Started By
Message

re: Running average of 49 worldwide antibody studies is showing a mortality rate of 0.23%

Posted on 5/7/20 at 10:05 am to
Posted by AwesomeSauce
Das Boot
Member since May 2015
11654 posts
Posted on 5/7/20 at 10:05 am to
quote:

Of the actual studies done thus far, an actual meta-analysis that controlled for the random effects, found a 0.79% IFR with a 95% confidence interval between 0.53% and 1.05


Link? Not saying this isn't true, only that what I've seen have been much lower. A lot of the data coming from these antibody tests in concentrated areas have been .08% to .35%, which is significantly lower than the study you are referencing.
Posted by TheCaterpillar
Member since Jan 2004
76774 posts
Posted on 5/7/20 at 10:05 am to
quote:

And that’s with social distancing and other effective measures.


You clearly have no idea what a fatality rate is.

Posted by Centinel
Idaho
Member since Sep 2016
46757 posts
Posted on 5/7/20 at 10:07 am to
quote:

found a 0.79% IFR


Well shite let's just lock it down forever then. 0.79%. My god!



Posted by Pettifogger
I don't really care, Margaret
Member since Feb 2012
87749 posts
Posted on 5/7/20 at 10:07 am to
quote:

I know you are being sarcastic, but social distancing has ZERO effect on a virus mortality rate I say that only because some people truly believe it



I don't really know about stuff like this, so I'm asking, not being argumentative -

1) If at-risk populations socially distanced (reducing transmission in those populations), and more of them contracting Covid would have upped the mortality rate (dying at a greater rate) - couldn't that be reflected?

2) If social distancing helped keep medical strain low, and that increased the quality of care (or prevented it from decreasing) - same question?

For both, these are practical considerations which wouldn't truly impact the lethality of the virus in a vacuum (at least in my mind). But all mortality rates are impacted by such things, right?
Posted by lsupride87
Member since Dec 2007
112628 posts
Posted on 5/7/20 at 10:08 am to
quote:

Problem is the mutated strain that we and Western Europe are dealing with looks to possibly be worse
Now this is bad science

The scientists have said the strain mutations are absolutely minimal at this point(to the point calling them a different strain is even a stretch)
Posted by MusclesofBrussels
Member since Dec 2015
5034 posts
Posted on 5/7/20 at 10:09 am to
quote:

buckeye_vol


One of TD's elite scientists
This post was edited on 5/7/20 at 10:11 am
Posted by Centinel
Idaho
Member since Sep 2016
46757 posts
Posted on 5/7/20 at 10:11 am to
He's still not going to let you suck his dick.

Posted by TigerFanInSouthland
Louisiana
Member since Aug 2012
28065 posts
Posted on 5/7/20 at 10:13 am to
quote:

Mortality rate just includes people who had it right?


Who were diagnosed.
Posted by SloaneRanger
Upper Hurstville
Member since Jan 2014
14349 posts
Posted on 5/7/20 at 10:13 am to
It is probably less serious than the flu for those under 50. The flu can sometimes kill a lot of young uns. Covid is clearly much more serious than the flu for the nursing home crowd and those with co-morbidities.
Posted by ZULU
Member since Sep 2009
1014 posts
Posted on 5/7/20 at 10:14 am to
Weld the doors shut on their houses.... The wu tang flu gonna kill everybody!!!!!
Posted by cwil177
Baton Rouge
Member since Jun 2011
30134 posts
Posted on 5/7/20 at 10:18 am to
quote:

I know you are being sarcastic, but social distancing has ZERO effect on a virus mortality rate I say that only because some people truly believe it

Yes and no. If everyone got sick all at once you have more potential to overwhelm the system, which could conceivably lead to more deaths. Hence social distancing to flatten the curve.
Posted by cwil177
Baton Rouge
Member since Jun 2011
30134 posts
Posted on 5/7/20 at 10:19 am to
quote:

Except the Flu kills kids and young adults and Covid does not.

Well this is just wrong. Plenty of people in their 20s and 30s have died. Kids less so but it still happens.
Posted by Powerman
Member since Jan 2004
175710 posts
Posted on 5/7/20 at 10:19 am to
quote:

Now this is bad science

The scientists have said the strain mutations are absolutely minimal at this point(to the point calling them a different strain is even a stretch)



Or maybe you're behind on the news


quote:

Scientists have identified a new strain of the coronavirus that has become dominant worldwide and appears to be more contagious than the versions that spread in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a new study led by scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory.

The new strain appeared in February in Europe, migrated quickly to the East Coast of the United States and has been the dominant strain across the world since mid-March, the scientists wrote


This might actually be a plausible explanation for why things seem to be the worst in the North East states and in Western Europe

quote:

In many places where the new strain appeared, it quickly infected far more people than the earlier strains that came out of Wuhan, China, and within weeks it was the only strain that was prevalent in some nations, according to the report. The new strain’s dominance over its predecessors suggests that it is more infectious, according to the report, though exactly why is not yet known.


LINK
Posted by WaWaWeeWa
Member since Oct 2015
15714 posts
Posted on 5/7/20 at 10:19 am to
quote:

Of the actual studies done thus far, an actual meta-analysis that controlled for the random effects, found a 0.79% IFR with a 95% confidence interval between 0.53% and 1.05%.


Can you link this study
Posted by SloaneRanger
Upper Hurstville
Member since Jan 2014
14349 posts
Posted on 5/7/20 at 10:21 am to
quote:

Plenty of people in their 20s and 30s have died.


Wrong. Have there been examples of this? Yes. But not plenty. Of the 340 deaths in Alabama, the youngest was 50. Median age of deaths in Bama is 74. Over 55% of the deaths had multiple co-morbidities.
Posted by Privateer 2007
Member since Jan 2020
7951 posts
Posted on 5/7/20 at 10:22 am to
Yes sir
Mortality is simple
(Deaths/Infections)x100
Posted by baldona
Florida
Member since Feb 2016
24485 posts
Posted on 5/7/20 at 10:23 am to
quote:

Why do you want old people to die?


I don't want Old people to die, there's just no reason for those that are working and for kids to change their lifestyle for something that statistically has absolutely ) effect on them.
Posted by GetCocky11
Calgary, AB
Member since Oct 2012
53509 posts
Posted on 5/7/20 at 10:25 am to
quote:

Plenty of people in their 20s and 30s have died. Kids less so but it still happens.



I hate words like "plenty" when it comes to data.

Deaths of people under 35 represent <1% of total Covid deaths in the US.
Posted by Jrv2damac
KS
Member since Mar 2004
73542 posts
Posted on 5/7/20 at 10:26 am to
Yeah

We’ve been had. Too bad we can’t move on
Posted by baldona
Florida
Member since Feb 2016
24485 posts
Posted on 5/7/20 at 10:26 am to
quote:

Well this is just wrong. Plenty of people in their 20s and 30s have died. Kids less so but it still happens.


Wrong. At this time there are 0 deaths in anyone under the age of 10 from Covid in the USA. NOT LINKED TO COVID, but actually dying of it. There have been 3 deaths LINKED to Covid but 0 with a coroner's report that said they died of it.
first pageprev pagePage 2 of 8Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram