So how deadly is it? - Page 25 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Provision of the two UN HDI indicators other than GNP.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By Sivad
#15082970
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has compiled data on people who were hospitalized from the virus during that month to get a clearer demographic picture of infected patients who have required the most serious medical care.

Approximately 90 percent of the 1,482 hospitalized patients included in the study released Wednesday had one or more underlying medical conditions.

[...]

Of the hospitalized Covid-19 patients in the C.D.C. study, 89.3 percent had underlying medical conditions. The most common of those was hypertension, in 49.7 percent of patients, followed by obesity, chronic metabolic disease (like diabetes), chronic lung disease (like asthma) and cardiovascular disease.

[...]

In terms of age [...] 74.5 percent of patients were 50 or older

Covid-19 hospitalization rates

per 100,000 population

Image
Age 0–4 ___ 5–17 ___ 18–49 ___ 50–64 ___ 65–74 ___ 75–84 ___85+

Source: C.D.C. data from 14 states

Over all, 4.6 people per 100,000 have been hospitalized in the area studied. But the rate jumped to 13.8 per 100,000 for people 65 and older, which the C.D.C. found was higher than the rates for recent influenza patients. The study compared data from the first four weeks of the past five seasons of influenza, and found those hospitalization rates ranged from 0.1 per 100,000 people between the ages of 5 to 17, up to between 2.2 and 5.4 for people 85 and older. For Covid-19, the hospitalization rate for patients 85 or older is 17.2 per 100,000.


https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/08/heal ... tions.html


The C-19 vs influenza hospitalization rate is interesting. It could be because C-19 is hitting the elderly harder than the flu but it also could be doctors taking more precautions with the elderly due to the novelty of the virus. It's probably some combination of both.
By Sivad
#15083250
DR. DEBORAH BIRX: "we've taken a very liberal approach to mortality"



Dr. Birx: Unlike Some Countries, "If Someone Dies With COVID-19 We Are Counting That As A COVID-19 Death"
On Date April 8, 2020

At Tuesday's White House coronavirus press conference, task force member Dr. Deborah Birx said that while some countries are reporting coronavirus fatality numbers differently, in the U.S. you are counted as a victim of the pandemic if you die while testing positive for the virus, even if something else causes your death.

DR. DEBORAH BIRX: So, I think in this country we've taken a very liberal approach to mortality. And I think the reporting here has been pretty straightforward over the last five to six weeks. Prior to that when there wasn't testing in January and February that's a very different situation and unknown.

There are other countries that if you had a preexisting condition and let's say the virus caused you to go to the ICU and then have a heart or kidney problem some countries are recording as a heart issue or a kidney issue and not a COVID-19 death. Right now we are still recording it and we will I mean the great thing about having forms that come in and a form that has the ability to market as COVID-19 infection the intent is right now that those if someone dies with COVID-19 we are counting that as a COVID-19 death.

User avatar
By BeesKnee5
#15083596
More research on numbers infected

https://spectator.us/covid-antibody-tes ... tion-rate/

A team at the University of Bonn has tested a randomized sample of 1,000 residents of the town of Gangelt in the north-west of the country, one of the epicenters of the outbreak in Germany. The study found that two percent of the population currently had the virus and that 14 percent were carrying antibodies suggesting that they had already been infected — whether or not they experienced any symptoms. Eliminating an overlap between the two groups, the team concluded that 15 percent of the town have been infected with the virus.

Data from coronavirus deaths in Gangelt suggests an infection mortality rate of 0.37 percent.

Responses are mixed.

https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expe ... n-germany/
By Sivad
#15083599
BeesKnee5 wrote:
Data from coronavirus deaths in Gangelt suggests an infection mortality rate of 0.37 percent.



Assuming the death count hasn't been inflated.
#15083608
BeesKnee5 wrote:Or deflated


I have no doubt that some small percent of overall deaths are unrecorded but when 90% of hospitalized cases have a comorbidity and the public health system is "taking a very liberal approach to mortality" it's virtually guaranteed that the death count is wildly inflated.
#15083611
Sivad wrote:
I have no doubt that some small percent of overall deaths are unrecorded but when 90% of hospitalized cases have a comorbidity and the public health system is "taking a very liberal approach to mortality" it's virtually guaranteed that the death count is wildly inflated.


And your evidence for this in Germany?

Or is this simply an assumption.
By B0ycey
#15083616
Sivad, it is a case study. Indirect sampling. These kind of studies are better than any model from statistics that are biased at giving you a understanding of what is going on. It is why we need the antibody tests ASAP. And a mortality rate of .37% if true will be a hard sell to the public when even the most conservative models are like 1% for losing their jobs.
#15083623
BeesKnee5 wrote:And your evidence for this in Germany?


You’d like to know how Germany counts coronavirus deaths, so you can see what the numbers are. Contacted by CheckNews, the Robert Koch Institute, which centralizes and communicates this data every day in Germany, indicates that “The data reported show all deaths which are linked to Covid-19 disease”.

Some commentators have speculated, to explain the lower mortality than elsewhere, that Germany counted as victims of Covid-19 only those patients who died directly from the disease. Incorrect assumption, according to the Robert Koch Institute. The 1,861 dead include “Both people who have died directly from the disease and patients with underlying diseases who have been infected with Covid-19 and for whom it is not possible to clearly determine the final cause of death.”

https://www.web24.news/u/2020/04/how-do ... eaths.html
By Sivad
#15083627
B0ycey wrote:And a mortality rate of .37% if true will be a hard sell to the public when even the most conservative models are like 1% for losing their jobs.


I bet in the end it's gonna be much lower than .37, I bet it'll be less than a quarter of a percent.
By B0ycey
#15083630
Sivad wrote:I bet in the end it's gonna be much lower than .37, I bet it'll be less than a quarter of a percent.


Maybe. Maybe not. Until we have sufficient testing you are arguing blind. Although as I said, this case study is far more reliable than known cases divide by deaths which is what people have been currently arguing on. And .37% is a difficult sell for lockdown. The Swedes seem to be on the way to be proven right. Common sense protocol. But we will see.
#15083632
Sivad wrote:
You’d like to know how Germany counts coronavirus deaths, so you can see what the numbers are. Contacted by CheckNews, the Robert Koch Institute, which centralizes and communicates this data every day in Germany, indicates that “The data reported show all deaths which are linked to Covid-19 disease”.

Some commentators have speculated, to explain the lower mortality than elsewhere, that Germany counted as victims of Covid-19 only those patients who died directly from the disease. Incorrect assumption, according to the Robert Koch Institute. The 1,861 dead include “Both people who have died directly from the disease and patients with underlying diseases who have been infected with Covid-19 and for whom it is not possible to clearly determine the final cause of death.”

https://www.web24.news/u/2020/04/how-do ... eaths.html


This doesn't support your claim that the numbers are wildly exaggerated.
By Sivad
#15083640
B0ycey wrote:Maybe. Maybe not. Until we have sufficient testing you are arguing blind.


Not really, I know that 90% of cases have at least one comorbidity, over 60% have multiple comorbidities, the epidemiologists are saying 2/3 would have died within the year regardless, and I know that the death count includes a lot of cases that only died with the virus and not from it. So it's not a blind argument, it's an informed conjecture.
#15083645
Yes, it is all a conspiracy where the elite are deliberately making it look more deadly so that they can keep people home longer and....lose more money because of the lack of economic activity?
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#15083646
Sivad wrote:DR. DEBORAH BIRX: "If Someone Dies With COVID-19 We Are Counting That As A COVID-19 Death"

Imagine if she'd said: "If someone dies with bad breath, we're counting that as a Bad-Breath death."

Mouthwash sales would go through the roof.

The world would switch to "the Mouthwash Standard" as everyone was forced to speak through text messages to avoid spreading the contagion.
#15083651
Sivad wrote:
Not really, I know that 90% of cases have at least one comorbidity, over 60% have multiple comorbidities, the epidemiologists are saying 2/3 would have died within the year regardless, and I know that the death count includes a lot of cases that only died with the virus and not from it. So it's not a blind argument, it's an informed conjecture.


It's a fallacious argument.
All diseases are counted by the number who die as a result of the infection.

Regardless of whether they wouldve died within a year.
Just like those who recover and later die due to lung and kidney damage are not counted, but are equally as important.

Comorbidity can be as benign as asthma, diabetes, high blood pressure or obesity. It does not mean the person is on their last legs.

As far as I'm aware there is no study to show 2/3rd would die within a year, or even an epidemiologist saying 2/3 would have. The best you'll probably find is a 'may have'.
#15083664
BeesKnee5 wrote:It's a fallacious argument.


Your face is a fallacious argument.

All diseases are counted by the number who die as a result of the infection.


Not covid 19, they're counting everyone who died with the virus regardless of whether they died from the virus or not. They're "taking a very liberal approach to mortality".

Regardless of whether they wouldve died within a year.


Yeah, genius, I wasn't saying we shouldn't count those cases. My point was that when 2/3 of cases would have been dead within a year regardless and the medical system is "taking a very liberal approach to mortality", there's going to be a whole hell of a lot of deaths being misattributed to covid.

Just like those who recover and later die due to lung and kidney damage are not counted, but are equally as important.


Source?

Comorbidity can be as benign as asthma, diabetes, high blood pressure or obesity.


:knife: None of those diseases are necessarily benign, all of them can be quite severe and each of them on their own can and do kill large numbers.

It does not mean the person is on their last legs.


It doesn't mean they're not. Neil Ferguson testified to the house of commons science committee that 2/3 of cases would have died within the year so I'm thinking most of the comorbidities were pretty severe.

As far as I'm aware there is no study to show 2/3rd would die within a year, or even an epidemiologist saying 2/3 would have.


Who cares how far you're awareness goes, as far as I'm aware you're awareness doesn't extend very far at all.

Go google it. Or go read through this thread where it's posted. Or go watch Neil Ferguson's house of commons hearing.

The best you'll probably find is a 'may have'.


Well the babbitt dinks caused a retarded panic and crashed the global economy on a lot less than that, but we'll know with a fair degree of certainty when they go through the case files after this retarded panic is over.
#15083665
Sivad wrote:
Your face is a fallacious argument.



Not covid 19, they're counting everyone who died with the virus regardless of whether they died from the virus or not. They're "taking a very liberal approach to mortality".



Yeah, genius, I wasn't saying we shouldn't count those cases. My point was that when 2/3 of cases would have been dead within a year regardless and the medical system is "taking a very liberal approach to mortality", there's going to be a whole hell of a lot of deaths being misattributed to covid.



Source?



:knife: None of those diseases are necessarily benign, all of them can be quite severe and each of them on their own can and do kill large numbers.



It doesn't mean they're not. Neil Ferguson testified to the house of commons science committee that 2/3 of cases would have died within the year so I'm thinking most of the comorbidity were pretty severe.



Who cares how far you're awareness goes, as far as I'm aware you're awareness doesn't extend very far at all.

Go google it. Or go read through this thread where it's posted. Or go watch Neil Ferguson's house of commons hearing.



Well the babbitt dinks caused a retarded panic and crashed the global economy on a lot less than that, but we'll know with a fair degree of certainty when they go through the case files after this retarded panic is over.


There was me thinking you might come back with evidence.

And yes Ferguson said 'may have'.

So let me know if you have something more concrete.
  • 1
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 34
Trump/Twitter insanity

Trump goes nuts, tells people he's taking hydroxyc[…]

That's actually a big draw of Eastern culture, as […]

That sounds quite vain. No, you are interpretin[…]

The Wuhan virus—how are we doing?

One question that the overall numbers don't answe[…]