CDC now estimates 0.05% CFR (1 out of 2000) for symptomatic Americans younger than 50

13,802 Views | 89 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by buffalo chip
Keegan99
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Carolin_Gallego • 12:03p, 5/26/20
AG
Carolin_Gallego said:
IFR is not the only risk. Stop being obtuse to 'win an argument'. This is NOT the Political forum.


Yes, the biggest risk is not the miniscule IFR, but the adverse economic and health consequences of poor public policy decisions based on fear mongering and bad data.
Reply Quote
24
FireAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Keegan99 • 12:06p, 5/26/20
AG
Keegan99 said:
Carolin_Gallego said:
IFR is not the only risk. Stop being obtuse to 'win an argument'. This is NOT the Political forum.


Yes, the biggest risk is not the miniscule IFR, but the adverse economic and health consequences of poor public policy decisions based on fear mongering and bad data.
Ding! Ding! Ding!
Reply Quote
1
P.U.T.U
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bruce Almighty • 12:06p, 5/26/20
AG
Bruce Almighty said:
Some State was over 50%. Pennsylvania maybe?


Pennsylvania was around 67%
Reply Quote
Carolin_Gallego
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bruce Almighty • 12:08p, 5/26/20
Bruce Almighty said:
Some State was over 50%. Pennsylvania maybe?
Many states have reported > 50% IFR from LTCF / assisted living facilities, but it's not likely to stay that way as they are just in the early stages of the outbreak. The point being, it is early and reckless to define this diseases as an 'elderly person disease'. There are serious health risks to other age groups (some risks outside of our myopic focus of death) and containment relies on social cooperation.
We believe progress is made through MORE discussion, not LESS, and we believe that to be true even if the topics are uncomfortable and we occasionally disagree with one another. - TexAgs
The name-calling technique making false associations is a child's game. The propagandist who uses this technique hopes that the audience will reject a person and their argument on this false basis.
Reply Quote
1
FireAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Carolin_Gallego • 12:12p, 5/26/20
AG
Carolin_Gallego said:
Bruce Almighty said:
Some State was over 50%. Pennsylvania maybe?
Many states have reported > 50% IFR from LTCF / assisted living facilities, but it's not likely to stay that way as they are just in the early stages of the outbreak. The point being, it is early and reckless to define this diseases as an 'elderly person disease'. There are serious health risks to other age groups (some risks outside of our myopic focus of death) and containment relies on social cooperation.
Bull*****..

It has been a disease that consistently focuses it's wrath on those of an advanced age...

We've known this since the Diamond Princess Cruise experience, and the data continues to support that...

You want to run and hide at home? Be my guest... You do you...
Reply Quote
13
BowSowy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Carolin_Gallego • 12:17p, 5/26/20
AG
Carolin_Gallego said:
GAC06 said:
I'm sure this won't end your flagging spree but here you go.

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2010/08/98172/social-support-key-nursing-home-length-stay-death

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/11/nursing-homes-us-data-coronavirus

You did not link scientific studies. You should link the original source of the stated information.

Furthermore, your sources do not back up your implied claim that 'half of ALL COVID deaths happen in nursing homes'.
Since you seem to be glossing over the fact that people actually linked supporting evidence, I will repost it below. Maybe then you can crawl back in your hole and stop claiming everyone is a political board troll:

Squadron7 said:
billydean05 said:
Please find link.

https://freopp.org/the-covid-19-nursing-home-crisis-by-the-numbers-3a47433c3f70

Money paragraph from the above link:

"According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 5.1 million people live in nursing homes or residential care facilities, representing 1.6% of the U.S. population. And yet residents in such facilities account for 42 percent of all deaths from COVI
Reply Quote
5
Squadron7
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Carolin_Gallego • 12:18p, 5/26/20
AG
Quote:
There are serious health risks to other age groups (some risks outside of our myopic focus of death) and containment relies on social cooperation.

And how do these stack up in scope and scale vs. those from non-COVID-related ailments that were the result of the shutdown of the non-COVID portion of the health care system for 2 months and counting?
Reply Quote
2
BowSowy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Carolin_Gallego • 12:19p, 5/26/20
AG
Carolin_Gallego said:
Bruce Almighty said:
Some State was over 50%. Pennsylvania maybe?
Many states have reported > 50% IFR from LTCF / assisted living facilities, but it's not likely to stay that way as they are just in the early stages of the outbreak. The point being, it is early and reckless to define this diseases as an 'elderly person disease'. There are serious health risks to other age groups (some risks outside of our myopic focus of death) and containment relies on social cooperation.
Please give us facts about the chances of "serious health risks to other age groups". Wouldn't want you to be reckless and overstate the chances of said risk
Reply Quote
13
DTP02
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Carolin_Gallego • 12:22p, 5/26/20
AG
Carolin_Gallego said:
Bruce Almighty said:
Some State was over 50%. Pennsylvania maybe?
Many states have reported > 50% IFR from LTCF / assisted living facilities, but it's not likely to stay that way as they are just in the early stages of the outbreak. The point being, it is early and reckless to define this diseases as an 'elderly person disease'. There are serious health risks to other age groups (some risks outside of our myopic focus of death) and containment relies on social cooperation.


If you're going to set your understanding of the risk of the disease by the early data and info, then you need to adjust your understanding based on the more recent data and info, or you are taking a view which is outdated and misinformed.

We understand the disease much better now than we did two months ago. It can be tough to adjust a view once it becomes entrenched, but if you hold to a two month old understanding of the virus and the risks your view is pretty much archaic given how much more we now know.
Reply Quote
5
Carolin_Gallego
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BowSowy • 12:23p, 5/26/20
The Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity (FREOPP.org) is a right-wing 501(c)3 think tank based out of Austin, Texas and an associate member of the State Policy Network.
We believe progress is made through MORE discussion, not LESS, and we believe that to be true even if the topics are uncomfortable and we occasionally disagree with one another. - TexAgs
The name-calling technique making false associations is a child's game. The propagandist who uses this technique hopes that the audience will reject a person and their argument on this false basis.
Reply Quote
FireAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Carolin_Gallego • 12:25p, 5/26/20
AG
Carolin_Gallego said:
The Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity (FREOPP.org) is a right-wing 501(c)3 think tank based out of Austin, Texas and an associate member of the State Policy Network.
I've got a bridge for sale...cheap...you interested?
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
Keegan99
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Carolin_Gallego • 12:26p, 5/26/20
AG
So is their data incorrect? Or are you just flailing about attacking the messenger because you don't like the message?
Reply Quote
19
1 edit
BowSowy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Carolin_Gallego • 12:28p, 5/26/20
AG
Carolin_Gallego said:
The Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity (FREOPP.org) is a right-wing 501(c)3 think tank based out of Austin, Texas and an associate member of the State Policy Network.
Okay? Look over their data and pick it apart for all I care. You can't just throw your hands up in the air and claim it's incorrect because the website it's published on has a political slant.

I would also like to point out that this forum is for the sharing of facts related to COVID. Please keep your political discussion over on Forum 16
Reply Quote
11
Squadron7
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Carolin_Gallego • 12:33p, 5/26/20
AG
Carolin_Gallego said:
The Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity (FREOPP.org) is a right-wing 501(c)3 think tank based out of Austin, Texas and an associate member of the State Policy Network.

Turning a statement of fact into a question of motive.

How very sciency!
Reply Quote
8
GAC06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Carolin_Gallego • 12:34p, 5/26/20
AG
Carolin_Gallego said:
The Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity (FREOPP.org) is a right-wing 501(c)3 think tank based out of Austin, Texas and an associate member of the State Policy Network.


This isn't the politics board. Back up your arguments with facts or take it elsewhere. Flagged.
Reply Quote
10
DTP02
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Carolin_Gallego • 12:38p, 5/26/20
AG
Carolin_Gallego said:
The Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity (FREOPP.org) is a right-wing 501(c)3 think tank based out of Austin, Texas and an associate member of the State Policy Network.


They provided links to the data. For someone who consistently argues against others making things political you threw the politics card as soon as you got data you didn't like.

Here's the New York Times saying 1/3 back a couple weeks ago, maybe that is more your speed?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/05/09/us/coronavirus-cases-nursing-homes-us.html

Of note, the LTC deaths in NY are grossly underrepresented for political/CYA purposes due to a large number of deaths from nursing home residents who died in the hospital not being counted as nursing home deaths.
Reply Quote
7
goodAg80
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:05p, 5/26/20
AG
Reply Quote
7
GAC06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to goodAg80 • 1:16p, 5/26/20
AG
And that doesn't take health into account
Reply Quote
2
P.U.T.U
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to GAC06 • 1:57p, 5/26/20
AG
So about 94% over 55 and 97% over 45, this is good news for the majority of the population. If you are healthy and under 50 you need to get back to normal life
Reply Quote
10
ham98
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:17p, 5/26/20
Great factual information OP!
Reply Quote
1
Fitch
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:25p, 5/26/20
AG
Said this before, but these figures are in-line with data since March.

What's odd is, when you pull the CDC data that's behind that pie chart, the total deaths works out to ~137k. Make of that what you will.
Reply Quote
cone
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Fitch • 6:30p, 5/26/20
AG
March?

we didn't have any serology results for hard hit places until late April
Reply Quote
1
Fitch
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to cone • 9:06p, 5/26/20
AG
I was referring to CFR-S rates.

The asymptomatic rate is an interesting tidbit. Not quite sure how to feel about that just yet.
Reply Quote
cone
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Fitch • 9:13p, 5/26/20
AG
what's to feel

the serology results are repeatable

~1% IFR in the places with the highest prevalence

and a really fat tail above 70 years old
Reply Quote
Fitch
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to cone • 9:24p, 5/26/20
AG
The asymptomatic transmissibility vector seems to be in pretty wild disagreement between the CDC data and last week's pre-print report.
Reply Quote
1
billydean05
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:31a, 5/27/20
New link same data.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2020/05/26/nursing-homes-assisted-living-facilities-0-6-of-the-u-s-population-43-of-u-s-covid-19-deaths/#6570615774cd

Reply Quote
2
DadHammer
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to billydean05 • 10:33a, 5/27/20
AG
Good post

Time to open up 100% with safety precautions of course.
Reply Quote
Jet Black
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:20p, 5/28/20
Reply Quote
3
BadMoonRisin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Pulmcrit_ag • 10:39p, 5/28/20
AG
Pulmcrit_ag said:
So 1.3% IFR over 65? 15% of Americans are older than 65. ~50-70% of Americans will be infected. So 370k-520k people over 65 die. Thats a pretty reasonable number and probably reduced further by some sense of social distancing to at least spread out over time.
So almost all the other numbers at this point been revised down since March; IFR, CFR, Hospitalization %, R0, etc and yet you are still using the same % infected coefficient as a worst case scenario at the beginning of the pandemic to estimate total deaths?

And then saying 380-520k is "reasonable"? This thing will peter out at 120-150k. And the numbers will still be overinflated by at least 25%.
Reply Quote
ETFan
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BadMoonRisin • 10:48p, 5/28/20
BadMoonRisin said:
Pulmcrit_ag said:
So 1.3% IFR over 65? 15% of Americans are older than 65. ~50-70% of Americans will be infected. So 370k-520k people over 65 die. Thats a pretty reasonable number and probably reduced further by some sense of social distancing to at least spread out over time.
So almost all the other numbers at this point been revised down since March; IFR, CFR, Hospitalization %, R0, etc and yet you are still using the same % infected coefficient as a worst case scenario at the beginning of the pandemic to estimate total deaths?

And then saying 380-520k is "reasonable"? This thing will peter out at 120-150k. And the numbers will still be overinflated by at least 25%.
What is going to stop a majority of people from being infected besides a vaccine? Seems to be a very reasonable % infected guess. Especially with people saying we need to 100% open back up.

Stopping at 120k deaths is virtually impossible at this point. Your inflated comment is conspiracy theory.
Reply Quote
6
P.U.T.U
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:08a, 5/29/20
AG
Just like with the flu not everyone will be exposed or exposed enough to get ill or for the body to have the need to create antibodies. That is why with the flu every year there is not 100k+ elderly a year dying.
Reply Quote
1
amercer
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:58a, 5/29/20
AG
Even if this years flu vaccine gets the strain wrong, people who have been getting the vaccine every year probably have a lot of cross reactive antibodies to many strains of flu. So we've kind of always have a partial herd immunity to the flu.

Unless there is some cross reactive immunity for COVID (there might be, we still don't know much), either everyone gets it or we get a vaccine.
Reply Quote
1
beerad12man
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BadMoonRisin • 8:04a, 5/29/20
AG
BadMoonRisin said:
Pulmcrit_ag said:
So 1.3% IFR over 65? 15% of Americans are older than 65. ~50-70% of Americans will be infected. So 370k-520k people over 65 die. Thats a pretty reasonable number and probably reduced further by some sense of social distancing to at least spread out over time.
So almost all the other numbers at this point been revised down since March; IFR, CFR, Hospitalization %, R0, etc and yet you are still using the same % infected coefficient as a worst case scenario at the beginning of the pandemic to estimate total deaths?

And then saying 380-520k is "reasonable"? This thing will peter out at 120-150k. And the numbers will still be overinflated by at least 25%.
Well, a few things. 1.3% over 65? Is that a flat rate? What's the percentage for those 65-74? This includes 75, 80, 85. Remember, something like 5.87% of 80 year olds die yearly and 9.81% of 85 year olds. So many in the COVID death demographics won't be here for the next 5 years.

2nd. Without a vaccine, it's entirely possible this has to be the case over time. I hope you are right and this thing fizzles out and/or loses strength over time and/or we get a vaccine within the next 6-12 months. But if not, 50-70% of the population getting it might be the only way we end up beating this thing since there's no guarantee an effective vaccine comes on time.

Lets not forget this will be a spread over a few years. This is not 380-520k deaths overnight. People tend to forget that 15 million Americans will die the next 5 years(2.8mm per year), a lot of which are likely the 65+ crowd that are the types to die from COVID. You may have 250-300k flu deaths in the next 5 years too.
Reply Quote
beerad12man
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to amercer • 8:11a, 5/29/20
AG
I wouldn't go as far as to say everyone gets it. Eventually you get to a point where the R0 is less than 1 and it dies out before infecting 100%. There's estimates that number is anywhere from 50-70% depending on who you are listening to.

And again, this is spread over time. Even at 40%, the number of infections goes down and takes longer to spread. We wont have herd immunity, but the cases go down dramatically. While 380K lost to this is tragic, if it's spread over 6 or 8 years? We are still likely going to end up in line with the normal 65, 70, 75, 80, and 85 year old death rates. Maybe slightly higher. But not significantly.

We are living longer than ever before. All COVID might do is take us back to our rates 5 years ago.
Reply Quote
1
buffalo chip
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to goodAg80 • 9:08a, 5/29/20
S
goodAg80 said:


I would like to see your first chart and the one that I tried to copy and paste from the FREOPP article, all related to COVID19 deaths, changed to DEATHS FROM ALL CAUSES. Just curious...

I saw a CDC set of data about midway through the shut down that showed materially the same percentage of COVID19 deaths and deaths from all causes within the 65 and over population versus the entire population.
Reply Quote
Page 2 of 3 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.