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

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?

Look up how to calculate a percent and try again. I learned this in the 4th grade.

a reply to: awhispersecho

Better than 99% odds we will die of something else than Covid-19, even though the news media wants you to believe that the virus will get you, eventually.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: awhispersecho

Better than 99% odds we will die of something else than Covid-19, even though the news media wants you to believe that the virus will get you, eventually.

Based on what?

Please quote these media sources that make the claim that COVID will kill everyone eventually.

Don't worry. As soon as the remaining people begin to feel comfortable about going outside again there will be some new virus or disease that's "discovered."

And chances are people will freakout all over again.

a reply to: awhispersecho

Its hard to say what is good news.

Yes a 1% infection to death rate is certainly better than the doom porn 6% some people like to push.

But 1% is still a hell of a lot of people; over 2.5 million people could die before herd immunity is achieved.

To put that into prospective thats about as many people that normally die a year in the US. COVID-19 will add an extra year of death to the country.

That's not devastating; but its not good either.

What the country needs to do; is stop worrying about the exact numbers and start putting real actionable plans together. Stop being righteously reactionary and start being pragmatically proactive.

How do we deal with 2.5 million extra deaths; what does it mean to the economy; what is the burn rate that is most sustainable taking into account hospital capacity, economic loss and other externalities such as increase in domestic abuse or the effects social distancing has on child development.

That's how you reach the proper balance between social distancing and the effects social distancing has on the population.

What our elected leaders have done up until now has been completely reactionary. They see a big scare number on a graph they barely understand; have a bleeding hearty moment where "one death is one to many"; and proceed to pull policy out of their @ss and hope it makes the big scary number go down next week.

a reply to: DanDanDat

I keep asking ... who's "pushing doom porn" at 6%?

The estimates of death from March from reputable sources were low.

Care to be more exact?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: DanDanDat

I keep asking ... who's "pushing doom porn" at 6%?

The estimates of death from March from reputable sources were low.

Care to be more exact?

~6% was sight several times in this thread.

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: DanDanDat

I keep asking ... who's "pushing doom porn" at 6%?

The estimates of death from March from reputable sources were low.

Care to be more exact?

~6% was sight several times in this thread.

Was it?

Was it noted as a projection?

Or was it a rough number dividing two other rough numbers and stated as such?

a reply to: LordAhriman

Again, if you or anybody else wants to cower and stay inside for a few years go for it. That's your right as an American.

Just as it's my right to ignore these fat heads and say every person for themself and it's your risk to take or not take.

a reply to: Gryphon66

What I care about is outcomes. When it is all said and done, outcomes are what count especially since they are counting positive tests on the same people as "cases". Sometimes 2,3,4,6 times. The only reliable number we have is outcomes.

Of those who test positive, you either survived or died period.

www.worldometers.info...

Deaths:
100,572

Recovered:
479,969

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: DanDanDat

I keep asking ... who's "pushing doom porn" at 6%?

The estimates of death from March from reputable sources were low.

Care to be more exact?

~6% was sight several times in this thread.

Was it?

Was it noted as a projection?

Or was it a rough number dividing two other rough numbers and stated as such?

I think the answer to all three of your questions is Yes. But for further clarity you will have to ask the people who put forth those numbers as to what they fully meant by them.

But you did ask a question that I didn't fully answer because I needed to find the source material; I apologize for that and now here is the answer.

Estimates of death from March from a reputable source:

Behind the Virus Report That Jarred the U.S. and the U.K. to Action

Special report: The simulations driving the world’s response to COVID-19

The Imperial College of London was predicting 2.2 million deaths in the US during the first wave of the virus March through August. That's only the first wave; not total deaths till herd immunity. They also predicted second and thrid waves of the virus.

Lockdown measures were taken to drive that first wave projection down in oder to ease pressure off of hospitals at the peak of the first wave. They largely succeeded.

But social distancing only changes the rate of infection; it does not change the lethality of the virus. If New Yorks current infections to deaths of 1% holds true for all of the US than 2.2M is the total lethality of the virus through the whole of the population; not just for one wave.

There is also reason to believe that New York's 1% will be on the high end when compared to other states and cities given other factors that are not in New Yorks favor; such as population density especially amongst the pore; as well as better medical practices developed over time.

a reply to: DanDanDat

You had to search for backup for claims you've made repeatedly? Almost every post you make on the topic? Like it was on the tip of your fingertips? Yeah, okay.

Well then. In the Times report you should have also joggled your memory to remember that the projections of 2.2 million dead in the US would have been the outcome of following Trump's early inclinations to do nothing and treat COVID as a Democrat hoax.

I linked the projection from the group that has been most often quoted in all media, which was 81,000 deaths BY JULY with social distancing.

So the reliable projections given social distancing were LOW back in March and the reality even with social distancing will outstrip that number by 40 thousand or so.

And yet, you and others keep desperately trying to claim that all that was just lies, no need for social distancing, time to get back to work, etc. etc.

Thanks for your efforts in finding support for your memories.

I've really got to remember to just ignore absolutely absurd posts.

a reply to: awhispersecho

This number -- the 'case mortality rate' -- is based on confirmed deaths in confirmed/symptomatic cases. In countries where testing has been more widespread and randomized, it's much lower than in the U.S. (eg. Iceland, Singapore, etc..).

In the U.S., our testing has been slow to roll out and people with symptoms have been prioritized. Obviously people with symptoms are at a much greater risk of dying than people who are asymptomatic.

People seem to be confusing the 'case mortality rate' with the 'infection mortality rate.' The infection mortality rate will be much lower than the case mortality rate...if the U.S. ever got around to widespread randomized testing.

Until then...it's all just a guess, but the case mortality rate is not a reliable figure for determining the infection mortality rate. It essentially omits asymptomatic and mild cases from the equation.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
if the U.S. ever got around to widespread randomized testing.

.....and if they ever mass produced tests that were more reliable.

a reply to: Gryphon66
You've been around long enough.
There are plenty of threads, right here about these issues.

I've read them, including the links in them.

You should too.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: DanDanDat

You had to search for backup for claims you've made repeatedly? Almost every post you make on the topic? Like it was on the tip of your fingertips? Yeah, okay.

Yes, I don't keep news clippings for articles that I read back in march. I need to find find them again. I don't understand why that is a difficult concept for you?

Well then. In the Times report you should have also joggled your memory to remember that the projections of 2.2 million dead in the US would have been the outcome of following Trump's early inclinations to do nothing and treat COVID as a Democrat hoax.

Your hatred of trump is irrelevant to the topic; I don't share your passion for hating on politicians so I really don't have anything to add here.

I linked the projection from the group that has been most often quoted in all media, which was 81,000 deaths BY JULY with social distancing.

So the reliable projections given social distancing were LOW back in March and the reality even with social distancing will outstrip that number by 40 thousand or so.

And yet, you and others keep desperately trying to claim that all that was just lies, no need for social distancing, time to get back to work, etc. etc.

Thanks for your efforts in finding support for your memories.

I've really got to remember to just ignore absolutely absurd posts.

There are many competing models on the Covid-19 epidemic. I know that its easier for you keep the blinkers on and act like only the material that backs up your opinion exists. But that is not how life works.

You asked for a credible source that over stated the death toll of the COVID-19 in march. I found you the source material you asked for and that apparently sent you into a tail spin; dismissing the credible source because I didn't find it fast enough.

And its not just any model that I sourced for you. It is the "Virus Report That Jarred the U.S. and the U.K. to Action" according to the New York times. So yes while there are competing models apparently this is the one that caused the US and UK to change its outlook on the virus and lead to the measures we are living through today. ... so its not just any model.

You don't have to remember to ignore credible information and arguments you do it all the time.

NPR covered this 5 days ago...so which news sites not reporting are they talking about?

Sci entists Say New, Lower CDC Estimates For Severity Of COVID-19 Are Optimistic

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: DanDanDat
I keep asking ... who's "pushing doom porn" at 6%?
The estimates of death from March from reputable sources were low.
Care to be more exact?

Sure...

Here is a bit of reality; reported numbers as aggregated by "The Covid Tracking Project", they aggregate data from individual states daily, so it is the most complete, up-to-date data available.

As of 2020-05-26T20:00:00Z:
Positive cases: 1,671,035
Deaths: 93,093

Doing the math:
93093 / 1671035 = 0.0557 X 100 = 5.57%

I know that's not quite the 6% some are saying, but, it is kinda close. That number, however, only reflects the known cases, and not the real total number of cases.

a reply to: awhispersecho

To paraphrase Homer Simpson 'forfty percent of statistics are false.'

it's a fear campaign by the MSM...we are sick of hearing about it-we know how to prevent the spread, we know we need to lockdown, but then the MSM comes out with 'ONE DEATH IN A COUNTRY WITH A NAME YOU CAN'T PRONOUNCE, MORE IN ELEVEN SECONDS!!!

I've said it before, the MSM are necromancers,they feed on death.

a reply to: Jimy718

Yep. You do understand that my question was dircted at the folks that the reality of "the numbers" is so much smaller than we were told (at some past point that only one person has even bothered to Google.))

The fact is that this entire thread is based on absolute ignorance or intentional deceit or both. The CDC "report" is not a report, it's a paper for mathematical modellers and the factors that should be used for each CDC Sponsored Scenario.

I've said that, quoted it from the paper itself, etc. etc. It makes no difference. RT said it, they believe it.

My only quibble about using the "raw" totals from any source (CDC, WHO, States, or in your source, sponsored by the Atlantic) is that, well, they're "raw" numbers which means ... overreports, underreports, misreports, etc. etc.

You seem to understand the situation. Thanks for adding another fact-based source to the thread.