He's a doctor politician doing politics and rumored to maybe be running for governor here in Minnesota on a pro-Trump stand. Now he's trying to backtrack some because peeps even right of him are taking his comments out of context and going all conspiracy on talk radio.
Coronavirus Coronavirus: In-Iowa General Discussion (Not Limited)
- Thread starter Jer
- Start date
- Status
He's a doctor politician doing politics and rumored to maybe be running for governor here in Minnesota on a pro-Trump stand. Now he's trying to backtrack some because peeps even right of him are taking his comments out of context and going all conspiracy on talk radio.
The Swiss are returning things back into “normal” as we speak. Daughter is friends with a med student there and she said all the students had to stop school and help with the care and now they have returned to school and restrictions are lifting.
While I believe the true mortality rate is between .5 - 1%, that is still probably 25x higher than the true mortality rate of the flu.
Would be interested to see a source on this that actually puts it around 0.1% of people that contract the flu virus dying.
It's horribly worded and confusing, but the CDCs method that puts at about 0.1% does not try to include asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic people that an anitbody test would capture (IFR).
Put it this way, if a true IFR from the flu was 0.1%, and the mid-point estimate for deaths from flu by CDC of 40,000 in the US is accurate, that means only about 12% of the population contracted the flu virus regardless of symptoms being present or severe.
That could be true, but if under business as usual only 12% of people are infected by seasonal flu, all data supports the fact that under business as usual a much higher percentage of people would become infected with the novel coronovirus.
So no matter what, the conclusion is that under the same circumstances (business as usual) COVID-19 is likely at least several times more deadly than the seasonal flu. The limitations in the data simply mean we don't know how much of the additional danger is due to the effects of the disease itself vs. due to the increased transmittability.
Maybe...there are some factors that increase the odds.
I definitely didn't get tested when I wanted to.
For people who didn’t look it up previously, here is the technical definition of “mortality rate”:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortality_rate
That talks about percent of a population, seemingly in the broadest sense (such as the entire population of the U.S.).
I suppose you could define population as the number of “people infected with CV,” but there are other technical terms that describe that — without all the ambiguity present in many of the most recent posts I see in this thread. IMO it would be helpful, with more accurate conclusions drawn, if people here were more explicit in what they are talking about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortality_rate
That talks about percent of a population, seemingly in the broadest sense (such as the entire population of the U.S.).
I suppose you could define population as the number of “people infected with CV,” but there are other technical terms that describe that — without all the ambiguity present in many of the most recent posts I see in this thread. IMO it would be helpful, with more accurate conclusions drawn, if people here were more explicit in what they are talking about.
Like I said, I was trying to read the CDC method, and it looks to me like the CDC does NOT try to assume cases outside of hospitalization, but do try to account for under diagnoses based on hospitalization data.
Again, I could be wrong but I don't see any language that suggests their fatality rate number is close to an IFR, which is what an antibody test would tell.
Because the numbers and basis are so screwy I don't like to use them. I think they are deceiving. That's why I like to look at it simpler. I think the CDC's death estimates in total cases of the flu are probably pretty accurate. If they are, then something like 8-16% of the population contract the flu virus in a given year if the true IFR is 0.1%. Not get really sick, not hospitalized or necessarily show symptoms, but simply get the flu virus. I have no idea if it's right or wrong, just saying that's what the equivalent of the antibody test would show.
The graphs I saw, similar to those, say that we won't come close to maxing out the vents and ICU rooms. Becomes a balancing act then, do you keep SIP initiatives in place to keep pushing it back or do you start to loosen things up a little and even though you pull it up a couple days you are still under the max numbers but start things moving again.
You’ve been freaking out that we haven’t flattened the curve.
A later peak means that what we’ve done has worked.
Which is what flattening the curve by a SIP (or whatever you want to call it) does. You can't complain that we weren't doing enough and then b about an extended shutdown because of it.
I really appreciate data driven information, but this just seems like guesses based on not really any context. I'm guessing the next time they update for Iowa, it's going to look substantially worse because it'll include all of these meat packing facilities.
I used to use Yahoo for a search engine. Would read their stuff and stopped using them because of it. Their headlines were pure drama then, usually seemed to have an agenda with them and more opinion than reporting so I went to google for a search engine.
- Status
