re: Covid 19: misunderstandings in statistics, ascertainment bias (more testing= more "cases")

Folks, we have a problem in this world

We are being fooled by emotional responses motivated by the negativity bias to extreme scenarios/propositions (which are presented as the “norm”)

No one seems to want to look at the data objectively. Instead, emotion clouds reasonable decision making

MSM and SM fuel this dopamine crisis on many levels

https://usa.greekreporter.com/2020/06/27/up-to-300-million-people-may-be-infected-by-covid-19-stanford-guru-john-ioannidis-says/

quote:

---

Up to 300 Million People May Be Infected by Covid-19, Stanford Guru John Ioannidis Says

By Patricia Claus - Jun 27, 2020

---

quote:

---

Dr. Ioannidis: We have learned a lot within a short period of time about the prevalence of the infection worldwide. There are already more than 50 studies that have presented results on how many people in different countries and locations have developed antibodies to the virus. These numbers are anywhere between 5 times (e.g. Gangelt in Germany) and 600 times (e.g. Japan) more compared to the documented cases, depending on whether a lot or limited testing was already performed in different locations. We know that the prevalence of the infection varies tremendously across countries, but also within countries, within states, and even within population groups in the same location. COVID-19 attacks some disadvantaged and deprived communities (harder), and disadvantage and deprivation means different things in different countries. Of course none of these studies are perfect, but cumulatively they provide useful composite evidence. A very crude estimate might suggest that about 150-300 million or more people have already been infected around the world, far more than the 10 million documented cases. It could even be substantially larger, if antibodies do not develop in a large share of people who get through the infection without symptoms or sparse symptoms.

---

So as we test more (from a process with a massively underestimated prevalence) we should EXPECT the number of cases to increase. All that testing is doing is validating the TRUE prevalence of the disease.

quote:

---

Dr. Ioannidis: 0.05% to 1% is a reasonable range for what the data tell us now for the infection fatality rate, with a median of about 0.25%. The death rate in a given country depends a lot on the age-structure, who are the people infected, and how they are managed. For people younger than 45, the infection fatality rate is almost 0%. For 45 to 70, it is probably about 0.05-0.3%. For those above 70, it escalates substantially, to 1% or higher for those over 85. For frail, debilitated elderly people with multiple health problems who are infected in nursing homes, it can go up to 25% during major outbreaks in these facilities.

---

Furthermore, the mortality rate will likely push further down as the number of “cases” increases...

quote:

---

Greek Reporter: You had earlier extrapolated 10,000 total US deaths using the Diamond Princess cruise ship analysis, using the case fatality rate among those infected, which was .3% (mid-range guess), with 1% of the US population becoming infected. As we know now, the total amount of those dying with the disease was much higher but it was still not the astronomical, exponentially huge number that some had predicted. There had been only 68 American deaths by March 16, the day before your original article was published. The most pessimistic projection in March was 40 million deaths globally — the same as the 1918 flu. What do you really think it is now, bottom line?

Dr. Ioannidis: In the STAT article, I discussed two hypothetical extremes for illustrative purposes, one with just 10,000 deaths in the USA and another with 50 million deaths worldwide. I said that our data are so unreliable that the truth could be anywhere between these two amazingly different extremes. Based on what we know now, we seem to be closer to the optimistic end of the range. In terms of numbers of lives lost, so far the COVID-19 impact is about 1% of the 1918 influenza. In terms of quality-adjusted person-years lost, the impact of COVID-19 is about 0.1% of 1918 influenza, since the 1918 influenza killed mostly young healthy people (average age 28), while the average age of death with COVID-19 is 80 years, with several comorbidities.

---

There are likely some who feel that we are underestimating the numbers and that testing will clarify the “real numbers”

They completely miss the points above

This crisis is a bad case of identity theft (1918 Influenza) that was sold to the public. No one has bothered to reframe or walk this back (the few that have have been attacked)