Covid - 19

[Guisslapp]

I would say this is good news.. anyone disagree?

The CDC has quietly updated survival rates if infected with covid

0-19 99.997%
20-49 99.98%
50-69 99.5%
70+ 94.6%

Lol. Finally saw this on the FB feed. You guys are so predictable.

[Bulldawg81]

Lol. Finally saw this on the FB feed. You guys are so predictable.

Says the most predictable guy on this forum. LOL

[FriscoDog]

Lol. Finally saw this on the FB feed. You guys are so predictable.

Those numbers are from the CDC website.. If you have a problem with that.. Please contact the CDC and tell them in your expert opinion where they went wrong.. I'm sure they will quickly change their numbers on the website to whatever you say they should be..

[Guisslapp]

Those numbers are from the CDC website.. If you have a problem with that.. Please contact the CDC and tell them in your expert opinion where they went wrong.. I'm sure they will quickly change their numbers on the website to whatever you say they should be..

Lol. They don’t say what you say they say. I don’t have a problem with the CDC website.

[FriscoDog]

Lol. They don’t say what you say they say. I don’t have a problem with the CDC website.

You asked if it used 2.5 and I said yes. That was the "best case scenario" as described on the CDC website, so I assume you saw it there. I did not link it as I didn't think I needed to based upon your comments. So I will cut and paste from their website.



Table 1. Parameter Values that vary among the five COVID-19 Pandemic Planning Scenarios. The scenarios are intended to advance public health preparedness and planning. They are not predictions or estimates of the expected impact of COVID-19. The parameter values in each scenario will be updated and augmented over time, as we learn more about the epidemiology of COVID-19. Additional parameter values might be added in the future (e.g., population density, household transmission, and/or race and ethnicity).

2.0		4.0		2.5
0-19 years: 0.00002 20-49 years: 0.00007 50-69 years: 0.0025 70+ years: 0.028		0-19 years: 0.0001 20-49 years: 0.0003 50-69 years: 0.010 70+ years: 0.093		0-19 years: 0.00003 20-49 years: 0.0002 50-69 years: 0.005 70+ years: 0.054
10%	70%	10%	70%	40%
25%	100%	25%	100%	75%
30%	70%	30%	70%	50%

So you are saying this data is incorrect??

[Guisslapp]

You asked if it used 2.5 and I said yes. That was the "best case scenario" as described on the CDC website, so I assume you saw it there. I did not link it as I didn't think I needed to based upon your comments. So I will cut and paste from their website.



Table 1. Parameter Values that vary among the five COVID-19 Pandemic Planning Scenarios. The scenarios are intended to advance public health preparedness and planning. They are not predictions or estimates of the expected impact of COVID-19. The parameter values in each scenario will be updated and augmented over time, as we learn more about the epidemiology of COVID-19. Additional parameter values might be added in the future (e.g., population density, household transmission, and/or race and ethnicity).

2.0		4.0		2.5
0-19 years: 0.00002 20-49 years: 0.00007 50-69 years: 0.0025 70+ years: 0.028		0-19 years: 0.0001 20-49 years: 0.0003 50-69 years: 0.010 70+ years: 0.093		0-19 years: 0.00003 20-49 years: 0.0002 50-69 years: 0.005 70+ years: 0.054
10%	70%	10%	70%	40%
25%	100%	25%	100%	75%
30%	70%	30%	70%	50%

So you are saying this data is incorrect??

That isn’t what your first post (the one you got from social media) said.

[Guisslapp]

The last 3 rows of data are also very telling for pandemic planning purposes, because it shows how many people are asymptomatic spreaders and presymptomatic spreaders. This only underscores the importance of masking up to control the spread.

[FriscoDog]

That isn’t what your first post (the one you got from social media) said.

I see math is not your strength..

[Guisslapp]

I see math is not your strength..

Social media was running the “survival rate” numbers rather than the “inflection fatality ratio” on the CDC website. You got your hand caught in the social media cookie jar again. Face it. It is obvious where you get your news.

But the key issue is that this is merely 1 of 5 model scenarios CDC is presenting for pandemic planning purposes, even if they currently think it is the best representation. And your survival rates include those people who never know they have COVID (that is a different denominator than what we normally use to describe fatality rate of COVID and flu). The explanatory notes for the table are lengthy and basically would tell one not to use the data how you just did. Also note, the 70+ subgroup doesn’t include 80+. And as I already told you this is based on Chinese and European data, so if you promote this data you also promoting the fidelity of their data source.

I personally think it is fine, these parameters are helpful for modeling and help for planning. To accept the fatality rate of the model as the “be all, end all” death rate, you have to recognize you are accepting all the other parameter that make the model fit the data - in particular, the transmission rate, particularly with respect to asymptomatic and presymptomatic carriers. And if you accept THAT, you recognize we have a major problem because we are not doing near enough to stop the spread of this disease. And if we don’t do that and you multiply those death rates against the total population, you have an absolutely catastrophic event.

[FriscoDog]

Social media was running the “survival rate” numbers rather than the “inflection fatality ratio” on the CDC website. You got your hand caught in the social media cookie jar again. Face it. It is obvious where you get your news.

But the key issue is that this is merely 1 of 5 model scenarios CDC is presenting for pandemic planning purposes, even if they currently think it is the best representation. And your survival rates include those people who never know they have COVID (that is a different denominator than what we normally use to describe fatality rate of COVID and flu). The explanatory notes for the table are lengthy and basically would tell one not to use the data how you just did. Also note, the 70+ subgroup doesn’t include 80+. And as I already told you this is based on Chinese and European data, so if you promote this data you also promoting the fidelity of their data source.

I personally think it is fine, these parameters are helpful for modeling and help for planning. To accept the fatality rate of the model as the “be all, end all” death rate, you have to recognize you are accepting all the other parameter that make the model fit the data - in particular, the transmission rate, particularly with respect to asymptomatic and presymptomatic carriers. And if you accept THAT, you recognize we have a major problem because we are not doing near enough to stop the spread of this disease. And if we don’t do that and you multiply those death rates against the total population, you have an absolutely catastrophic event.

Whatever you say little buddy...

[Guisslapp]

Whatever you say little buddy...

Maybe your FB-scrolling, weary eyes caused you not to fully focus on the sentence “They are not predictions or estimates of the expected impact of COVID-19” from the part of the CDC website you quoted here. Because it sure seems like you scurried over here from FB to share information about the expected impact of COVID-19 on certain age groups, despite the CDC explicitly telling you that is not what these parameters say.

[FriscoDog]

Maybe your FB-scrolling, weary eyes caused you not to fully focus on the sentence “They are not predictions or estimates of the expected impact of COVID-19” from the part of the CDC website you quoted here. Because it sure seems like you scurried over here from FB to share information about the expected impact of COVID-19 on certain age groups, despite the CDC explicitly telling you that is not what these parameters say.

I didn't get that from FB.. but whatever you say little buddy..

[TYLERTECHSAS]

I think not paying was all on Carter. I think Iran was afraid Reagan would be willing to make a deposit once he got in the White House.

Yep, Reagan was going to turn Iran into glass if they didn’t release the hostages. Iran was scared smitless of Reagan.

[dawg80]

This is posted on Facebook without a link, but I am sure it can checked...

In Uganda where HCQ is eaten like candy because of malaria, there have been a grand total of 19 China virus deaths. That's "19" not 190,000.

[johnnylightnin]