So you see those cities getting us to over a million deaths? His response was to the over a million deaths prediction... context matters
CDC Numbers
- Thread starter tbaydog
- Start date
- Status
So you see those cities getting us to over a million deaths? His response was to the over a million deaths prediction... context matters
The flu numbers have the same problem. Only a fraction of the people that have the flu get tested or show up in the statistics. Another thing that people just gloss over, like somehow everyone who ever gets the flu is actually accounted for.
So China is lying and making their mortality rate higher than it normally would be? Not buying that at all.
We are currently at or near the peak of this. We are just now overcoming the testing shortages and deploying therapeutics. It's not an indefinite trend.
Cuomo literally just said yesterday in his update that death rate and hospitalization rate in NYC are starting to trend down, to the point that it almost seems too good to be true.
THE PROBLEM IS NOT THE MORTALITY RATE!!!!!!
I don't know how loud I have to scream this. The problem is that this disease spreads so quickly and somewhere between 5 and 15% of people require hospitalization. We do not have the hospital capacity to treat those people, and when the hospitals are overrun many more people will not get treatment and will die. Also, people who need other treatment will not be able to get it. Car accidents, heart attacks, cancer treatments, etc. will not be treated the way they need to be.
We are not trying to stop this thing. We are trying to slow it down so we can treat people who get it and give doctors and scientists some runway to develop treatments. It appears to be manageable until it isn't. It looks like it grows relatively slowly, but it's exponential growth. About 2 months into an area being exposed, it begins to accelerate in a way that is difficult to control. Look at NYC right now.
This is napkin math, not a scientific model, but it illustrates how exponential spreading works. This is how one person becomes 24,000 in just 12 weeks. Keep in mind, the transmission rate in China was 2.5 (each infected person infects 2.5 others on average). Nashville has a 6% hospitalization rate right now. Could Baptist in Columbus take 55 new hospitalization cases in one week?
<tbody>
</tbody>
The hospitalization rate for the flu last year was 1.3%. That number is baked into the capacity we have at our local hospitals. We have vaccines to protect the people most at risk for the flu and treatments for those who get it. We don't have that for this.
I don't know how loud I have to scream this. The problem is that this disease spreads so quickly and somewhere between 5 and 15% of people require hospitalization. We do not have the hospital capacity to treat those people, and when the hospitals are overrun many more people will not get treatment and will die. Also, people who need other treatment will not be able to get it. Car accidents, heart attacks, cancer treatments, etc. will not be treated the way they need to be.
We are not trying to stop this thing. We are trying to slow it down so we can treat people who get it and give doctors and scientists some runway to develop treatments. It appears to be manageable until it isn't. It looks like it grows relatively slowly, but it's exponential growth. About 2 months into an area being exposed, it begins to accelerate in a way that is difficult to control. Look at NYC right now.
This is napkin math, not a scientific model, but it illustrates how exponential spreading works. This is how one person becomes 24,000 in just 12 weeks. Keep in mind, the transmission rate in China was 2.5 (each infected person infects 2.5 others on average). Nashville has a 6% hospitalization rate right now. Could Baptist in Columbus take 55 new hospitalization cases in one week?
| Transmission Rate | 1.5 | Infected | New Cases | New Case Rate / Week | Number of Hospitalized | New Hospitalized | ||
| Hospitalization Rate | 6% | Week 1 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0% | 0 | 0 | |
| Week 2 | 2.5 | 1.5 | 60% | 0 | 0 | |||
| Week 3 | 6.3 | 3.8 | 60% | 0 | 0 | |||
| Week 4 | 15.6 | 9.4 | 60% | 1 | 1 | |||
| Week 5 | 39.1 | 23.4 | 60% | 2 | 1 | |||
| Week 6 | 97.7 | 58.6 | 60% | 6 | 4 | |||
| Week 7 | 244.1 | 146.5 | 60% | 15 | 9 | |||
| Week 8 | 610.4 | 366.2 | 60% | 37 | 22 | |||
| Week 9 | 1,525.9 | 915.5 | 60% | 92 | 55 | |||
| Week 10 | 3,814.7 | 2288.8 | 60% | 229 | 137 | |||
| Week 11 | 9,536.7 | 5722.0 | 60% | 572 | 343 | |||
| Week 12 | 23,841.9 | 14305.1 | 60% | 1,431 | 858 |
<tbody>
</tbody>
The hospitalization rate for the flu last year was 1.3%. That number is baked into the capacity we have at our local hospitals. We have vaccines to protect the people most at risk for the flu and treatments for those who get it. We don't have that for this.
Last edited:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1242905328209080331?s=20
Agreed it’s pretty disgusting to be thinking about the election when people are dying
Agreed it’s pretty disgusting to be thinking about the election when people are dying
All valid points. 2 things you should consider.
1. We are not going to truly fix our economy until people are safe... Under the danger zone. Not just here, but around the world.
2. Our GDP decline is not going to kill people unless we let it. If it declines 30%, we can inject 30% of GDP right back into our economy with the wave of a magic wand.. Watch, they are going to do it this week.
I personally despise that we print money all the time but that's mainly because I think it should be used for catastrophic events like this. I am a red blooded small government capitalist. I also believe in 2 things, we protect those who can't protect themselves and the first country to come out of this mess with all of their people healthy wins.. And very likely wins the economic battle too.
As Mjoelner mentioned in this thread though, death rate and infection rate for the flu are estimated, and this isn't the case right now for coronavirus. If it were, infections would be way up and death rate would be way down
It really is laughable to see so many so called educated people loose their mind and simply throw reason and the data out the window.
The data has shown that this Virus is mutating slowly. The data also shows that the common threads WORLD WIDE are that the mortality from this virus is almost exclusively with older people over age 70 with underlying health issues. The vast majority of those infected have very mild symptoms or no symptoms at all. With such a defined group that is at risk, it's easier protect those folks.
The seasonal Flu mortality is more equally spread out over the population and is much harder to limit that is why it's more dangerous than COVID 19
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html
This was the same case with swine Flu. H1N1 was spread over ALL age groups and 80% of the fatalities were below the age of 65 and 40% of the fatalities were between the ages of 25-49
https://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/surveillanceqa.htm
So with such a defined risk group, these computer models can't be right. Given our knowledge that we know we need to protect this group of vulnerable people, and the fact that the majority of the population is not at risk of dying from this virus, it's mathematically impossible to reach the mortality of the seasonal flu or the Swine Flu.
The data has shown that this Virus is mutating slowly. The data also shows that the common threads WORLD WIDE are that the mortality from this virus is almost exclusively with older people over age 70 with underlying health issues. The vast majority of those infected have very mild symptoms or no symptoms at all. With such a defined group that is at risk, it's easier protect those folks.
The seasonal Flu mortality is more equally spread out over the population and is much harder to limit that is why it's more dangerous than COVID 19
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html
This was the same case with swine Flu. H1N1 was spread over ALL age groups and 80% of the fatalities were below the age of 65 and 40% of the fatalities were between the ages of 25-49
https://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/surveillanceqa.htm
So with such a defined risk group, these computer models can't be right. Given our knowledge that we know we need to protect this group of vulnerable people, and the fact that the majority of the population is not at risk of dying from this virus, it's mathematically impossible to reach the mortality of the seasonal flu or the Swine Flu.
I think China is suppressing their numbers. Do you really believe that they only have 5,000 active cases in that country? They suppressed their numbers for a couple of months in the early stages and then prematurely declared victory over it. There's some unsubstantiated reporting that they're actually starting to see a secondary spike in Wuhan.
So my point is there's too much uncertainty in my mind to cite any metric coming out of China.
What exactly are you talking about?
Can you be very specific, instead of calling whatever you are talking about a "struggling system?"
And what exactly do you mean by "struggling?"
I live in Northern Virginia. Nobody is struggling here.
The government is not struggling. The hospitals are not struggling. The grocery stores are not struggling.
What specific experiences are you currently having that make you say "overwhelm our already struggling system?" How are you personally being "overwhelmed?" Which "system," personally for you, is currently "struggling?"
Please don't take any offense . . . I'm just trying to understand what you're talking about.
A little dramatic. People are always dying and there is no doubt that Dems and Repubs are spending most of their time developing campaign messaging around multiple potential time lines and outcomes. Please don't pretend that US politics ever stops for anything.
OK, how about Italy then. 40% death rate in resolved cases, 10% in deaths vs. overall cases. Are they suppressing info as well?
Nobody knows the true mortality rate. At best, its 12 to 15 times worse than the flu. At worst, its way, way more deadly than that.
That is the point I have seen most people miss here. The CDC website clearly says they take the actual confirmed flu test and add an educated guess to that to creat the denominator. They explain this by saying they need to account for infected people that stay at home and or have pretty mild symptoms. If you went by only confirmed cases on the flu like we are doing with Covid, the numbers would look much closer to one another. Covid would still be more deadly, but they would be much closer than the 10x number everyone is quoting.
This virus is very bad, but total deaths probably will not match a bad flu year in the US.
This virus is very bad, but total deaths probably will not match a bad flu year in the US.
They are literally only testing people in MS who exhibit MULTIPLE significant symptoms. And then, even if you meet that criteria, they are prioritizing the elderly and vulnerable. So, just like the true mortality rate won’t be as high as is being reported, that 31% is a high number because that’s 31% of people who fit the above criteria.
Stats are great and generally tell the store, but good grief I’ve never seen people run with some stats without a shred of critical situational thinking.
Italy is an absolute worst case scenario. They mismanaged this from the beginning, and an unusually large portion of their infection base consists of high risk individuals (over 50, underlying health issues). I don't doubt their numbers, but I wouldn't use them to predict anything here because the situations are completely different.
In my opinion, the mainstream media wants anything that makes a juicy story . . . especially when it can be spun to make President Trump look bad.
Those things include: 1) a pandemic; and 2) a kneecapped economy.
You need to do a little more research on this one. They have years and years of data on the flu and very accurate modeling to determine actual cases... Of course they don't do an actual head count...
An important number that isn't represented here is hospitalization rate. This flu season has seen 495,000 cases that were severe enough to require hospital admission. That's roughly 1.3%. Right now the US is hovering at a 9.6% hospitalization rate through 65,000~ cases, with region numbers way higher. (See: yesterday's thread) In our area GA is at 31%, LA is at 27%, we're at 30%, and Alabama hasn't provided numbers yet. If these rates even hold kind of true, our loved ones in the healthcare field are in for a world of hurt.
And I get that those percentages are inflated by our current testing model which under represents the total cases, but if we're still three times the national average within that model.
And I get that those percentages are inflated by our current testing model which under represents the total cases, but if we're still three times the national average within that model.
I'd be closer to true on the statement that "31% of patients that were exhibiting enough complications to actually require a test eventually required hospitalization"...
^^^This is the real problem. Whatever the real rate is, it's much higher than 1.3% and we are not setup to treat that. Over the long term as this is just part of the world we live in and have vaccines and treatment like the flu that number will plunge, but that's not today.
Many hospitals in my rural area don’t have the capacity to treat the hospitalization rate of this thing. There is already a shortage on supplies such as masks and things to protect health care workers.
My wife works in nursing home facilities and they got told yesterday to wear one mask all week.
States that didn’t expand Medicaid have seen many hospitals close those places if they aren’t struggling are going to
That's surprising to me because our positive rates compared to percentage of tests given is still so low.
The model that most people have been referencing was just massively revised by the author yesterday.
http://dlvr.it/RSc99V
He admits he overshot the death toll in the UK by about 25x’s. (500k down to 20k).
Not sure that's true, but that just makes flattening the curve more costly.
Money is not GDP. IN theory, monetary policy can prevent knock-on effects, but it doesn't mean we aren't hurt by slowing production for weeks or months. If monetary policy works perfectly, that is still 30% of GDP that is taken out of the wealth of people holding cash or cash equivalents in exchange for a lot of consumption that does not actually occur.
AGain, not arguing that what we are doing right now is bad; I think what we are doing is probably about right based on the uncertainty out there, even if it ends up looking bad in hindsight. But there are costs to it and they are real, and us executing monetary and fiscal policy much better than we have in the past just mitigates the costs; it won't remove them.
I’m aware and I believe the numbers are as accurate as they can feasibly be for the flu. The problem is that there is a value for both the flu and COVID-19 that cannot possibly be known in terms of unreported cases, but people only assume that value only exists for COVID-19, and use that justification to make themselves feel better.
The testing and sample size of COVID-19 will tell the tale, but we are still several weeks away from getting a full picture of the US mortality rate. There are simply too many unknowns when 80% of the cases are still active, with more rolling in every day.
and I doubt very seriously it gets anywhere close to half that revised number ..it's a limited, defined at risk group...
That’s kind of my point. Every country’s individual situation is going to be completely different from the US. Italy did mismanage from the beginning, but they also had street level enforcement of quarantine that was gestapo-level to keep people from leaving their homes. The US has done nothing of the sort, which may allow an increased spread rate whether people agree to such extreme measures or not.
But overall, yes Italy is a worst-case scenario. But 1.3% is an extreme and probably unrealistic best case scenario based on all the data that is currently available. China has fallen square in the middle of those two numbers, whether you believe their data or not. So its fair to assume that if best case is 1.3% and worst case is 10%, there is still a hell of a lot of uncertainty as to the actual mortality rate.
Italy issued gestapo-like measures way too late. Early on, the PM there was urging people to hug chinese people whenever they saw them in response to our measure of stopping flights from China.
My prediction, which is just my opinion, is that the mortality rate here will be lower than 1.3% when this is all said and done. In fact, I believe it will be lower than 1%. It's so hard to quantify because there are tens of thousands of people who were infected and never knew it. It's going to be a long time before we get enough data to come close to quantifying that with any accuracy, but I'm basing my prediction on common sense, and not on mortality rates that other countries are reporting, which are largely anecdotal and irrelevant to what's going on here.
Your prediction of < 1% is not based on common sense at all. Its 1.3% right now in the U.S. even if you assume all the active cases will recover which is a major logical fallacy. Obviously the undetected cases makes it tricky, but the amount of people who may have had it will never be known....nor will the deaths from pneumonia, etc. that may have been ultimately caused by COVID that went undetected in the past 3 months. You have to throw all that out when talking about the mortality rate....there’s just not really any other option unless you want to make the number of undetected cases be X and the number of undetected deaths be Y, with X and Y figures being whatever numbers support your argument.
Last edited:
Not exactly. Read the article that Berenson cited. https://www.newscientist.com/articl...e-care-units-for-coronavirus-expert-predicts/ . Ferguson is basically saying "taking social distancing measure's into account, here is my new prediction."
You call them asshats, I call them politicians. Their literal entire livelihood depends on the next election. For you, you depend on being an actual productive member of society. For them, they depend on mooching off productive members of society. That is their livelihood. The next election. It is sad.
yo dude ... I'd say the mortality issue IS the issue... it's the only thing that is permanent.
The data in your table appears to be flawed because it's not accounting for anyone getting discharged from the hospital.
- Status
Latest
-
01
On3 Football
Mississippi State QB Kamario Taylor expected to miss LSU game
-
02
Maroon and White Football
No. 16 Mississippi State at No. 22 LSU: How, where and when to watch the Bulldogs
-
03
Maroon and White
Anthony Evans III can be any QB's best friend on Saturday
-
04
Maroon and White
Injury Report: KaMario Taylor and Fluff Bothwell remain questionable
-
05
Maroon and White Basketball
Culture and Retention sets the stage for Year 5 under Sam Purcell