Coronavirus **personal experiences** thread

[MascaratumB]

@71k5

The CDC updated the survival rates of those INFECTED with COVID19:

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

CDC survival rates for COVID19 infections.

Same source:

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).

And further justification:

† These estimates are based on age-specific estimates of infection fatality ratios from Hauser, A., Counotte, M.J., Margossian, C.C., Konstantinoudis, G., Low, N., Althaus, C.L. and Riou, J., 2020. Estimation of SARS-CoV-2 mortality during the early stages of an epidemic: a modeling study in Hubei, China, and six regions in Europe. PLoS medicine, 17(7), p.e1003189. Hauser et al. produced estimates of IFR for 10-year age bands from 0 to 80+ year old for 6 regions in Europe. Estimates exclude infection fatality ratios from Hubei, China, because we assumed infection and case ascertainment from the 6 European regions are more likely to reflect ascertainment in the U.S. To obtain the best estimate values, the point estimates of IFR by age were averaged to broader age groups for each of the 6 European regions using weights based on the age distribution of reported cases from COVID-19 Case Surveillance Public Use Data (https://data.cdc.gov/Case-Surveillance/COVID-19-Case-Surveillance-Public-Use-Data/vbim-akqf). The estimates for persons ≥70 years old presented here do not include persons ≥80 years old as IFR estimates from Hauser et al., assumed that 100% of infections among persons ≥80 years old were reported. The consolidated age estimates were then averaged across the 6 European regions. The lower bound estimate is the lowest, non-zero point estimate across the six regions, while the upper bound is the highest point estimate across the six regions.

The article:

Estimation of SARS-CoV-2 mortality during the early stages of an epidemic: A...

which starts:

As of 16 May 2020, more than 4.5 million cases and more than 300,000 deaths from disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have been reported.

Current data (24th September 2020):
https://www.google.com/search?q=world+covid+numbers&rlz=1C1GCEB_enPT908PT908&oq=world+covid+numbers&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.8131j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Cases: 31,993,442
Deaths: 978,369

Have fun…

[kennybobby]

@71k5

The CDC updated the survival rates of those INFECTED with COVID19:

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

CDC survival rates for COVID19 infections.

So what is your point—only the elders die, we should just let them die, they are old anyway?

And those aren’t infection survival rates—that is dishonest on your part; the data in the report are estimated fatality rates used for Scenario 5 of the CDC planning document, and are based upon a research paper by Hauser et al. using data from Europe.

Why do they not just publish and use the actual data from the USA fatalities, wouldn’t that be more realistic than using adjusted age range data from 6 EU countries. They don’t have nearly the same number of fatalities even if you add them all together—the USA is number 1 by a big margin.

† These estimates are based on age-specific estimates of infection fatality ratios from Hauser, A., Counotte, M.J., Margossian, C.C., Konstantinoudis, G., Low, N., Althaus, C.L. and Riou, J., 2020. Estimation of SARS-CoV-2 mortality during the early stages of an epidemic: a modeling study in Hubei, China, and six regions in Europe. PLoS medicine, 17(7), p.e1003189. Hauser et al. produced estimates of IFR for 10-year age bands from 0 to 80+ year old for 6 regions in Europe. Estimates exclude infection fatality ratios from Hubei, China, because we assumed infection and case ascertainment from the 6 European regions are more likely to reflect ascertainment in the U.S. To obtain the best estimate values, the point estimates of IFR by age were averaged to broader age groups for each of the 6 European regions using weights based on the age distribution of reported cases from COVID-19 Case Surveillance Public Use Data (https://data.cdc.gov/Case-Surveillance/COVID-19-Case-Surveillance-Public-Use-Data/vbim-akqf). The estimates for persons ≥70 years old presented here do not include persons ≥80 years old as IFR estimates from Hauser et al., assumed that 100% of infections among persons ≥80 years old were reported. The consolidated age estimates were then averaged across the 6 European regions. The lower bound estimate is the lowest, non-zero point estimate across the six regions, while the upper bound is the highest point estimate across the six regions.

[71k5]

@kennybobby

@71k5

The CDC updated the survival rates of those INFECTED with COVID19:

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

CDC survival rates for COVID19 infections.

So what is your point—only the elders die, we should just let them die, they are old anyway?

And those aren’t infection survival rates—that is dishonest on your part; the data in the report are estimated fatality rates used for Scenario 5 of the CDC planning document, and are based upon a research paper by Hauser et al. using data from Europe.

Why do they not just publish and use the actual data from the USA fatalities, wouldn’t that be more realistic than using adjusted age range data from 6 EU countries. They don’t have nearly the same number of fatalities even if you add them all together—the USA is number 1 by a big margin.

† These estimates are based on age-specific estimates of infection fatality ratios from Hauser, A., Counotte, M.J., Margossian, C.C., Konstantinoudis, G., Low, N., Althaus, C.L. and Riou, J., 2020. Estimation of SARS-CoV-2 mortality during the early stages of an epidemic: a modeling study in Hubei, China, and six regions in Europe. PLoS medicine, 17(7), p.e1003189. Hauser et al. produced estimates of IFR for 10-year age bands from 0 to 80+ year old for 6 regions in Europe. Estimates exclude infection fatality ratios from Hubei, China, because we assumed infection and case ascertainment from the 6 European regions are more likely to reflect ascertainment in the U.S. To obtain the best estimate values, the point estimates of IFR by age were averaged to broader age groups for each of the 6 European regions using weights based on the age distribution of reported cases from COVID-19 Case Surveillance Public Use Data (https://data.cdc.gov/Case-Surveillance/COVID-19-Case-Surveillance-Public-Use-Data/vbim-akqf). The estimates for persons ≥70 years old presented here do not include persons ≥80 years old as IFR estimates from Hauser et al., assumed that 100% of infections among persons ≥80 years old were reported. The consolidated age estimates were then averaged across the 6 European regions. The lower bound estimate is the lowest, non-zero point estimate across the six regions, while the upper bound is the highest point estimate across the six regions.

I merely provided a link to the data that the CDC provided,
ask Tony Fauci what his point was.

You need to draw your own conclusions from the CDC data.

[MascaratumB]

@kennybobby

(…)Why do they not just publish and use the actual data from the USA fatalities, wouldn’t that be more realistic than using adjusted age range data from 6 EU countries. They don’t have nearly the same number of fatalities even if you add them all together—the USA is number 1 by a big margin.

:+1: Precisely what I thought!!!

BTW, he study focus on 6 regions of Europe and not 6 European countries (EU would be only for the European Union).
Quoting the article:

six regions in Europe: Austria, Bavaria (Germany), Baden-Württemberg (Germany), Lombardy (Italy), Spain, and Switzerland.

It is uncomparable what happened and what is going on here (Europe) and what is going on in these countries (both due the total population, the total infected, and the total deaths:

COUNTRY	CASES	DEATHS
USA	6,971,393	202,163
India	5,732,518	91,149
Brazil	4,634,468	139,294
Russia	1,128,836	19,948

https://www.google.com/search?q=world+covid+numbers&rlz=1C1GCEB_enPT908PT908&oq=world+covid+numbers&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.8131j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

[kennybobby]

@71k5

…
I merely provided a link to the data that the CDC provided,
ask Tony Fauci what his point was.

You need to draw your own conclusions from the CDC data.

Tony Fauci doesn’t work at the CDC.

[71k5]

@kennybobby

@71k5

…
I merely provided a link to the data that the CDC provided,
ask Tony Fauci what his point was.

You need to draw your own conclusions from the CDC data.

Tony Fauci doesn’t work at the CDC.

Did I say he did?
He works under the NIH, at NIAID, just as the CDC does.
You don’t think any data from the NIAID, was used by the CDC, for that report?

Do you question the credibility of the CDC, the NIAID, or every department under the NIH?
Or do you question the credibility of all of them, under the HHS?

[Joshk]

@71k5

Did I say he did?
He works under the NIH, at NIAID, just as the CDC does.

Yes.
Google to the rescue? :zipper_mouth_face:

[71k5]

@Joshk

@71k5

Did I say he did?
He works under the NIH, at NIAID, just as the CDC does.

Yes.
Google to the rescue? :zipper_mouth_face:

Hey SB/Mr. Moderator.

Looks as though an argument is being instigated.

And all I did was post this:

The CDC updated the survival rates of those INFECTED with COVID19:

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

CDC survival rates for COVID19 infections.

[NorthernHarrier]

Yet another person trying to instigate an argument by misrepresenting information, then accusing others of doing the same by correcting the misrepresentations. Bravo.

It’s already been explained that the figures given were estimates, based on various assumptions, from early numbers tabulated in one investigation in Europe. The authors state clearly that those numbers do not represent the expected effects of the virus, in Europe or elsewhere.

[71k5]

@NorthernHarrier

Yet another person trying to instigate an argument by misrepresenting information, then accusing others of doing the same by correcting the misrepresentations. Bravo.

It’s already been explained that the figures given were estimates, based on various assumptions, from early numbers tabulated in one investigation in Europe. The authors state clearly that those numbers do not represent the expected effects of the virus, in Europe or elsewhere.

So the data I provided, is a misrepresentation?

The CDC updated the survival rates of those INFECTED with COVID19:

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

CDC survival rates for COVID19 infections.

Look at Scenario 5, Table 1.

Where the data states Infection Fatality ratio :

0-19 years: 0.00003
20-49 years: 0.0002
50-69 years: 0.005
70+ years: 0.054

How is that a misrepresentation, when it is data DIRECTLY from the report?

Keep trying to blame me, for yours and others’, efforts to instigate an argument.

When are we going to get some Moderation here?

[Lightbringer]

We could always get back to the NFL protesting thread…

[71k5]

@Lightbringer

We could always get back to the NFL protesting thread… :smiling_imp:

No thanks, I’ll take a knee for that.

[NorthernHarrier]

“How is that a misrepresentation, when it is data DIRECTLY from the report?“

The answer to your question has been given to you by two different members. I’ll try one more time. You said the figures you cited are the survival rates from the virus. That is in fact not true. We explained why it is not true in our posts.

[caramba]

six regions in Europe: Austria, Bavaria (Germany), Baden-Württemberg (Germany), Lombardy (Italy), Spain, and Switzerland.

This gotta be referring to Octoberfest.

[how_crazy_is_this]

Is 71k5 trying to make a point with those figures? Perhaps the point is just information? Is the point supposed to be that it is not very deadly for the young? I think that is the point but I don’t know.

Just looking at the numbers. From what I have read eventually about 80% will likely become infected unless there is an effective and widely adapted vaccine. So only .02% or .8 * 0.0002 * 20 - 49 year olds will die. It looks like the point is that because only 20,000 or so Americans between 20 - 49 will die so that is not really such a big deal?

[71k5]

@NorthernHarrier

“How is that a misrepresentation, when it is data DIRECTLY from the report?“

The answer to your question has been given to you by two different members. I’ll try one more time. You said the figures you cited are the survival rates from the virus. That is in fact not true. We explained why it is not true in our posts.

Have you contacted the CDC, to correct them on their report?

I just provided the link to their report/data, that you and others, seem to want to dispute.

[NorthernHarrier]

@71k5

@NorthernHarrier

“How is that a misrepresentation, when it is data DIRECTLY from the report?“

The answer to your question has been given to you by two different members. I’ll try one more time. You said the figures you cited are the survival rates from the virus. That is in fact not true. We explained why it is not true in our posts.

Have you contacted the CDC, to correct them on their report?

I just provided the link to their report/data, that you and others, seem to want to dispute.

The report is not incorrect. There is no reason to dispute their report. Your description of what the report says about the data is incorrect.

[raccoon]

@NorthernHarrier

Who recommended banning disinformation about the coronavirus?

That would be me.

I don't like obvious lies, but they are allowed on BLF, and I was in the wrong.

[71k5]

@how crazy is this

Is 71k5 trying to make a point with those figures? Perhaps the point is just information? Is the point supposed to be that it is not very deadly for the young? I think that is the point but I don’t know.

Just looking at the numbers. From what I have read eventually about 80% will likely become infected unless there is an effective and widely adapted vaccine. So only .02% or .8 * 0.0002 * 20 - 49 year olds will die. It looks like the point is that because only 20,000 or so Americans between 20 –29 will die so that is not really such a big deal?

Where did I say I was trying to “make a point”, when I posted this?

[quote]
The CDC updated the survival rates of those INFECTED with COVID19:

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

CDC survival rates for COVID19 infections.

That was posted by kennybobby:

So what is your point—only the elders die, we should just let them die, they are old anyway?

I just provided the link to the report data, and pointed out the Fatality data, and stated the resulting Survivor rates from their own Infected Fatality ratio data.
Because if you’re not a fatality, you obviously must be a survivor.

You draw your own conclusions, and dispute the CDC data, that’s your prerogative.

[71k5]

@raccoon city

@NorthernHarrier

Who recommended banning disinformation about the coronavirus?

That would be me.

I don’t like obvious lies, but they are allowed on BLF, and I was in the wrong.

Either you dispute the CDC report or you don’t.

If the Infected Fatality Ratio is 1: .054, that would mean 5.4 out of 100 infected 70+ would die, from being infected with the virus. So that would also mean that the other 94.6 70+ who were also infected, did not die.
Hence a 94.6% survivor rate for 70+ infected with the virus.

How is that “disinformation” , or “obvious lies”?