COVID-19 Lethality Not Much Different Than Flu, Says New Study

[Fishking]

Oh.

Gosh.

Teach me. [emoji849]

I gave you enough to work with to work it out on your own from here. If you're not listening now, then nothing I say will change that. For example, the Chicago data I gave you said that 30-50% of the people tested were positive. That's no where near the 1% that you talked about.

 

[Threegoofs]

I gave you enough to work with to work it out on your own from here. If you're not listening now, then nothing I say will change that. For example, the Chicago data I gave you said that 30-50% of the people tested were positive. That's no where near the 1% that you talked about.

It’s Roseland Hospital.

I’ve been there, and when you go to Roselsnd for a story on medicine....

 

[JasperL]

That's all I'm saying...but with a small addition. That isn't the only one that has shown there to be a much wider spread of the virus than what was thought. It's more than 50. This one is 3K.

COVID-19 numbers in this California County may be way underestimated, small antibody study shows | Live Science

Right, I've read that study and linked to it half a dozen times already. From the pdf: COVID-19 Antibody Seroprevalence in Santa Clara County, California | medRxiv

The total number of positive cases by either IgG or IgM in our unadjusted sample was 50, a crude
prevalence rate of 1.50%

They tested 3,330 and got 50 positives. That's 1.5% with a test that they claim had a 99.5% accuracy rate (CI 98.3% - 99.9%). So the positives fall within the CI for test accuracy - i.e. 50 positives could all be explained by test error, versus 'true' positives. The analysis isn't that simple - it's in the article I've linked and that you clearly didn't read. :roll:

Early Antibody Testing In Chicago: 30-50% Of Those Tested For COVID-19 Already Have Antibodies, Report Says | The Daily Wire

OK, but that sample is worthless for estimating the spread. As the top paragraph says, it's a non-random sample - people who believe they're sick or recently sick.

The Live Science article also mentions there is a concern over the accuracy of the test but the numbers continue to stack up, and they aren't insignificant.

I don't know why you're telling me what Live Science said when I linked to a far more comprehensive discussion of the results of the Stanford study that I read and you've not bothered to read. It's not that the test is inaccurate, really, but that the percentage of the population exposed is not statistically different than the accuracy. Stanford got 1.5% positives, when the test really can't claim accuracy above that...

FWIW, I'm not claiming anything with regard to the 'true' exposure. The problem are people taking 'studies' that are crap, really, and making broad claims from those crap studies. It's going to take a lot of testing and a lot of well run studies to figure out exposure in dozens or hundreds of cities, which we can then use to estimate it for the country. There is no shortcut, and in the meantime, people running these studies shouldn't be making BS claims.

 

[Slavister]

That's all I'm saying...but with a small addition. That isn't the only one that has shown there to be a much wider spread of the virus than what was thought. It's more than 50. This one is 3K.

COVID-19 numbers in this California County may be way underestimated, small antibody study shows | Live Science



Early Antibody Testing In Chicago: 30-50% Of Those Tested For COVID-19 Already Have Antibodies, Report Says | The Daily Wire



The Live Science article also mentions there is a concern over the accuracy of the test but the numbers continue to stack up, and they aren't insignificant.

Sorry, but 30-50% one is meaningless. That's on patients that are going to drive through because they think they are likely to have it.

Regarding the other one, 50x was probably more accurate back then. Now, (a) we've been under lockdowns for a few weeks and (b) testing has become more wide spread than back then. Based on true death rates coming out of some of these studies, I think we are around 10-20 million infected, which is roughly 10x-20x. I was wondering if we are closer to 30x today but then with more data from NY, it looks to me like we are still in 10x-20x range.

 

[Fishking]

It’s Roseland Hospital.

I’ve been there, and when you go to Roselsnd for a story on medicine....

Sorry, but it's testing on swabs, not rocket surgery. You don't get to dismiss the data so easily as that.

 

[Threegoofs]

Sorry, but it's testing on swabs, not rocket surgery. You don't get to dismiss the data so easily as that.

You ain’t been to Roseland.

Literally the worst hospital in the city. Probably the state.

I’ll be honest, when your link quoted a lab tech (!) from Roseland about their ‘data’... I stopped reading. And laughed.

 

[Fishking]

Sorry, but 30-50% one is meaningless. That's on patients that are going to drive through because they think they are likely to have it.

Regarding the other one, 50x was probably more accurate back then. Now, (a) we've been under lockdowns for a few weeks and (b) testing has become more wide spread than back then. Based on true death rates coming out of some of these studies, I think we are around 10-20 million infected, which is roughly 10x-20x. I was wondering if we are closer to 30x today but then with more data from NY, it looks to me like we are still in 10x-20x range.

It's people just voluntarily going in to get tested. I'd do it myself if there was one being run in my area, despite not having had any symptoms. You're making an assumption from no valid data, to prop up your own bias.

 

[Slavister]

It's people just voluntarily going in to get tested. I'd do it myself if there was one being run in my area, despite not having had any symptoms. You're making an assumption from no valid data, to prop up your own bias.

No. You cannot get tested if you just want to. You HAVE to have symptoms and a doctor's note.

 

[Fishking]

No. You cannot get tested if you just want to. You HAVE to have symptoms and a doctor's note.

You didn't read the link. It wasn't for people to get tested if they had symptoms, but to see if people had already had it. It was specifically those who don't have symptoms, for those who got over it.

Further, Cuomo himself says their data is showing the mortality rate is less than 1%.

Coronavirus NY: Antibody study estimates 13.9% of residents have had Covid-19, Cuomo says

While Covid-19 deaths across the state have begun to level off, the “number of lives lost is still breathtakingly tragic,” Cuomo said. The state’s mortality rates remains persistently high, at 7.4% with at least 19,453 fatalities and 263,754 confirmed cases, according to data compiled by Johns Hopkins University. The antibody testing indicates that the actual death rate is far lower, less than 1%, Cuomo said.

 

[JasperL]

No...you don't understand statistics, what n values, mean, or how to extrapolate that data across number sets. You're incorrectly applying it to 1% of the population but it's no looked at that way. It's 3K individual cases and having the test run. Plus 400-600 every single day in Chicago with a 30-50% positive rate. I'm not sure how many days they are running it, or if they are still running it, but that quickly adds up to well beyond 3K. You don't have to test every single person if you get a large enough number from across multiple cross-sections of society to help adjust for poor sample bias.

Yeah, you're just proving you have ZERO understanding of the issues here.

We simply cannot use the data from a phlebotomist (not clear how or why the person drawing blood has access to the test results, but never .......but never mind that) at a drive thru testing site in Chicago to make ANY claim about prevalence, which is what we're discussing. Those data are completely useless for that purpose, and that you don't realize that indicates you really don't have any understanding of the issues involved.

It would be like taking the test results from home pregnancy kits and then extrapolating those results to all women in a community...

 

[Slavister]

You didn't read the link. It wasn't for people to get tested if they had symptoms, but to see if people had already had it. It was specifically those who don't have symptoms, for those who got over it.

Further, Cuomo himself says their data is showing the mortality rate is less than 1%.

Coronavirus NY: Antibody study estimates 13.9% of residents have had Covid-19, Cuomo says

Funny enough, I DID read the link but apparently you did not read either yours or mine.

(1) I don't see anywhere in your link where is talks about it "was specifically those who don't have symptoms, for those who got over it". Please quote where it says that.

(2) In the link I gave you, it's clear that I agree that actual death rate is less than 1%.

Update on (1) ... if you follow the links you will come to a page that says

"At the drive-thru, medical professionals interview motorists, do a temperature test and determine if the person needs to be tested. No appointments or prescriptions are required.

While the testing will predominantly serve South Side residents, anyone who exhibits symptoms can be tested."

So, while doctor's note is not required at that location, it's clearly only for those that exhibit symptoms.

So, tell me again about how I did not read YOUR link that YOU misrepresented?

 

[JasperL]

Sorry, but it's testing on swabs, not rocket surgery. You don't get to dismiss the data so easily as that.

In fact you can very easily and appropriately dismiss the Chicago data entirely for purposes of estimating prevalence in the broader Chicago community. It's useless for that purpose. :shrug:

 

[JasperL]

Funny enough, I DID read the link but apparently you did not read either yours or mine.

(1) I don't see anywhere in your link where is talks about it "was specifically those who don't have symptoms, for those who got over it". Please quote where it says that.

(2) In the link I gave you, it's clear that I agree that actual death rate is less than 1%.

Update on (1) ... if you follow the links you will come to a page that says

"At the drive-thru, medical professionals interview motorists, do a temperature test and determine if the person needs to be tested. No appointments or prescriptions are required.

While the testing will predominantly serve South Side residents, anyone who exhibits symptoms can be tested."

So, while doctor's note is not required at that location, it's clearly only for those that exhibit symptoms.

So, tell me again about how I did not read YOUR link that YOU misrepresented?

Yeah, we're going to need a new supply of irony meters. All the ones I had on hand look like this now.

 

[jmotivator]

Confronted with what? Your made up BS? And I suspect Montana having roughly 1 person per square mile had more to do with their light impact than their response.... But that's because I'm not an idiot.

And yet where are you when you fellow Democrat fans are attacking Kentucky and Georgia for considering easing quarantine? You are silent when it suits your politics.

Moreover, you attack the are silent or participate in attacking the President for the federal response while accepting Scenario 1 which would prove otherwise. You are still trying to play along with the narrative because you find it politically expedient whiole conceding that the narrative is full of ****, and it's rather intellectually dishonest.

I don't really care what your opinion is on anything related to the spread. I might as well ask my dog, and he's old and blind. If you have DATA on the spread that backs up your figures, present them. Even the Stanford study with lots of flaws estimates a spread of 3%, in CA, in one of the earliest hit areas. Does that sound like data that support a nationwide spread of 20% to you? If so, I'll smoke what you're having. Must be good stuff.

You clearly care enough to respond! :lol:

Your problem is that you realize it's not opinion, it is just logical, mathematical evaluation of the claims, and finding that the conclusion derived from the narrative pushed by your party and their sycophantic media ranges from extremely unlikely to impossible.

And all this started when you claimed the COVID 19 had "the same" death rate as influenza, and since then you've presented a series of BS and speculation that pegs the death rate from COVID 19 anywhere from 0.08% to 1%. :lamo

There is no speculation. I am taking the numbers being presented as fact and doing the work to show they can't be true, and that the long pushed narrative of botched response AND high mortality rate can't both be true.

It hurts, I realize, to be faced with simple truths that you have been too blind to consider, but there they are.

 

[longview]

I have an idea, I think the antibody test requires a drop of blood,
Perhaps the blood banks can include free Covid-19 antibody testing with a donation!
It will serve several purposes, the donated blood with antibodies, could be used to help patients struggling with Covid-19,
the blood supply will generally be improved, and people will find out if they have had and recovered from Covid-19.
(On a side note, I hope donated blood is already being tested for Covid-19, as a person who needs blood, is likely high risk!)

 

[longview]

Clearly some other countries are already thinking of this.
Researchers Push for Mass Blood Tests as a Covid-19 Strategy | WIRED

 

[Mugahigh]

Two problems with this.

This virus is far more virulent and contagious than traditional influenza. The long term damage it can cause to various organs is far more serious.

Its mostly only killing the old.

 

[Jack Hays]

Here's a controversial take.

[h=2]What I Have Been Saying All Along …[/h][FONT=&quot]Posted on April 24, 2020 by tonyheller[/FONT]
A Stanford University medical expert has weighed in, and confirmed exactly what I have been saying since day one.

Fact 1: The overwhelming majority of people do not have any significant risk of dying from COVID-19.
Fact 2: Protecting older, at-risk people eliminates hospital overcrowding.
Fact 3: Vital population immunity is prevented by total isolation policies, prolonging the problem.
Fact 4: People are dying because other medical care is not getting done due to hypothetical projections.
Fact 5: We have a clearly defined population at risk who can be protected with targeted measures
Scott W. Atlas, MD, is the David and Joan Traitel Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and the former chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical Center
​

The data is in — stop the panic and end the total isolation | TheHill​

Every hard hit country is converging on the same curve, no matter what approach they take to this virus. Yet some people still imagine that draconian government action is somehow protecting them.

Daily confirmed COVID-19 deaths per million: are we bending the curve?​

 

[Jack Hays]

Evidence Suggests Covid Is Much Less Deadly Than Feared
Jacob Sullum, Reason

 

[JasperL]

And yet where are you when you fellow Democrat fans are attacking Kentucky and Georgia for considering easing quarantine? You are silent when it suits your politics.

If you want to know my position, ask me. This thread isn't about KY and GA considering easing restrictions. It's you dishonestly and hackishly moving goal posts to salvage a bad argument.

Moreover, you attack the are silent or participate in attacking the President for the federal response while accepting Scenario 1 which would prove otherwise. You are still trying to play along with the narrative because you find it politically expedient whiole conceding that the narrative is full of ****, and it's rather intellectually dishonest.

That's so stupid I can't even figure out what your point is. So if after states and cities shut down we have, say, 6 million 'true' cases it proves Trump did a fantastic job? Also, yeah federalism and the ability of states to act with or without Trump's say-so, but if we controlled the spread through federalism, and states and cities acting effectively independently of the feds, that means Dear Leader Trump gets all the credit? Do you not recognize how idiotic your position is here?

Also, too, if the death rate from the flu and Covid is the same, using your own standard it's proof, the TRUTH, that Trump failed us in every possible way and the media and we liberals have been right all along! He failed us completely. I'm sure you agree, right?

Further, the position you staked out is there are two most likely options

1) Trump did a great job - All Hail Trump, which we know if the death rate is 10x or so higher than the flu. OR
2) Trump failed miserably in his response which we know if the death rate is "the same" as the flu.

You believe #2 and have said it, which means you AGREE with the liberals and the sycophantic media that Trump failed us!

Your problem is that you realize it's not opinion, it is just logical, mathematical evaluation of the claims, and finding that the conclusion derived from the narrative pushed by your party and their sycophantic media ranges from extremely unlikely to impossible.

First you claimed the death rate from the flu and CV19 was "the same" and now you are saying if that's not true, that CV19 is higher than the flu, then All Hail Dear Leader Trump for his wonderful leadership, because federalism allows states and cities to act independently of the feds, but if they did act independently and effectively slow/limit the spread (yeah federalsim!!), then we must credit Trump for his leadership in not prohibiting them from acting independently or something. Also, too, if the death rate from CV19 and the flu is "the same," which was YOUR claim, then it means that we've had maybe 60 million cases in a couple of months, which also means, I guess, that it's not Dear Leader's fault because federalism?

There is no speculation. I am taking the numbers being presented as fact and doing the work to show they can't be true, and that the long pushed narrative of botched response AND high mortality rate can't both be true.

It hurts, I realize, to be faced with simple truths that you have been too blind to consider, but there they are.

Right, because when Mayor Kincannon shut down Knoxville back on March 19th before we had identified community spread, and in part that prevented CV19 from ever getting a firm hold in my area, we must give Dear Leader credit for her decision. It's logic! The TRUTH!!

Do you have a newsletter I can subscribe to for more idiotic theories?

 

[Threegoofs]

If you want to know my position, ask me. This thread isn't about KY and GA considering easing restrictions. It's you dishonestly and hackishly moving goal posts to salvage a bad argument.



That's so stupid I can't even figure out what your point is. So if after states and cities shut down we have, say, 6 million 'true' cases it proves Trump did a fantastic job? Also, yeah federalism and the ability of states to act with or without Trump's say-so, but if we controlled the spread through federalism, and states and cities acting effectively independently of the feds, that means Dear Leader Trump gets all the credit? Do you not recognize how idiotic your position is here?

Also, too, if the death rate from the flu and Covid is the same, using your own standard it's proof, the TRUTH, that Trump failed us in every possible way and the media and we liberals have been right all along! He failed us completely. I'm sure you agree, right?

Further, the position you staked out is there are two most likely options

1) Trump did a great job - All Hail Trump, which we know if the death rate is 10x or so higher than the flu. OR
2) Trump failed miserably in his response which we know if the death rate is "the same" as the flu.

You believe #2 and have said it, which means you AGREE with the liberals and the sycophantic media that Trump failed us!



First you claimed the death rate from the flu and CV19 was "the same" and now you are saying if that's not true, that CV19 is higher than the flu, then All Hail Dear Leader Trump for his wonderful leadership, because federalism allows states and cities to act independently of the feds, but if they did act independently and effectively slow/limit the spread (yeah federalsim!!), then we must credit Trump for his leadership in not prohibiting them from acting independently or something. Also, too, if the death rate from CV19 and the flu is "the same," which was YOUR claim, then it means that we've had maybe 60 million cases in a couple of months, which also means, I guess, that it's not Dear Leader's fault because federalism?



Right, because when Mayor Kincannon shut down Knoxville back on March 19th before we had identified community spread, and in part that prevented CV19 from ever getting a firm hold in my area, we must give Dear Leader credit for her decision. It's logic! The TRUTH!!

Do you have a newsletter I can subscribe to for more idiotic theories?

I think it’s important to note that Trump hasn’t just failed miserably, but we literally have no comprehensive plan to control this thing, beyond the ‘three step reopening’ plan.

Ramping up testing, deploying good antibody tests- both in a coherent manner has not been described by the feds, as far as I know.

Assembling an army for contract tracing- because with so many cases, you’ll need it- has not even been mentioned, much less funded or organized.

Considering technology options- smartphone location tracing, positive ID for those who are recovered or who have antibodies, etc etc. has not been seriously debated.

Other western nations (and eastern ones too) are doing all of these things. Hell- even Senegal is doing this.

Our response has been one in line with developing countries.

Unbelievable.

 

[calamity]

COVID-19 Lethality Not Much Different Than Flu, Says New Study – Reason.com



What do you think?

50,000 deaths in less than a month prove this op to be stupid and ignorant. And if this is what Reason Magazine pumps out these days, they have lost all sense of it.

 

[JasperL]

Every hard hit country is converging on the same curve, no matter what approach they take to this virus. Yet some people still imagine that draconian government action is somehow protecting them.

I'll address that point because it's nonsense. They aren't the "same curve" except that the virus is showing seasonality, like the flu does every year. Sweden has experienced a death rate of 213/million, and they had weak social distancing guidelines. Neighbors Norway and Finland are at 36/million and 32/million respectively, with far more stringent lockdowns. So absent some other explanation, the social distancing and lockdowns cut deaths by 85% or so in the countries that pursued them. Those results are not "the same." And people aren't "imagining" those differences in death rates.

 

[Jack Hays]

I'll address that point because it's nonsense. They aren't the "same curve" except that the virus is showing seasonality, like the flu does every year. Sweden has experienced a death rate of 213/million, and they had weak social distancing guidelines. Neighbors Norway and Finland are at 36/million and 32/million respectively, with far more stringent lockdowns. So absent some other explanation, the social distancing and lockdowns cut deaths by 85% or so in the countries that pursued them. Those results are not "the same." And people aren't "imagining" those differences in death rates.

Hmmm. Your claim seems inconsistent with the data published by the European CDC. That shows Sweden right in the middle of the pack.

 

[Fishking]

You ain’t been to Roseland.

Literally the worst hospital in the city. Probably the state.

I’ll be honest, when your link quoted a lab tech (!) from Roseland about their ‘data’... I stopped reading. And laughed.

I'll be honest, your entire contribution has been a joke.