- 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 11:49 am to buckeye_vol
Posted on 5/7/20 at 11:49 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
Furthermore, with the excess mortality data around the worldwide indicating far more people dying than normal ABOVE AND BEYOND COVID-19 death totals, the more missing cases there are, the more likely each one of those excess deaths is a result of COVID-19.
Bang
The
fricking
DRUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
1
Posted on 5/7/20 at 11:50 am to lsupride87
quote:No it's not when you factor in the impact of the impact on the positive and negative predictive potential of a test based on a low population prevalence in some of the studies. Not to mention, the Miami study had a test that is so inaccurate, (90.68% specificity), the entire study was pointless and it's likely every single positive was a false positive.
hats completely full of shite
One of the only studies with an level of accuracy though is from New York BECAUSE the prevalence is so much higher which increases the positive predictive potential of the test. That data shows a much higher IFR.
Posted on 5/7/20 at 11:51 am to lsupride87
Great news
Posted on 5/7/20 at 11:51 am to RB10
quote:So are we supposed to pretend that it doesn't exist? Does that somehow change reality if we just ignore it?
Bang
The
fricking
DRUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
Posted on 5/7/20 at 11:52 am to wutangfinancial
quote:
Why do you want old people to die?
No one wants old people to die, but the fact is when an old person dies maybe 10 years of a life are lost, and when a young kid dies it's more like 70 years are lost. Plus, at 57 years old, I've lived my life, and I'm ok with dying. When I was 20 it was all ahead of me. Completely different.
Posted on 5/7/20 at 11:54 am to lsupride87
It would be fine except that they expect 65% of us to get this, so let’s see that’s how many dead?
500k. right at lower end of the range the Micheal Osterholms model predicted in November 2019. percentages will be higher in third world countries.
500k. right at lower end of the range the Micheal Osterholms model predicted in November 2019. percentages will be higher in third world countries.
This post was edited on 5/7/20 at 11:59 am
Posted on 5/7/20 at 11:54 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
factor in the impact of the impact
Posted on 5/7/20 at 11:55 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
So are we supposed to pretend that it doesn't exist? Does that somehow change reality if we just ignore it?
Are we supposed to pretend that your completely fabricated number of "unassigned but actually totally Covid-19" deaths doesn't exist?
Yes. Yes that's exactly what we should do.
This post was edited on 5/7/20 at 11:56 am
Posted on 5/7/20 at 11:55 am to lsupride87
quote:
Their estimation of mortality rate is 0.24%.....It’s even waweeewaeee supported who was originally on team buckeye vol’a death train
NYC deaths currently at 0.17% of the total population confirmed (0.23% if you add the "presumed" back in). Numbers from here NYC Dashboard, total population assumed to be 8,400,000 (Google). Antibody tests for NYC at ~20% estimated positive.
This may be congruent with the German study of 0.24% mortality (at German health standards) = 0.50% or so here, and higher in urban areas.
Posted on 5/7/20 at 11:56 am to buckeye_vol
What was the false positive rate in the Gangelt study?
Posted on 5/7/20 at 11:56 am to RB10
quote:The 15 to 20 times I was referring to was not an IFR that was 15 to 20 deadlier, it was based on both a higher IFR and a higher R0. And I was basing it on a IFR of 1% at that time.
A couple of weeks ago it was "15-20x" more deadly. You're going to bang this drum until it kills you.
But I was actually incorrect, because a 2X R0 actually means 3X the population prevalence is needed to establish herd immunity, and given that with flu shots, the prevalence is actually lower, it could be more like 40 times easier if we reach herd immunity levels even though I've lowered the IFR estimate from 1% to 0.8% .
Posted on 5/7/20 at 11:59 am to WaWaWeeWa
quote:I'm not 100% sure, but given the prevalence, it wouldn't have as much of an impact. I could see it being 4.5 times instead of 5 (90% decrease), but that's a lot different than the Stanford study, is probably off by a factor of anywhere from 2 to 5. But that's not just because of the test accuracy, it's because there are many more problems with it (impact of the demographic weightings; sampling bias; etc.).
What was the false positive rate in the Gangelt study?
This post was edited on 5/7/20 at 12:00 pm
Posted on 5/7/20 at 11:59 am to cwil177
quote:
Plenty of people in their 20s and 30s have died. Kids less so but it still happens.
"Plenty" is a relative term. There have been enough young people dying of COVID-19 to make some headlines, but it has been statistically immaterial.
Posted on 5/7/20 at 12:00 pm to lsupride87
So in other words - the politicians killed more people with the shutdown policies than the virus itself.
People with cancer and heart conditions afraid to go to the doctor for potentially preventative treatments
Suicides increasing several times over
Overall Health outcomes decreasing several times over
Weaker immune systems going forward
Now, let's let the government step in and address THESE problems they created.
People with cancer and heart conditions afraid to go to the doctor for potentially preventative treatments
Suicides increasing several times over
Overall Health outcomes decreasing several times over
Weaker immune systems going forward
Now, let's let the government step in and address THESE problems they created.
This post was edited on 5/7/20 at 12:01 pm
Posted on 5/7/20 at 12:04 pm to buckeye_vol
In the Gangelt study they randomly selected households. They confirmed every positive antibody sample in the lab and the upper conservatives limit of IFR was 0.34%
And that’s after the adjusted for false positive rate even though they confirmed the antibodies through a secondary test.
And that’s after the adjusted for false positive rate even though they confirmed the antibodies through a secondary test.
Posted on 5/7/20 at 12:04 pm to RB10
quote:I didn't fabricate any numbers. So quite lying about that. The excess mortality is a reality. And when it occurs during a pandemic, then there is a good chance that some if not all are a result of it.
Are we supposed to pretend that your completely fabricated number of "unassigned but actually totally Covid-19" deaths doesn't exist?
And when it's all said and done, just like any other infectious disease like the FLU, the estimates will be higher than the death totals indicate. In fact, the flu is often 4 times higher, and I'm estimating AT MOST it will be 2 times higher, which is way less than the flu's upward revisions.
Posted on 5/7/20 at 12:08 pm to MusclesofBrussels
quote:
No idea, I'm not one of TD's elite scientists.
That puts you in the bottom 50% here.
Posted on 5/7/20 at 12:09 pm to WaWaWeeWa
quote:But then they doubled their estimate of missing cases nationally (e.g., 5 from 10) which is very liberally upwards estimation there, and using that, the IFR is 0.53% across Germany as a whole.
n the Gangelt study they randomly selected households. They confirmed every positive antibody sample in the lab and the upper conservatives limit of IFR was 0.34%
And like the CFR, the IFR tends to rise since deaths lag infections (e.g., deaths will still occur even when infections stop, some even months later). So I could see it ending somewhere between 0.6 and 0.7 percent in Germany.
Posted on 5/7/20 at 12:14 pm to SDVTiger
quote:
So Trump was right again that this was a media hoax
Then imagine how stupid shutting things down was, declaring state of emergency, the whole 9. Must have some weak convictions or poor bargaining skills
Posted on 5/7/20 at 12:15 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
This isn’t true either. About 74% of the deaths for those 65 in older. 80% of the deaths in a typical flu season are for those 65 percent and older and usually far more children are infected (30% of cases about 1% of deaths) then COVID-19 since schools were canceled, the 74% is probably an even lower proportion than usual.
Therefore, it’s actually killing more than the younger population than a typical flu season. Of course it’s clearly much less deadly for those who are younger, but it’s much deadlier relative to the flu for that same group. People seem to be overestimating the risk for those during the flu.
This is BS and you know it. There's been 3 deaths TOTAL in the USA of kids under 5 or 6 and all three are very very suspect and likely just linked to Covid not because of it. We are no where near 1% of Covid deaths being under the age of 18.
Page 5 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News