- 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 10:27 am to Powerman
Posted on 5/7/20 at 10:27 am to Powerman
That LA Times article you keep posting got universally ripped to shreds, it's garbage
ETA: Added some links debunking the LA Times fear mongering:
GeekWire
The Atlantic
ETA: Added some links debunking the LA Times fear mongering:
GeekWire
The Atlantic
This post was edited on 5/7/20 at 10:34 am
2
Posted on 5/7/20 at 10:31 am to lsupride87
Question -
Is that just taking an average and not weighting the average by population size?
Is that just taking an average and not weighting the average by population size?
Posted on 5/7/20 at 10:34 am to wutangfinancial
quote:
Twice the flu, bro
this is it
Once it all boils down said and done, this will wind up being about 2 times as bad as the seasonal flu in places like the USA
Posted on 5/7/20 at 10:35 am to MusclesofBrussels
quote:
That LA Times article you keep posting got universally ripped to shreds, it's garbage
ETA: Added some links debunking the LA Times fear mongering:
Thanks
What do you suppose the huge variance in mortality is in Western Europe and the NE states?
Posted on 5/7/20 at 10:36 am to lsupride87
quote:Ahhh yes. I am pointing out that carefully controlled and applied science has led to an IFR estimate of about 0.8%, which is far less deadly and indicates many more infections than cases than identified, but because that’s more deadly than that 0.23% estimate it must mean I want more people to die?
I feel like you are awfully close to mass murdering people and injecting them with covid after to pump those numbers up
But just to highlight the flaws in the data, the Ganglet study found that there were 5 times as many infections than cases, and then somehow was extrapolated to just 5 times, but 10 times across Germany.
But even using that data, it actually implies a 0.53% IFR as there are 7,277 deaths and there were 137,698 cases 3 weeks ago (21 days from infection to death on average. So that’s 7,277 deaths out of 1,376,980 infections, or 0.53% IFR in Germany.
Of course, that all depends on the underestimation or cases to somehow be 10 times across Germany despite only being 5 in their own study. If it’s only 5 times like they found, then the IFR is 1.06%. And since those are probably both upper and lower estimation bounds, the midpoint between those 2 is 0.795%, almost exactly what the meta-analysis found, and right in line with the NY data which along with the Ganglet study, is one of the few good antibody studies.
Posted on 5/7/20 at 10:37 am to SloaneRanger
quote:
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.
Similar deal in FL:
0 deaths age 0-24
12 deaths age 25-34
28 deaths age 35-44
1,275 deaths age 65+
And in GA:
1 death age 0-24
23 deaths age 25-34
23 deaths age 35-44
1,017 deaths age 65+
Posted on 5/7/20 at 10:38 am to GetCocky11
quote:
Deaths of people under 35 represent <1% of total Covid deaths in the US.
And almost all had a major preexisting condition.
Posted on 5/7/20 at 10:39 am to cwil177
quote:
Plenty of people in their 20s and 30s have died
Define "plenty".
Posted on 5/7/20 at 10:39 am to lsupride87
So Trump was right again that this was a media hoax
How surprising
How surprising
Posted on 5/7/20 at 10:40 am to MusclesofBrussels
quote:
That LA Times article you keep posting got universally ripped to shreds, it's garbage
Then you proceed to link garbage articles from GeekWire and Atlantic of all places.
Posted on 5/7/20 at 10:41 am to Powerman
quote:
What do you suppose the huge variance in mortality is in Western Europe and the NE states?
No idea, I'm not one of TD's elite scientists. The multiple strain theory seemed logical to me, but apparently there's not much science to support it. My amateur guess is demographics and population density (which could also factor into viral load in addition to just prevalence).
Posted on 5/7/20 at 10:43 am to MusclesofBrussels
quote:
demographics and population density (
More like fake news
Other than NYC ppl arent stacked on top of each other in NE States
They claimed my step grandmom died of Corona
Of course she had every issue under the sun but it was Corona
Keep believin!
This post was edited on 5/7/20 at 10:44 am
Posted on 5/7/20 at 10:45 am to Pettifogger
quote:
don't really know about stuff like this, so I'm asking, not being argumentative -
I would agree with you. Social Distancing could have affect mortality rate as would a host of other variables. To what extent? I don’t know but for the reasons you listed, I’d agree.
Posted on 5/7/20 at 10:48 am to OMLandshark
Some people cant accept positive news about CV19. I dont get it.
Posted on 5/7/20 at 10:50 am to lsupride87
that it's just the flu
Posted on 5/7/20 at 10:51 am to wutangfinancial
quote:
Twice the flu, bro
And here I am, literally not knowing a single person in my life who has died from the flu.
I guess that means I’ll go another 35 years and know one person who died from The Rona.
Posted on 5/7/20 at 10:52 am to TH03
The main difference is who is affects worse. The younger, the safer. It’s kind of amazing how little it affects people under 45.
This post was edited on 5/7/20 at 10:53 am
Posted on 5/7/20 at 10:52 am to ell_13
quote:
The is the whole point. 0.23% mortality does NOT require the reaction it got. Nothing should have ever been closed. All we had to do was tell people to wash more, make sure they stayed home when sick, and tell the old people to quarantine in the meantime.
That's what I'm saying and got downvoted to hell.
It isn't nearly as bad as predicted. We can return to normal and the most at risk populations can protect themselves.
quote:
The main difference is who is affects worst. The younger, the safer. It’s kind of amazing how little it affects people under 45.
Healthy people. It can still affect younger people, but not if they aren't already unhealthy af.
This post was edited on 5/7/20 at 10:54 am
Posted on 5/7/20 at 10:53 am to AwesomeSauce
quote:It looks like they’ve updated it, but it’s not 0.75% with CI between 0.49% and 1.01%.
Link? Not saying this isn't true, only that what I've seen have been much lower.
Note that the unweighted average is 0.81% and the median is 0.8%. That poor Stanford study impacts the weighting a bit since it has a large sample, but is just a flat out terrible. Regardless even with it’s disproportionate impact, there is a 0.75% estimate.
A systematic review and meta-analysis of published research data on COVID-19 infection-fatality rates
quote:
Based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of published evidence on COVID-19 until the end of April, 2020, the IFR of the disease across populations is 0.75% (0.49-1.01%).
This post was edited on 5/7/20 at 11:16 am
Posted on 5/7/20 at 11:05 am to TH03
quote:
That's what I'm saying and got downvoted to hell.
People are very emotional about this. I'm getting downvoted and criticized in this thread because people are interpreting my posts as negative (no idea why because the idea that there's a worse strain is bad, debunking that is good), and I've been pretty firmly on team open it up this entire time.
Page 3 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News