It's March 11 again

@no1marauder said
sh76: Elderly people typically don't have school-aged children in any case.

"One in 10 American children (a total of 7.5 million children) was living in a household with at least one grandparent."

"In particular, however, 2.7 million grandparents carried the primary responsibility of caring for their grandchildren and meeting their basic needs, representing nearly ...[text shortened]... ag.ndsu.edu/publications/home-farm/when-grandparents-become-parents-to-their-grandchildren#section-1

Okay, fair enough. So can't schools offer Zoom classes for those children who live in houses with unvaccinated vulnerable people and let the other 90% go to school?

@no1marauder said
Who started this thread on June 28th, 2020:

"NC antibody study implies 0.125% COVID IFR"? https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/debates/nc-antibody-study-implies-0-125percent-covid-ifr.185925

If you're a masochist, you can read over your posts and mine for the first four pages of that thread.

Incidentally, I believe the actual number of COVID deaths has been significa ...[text shortened]... tality over 2020 in the US. https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/excess-mortality-across-countries-in-2020/

That was a copy and paste that correctly characterized an article. It wasn't an insistence or a prediction. If you want me to admit that the actual nationwide IFR was and is higher than 0.125%, fine. I admit it.

The last paragraph of that very post was:

Throw in the fact that deaths have continued to plummet as cases have increased in the US (although, yes, deaths are a lagging indicator), and I'm optimistic that the COVID IFR will settle in at less than .5% as the summer moves on.

My only prediction was that "COVID IFR will settle in at less than .5% as the summer moves on," and it was almost certainly accurate.

@no1marauder said
I don't have that data.

But are you claiming that being in a school grants some sort of immunity as compared to being in other crowded, indoor activity (which are recognized as being particularly dangerous in spreading COVID)?

It doesn't grant immunity, but the data was pretty clear that with at least the original Wuhan variant, children were not big spreaders. The jury is still out on some of the new variants.

@vivify said
You're calling information from the CDC "balderdash"? Are you accusing the Centers for Disease Control of "misinformation"?

I am absolutely positively calling the statement "1 in 5 young people who contracted COVID were hospitalized" balderdash.

Even No1 seems to have no interest in defending it. It's indefensible scaremongering.

The actual number ("young" people) is probably less than 1 in 100.

@sh76 said
That was a copy and paste that correctly characterized an article. It wasn't an insistence or a prediction. If you want me to admit that the actual nationwide IFR was and is higher than 0.125%, fine. I admit it.

The last paragraph of that very post was:

[b]Throw in the fact that deaths have continued to plummet as cases have increased in the US (although, yes, deaths are a ...[text shortened]... D IFR will settle in at less than .5% as the summer moves on," and it was almost certainly accurate.

No, there's no indication that statement was accurate. I'd say all available evidence suggests the IFR was at least .5% and probably higher. There's been about 270,000 reported deaths since November 30th and less than 16 million confirmed cases since that date. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

Due to the level of testing in that period, I'd say at least 1 in 3 cases are being confirmed (a conservative estimate) and that would still leave an IFR north of .5%.

And that's very selective cherry picking as the rest of your posts in that thread show.

@no1marauder said
No, there's no indication that statement was accurate. I'd say all available evidence suggests the IFR was at least .5% and probably higher. There's been about 270,000 reported deaths since November 30th and less than 16 million confirmed cases since that date. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

Due to the level of testing in that period, I'd say at ...[text shortened]... h of .5%.

And that's very selective cherry picking as the rest of your posts in that thread show.

I'm not cherry-picking; I only read the first post. I'll be happy to read the whole thread another time. As I have said many times, I quoted many articles that reported IFRs of 0.2% or lower, but I never took the position that I was sure that was true.

Picking a particular date forward doesn't work since it's well-known that death reports can lag actual deaths for says, weeks or months. Unless you want to go back and calculate how many of those 270,000 deaths happened before Nov. 30 and subtract them from the numerator, your calculation will be off.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/24/health/young-people-coronavirus-stats-wellness-trnd/index.html

By August, 1 in 5 Covid-19 cases was someone in their 20s

https://www.cdc.gov/hantavirus/resources/covid-vs-hantavirus.html#:~:text=Although%20most%20healthy%20people%20will,19%20may%20require%20hospitalization.

1 in 5 young people who contracted COVID were hospitalized.

https://consumer.healthday.com/one-in-five-patients-hospitalized-with-covid-19-dies-2649445829.html

Of the total number of people hospitalized due to COVID, 1 in 5 died.

https://cw33.com/news/coronavirus/1-in-5-in-us-lost-someone-close-to-covid-19-poll-finds/

1 in 5 in US lost someone close to COVID-19, poll finds

What is up with this "1 in 5" statistic? It's eerie.

@vivify said

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/24/health/young-people-coronavirus-stats-wellness-trnd/index.html

By August, 1 in 5 Covid-19 cases was someone in their 20s

https://www.cdc.gov/hantavirus/resources/covid-vs-hantavirus.html#:~:text=Although%20most%20healthy%20people%20will,19%20may%20require%20hospitalization.

1 in 5 young people who contracted COVID were hospita ...[text shortened]... meone close to COVID-19, poll finds

What is up with this "1 in 5" statistic? It's eerie.

It does sounds a little like someone is making them up.

Statistic 1 is very unlikely.

Statistic 2 is insane.

Statistic 3 is plausible.

Statistic 4 might even be an underestimate.

1: Sure, people in their 20s are less worried and are probably overrepresented in COVID cases, but 1 in 5 sounds over the top.

Statistic 2: see above

Statistic 3 does make sense - that about 1 in 5 hospitalized for COVID will die. That is consistent with my estimate of a hospitalization rate of 2-2.5% and an IFR of .4-.5%.

Statistic 4: That's it? I guess it depends on what the word "close" means? If it means any friend or extended family member, I'd think it would be more than that.

Edit: Vivify: Forget what you read on that CDC page for a minute. Presumably, you're alive in real life and are not living in some sort of bubble. You must have seen a lot of COVID around you, because we all have. Does it seem remotely plausible to you that "1 in 5 young people who contracted COVID were hospitalized"? I'd have an easier time believing it's nighttime even though I can see the Noon Sun outside my window right now.

@sh76 said
I'm not cherry-picking; I only read the first post. I'll be happy to read the whole thread another time. As I have said many times, I quoted many articles that reported IFRs of 0.2% or lower, but I never took the position that I was sure that was true.

Picking a particular date forward doesn't work since it's well-known that death reports can lag actual deaths for says, weeks ...[text shortened]... 0 deaths happened before Nov. 30 and subtract them from the numerator, your calculation will be off.

Of course it's an estimate, but it cuts both ways; there are cases now who will die in the future thus increasing the numerator.

In any event, it is an estimate based on the data and reasonable inferences which your IFR claims have never been. You have been a consistent COVID minimizer and don't seem interested in admitting how wrong you have been and still are.

@sh76 said
Okay, fair enough. So can't schools offer Zoom classes for those children who live in houses with unvaccinated vulnerable people and let the other 90% go to school?

"As of March 11, 2021, at least 882 active and retired K-12 educators and personnel have died of COVID-19. Of those, 244 were active teachers."

https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/educators-weve-lost-to-the-coronavirus/2020/04

@no1marauder said
"As of March 11, 2021, at least 882 active and retired K-12 educators and personnel have died of COVID-19. Of those, 244 were active teachers."

https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/educators-weve-lost-to-the-coronavirus/2020/04

Teachers live in the general community just like others do. It stands to reason that some people in every profession will contract COVID. Unless the deaths can be traced to in-school infection, they do nothing to buttress your point or to militate against opening schools.

@no1marauder said
Of course it's an estimate, but it cuts both ways; there are cases now who will die in the future thus increasing the numerator.

In any event, it is an estimate based on the data and reasonable inferences which your IFR claims have never been. You have been a consistent COVID minimizer and don't seem interested in admitting how wrong you have been and still are.

I'm not interested in getting into ad hominem, but I can call you a COVID panic-monger for every time you call me a COVID minimizer.

You know perfectly well that I can post 100 studies showing IFRs under .5 just as you can post 100 studies showing IFRs more than .5. Fine.

So, just tell me why I'm wrong:

1. Total US COVID deaths are under 550k.

2. Confirmed infections are about 30m.

3. Even at between 2.5 and 3 unconfirmed for every confirmed (which is conservative over the course of the whole pandemic), that implies an IFR of ~.5.

4. Given that hospitals were clueless at treating COVID last March and have gotten much better and given that hospital systems in New York were overwhelmed last March, it stands to reason that those circumstances caused artificially high IFR last March and April.

5. Ergo, even assuming a total IFR of well over .5, such as .6, it stands to reason that the IFR since the summer (when schools would have opened, which is the whole point of our discussion) is under .5.

Where am I wrong?

@sh76 said
Vivify: Forget what you read on that CDC page for a minute. Presumably, you're alive in real life and are not living in some sort of bubble. You must have seen a lot of COVID around you, because we all have. Does it seem remotely plausible to you that "1 in 5 young people who contracted COVID were hospitalized"? I'd have an easier time believing it's nighttime even though I can see the Noon Sun outside my window right now.

I honestly don't know many people who caught COVID, let alone young people specifically. In fact, I actually caught COVID earlier this year from my wife who manages a residential home for the disabled. My kids seemed unaffected.

The key in that statement is 1 in 5 who actually caught COVID. That's quite plausible considering fewer children than adults have been diagnosed with the virus. The smaller the sample, the more realistic "1 in 5" becomes.

@sh76 said
I'm not interested in getting into ad hominem, but I can call you a COVID panic-monger for every time you call me a COVID minimizer.

You know perfectly well that I can post 100 studies showing IFRs under .5 just as you can post 100 studies showing IFRs more than .5. Fine.

So, just tell me why I'm wrong:

1. Total US COVID deaths are under 550k.

2. Confirmed infections ...[text shortened]... ols would have opened, which is the whole point of our discussion) is under .5.

Where am I wrong?

In June, you were arguing that the IFR was well under 0.5% i.e. at 0.2% or lower. NOW, you seem to be saying that it was well over that THEN but is considerably lower NOW. Why should I take your claim any more seriously NOW then I did THEN?

"COVID panic-monger"? In my wildest dreams, I never expected political officials, both in certain States and at the Federal level to be so incompetent and such a large part of the population to be so stubbornly stupid as to eschew basic common sense measures like mask wearers. More than half million deaths at least (and that is a significant undercount) was not something I thought possible in this country; I suppose we have people like you who have consistently minimized the severity of this disease to partially thank for this disaster though, thankfully, all of your crackpot ideas were not adopted in full.

As far as confirmed deaths, half have occurred in the last three months. This hardly suggests any extra competence in dealing with the disease that would reduce the IFR. The data I already provided you suggests the IFR remains well over 0.5% and your attempt to disregard it is pathetic.

When you started your thread on June 28th, I believe there were 130,000 confirmed COVID deaths. You were claiming at the time that confirmed cases compared to actual ones were 1:20 or more. Confirmed cases at that time were about 2.7 million. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

This was the basis for your claims at the time that the IFR was around 0.2% or less. At the time the best data suggested an 1:8 ratio of confirmed to actual cases which would have made the IFR about 0.6% at least though with the certain undercounts it was probably a bit higher.

More than 75% of confirmed deaths have happened since then. Where, oh where, is the evidence that the IFR has dropped significantly? Surely we've had far more testing and the ratio of confirmed cases to actual ones must be far lower. Yet the numbers since November 30th, even with conservative estimates, yield a higher than 0.5% IFR.

Where am I wrong?

@sh76 said
Teachers live in the general community just like others do. It stands to reason that some people in every profession will contract COVID. Unless the deaths can be traced to in-school infection, they do nothing to buttress your point or to militate against opening schools.

Of course it does. Yes, teachers are susceptible to catching and dying from the virus and many are in groups that are particularly vulnerable. Tossing them into a crowded, indoor environment means their chance of catching the disease will be significantly increased. Some will die; some of their relatives or friends will also get infected from them and some of them will die. And though you want to ignore it, some kids will die, too.

At what point in blood is it worth ignoring this so kids can get a bit more "socialized"?