It's almost like they chose locations hit hard.

Not factored in there, when people stay on homicides, car accidents etc go down. So the effect might be even more.
But it would be good to see some control examples from places with little covid activity.

JDCAG (NOT Colin) said:

---

62strat said:

---

Duncan Idaho said:

---

You do realize that more than half of Americans have at least one comorbitity.

The fact that only 5% didn't is also a factor of how rare not having a comorbitity is and not just the impact of having a comorbitity.

---

comorbidity definition is two conditions..

how do you have one comorbidity?

---

I believe, in this case, corona is the implied "other".

---

Fair enough, but covid in and of itself is not a chronic disease and is not fatal for a very high % of people... like my original comment says, 90% of deaths are people with a select set of very serious issues, like cancer, COPD, etc. etc. Not depression and anxiety, which technically could be considered comorbidity if present in one person.

It's like saying the flu killed by grandma last winter, yet grandma smoked for 50 years and had COPD. Maybe the flu took her a bit earlier than if she didn't have it, but grandma had one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel as it was.

Age is the single largest identifier by any set of statistics you look at, and after that, it's older people with a set of life shortening diseases.

HotardAg07 said:

---

62strat said:

---

JDCAG (NOT Colin) said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Funnily enough, the "it's just a flu" folks have started spinning this as "it's the shut down causing the deaths".

---

It will be a combo of that and "they were going to die in the next month or two anyhow" cause apparently all 65+ folks are on death's doorstep as we speak.

---

~5% of positive cases have died, and roughly 90% of THOSE DEATHS had comorbidity.

So of a 1000 positive cases, roughly 50 will die, and 45 of those who die had a handful of specific yet very common underlying chronic conditions (cancer, heart conditions, diabetes, etc).

Only 5 out of 1000 positives, or 1/2%, will die with no other conditions.

So yes, you said it, 99.5% of those who have died/will die were likely to die sometime in the near future. Maybe next month or two, maybe next year or two, who knows, but they had a chronic condition that definitely shortened their life and are considered pretty vulnerable. Quarantine them and allow the rest of us to live our lives is what should have happened a month ago.

---

99.5% of people with high blood pressure and diabetes are going to die within the next month or two? What?

---

If they are 70 or older? Yeh it's likely.

Are fat 20 years olds dying left and right from Covid? No. They are not a part of the discussion because they aren't dying like the 90% of deaths which are 60+

Ok, you can now increase the numerator; only problem is that the denominator is still way underestimated by a larger factor.

Not sure it really changes anything other than to give people something to argue over or support their viewpoint. We still don't know the real answer. Also so many other unanswered/missing data that can effect both the transmission rate and lethality of the virus. Susceptibility by race, blood type, which pre-existing conditions, number of people you contact in an average day, etc. Just dividing one number by another is a little too simplistic and bad science.

62strat said:

---

HotardAg07 said:

---

62strat said:

---

JDCAG (NOT Colin) said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Funnily enough, the "it's just a flu" folks have started spinning this as "it's the shut down causing the deaths".

---

It will be a combo of that and "they were going to die in the next month or two anyhow" cause apparently all 65+ folks are on death's doorstep as we speak.

---

~5% of positive cases have died, and roughly 90% of THOSE DEATHS had comorbidity.

So of a 1000 positive cases, roughly 50 will die, and 45 of those who die had a handful of specific yet very common underlying chronic conditions (cancer, heart conditions, diabetes, etc).

Only 5 out of 1000 positives, or 1/2%, will die with no other conditions.

So yes, you said it, 99.5% of those who have died/will die were likely to die sometime in the near future. Maybe next month or two, maybe next year or two, who knows, but they had a chronic condition that definitely shortened their life and are considered pretty vulnerable. Quarantine them and allow the rest of us to live our lives is what should have happened a month ago.

---

99.5% of people with high blood pressure and diabetes are going to die within the next month or two? What?

---

If they are 70 or older? Yeh it's likely.

Are fat 20 years olds dying left and right from Covid? No. They are not a part of the discussion because they aren't dying like the 90% of deaths which are 60+

---

***** I've gotta call my grandparents.

Duncan Idaho said:

---

62strat said:

---

Duncan Idaho said:

---

You do realize that more than half of Americans have at least one comorbitity.

The fact that only 5% didn't is also a factor of how rare not having a comorbitity is and not just the impact of having a comorbitity.

---

comorbidity definition is two conditions..

how do you have one comorbidity?

---

Covid-19 and high blood pressure = 2 conditions.

The term isn't trimorbity.

---

High blood pressure isn't listed by the CDC as a group of people at higher risk for severe illness associated with coronavirus. The same for obesity. The CDC only list those with severe obesity (BMI over 40) as being at risk. People with serious underlying issues are the ones at risk.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/groups-at-higher-risk.html

https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bmi/adult_bmi/english_bmi_calculator/bmi_calculator.html

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Funnily enough, the "it's just a flu" folks have started spinning this as "it's the shut down causing the deaths".

---

Since so many posters were whining about being called "coronabros" over the weekend, can the other side whine about being called "just the flu folks" now?

SirLurksALot said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Funnily enough, the "it's just a flu" folks have started spinning this as "it's the shut down causing the deaths".

---

Since so many posters were whining about being called "coronabros" over the weekend, can the other side whine about being called "just the flu folks" now?

---

I guess so. Mods pulled the post. They actually do say "just the flu" though. I could link probably 50+ posts on f16 saying exactly that.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Funnily enough, the "it's just a flu" folks have started spinning this as "it's the shut down causing the deaths".

---

Since so many posters were whining about being called "coronabros" over the weekend, can the other side whine about being called "just the flu folks" now?

---

I guess so. Mods pulled the post. They actually do say "just the flu" though. I could link probably 50+ posts on f16 saying exactly that.

---

That's dumb. Some people are too sensitive.

I just finished reading your report, and the one question I have is, do you have the data that shows if these are mostly people that would have died in the next year anyway? (IE will the deaths for the year likely average out). I'm sure this isn't what you were looking to study here, but I think it's an important thing to look at when weighing how we will treat this moving forward.