@sh76 saidI haven't seen data to support it, but let's say for argument's sake that the present ratio of confirmed cases is 1:4.
Sure, deaths are undercounted, but by percentage points. Estimates vary, but I haven't seen anything higher than maybe 30%.
On the other hand, by most accounts, at most 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 infections are diagnosed today. In the Spring, it was probably more like 1 in 20. Some more controversial estimates (like the Stanford study) pegged it at more like 1 in 80.
Let's stipulate that case figures lag death figures by about a month due to delays in CDC reporting and also the average time it takes a fatal case of COVID to kill its victim.
So a seven day rolling average of cases for September 25 was: 47,143. Multiply that by 4 and you get about 190,000.
A seven day rolling average of COVID deaths October 25th gets you: 818.
Even without assuming undercounts, the IFR is about .43.
Figures from: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
@sh76 saidI'll repeat my post from a few pages ago:
I don't know what studies you're referring to, but serology studies underestimate infection prevalence anyway, as not everybody infected needs to develop antibodies to fight off COVID (there is certainly at least some level of cross-immunity from antibodies developed to fight off other coronaviruses) and (especially) because antibody levels seem to fade after as little as six weeks in some people.
"There was a large study conducted in July which suggested that around 9% of the US population has had COVID-19 at some point. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32009-2/fulltext
At that point around 150,000 deaths had been attributed to COVID19 in the US.
That gives a ballpark figure of an IFR of about .5% though excess death figures strongly suggest the US undercounts its COVID deaths.
Even accepting such a number, it suggests that to reach the 60-70% level thought a minimum to achieve "herd immunity" ("herd mentality" to King Donald), the US would have to accept at least a million COVID deaths."
I'll leave it to public health professionals, not internet posters, to judge the efficacy of such studies.
-Removed-I don't know.
I don't know where the flu "kills millions". In the US, it kills a far smaller number in an average year (by a factor of 15 to 75x) than COVID19 has this year. We also have an effective vaccine for the flu, so more stringent public health measures are not thought necessary.
In any case, "whataboutism" does not justify your insistence that a disease that is killing at the rate COVID19 is isn't "deadly". The US will have more deaths from COVID this month than it normally does for the flu in a year.
-Removed-(Shrug) Since it seems soooooooooooooooo important to you:
The flu is "deadly" esp. in less developed nations which lack advanced medical and public health systems.
COVID19 is "far deadlier" even in nations with such advantages because of its highly contagious nature and lack of a vaccine (which exists for the flu). Thus, it requires more stringent measures to control its spread than does the flu.
Here's what is happening in one mid sized Texas city:
"There were 853 El Paso County patients in hospitals for COVID-19 as of Monday morning, up from 786 on Sunday. There are 180 patients in intensive care, up from 177 on Sunday, and 99 on ventilators, down from 117 on Sunday. Health data shows 41% of hospitalizations in the county are due to COVID-19.
El Paso County also saw a new record high in coronavirus cases: 1,443 new cases were reported Monday morning, and one new death. The county's 7-day rolling positivity rate, which is the percentage of total COVID-19 that came back positive, was at 14.4% on Monday."
""In less than three weeks we’ve spiked from 259 to 786 COVID-related hospitalizations – a 300% increase. If we continue on this trend, we risk detrimental effects to our entire healthcare system,” El Paso Public Health Director Angela Mora said in a statement."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/10/26/el-paso-texas-curfew-installed-covid-19-patients-flood-hospitals/6040309002/
If DG got his way, this would be the entire country (world?).
-Removed-Yes. Influenza is classified as a deadly virus.
Which part of my explanation of the term deadly did you not comprehend?
And for the final time:
THE DEADLINESS OF CORONA IS NOT IMPORTANT!
WHAT’S IMPORTANT IS HOW WELL SOCIETY CAN COPE WITH THE CONSEQUENCIES OF A VIRUS WHICH SPREADS QUICKLY AND CAN OVERLOAD HOSPITALS.
And that is it.
Die, all, in your moronity and non-comprehension.
@no1marauder saidThe baseline figure for political commentators such as yourself ought to be the number of excess deaths. This factors in both the biological IFR as well as social distancing policies, such as the compulsory wearing of face masks in enclosed public spaces which might reduce initial virus load for infectees, and also includes people who have died of the effects of lockdown policies due to suicide. They all died of CoVid-19 in the general sense, if not in any kind of medical sense.
Yes, we have.
And you continue to be dishonest about it by calling the facts I pointed out a "conspiracy theory". As I've already said, a "conspiracy" is a secret plan to do something unlawful and harmful. It's no secret that the UK changed its criteria by only counting COVID deaths that occur within 28 days of a positive test; it's right on their official websites. ...[text shortened]... ll certainly lead to more sickness and deaths in the misguided belief that it will help the economy.
However, it is important to distinguish between those whose cause of death was due to covid in a direct sense and those whose death was hastened or indirectly caused by the pandemic. There was a case in the UK where a child was murdered by someone who was deranged, I'd speculate psychosis exacerbated by the lockdown, and that death was caused by the interaction of a mental disorder with the pandemic.
Basically, it's important to know what the IFR is and it is important to know what the increase in the overall mortality rate is so that appropriate policies are selected. That the British government have changed the "headline figures" does not entail that they are attempting to minimize the death rate for political purposes - for one thing we can just look at excess deaths to contradict them. Also Boris seems to be a bit of a CoVid hawk (i.e. interventionist, pro-lockdown), possibly due to his own experience with the disease, and thinks more strict controls are required. So it's not clear to me that this change in counting policy represents anything very much. They normally run these figures in tandem, at least for a while, so that the meaning of data is understood. The older figures are probably still available, if harder to find.
1 edit
@deepthought saidSorry but I disagree given the sheer magnitude of the difference between the numbers just because COVID deaths beyond 28 days of a test are now not counted as such:
The baseline figure for political commentators such as yourself ought to be the number of excess deaths. This factors in both the biological IFR as well as social distancing policies, such as the compulsory wearing of face masks in enclosed public spaces which might reduce initial virus load for infectees, and also includes people who have died of the effects of lockdown ...[text shortened]... e meaning of data is understood. The older figures are probably still available, if harder to find.
"The new methodology for counting deaths means the total number of people in the UK who have died from Covid-19 comes down from 46,706 to 41,329 - a reduction of 12%.
And figures for deaths in England for the most recent week of data - 18 to 24 July - will drop by 75%, from 442 to 111."
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-53722711
It seems reasonable to suppose that with additional treatments though not cures the number of COVID19 deaths after 28 days would increase as a share of total COVID deaths. Since I see absolutely no medical or scientific reasons to exclude COVID19 deaths after 28 days, I can't see any other explanation but a public relations one for the change. Surely if they were simply interested in more accurate counts, they'd have relied on informed medical opinion on the cause of individual deaths not create an arbitrary cut off point bereft of any medical basis.
Sure you can dig up the excess death data, but it's seems politically useful for people like DG to constantly cite the artificially low numbers to oppose reasonable public health measures ("See it's hardly killing anybody" ).
