- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
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 buckeye_vol
Posted on 5/7/20 at 10:05 am to buckeye_vol
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 on 5/7/20 at 10:05 am to Winston Cup
quote:
And that’s with social distancing and other effective measures.
You clearly have no idea what a fatality rate is.
Posted on 5/7/20 at 10:07 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
found a 0.79% IFR
Well shite let's just lock it down forever then. 0.79%. My god!
Posted on 5/7/20 at 10:07 am to lsupride87
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 on 5/7/20 at 10:08 am to Powerman
quote:Now this is bad science
Problem is the mutated strain that we and Western Europe are dealing with looks to possibly be worse
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 on 5/7/20 at 10:09 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
buckeye_vol
One of TD's elite scientists
This post was edited on 5/7/20 at 10:11 am
Posted on 5/7/20 at 10:11 am to MusclesofBrussels
He's still not going to let you suck his dick.
Posted on 5/7/20 at 10:13 am to MF Doom
quote:
Mortality rate just includes people who had it right?
Who were diagnosed.
Posted on 5/7/20 at 10:13 am to lsupride87
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 on 5/7/20 at 10:14 am to Winston Cup
Weld the doors shut on their houses.... The wu tang flu gonna kill everybody!!!!!
Posted on 5/7/20 at 10:18 am to lsupride87
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 on 5/7/20 at 10:19 am to baldona
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 on 5/7/20 at 10:19 am to lsupride87
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 on 5/7/20 at 10:19 am to buckeye_vol
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 on 5/7/20 at 10:21 am to cwil177
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 on 5/7/20 at 10:22 am to MF Doom
Yes sir
Mortality is simple
(Deaths/Infections)x100
Mortality is simple
(Deaths/Infections)x100
Posted on 5/7/20 at 10:23 am to wutangfinancial
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 on 5/7/20 at 10:25 am to cwil177
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 on 5/7/20 at 10:26 am to lsupride87
Yeah
We’ve been had. Too bad we can’t move on
We’ve been had. Too bad we can’t move on
Posted on 5/7/20 at 10:26 am to cwil177
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.
Popular
Back to top



1








