The CDC Says Its New 'Best Estimate' Is That 0.4 Percent of People With Symptoms and COVID-19 Will Die (cnn.com) 334
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNN: In new guidance for mathematical modelers and public health officials, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is estimating that about a third of coronavirus infections are asymptomatic. The CDC also says its "best estimate" is that 0.4% of people who show symptoms and have Covid-19 will die, and the agency estimates that 40% of coronavirus transmission is occurring before people feel sick.
The numbers are part of five planning scenarios that "are being used by mathematical modelers throughout the federal government," according to the CDC. Four of those scenarios represent "the lower and upper bounds of disease severity and viral transmissibility." The fifth scenario is the CDC's "current best estimate about viral transmission and disease severity in the United States." In that scenario, the agency described its estimate that 0.4% of people who feel sick with Covid-19 will die. For people age 65 and older, the CDC puts that number at 1.3%. For people 49 and under, the agency estimated that 0.05% of symptomatic people will die. The CDC cautions that these numbers are based on real data collected by the agency before April 29 and are subject to change. Still, the "current best estimate" number of 0.4% is significantly lower than the 3.4% mortality rate the World Health Organization warned in early March.
"As I see it, the 'best estimate' is extremely optimistic, and the 'worst case' scenario is fairly optimistic even as a best estimate. One certainly wants to consider worse scenarios," biologist Carl Bergstrom of the University of Washington told CNN. "By introducing these as the official parameter sets for modeling efforts, CDC is influencing the models produced by federal agencies, but also the broader scientific discourse because there will be some pressure to use the CDC standard parameter sets in modeling papers going forward," he said. "Given that these parameter sets underestimate fatality by a substantial margin compared to current scientific consensus, this is deeply problematic."
UPDATE (5/28): An epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security also contradict the CDC's low numbers, saying that after reviewing new widespread testing, "The current best estimates for the infection fatality risk are between 0.5% and 1%," according to NPR.
"But even a virus with a fatality rate less than 1% presents a formidable threat, Rivers says."
Further reading: Many Scientists Warn CDC's New Death Rate Estimates Far Too Low.
The numbers are part of five planning scenarios that "are being used by mathematical modelers throughout the federal government," according to the CDC. Four of those scenarios represent "the lower and upper bounds of disease severity and viral transmissibility." The fifth scenario is the CDC's "current best estimate about viral transmission and disease severity in the United States." In that scenario, the agency described its estimate that 0.4% of people who feel sick with Covid-19 will die. For people age 65 and older, the CDC puts that number at 1.3%. For people 49 and under, the agency estimated that 0.05% of symptomatic people will die. The CDC cautions that these numbers are based on real data collected by the agency before April 29 and are subject to change. Still, the "current best estimate" number of 0.4% is significantly lower than the 3.4% mortality rate the World Health Organization warned in early March.
"As I see it, the 'best estimate' is extremely optimistic, and the 'worst case' scenario is fairly optimistic even as a best estimate. One certainly wants to consider worse scenarios," biologist Carl Bergstrom of the University of Washington told CNN. "By introducing these as the official parameter sets for modeling efforts, CDC is influencing the models produced by federal agencies, but also the broader scientific discourse because there will be some pressure to use the CDC standard parameter sets in modeling papers going forward," he said. "Given that these parameter sets underestimate fatality by a substantial margin compared to current scientific consensus, this is deeply problematic."
UPDATE (5/28): An epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security also contradict the CDC's low numbers, saying that after reviewing new widespread testing, "The current best estimates for the infection fatality risk are between 0.5% and 1%," according to NPR.
"But even a virus with a fatality rate less than 1% presents a formidable threat, Rivers says."
Further reading: Many Scientists Warn CDC's New Death Rate Estimates Far Too Low.
So almost everyone in New York City had Covid-19 (Score:5, Insightful)
There have been at least 20,000 Covid deaths in NYC. A 0.4% death rate means 5 million symptomatic cases, A one third asymptomatic rate means 7.5 million total cases
The population of NYC is just over 8 million.
Re:So almost everyone in New York City had Covid-1 (Score:4, Interesting)
There have been at least 20,000 Covid deaths in NYC. A 0.4% death rate means 5 million symptomatic cases, A one third asymptomatic rate means 7.5 million total cases
The population of NYC is just over 8 million.
And 10,000 or more of those were from nursing homes and those were because they sent Covid-19 positive patients there....when they KNEW that the sick/elderly were the most vulnerable.They did the same thing in England.
Re:So almost everyone in New York City had Covid-1 (Score:5, Informative)
Citation needed? Because what you're saying is that NYC and England deliberately murdered over 10,000 people.
Here you go [cnn.com].
I don't know that "deliberately murdered" is an accurate statement. It seems more like negligence rather than intent.
Re:So almost everyone in New York City had Covid-1 (Score:4, Insightful)
You cant go by a single NY stat, because they are killing people on purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why a large-scale antibody test has to be done, to find out to a reasonable confidence just what percentage of a population actually has had this.
That that shows that, e.g., 20% of the NYC population had C19, then we can see that the death rate would be far higher (~1.7%).
But if 80% have had it and the area is now 'herd immune' then this would be excellent news (for NYC).
Re: (Score:2)
This is why a large-scale antibody test has to be done, to find out to a reasonable confidence just what percentage of a population actually has had this.
That that shows that, e.g., 20% of the NYC population had C19, then we can see that the death rate would be far higher (~1.7%).
But if 80% have had it and the area is now 'herd immune' then this would be excellent news (for NYC).
Except the CDC says that current antibody tests are roughly 50% accurate, with a high rate of false positives (moreso than false negatives). There's both no solid indication of post-infection immunity and it is my understanding that a lot of the antibody tests will show positive after other coronavirus infections, not just covid19. They do not recommend making policy decisions off antibody tests.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
NYC let their hospitals get overwhelmed (Score:2)
NYC allowed the virus to get ahead of them, and their hospitals got overwhelmed. People didn't always get timely treatment, or any treatment. That leads to a higher fatality rate.
Re: (Score:3)
There have been at least 20,000 Covid deaths in NYC. A 0.4% death rate means 5 million symptomatic cases, A one third asymptomatic rate means 7.5 million total cases
The population of NYC is just over 8 million.
My thought exactly.
Last I heard the best estimate for NYC is that 25% of the population was infected.
So that gives a 20,000 / (8,000,000 * .25) *100 = 1% infected, not just symptomatic death rate.
I don't want to Dunning Kruger myself, but that looks like a discrepancy that needs to be addressed.
Re: (Score:2)
Not actually. You have to adjust IFRs for demographics and other factors.
Also, re: the GP: the 0,4% figure is for symptomatic individuals. 0,26% for all individuals. And NYC (8,4M) has 16410 COVID-19 deaths as of today (0,18%), not "at least 20,000". It's New York State that's 23282 deaths.
NYC does seem (based on comparative studies) to have an anomalously high IFR compared to other studied locations. But not "way out of the ballpark". Differences in coding might be responsible for some of the variatio
These numbers don't make sense (Score:3)
So, if 0.4% of people die, and New York state has had 30,000 deaths, then that means 1 in 26 people in New York State has had Coronavirus and its symptoms? And if the numbers for asymptomatic cases are between 25 and 50 percent, that means that somewhere around 1 in 13, to 1 in 20 people have already had the disease.
Re: (Score:2)
Actualy, it's too early, and I didn't to the math right, and slashdot doesn't allow editing. I was off by a factor of 10 and used .04 instead of .004 for 4%. This means that 7.5 million New Yorkers have already had symptoms and the virus, and are now at a 37.5% infection rate.
Re: (Score:3)
This is roughly in line with antibody testing that has shown that about 20% of New Yorkers have antibodies to COVID.
https://patch.com/new-york/new... [patch.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, 4% = 4/100 = .04. Need another cup of coffee? Using your numbers:
30,000 deaths / 4% = 750,000 people with symptoms
750,000/(1-25%) = 1 million total infections
750,000/(1-50%) = 1.5 million total infections
New York state population = ~19 million
So by your numbers somewhere between 1 in 13 and 1 in 19 people have caught it so far, and you were right the first time
No idea where you got the 37.5% infection rate though: 1/13 = 7.7%, 1/19 = 5.2%
New York let the virus get out of control (Score:2)
That's the whole point of flattening the curve. Prevent your hospitals from being overwhelmed so the fatality rate doesn't unnecessarily increase. Most of the country has successfully flattened the curve sufficiently, and the 0.4% fatality rate re
Seems reasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
The numbers aren't too far off what Australia is seeing. About half the known cases here have been 49+, and our fatality rate has been hovering around 1.5%. There's known to be cases in the community we haven't identified, so that will push the effective number down further. Given the number of unknowns involved still, particularly in the US, I'd say the CDC numbers are reasonable ballpark figures.
It's very odd that the article quotes (and the submission above doesn't make it clear where the quote comes from) a computer modeller/simulator as doubting the numbers. In this kind of situation, the modeller isn't the one getting the primary data, they're given it by people closer to the ground. It's their job to build simulations of outcomes based on the facts as they're given them, not to try to second-guess the source material.
A quote from an epidemiologist or something would make more sense.
the problem is the CDC get pressured (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: the problem is the CDC get pressured (Score:2)
Good grief... yes let's believe an opinion piece from The Atlantic over hard numbers.
Believing the hard numbers might be a positive for Trump and we just can't have that!
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I have no idea why they thought Bergstrom was an appropriate counter to the friggin' CDC. And his claims are just plain wrong; the CDC's numbers (0,4% for symptomatic infections, 0,26 for all infections) are well in-line with the science [google.com].
I don't know about that! (Score:2)
So 60% went out in public with a cough and fever? I DOUBT IT.
Also, 0.4%? Even if you assume half the recorded worldwide deaths are incorrectly attributed, that's 44 million infected. So the 5.7 mil known cases compared to that many unknown actually sounds about right until you consider all the people that allegedly carry it without ever having symptoms. Like they get an innoculation dose but somehow remain con
Re: (Score:3)
So 60% went out in public with a cough and fever? I DOUBT IT.
People who live with others can spread it without going out in public. Remember, our brilliant health officials told everyone, if your symptoms are mild then stay home, you don't need a test. So this probably covers most cases. People spreading it around to their families, people in their apartment buildings, neighbors, etc.
People who don't live with others, especially other adults, probably did have to go out, they still need food and stuff. Many people either can't afford (poor people) or don't know how t
Re:I don't know about that! (Score:5, Insightful)
1. The highest rates of transmission are within the household.
2. People go out with minor symptoms (and sometimes with major symptoms) all the bloody time. Diseases rely on humans doing this.
Mankind is funny (Score:3)
At the start of the outbreak did people get scared, even panicked, they felt compassion for one another, help where they could and came up with ideas on what to do.
But once things got under control and most were safe do people turn it into a competition. Suddenly it's "my numbers are better than your numbers", "our model is the best model" and "my hindsight is sharper than yours".
Are we just bored and waiting for the next big epidemic to hit us?
Re: (Score:3)
All I can say is that we can be glad that this disease really wasn't worse. We failed the drill. When the real big one comes, we know it'll all be over.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, you can never improve off the first drill!
That's why there are more drills, just to confirm you're still doing the same thing as that first drill.
Secondary issues (Score:2)
Are there any numbers yet detailing the risk of permanent lung damage after surviving the virus? Or is it still considered anecdotal rather than a pattern?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For one thing they could look at the physical damage and see if it's a kind that's known to be naturally healed over time (eg., like a cut on your arm) or be permanent (eg., your arm got cut off).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lung damage is what pneumonia frequently does. If you develop pneumonia (esp. if you need invasive ventilation), regardless of the cause, you're likely to end up with some reduced lung capacity. If you don't, you're not.
It's not COVID-19 specific.
Can we trust CDC number any more? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a real shame when you don't know how much of the science has been politicized.
Re: (Score:2)
It's worse than that, we're looking at best guesses.
The difference between a guess and an estimate is the amount of hard data backing it up. Unfortunately, we don't have any accurate figures on
a) How many people are currently infected. Nice to know, but not relevant for mortality rates
b) How many people have been infected. Until we get a reliable antibody test and a large randomised sample we have no real numbers.
c) How many people have actually died of Covid-19. That is excess mortality above what would
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is there is a pattern of politicizing usually apolitical things in this administration. I doubt that any presidential administration in my memory would push back against mask wearing in this circumstance, and yet Trump does. I can see debate about lockdowns and such being incorrect, but masks seem like a harmless measure, but folks are accusing it to be some conspiracy to 'look bad' and embarrass the president.
Or wanting to fire someone over a hurricane track forecast that disagreed with what sh
Something off with the math (Score:2)
If only .4% of those showing symptoms will die, and we are stating that in the USA 100,000 have died, then we should have 100000/.004 or 25 million people showing symptoms. Since I have already heard that state agencies are trying to suppress deaths, and I have seen images of bodies loaded in trucks and stories from health care professionals stating the death rates I tend to believe the 100,000 figure is at the low end of any real number.
However I don't see 25 million people exhibiting symptoms....
Re: (Score:2)
then we should have 100000/.004 or 25 million people showing symptoms.
We already know that in some the symptoms are no worse than a standard cold. These people were never going to get tested - either because of no availability of tests or because of not thinking they're sick beyond rhinovirus or a milder coronavirus. Although I'm still surprised that they are estimating on "symptomatic cases" when there are so many asymptomatic cases.
Just how many is going to be a mystery and widespread antibody testing will only paint a partial picture.
Re: (Score:2)
Since February 1st, Kentucky has had less than 400 COVID-19 deaths. However, they've had more than 1,000 more pnemonia deaths than in 2019 during the same period. And the social distancing should have helped reduce the number of pneumonia deaths due to other causes.
Just to give you an idea of how underreported it's been in Kentucky alone.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the number of people who have had the virus is likely higher than 25 million. A New York antibody study showed that 20% of New Yorkers already had antibodies for the virus.
https://patch.com/new-york/new... [patch.com]
Across the US, 20% of 300 million would be more like 60 million.
So where are all these people in the numbers? Well of course, people with mild symptoms aren't going to hospitals, and are largely uncounted. My wife had it in March, but never got tested. I'm sure I got it too, because I certainly d
And this is only symptomatic patients (Score:2, Insightful)
During a recent Whitehouse press conference, Dr Fauci indicated that as many as 50% of those who become infected never become symptomatic. So that puts the rate as low as 0.2%.
Given that the Dems are "science driven" I'm sure blue state governors will review this new information and immediately open their states. I'm looking at you Newsome, Cuomo, and Heir Whitmer.
This entire lockdown has been a farce, an test to see how easy it is for government to incarcerate the entire population in their own homes and
Re: (Score:2)
Given that the Dems are "science driven" I'm sure blue state governors will review this new information and immediately open their states.
Science-driven approaches are not quite so reactionary. This is one data point / estimate among many. Gradual opening, while spacing out stages of at least 14-day increments to monitor actual infection rates is exactly what's planned for Illinois. Bumping up the timeline by 4 or 5 days on just one report is not science-based. That's just following the results you want to see.
You can use hindsight all you want to blame this person or that for overreacting, but you're doing this with more information than
Re: (Score:2)
For the same reason that we don't declare be "law-free purge day", where those in fear can stay home and the rest can continue with the business of living our lives. Hopefully the reason is self-evident.
Doesn't add up (Score:2)
My state's published numbers show a mortality rate of confirmed cases at about 3.7% (since people don't drop dead immediately after being tested, the death rate is more likely to go up than down, but let's just use that). Since testing has mostly been limited to people with some symptoms already, that would mean that 90% of the people WITH SYMPTOMS haven't even been tested? I know the testing rate is not great (since test supplies have been low), but I find it hard to believe it is THAT low.
Understanding a difference (Score:5, Interesting)
From the summary above.
The CDC cautions that these numbers are based on real data collected by the agency before April 29 and are subject to change. Still, the "current best estimate" number of 0.4% is significantly lower than the 3.4% mortality rate the World Health Organization warned in early March.
From the actual CDC report
Symptomatic Case Hospitalization Ratio, stratified by age in years
0–49: 0.017 | 50–64: 0.045 | 65+: 0.074 | Overall: 0.034
Which indicates a 3.4% mortality rate which is still very much in line with the WHO estimates. What's important to gain from these numbers is this really important highlight.
Symptomatic Case Hospitalization Ratio
What this is saying is that if you only focus on those who present themselves to the hospital, this is your mortality rate. Now the other number which is...
Symptomatic Case Fatality Ratio, stratified by age in years
0-49: 0.0005 | 50-64: 0.002 | 65+: 0.013 | Overall: 0.004
This is those who showed symptoms and presented or did not present themselves to the hospital who ultimately died. The latter being a self-quarantine situation as an example. So those that stayed home and got better bring this number down. Of course, WHO numbers would have only been the first category, how would the WHO have numbers for a testing they don't run. Now that's still nothing to sneeze at, because those rates are still really bad compared to flu. And yes, the numbers for flu deaths are deaths reported so that first number, not the second one, we don't typically gather data for who got flu and just got better on their own. In fact, we usually don't gather that data for any disease. If you don't go to the hospital/medical office/doctors office/that place in your grocery store..., statistically speaking, you're just 100% healthy.
So there's a bit of context that might be required for the 0.4% value there. Because the CDC numbers are still in sharp agreement with the WHO estimate. The 0.4% is measuring something completely different and it's really important that people understand that slight difference. And I only say all of this because the summary does the thing that's wrong here. It compares the CDC case fatality number to the hospitalization fatality number and those are two slightly different things. It's not apples to apples saying that 0.4% is less than 3.4% since those two numbers aren't measuring the same thing. There's a lot more people we don't usually count in the that 0.4% and that context is pretty important.
napkin math (Score:2)
I'm guessing they mean in general (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And you know this how?
Re:0.4% is a lot. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the mention of the TSA saving us from terrorism pushed that comment into obvious sarcasm.
So... whoosh...
Re: (Score:2)
Cool story bro! =)
I literally would have thought that username itself was a bit "trolly" or sarcastic, you know, gamer talk... "You mad bro!?". Especially on a site that is basically us all commenting on stories. But for all I know, you might have a hobby of pulling together cool stories, and that's what people call you!
Anyways, I feel bad for you. You should learn to be sarcastic from time to time, nothing at all wrong with smiling!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Class A trolling here guys. Bergstrom's models had millions of people dead in April.
Poe's Law hits again [Re:0.4% is a lot.] (Score:2)
I'm never sarcastic.
Now if only I could tell whether the statement "I'm never sarcastic" is sarcastic or not.
Impossible to tell: Poe's Law.
Re:0.4% is a lot. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you read the rest of his message, it's clear he was being sarcastic. But he's actually probably non-sarcastically correct. If hospitals would have been even more swamped, quality of care and availability of medical supplies would be even more strained, and death rates very likely would've gone up.
Re: (Score:2)
If you read the rest of his message, it's clear he was being sarcastic. But he's actually probably non-sarcastically correct. If hospitals would have been even more swamped, quality of care and availability of medical supplies would be even more strained, and death rates very likely would've gone up.
And without the TSA I'm sure the terrorists would have won too. Keep telling yourself that it was all worth it and that without it it would have meant millions dead. I know of at least one case where someone died *because* of keeping hospitals empty expecting a surge that never arrived. Delayed treatment kills too.
Re: (Score:2)
How am I being sarcastic? How many planes have flown into buildings since the TSA arrived? ZERO. Wash your hands and wear a mask and social distance.
When I was a kid, someone parked a work van on the street in front of my house and placed an orange cone by the bumper.
I asked the guy, "What is the cone for?".
He replied, "It's to keep elephants away!"
"No way! That would never work!", I said.
"Well, do you see any elephants around?", he replied.
That's how I feel about TSA and people wearing bra cups over their mouths. Wash your hands, don't touch your face. and if somebody yells "Glory to $diety!!" while charging the cockpit door, tackle him and kick the
Re: (Score:3)
We cannot cover the ears. Otherwise, how will we know if we're looking at a girl, a cat-girl or an elf girl?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
In order to support a 0.4% claim, they'd have to have data showing that there have actually been ~25,000,000 symptomatic cases (or only 6800 deaths). Or, explain how we're going to get to that many cases with no more deaths. Oh, and many of the current cases are st
Re:0.4% is a lot. (Score:5, Informative)
CDC is estimating infection prevalence, not simply confirmed cases, via use of serology (and probably PCR random sampling as well). Nobody in their right mind believes that the US has found all cases, or even remotely close to that. Even Iceland, with orders of magnitude higher testing per capita, is only estimated to have found about half of all cases.
Also:
Why exactly are we giving Professor Wrong the Not-An-Epidemiologist the time of day over the CDC? No, they're not "extremely optimistic" in any manner. In Iceland, for example, we have a CFR of 0,55%. If we had found every single case of the disease, that would be the IFR. But we know from PCR random-sampling (not just serology) that even with our extensive testing regime, we missed about half of them. Our IFR is estimated at 0,28%.
Oh, and in case you want to try the "current cases still active" excuse (as if the CDC doesn't control for that): our "current cases still active" in Iceland is "2".
If anything, the CDC is playing it pretty conservatively. For example, their estimate on the percentage of asymptomatic cases is only 0,35%, which is on the low end of studies (combining that with their 0,4% figure implies an IFR of 0,26%)
Re: (Score:3)
In Iceland, for example, we have a CFR of 0,55%. If we had found every single case of the disease, that would be the IFR. But we know from PCR random-sampling (not just serology) that even with our extensive testing regime, we missed about half of them. Our IFR is estimated at 0,28%.
Well, first, Iceland is not the US is not Italy is not Poland etc. etc. So what happens in Iceland may not be relevant to other places. Second, most countries underestimate infections as well as deaths, so the effect of underestimating infections is not as pronounced as it would be without the other thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Your own CDC link says the latest estimate
Not sure why you keep pulling different numbers out of your arse.
Assuming the prisoner data rings true to the population at large, there'a good chance that for every person showing symptoms, there are 24 who are not.
Why would you assume such a stupid thing when your own CDC link says it isn't true?
Re: (Score:3)
Damn racist viruses, treating the melting pot of the US so differently than the monoculture of Iceland!
Viruses can't be racist, since they're not sentient. They are, however, biological, and we know that many diseases behave differently in different populations. For example famously the CCR5 Delta 32 mutation gives a significant portion of North Europeans complete or partial resistance against HIV. The same goes for the potential of different populations being hit by different strains of the same virus.
we find that 96% were asymptomatic
Not this bullshit again...
Re: (Score:2)
... Professor Wrong the Not-An-Epidemiologis ...
He sounds like a super-villain from a that 1966 batman movie.
Holy Hypodermics Batman!!! It's ... [lyric pause for dramatic effect] ... Professor Wrong!!!... KER-SPLOOSH!, KERPLOP!, KLONK!, KLUNK!, KRUNCH! ...... OOOOOUCH! Stop complaining you villainous pseudo-academic, now off to jail with you!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Can't find the article, but about a week ago a report came out saying the serology tests are only 50% accurate. If that is the case, estimating infection prevalence isn't viable since half of all tests are wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
I would assume they are trying to extrapolate now like they do for the flu. The majority of flu cases come and go without being tested. While there may be a lot more people wanting to get tested, the test availability continues to be an issue. Most cases will never get tested. The official CDC guidelines are 'if you have symptoms but they aren't bad, just stay home and hope it goes away, don't even try to get a test'.
This is why I largely ignore the 'confirmed cases' metric as it is extremely incomplete dat
Re: (Score:2)
I think he is trolling Crimson. 0.4% of those who show symptoms means implies a some things -
1) the individual may have covid-19 or something that looks like it
2) there are more persons who remain asymptomatic through their entire covid-19 infection
The effect of the lock down would have prevented one from contracting covid-19 or "bent the curve" and ensured medical resources were available to treat if required.
Given we never even came close to running out beds or ventilators, its not clear at all locks dow
Re: (Score:2)
Before people say "Bah, 0.4%, this is overblown", let us just say without the lockdown the rate would have been 4% instead of 0.4%.
While your post wreaks of sarcasm, your first statement was not too far off the truth. The lock down's primary goals were to stop hospitals from being overrun and to slow the spread of the virus until testing could ramp up. Proper care is one factor which has kept the death rate low, and with overrun hospitals the death rate would have been higher. 4% is probably not accurate (your post was meant to be sarcastic overall) but much higher than 0.4%. Even an increase to 0.8% would have been another 100k dead s
Re: (Score:2)
The average American knows 600 people. So nearly everyone would know 2 or 3 people who had died from COVID-19. I currently know 2.
These two people I honestly didn't have too much of a relationship with. One was a Project Manager for a product we got installed at work, the other was a Software Developer for an other product we have at work. And other than being on some conference calls, and the occasional visit from them. However I knew enough about them to know that they had friends and families outsid
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is the rate _without_ the medical system being overwhelmed. Everyone except a large number of complete idiots understands that now.
Also, this is not the rate of people that survive with severe or merely serious long-term health problems. That happens in addition and likely also goes up drastically when the medical system gets overwhelmed.
Re: (Score:3)
" If you exclude those over 65 ( which includes most people with pre-existing conditions.) it has always been 0.4%. so it is basically 4x worse then the normal flu"
"If you ignore most of the deaths, it doesn't look so bad!"
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
43% Of COVID-19 Deaths Are In Nursing Homes & Assisted Living Facilities Housing 0.6% Of U.S. [forbes.com]
“The policy the Department of Health put out [nny360.com] was in line directly with the March 13 directive put out by the CDC,” Secretary to the Governor Melis
Re: (Score:2)
Case fatality rate can be misleading for a few reasons. First the "known" cases are probably the worst ones, who actually have to go to the doctor, and are thus more likely to die. The other thing is that it (probably) takes more time to confirm a recovery than to die from it, so this could skew the calculation too. There are also some unkown amount of asymptomatic carriers too. Ultimately what we need to know is how many would die out of everyone infected.
So this is probably in the right ballpark, maybe a
Re: (Score:2)
Go back, they are talking about symptomatic cases, which would be the known ones. That's why this is out of whack.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is 1.7M is the wrong denominator. See what I wrote on this last week. https://jameshoward.us/2020/05... [jameshoward.us]
Re: (Score:2)
It's even worse if
Re: (Score:2)
The numbers are basically saying that the current estimate is only 1 in 10 infected have been officially diagnosed. That wouldn't be surprising at all.
While everybody's quick to jump to criticize an apparent "overreaction," just be glad it's not as bad as the evidence we had so far. It was too early to know just how bad it was going to be. Much easier to see in hindsight, of course.
Re:That seems low... (Score:5, Informative)
The US's non-time-adjusted CFR is 5,8%, not 20%. Global is 6,2%.
But the problem is that you're confusing "cases" with "infections". The vast majority of infections were never diagnosed, as is shown in both serology and random-sampling PCR studies. Hence the CDC's figure of 0,4% for symptomatic infections (not cases), and implied 0,26% for all infections (after taking into account their 35% asymptomatic rate).
Re: (Score:3)
So, Iceland having a 0,55% CFR (with an estimated half of all infections having gone undiagnosed) and a grand total of 2 outstanding COVID-19 patients?
The CFR is the number of cases divided by the number of fatalities. You can also calculate lag time-adjusted CFRs. But what you can't do is treat cases as being equivalent to infections, because those two numbers aren't even close to each other. And I read your link, and that is exactly what you do.
(Also, it's not merely "somewhat naïve" to project ou
Re: That seems low... (Score:4, Insightful)
Your linked article just shows that he is correct, and you are confusing cases with infections. Quote from your article:
"The problem is, we are underestimating the expected death toll, by estimating the fatality rate as a percentage of the total cases"
No, actually, we are OVERESTIMATING the expected death toll by doing that, exactly because - as the other dude pointed out - the number of known cases is far lower than the number of actual infections.
Re: (Score:2)
Those rates are based on the number of people who test positive for the virus. Most people who have mild symptoms don't get tested. In New York, an antibody study estimated that 20% of New Yorkers had been infected. That is more than 11 times the number of reported cases. Other antibody studies have come up with even higher multiples of reported cases.
https://patch.com/new-york/new... [patch.com]
Factoring in unreported cases, the estimate seems about right.
Re: (Score:2)
...when the real case fatality rate in the United States is approximately 20 percent and globally around 7.5 percent.
As more data is available, and we learn more about the virus, the CDC is attempting to estimate how many total infections there have been. Not just how many have been confirmed.
It does still seem low, but possibly only because publicly available information is incomplete and/or misleading. This site [worldometers.info] tracks infections, deaths and recoveries, and so far only 33% of reported cases have resulted in either recovery or death. Of these cases, 20% have resulted in death. This could lead someone to conclude that 20%
Re:That seems low... (Score:4, Insightful)
False. Most people with the disease are NOT in the "known cases" number, they have no symptoms or had the sniffles for a couple days. The real number of infections is some multiple of known cases.
Re: (Score:2)
Note also that they're saying it's 33% in their "current best estimate" scenario. TFS implies this is one of five scenarios they ran, so look at it like this: the numbers we're talking about are two steps down the favourable side of the bell curve produce
Re: (Score:3)
Where on Earth are you people getting this stuff? Spain's CFR is 9,6%. Turkey's is 2,8%.
And for the Nth time, as N approaches infinity, "cases != infections". They're not even close to synonymous numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it makes perfect sense, you're only *assuming*, falsely, that reported cases equals number of infections, which is nonsense. Testing is revealing that most people have the disease without any symptoms.
While a terrible disease for some with dire suffering or death, most people have little problem. Media has been hyping nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
Light symptoms, but most people still have symptoms
While it is true that most people have only mild symptoms, that doesn't make it nonsense. The real potential of this virus is to overflow the healthcare system and cause lots of death and destruction this way.
Also, even by itself 0.4% death rate is nothing
Re: (Score:2)
Media has been hyping nonsense.
That's either hindsight bias or bold stupidity. The potential was there and there were a lot more unknowns even just one month ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I stopped believing them when they said face masks don't help the public stop the spread of respiratory diseases. Another good stopping point would have been when they produced tests that didn't work and in conjunction with the FDA prevented private industry from distributing working tests.
But surely as they get more data, and we start seeing the overhyped apocalypse narratives collapse (compare death rates in high lockdown vs low/no lockdown states, see effect of reopening, etc), they will become more beli
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it most certainly does [google.com].
You're confusing cases with infections. The latter is a far larger number than the former, as most infections go undiagnosed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That number assumes everyone will get it, herd immunity will kick in way before that. Newer models are showing herd immunity at 25% due to individual differenced in susceptibility and transmissibility.
Death rate for the flu is 0.1%, but only 0.015% of the population dies from it annually because they don't get infected.
Re: (Score:2)
Study link:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/... [nejm.org]
Re: (Score:2)
This is definitely still more than 4x more deadly than the flu when you include transmissibility. But it's still a bit early to be sure of any conclusions you might draw. The year 2020 will be full of hindsight that blames the foresight.
Re: (Score:2)
You're assuming a 91,4% infection rate.... why? Even the Ohio prison outbreak only hit 70% of the population, and that's an unnatural situation prone to disease spread. Or for another example of a highly transmission-prone environment, the disease spread uncontrolled on the Charles de Gaulle for at least a month before anyone noticed it, and infected less than half the crew.
Even in places that are lifting lo
Re: (Score:2)
1. Stop eating and putting sugar into EVERYTHING.
2. Stop stuffing yourself with useless calories.
3. Eat once per day, perhaps twice lighter meals with minimal carbs unless necessary.
4. Exercise EVERY day even if that means 30-40 minutes walk
5. Have some supplements if you're low in vitamin D, C, etc. Eat more fruit
If it's either death or that, I guess death it is.
Re: Health (Score:2)
I swear you anti-sugar crusaders are getting to be as bad as the vegans and the crossfit assholes.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, there's no correlation really between fats, heavier meals,frequency of meals or even sugar consumption and mortality. At least none I've seen where there weren't more powerful factors. If you have some scientific studies (not "internet guy's common sense") I'd love to see it.
Re: (Score:2)
Spend a bit of time outside. Vitamin D is created in the skin with UVB radiation. Don't go overboard as a short time in the sun goes a long way for Vitamin D and beyond that you are just damaging the skin.
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree with the general idea to eat / live better / healthier -
How did this work out for the Spain again?