misread chart disregard

Isn't the median age of coronavirus deaths actually a couple of years higher than the overall U.S. life expectancy of 78.8 years?

I think I read 84.

The OP plus this,

https://www.foxnews.com/world/imperial-college-britain-coronavirus-lockdown-buggy-mess-unreliable

What a mess.....

ttuhscaggie said:

---

So many articles have been presented in the mainstream media that should be considered journalistic malpractice or at least the equivalent of yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater.

---

This is nothing new. How long? I dont know. Journo-list really shined a light on it, but I think that's when they started getting efficient with it. It probably existed for several years (or decades) prior to that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JournoList

Quote:

---

"Again and again, we discovered members of Journolist working to coordinate talking points on behalf of Democratic politicians, principally Barack Obama. That is not journalism, and those who engage in it are not journalists. They should stop pretending to be. The news organizations they work for should stop pretending, too. ... I've been in journalism my entire adult life, and have often defended it against fellow conservatives who claim the news business is fundamentally corrupt. It's harder to make that defense now. It will be easier when honest (and, yes, liberal) journalists denounce what happened on Journolist as wrong."[8] Fred Barnes, executive editor of The Weekly Standard, discussed JournoList saying, "... hundreds of journalists have gotten together, on an online listserv called JournoList, to promote liberalism and liberal politicians at the expense of traditional journalism."

---

When they shut down that in 2010, they conveniently moved it to Hillary Clinton's private bathroom server during her tenure at State.

Podesta emails confirm that, but no one cares.

DadHammer said:

---

The OP plus this,

https://www.foxnews.com/world/imperial-college-britain-coronavirus-lockdown-buggy-mess-unreliable

What a mess.....

---

So what you're saying is that they...need to ....Learn to Code?

culdeus said:

---

We don't have enough empty stomachs yet to tell old people to stay home while the rest of us go out and earn a living.

---

FIFY.

soon this will take care of itself. i project by, oh, early July even in the most rigid lockdown states.

Blood donor study is not great for extrapolating an ifr to general population.

Study was also done in early April. Consider time to death lag at that point in the COVID journey and also we have plenty of other studies now, with much more data and a clearer picture on ifr.

At least 3% of the pop has it or already had it. Death rate will end up being slightly higher than seasonal flu.

you're crazy

Why is that such a crazy comment? I guess it depends on your definition of "slightly" higher. 0.1% versus 0.3% to 0.7% can be considered slightly to some, but another may look at it and think much higher. All in the eye of the beholder, but it's semantics. The rate won't be the 2.4, or 5.6 that some thought at the beginning or see in the news now.

As for 3% of the population? Entirely possible. That's 9-10 million people. 1.5mm have been confirmed. It's possible up to 10x that amount have had it but not tested/confirmed. Actually, to get from 5.6% to .56%, you'd have to assume 10x that amount.

ETFan said:

---

Blood donor study is not great for extrapolating an ifr to general population.

Study was also done in early April. Consider time to death lag at that point in the COVID journey and also we have plenty of other studies now, with much more data and a clearer picture on ifr.

---

I feel like bad data/lack of data is the biggest culprit in all of this. This table is interesting, but it's extrapolating a lot from testing 4000 people four or five weeks ago.

If we had a better sense of actual infection rates in the general population we'd have a much better idea of how to approach literally everything, but it doesn't feel like we accomplished much over two months of shutdown.

fig96 said:

---

ETFan said:

---

Blood donor study is not great for extrapolating an ifr to general population.

Study was also done in early April. Consider time to death lag at that point in the COVID journey and also we have plenty of other studies now, with much more data and a clearer picture on ifr.

---

I feel like bad data/lack of data is the biggest culprit in all of this. This table is interesting, but it's extrapolating a lot from testing 4000 people four or five weeks ago.

If we had a better sense of actual infection rates in the general population we'd have a much better idea of how to approach literally everything, but it doesn't feel like we accomplished much over two months of shutdown.

---

I think the 60,000 in the Spain test is a pretty good one to look at.

ETFan said:

---

fig96 said:

---

ETFan said:

---

Blood donor study is not great for extrapolating an ifr to general population.

Study was also done in early April. Consider time to death lag at that point in the COVID journey and also we have plenty of other studies now, with much more data and a clearer picture on ifr.

---

I feel like bad data/lack of data is the biggest culprit in all of this. This table is interesting, but it's extrapolating a lot from testing 4000 people four or five weeks ago.

If we had a better sense of actual infection rates in the general population we'd have a much better idea of how to approach literally everything, but it doesn't feel like we accomplished much over two months of shutdown.

---

I think the 60,000 in the Spain test is a pretty good one to look at.

---

It's a good reference point, but I'm referring more to localized data for the US. Across the country we've probably got widely varied rates in different areas but we're just guessing at a whole lot of it right now.

As a whole, we've been making tons of decisions with no data which obviously isn't a recipe for success.