 19th 2020
     
    *shrug* if it's what you do for a living and those statistics can help inform policy then I don't see what morbid about it.

    Probably less morbid than most of this thread.
  2.  
    Now every time I do the math I'm getting 5 percent.

    On screen right now:
    Global:
    9,504,233 cases
    484,356 fatalities
    USA:
    2,404,781 cases
    122,320 fatalities

    I thought as testing becomes more widespread, case fatality rate is supposed to go down. But it has not.

    Am I having decimal point issues again? Or is the aw fuck continuing to get worser and worser?
    •  
      CommentAuthoraber0der
    • CommentTimeJun 26th 2020
     
    Posted By: alsetalokinNow every time I do the math I'm getting 5 percent.

    On screen right now:
    Global:
    9,504,233 cases
    484,356 fatalities
    USA:
    2,404,781 cases
    122,320 fatalities

    I thought as testing becomes more widespread, case fatality rate is supposed to go down. But it has not.

    Am I having decimal point issues again? Or is the aw fuck continuing to get worser and worser?


    It depends on the quality and quantity of med facilities, I guess.
    Poorer nations, except socialist Cuba, often can't afford comprehensive healthcare for their cistizens because their corrupt elites are too corrupt and greedy.

    On the upside, grifter barbies' and the rest of the turd family's faces were fake and botoxed to death long before corona was nineteen years old. And in two years, corona can drunk drive in most states.
    • CommentAuthorBigOilRep
    • CommentTimeJun 26th 2020
     
    Posted By: alsetalokinNow every time I do the math I'm getting 5 percent.

    On screen right now:
    Global:
    9,504,233 cases
    484,356 fatalities
    USA:
    2,404,781 cases
    122,320 fatalities

    I thought as testing becomes more widespread, case fatality rate is supposed to go down. But it has not.

    Am I having decimal point issues again? Or is the aw fuck continuing to get worser and worser?

    It's like deja vu all over again.
    • CommentAuthorBigOilRep
    • CommentTimeJun 26th 2020
     


    A study of the Diamond Princess cruise ship, which spent most of February in quarantine off Japan while the virus spread through passengers and crew, found that 72 per cent of infections were asymptomatic. The UK ONS survey yielded a similar result, finding that 70 per cent of people infected never showed any symptoms. Government data in China have indicated that 60 per cent of all coronavirus cases logged in April showed no symptoms.



    Officially recorded cases exclude the far larger numbers who were infected but not tested because their symptoms were non-existent or mild. That total is unknown but runs to tens of millions of people around the world, according to mathematical modelling based on the available statistics.


    The “infection fatality rate” — the proportion of those infected who die — depends on local circumstances but is typically in the 0.5 to 1 per cent range. A study by Imperial College London of the epidemic in China found an IFR of 0.66 per cent. Meta-analysis by Australian epidemiologists who pulled together 25 studies around the world calculated that the average IFR was 0.64 per cent.


    https://www.ft.com/content/033745f3-2d78-4869-9690-ea46fcc9cb3d
  3.  
    Posted By: aber0derIt depends on the quality and quantity of med facilities, I guess.


    I think it is finally starting to sink in that intubation/ventilation is essentially a death sentence for 80 percent of those to whom it is done. Supplying O2 by High-flow Nasal Cannula is a viable -- no pun intended -- alternative, and does not require medically induced coma, but does require more monitoring by ICU staff. And it requires a lot of oxygen, which is an engineering and logistics problem, not so much a medical one.
  4.  
    Ahh... here's how to make the case fatality rate go down. CDC announces that the true prevalence could be 10 times the "officially reported" figures. So that 5 percent I keep calculating goes down to 0.5 percent, an order of magnitude less aw fuck (and five times the accepted figure for influenza) , but still sufficient enough to be horrible.

    But that "could be" is the critical unknown. I checked on three testing sites in San Antonio yesterday, and none are doing seroprevalence antibody testing, they are all "just" doing PCR for active virus.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDuracell
    • CommentTimeJun 26th 2020
     
    Posted By: alsetalokinAhh... here's how to make the case fatality rate go down. CDC announces that the true prevalence could be 10 times the "officially reported" figures. So that 5 percent I keep calculating goes down to 0.5 percent, an order of magnitude less aw fuck (and five times the accepted figure for influenza) , but still sufficient enough to be horrible.

    But that "could be" is the critical unknown. I checked on three testing sites in San Antonio yesterday, and none are doing seroprevalence antibody testing, they are all "just" doing PCR for active virus.
    Also, don't forget the excess mortality in the USA was at least 122k on May 23rd, +30% higher than the 91k "official" covid-19 deaths reported at that time.

    I heard through the grapevine that while the Covid-19 deaths in Texas are not as high as we might expect, the number of deaths from "pneumonia" there is very high ... etc ....
    • CommentAuthorkorkskrew
    • CommentTimeJun 26th 2020
     
    I think those charts that show "excess deaths" are the ones that really tell the tale.
    •  
      CommentAuthoralsetalokin
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2020 edited
     
    I see the numbers of total cases and the numbers of deaths posted on the news sites during their reporting, and every time I run the calculation I still get a case fatality rate of between 4.2 and 4.5 per cent. That is, about one of every 22 or 23 people infected have died.

    And the people who don't die have, some of them, very serious problems during and after recovery from the acute phase of the illness.

    So I thought more widespread testing was supposed to make this number go down. But it isn't, so far, because the infection is spreading so rapidly through the population.
    • CommentAuthorAsterix
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2020
     
    ...and people in the "let's open up" states don't want to close down again.

    A lot of young'uns too. A lot of geezers are scared shitless...
  5.  
    It's the intense social awareness, you see. Also explains the national health scheme.
    • CommentAuthorAsterix
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2020
     
    For the young, universal health care means that you can do any stupid thing and be assured of care. For the old, the spectre of dying looms larger. You are aware of the "jackass" attitude of the young...

    This, apparently, was brought forth as one of the reasons for the severity of the pandemic in Sweden.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2020
     
    The young do stupid things without the benefit of health care. The pictures from Florida are ample proof.
    • CommentAuthorBigOilRep
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2020
     
    Posted By: AngusThe young do stupid things without the benefit of health care.

    This is of course exaggerated by how age discriminatory C19 is. Anyone under 35 has more chance of dying in a car accident than of the virus. So unless they know anyone close who is at risk, it becomes a bit of an abstract concept.

    I'm not sure why this should apply particularly to Sweden? They aren't particularly young - 19.8% over 65 compared to Ireland which is just 13.5%.