New CDC report shows much lower death rate than we are led to believe.

So as the title states, the CDC released a report based on statistics through 04/29 showing a much lower death rate. Overall . 4%, .26% including asymptomatic cases, 1 in 6725 confirmed cases including asymptomatic cases, 6 in 1 million of those under the age of 65. Of course the numbers would be much lower if not for the terrible nursing home situations and probably are much lower because many more people have surely had it and not been tested or confirmed. Of course this is nowhere to be found in mainstream media or social networks which is odd because I thought we were supposed to believe the science and the CDC. I was surprised it hasn't been posted on here yet. Atleast I didn't see it so I hope I didn't just miss it. Anyway, below is a link to a couple articles and then the report itself.

On a side note.. This is the kind of info that really needs to be shared. Regardless of which side you are on, if we are being lied to, stripped of rights, and hurt emotionally and financially by our GVT, everyone should be bothered by that and demand answers as well as a return to the lives we knew. We all deserve better than this.


www.theblaze.com... ium=email&utm_campaign=20200526Trending-HorowitzCDC&utm_term=ACTIVE%20LIST%20-%20TheBlaze%20Breaking%20News

www.rt.com...

www.redstate.com...

The report itself:

www.cdc.gov...

a reply to: awhispersecho

I think we are well past the belief that this virus is all that dangerous.
This is just further confirmation.

The political truths are coming to light !!!!! 😎🔥😎

a reply to: awhispersecho

FU## the CDC — and the four horses they rode in on!

Was that report WHO approved? If not, it's misinformation and lies and the tech firms will ban it.

Symptomatic Case Fatality Ratio: The number of symptomatic individuals who die of the disease among all individuals experiencing symptoms from the infection. This parameter is not necessarily equivalent to the number of reported deaths per reported cases, because many cases and deaths are never confirmed to be COVID-19, and there is a lag in time between when people are infected and when they die. This parameter reflects the existing standard of care and may be affected by the introduction of new therapeutics.

CDC report

That's not "the death rate."

That's a specific factor to be used in complex mathematical modelling.

Now, please continue.

Each scenario is based on a set of numerical values for biological and epidemiological characteristics of COVID-19. These values—called parameter values—can be used to estimate the possible effects of COVID-19in U.S. states and localities. The parameter values in each scenario will be updated and augmented over time, as we learn more about the epidemiology of COVID-19.

Empahsis mine, source, CDC item listed above.

a reply to: awhispersecho

aren't those scenarios, and not actual data?

Not trying to anger anyone, just looking at facts.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: awhispersecho

aren't those scenarios, and not actual data?

Not trying to anger anyone, just looking at facts.

Actually, they're factors to be used in mathematical modelling.

The one that folks think is a "death rate" is specifically NOT THAT as described in the report.

If anyone is interested in Total Deaths/Total Cases from the CDC ... as of today:

Cases in the US

TOTAL CASES
1,662,414
24,958 New Cases*

TOTAL DEATHS
98,261
592 New Deaths*

*Compared to yesterday's data

Worldometers ran the numbers for actual cases and deaths for New York City.
They came up with an infection fatality rate of 1.4 %.

They note that since asymptomatic cases are high, the true IFR would be much lower in reality.

a reply to: Gryphon66

It's been a long day, perhaps my math skills are rusty.

If I divide deaths number by total cases confirmed number I get 0.06 percent.
Can that be right?

a reply to: butcherguy

Here's their unsustained assumption:

The study provides a breakdown by county, race (White 7%, Asian 11.1%, multi/none/other 14.4%, Black 17.4%, Latino/Hispanic 25.4%), and age, among other variables. 19.9% of the population of New York City had COVID-19 antibodies.

With a population of 8,398,748 people in NYC [source], this percentage would indicate that 1,671,351 people had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 and had recovered as of May 1 in New York City

Their other numbers depend on those assumptions so this:

Infection Fatality Rate (23k / 1.7M = 1.4% IFR)
Actual Cases with an outcome as of May 1 = estimated actual recovered (1,671,351) + estimated actual deaths (23,430) = 1,694,781.

originally posted by: awhispersecho
Of course the numbers would be much lower if not for the terrible nursing home situations and probably are much lower because many more people have surely had it and not been tested or confirmed. Of course this is nowhere to be found in mainstream media or social networks which is odd because I thought we were supposed to believe the science and the CDC. .......

I'm not sure which numbers you are referring to that would be "much lower".

When you have a high population density living situation made up of the people who are at the highest risk for mortality if they get the virus--nursing homes, in other words--then you will experience a high number of fatalities in a short period of time in that location simply because you will have a high density of cases in that situation. So it is true that the number of COVID19 fatalities in the nation would be somewhat lower than the current 100,000 if all the people living in nursing homes were living independently.

However, if all those older folks were living independently instead of in group settings, that would not change the fraction of infections that are asymptomatic, which that CDC document you reference estimates as 35%.

Likewise, there is no reason to think that the case mortality rate would be any lower at all, which that CDC document currently estimates as 1.3% for those 65 and older. Older people living in a nursing home have a higher probability of catching the virus because they can't really do social distancing, but once they do catch the virus, their probability of dying from it is the same as if they had been living independently and caught the virus.

That's what the science says.

originally posted by: texas thinker
a reply to: Gryphon66

It's been a long day, perhaps my math skills are rusty.

If I divide deaths number by total cases confirmed number I get 0.06 percent.
Can that be right?

I'm not a mathematician nor an epidemiologist.

The issue is in the assumptions. They take the number of deaths and divide that by their estimate of the "total infected" which is further a somewhat wild number.

a reply to: texas thinker
Try total cases divided by deaths instead . That gives you a ratio of roughly one in 16 die from the infect . Divide 100 by 16 for your percentage .

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: texas thinker
Try total cases divided by deaths instead . That gives you a ratio of roughly one in 16 die from the infect . Divide 100 by 16 for your percentage .

That's within the range suggested by the Total cases/Total deaths numbers from the CDC.

About 6.25% That's a really rough number, but its more in the ballpark than some of these others.

a reply to: hutch622

This is assuming all deaths reported were really strictly Covid deaths, it's also assuming that the confirmed cases are the only cases we have had which based on the included CDC report provided, doesn't seem to be the case?

a reply to: awhispersecho
links
Never mind , your assuming .

a reply to: awhispersecho

The document referenced from the CDC is for use in mathematical modelling.

That's it's purpose; it is not a report on outcomes, status, etc.

According to the document itself.