The new Corona virus, should we worry?

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
11,737
Reaction score
2,108
Points
113
Stop the nonsense. I wasn't "questioning" it. I blatantly asked you "who mentioned it" as you injected it into a debate that wasn't even discussing it. Why be so dishonest here?

I'm not even debating the values of positivity rate with you now - I'm wondering why someone who claims not to follow case count uses it whenever it is convenient to supporting their claim? You, are just changing the subject.
There was a discussion about cases and I injected test positivity because it was a more meaningful stat. And then you questioned why.

You changed the subject. The subject is that reopening bars leads to surges/outbreaks. You introduced the red herring of cases because you have some weird beef with me.

You like to make generalizations about what I do or say without providing evidence. Again, I posted ONE article that uses cases because it had meaningful information. The VAST majority of the evidence I've posted in this thread has been using the other 3 big metrics, and I've demonstrated that.
 

GophersInIowa

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
26,129
Reaction score
1,513
Points
113
It’s getting harder and harder to find statistics to spread bad news.

The media could find a dark cloud in any Trump silver lining.

Since the surge passed in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, and Texas, now the media talks about ND, SD, and Iowa, yet Illinois gets little mention. I wonder why?

View attachment 9361
It looks a lot different if you take population into account. I agree case counts alone aren’t anything to get too worked up about. At the same time it’s not something to completely ignore and dismiss either.

95939780-FFA6-4BC5-9812-FC4EEFE3663C.jpeg
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
18,038
Reaction score
2,178
Points
113
That's the thing. The WaPo analysis isn't bad news. It's good news. We can more specifically understand what causes spikes than we could before. Everyone should welcome that.
I’ve advocated for staying out of bars for some time. I wasn’t even commenting on your article (which I couldn’t read b/c of the pay wall).

I was kind of commenting on the switch of emphasis from state management as case counts have rapidly declined in large southern and SW Republican states to something else. Maybe the something else should’ve been the focus all along, though I do believe there are ways to balance opening many businesses without making them the enemy and allow them to survive.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
18,038
Reaction score
2,178
Points
113
It looks a lot different if you take population into account. I agree case counts alone aren’t anything to get too worked up about. At the same time it’s not something to completely ignore and dismiss either.

View attachment 9362
Yes, that looks very dramatic when not in the context to the rest of the US. It should be that much easier to turn those case counts down as we have in much larger states.

My point isn’t that ND’s case count isn’t rising, but that the news media is looking for problems to continue the fear and “downplay” the improvement in CV.
 

diehard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
32,244
Reaction score
233
Points
63
I logged on to the new posts. They wereback 5 or 6 pages. I looked a little and then skipped the idiot comments and cam to the last page. I saw someone aske why we have so many more deaths than the rest of the world. The answer is easy. We have "Dr" Fauci, we have governors like Walz and Cuomo. Grampa and Gramma mass murderers. That's all.
 

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
2,496
Reaction score
704
Points
113
The cases argument doesnt hold water.
> The cases argument doesnt hold water.

Don't be silly. Cases is not the be-all-and-end-all statistic due to a number of factors, including most prominently the fact that lately we're getting a much bigger rate of testing (due to required testing before you go back to work or school, among other things), and more testing will turn up more cases (both new cases plus a lot of already-healed cases that still carry enough virus to test positive, showing in that case that they are a formerly unknown infection which just transitioned from unknown into known.

But new infections (that is, the fraction of new cases that are actually new infections and not old healed infections just now being discovered) do imply the probability of new hospitalizations and new deaths. If new cases goes up drastically, then (three weeks later) new deaths either goes up slightly or maybe goes sideways. If new cases goes sideways, then (three weeks later) new deaths typically goes down slighty or goes sideways. If new cases goes down slightly, then (three weeks later) new deaths goes down more than slightly. If new cases goes down sharply, then (three weeks later) new deaths typically goes down sharply or down very sharply.

So don't say the new cases argument does not hold water. That's just ignorant.

A more appropriate statement is that the new cases phenomenon is analogous to a leaky water bucket with some holes in it. It holds water, but not with 100% efficiency. It leaks a bit and the amount of leakage depends on the partial causal dependency of new deaths on new cases. But there are other causal factors in play as well, so that rate of new cases is not the only causal factor. For one thing, average age and average comorbidities of new cases are a huge factor in how many of those cases that end up in the bad result of death, eventually. Also, quality of treatment is a huge factor.

In short, it's complicated. As a general rule, correlation does not imply causality. But in this particular case, correlation between new cases and (three weeks later) new deaths does imply partial causality, although there are other causal factors as well. These other causal factors imply that (right now, anyway) the slope of the (scale-normalized) new deaths curve is rotated clockwise a bit from the slope of the (scale-normalized) new cases curve (with the rotation amount being an indicator of the other causal factors in play).
 

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
2,496
Reaction score
704
Points
113
Life just doesn’t work this way. The theory makes fine sense. 6 feet if wearing masks, breathing normal, and stationary, reduces your risk of contracting. Ok.
the US is most likely worse with respect to COVID because we are fat and unhealthy and we test more. Not because we aren’t wearing masks enough. testing is not uniform. Data is all over the place. We don’t even have dependable death totals.
> the US is most likely worse with respect to COVID because we are fat and unhealthy and we test more. Not because we aren’t wearing masks enough. testing is not uniform. Data is all over the place. We don’t even have dependable death totals.

Completely agree with all of that.

But my post was more oriented toward the common-sense and physics-based reasoning that masks do at least some good toward cutting down on the distance and speed of virus particles (and their droplets/aerosols) on the expel side and cutting down on the reach of expelled virus cloud (due to their lost speed so some of them hit the floor) such that on the inbound side the further cut of an inbound-mask-wearer's mask also does some good by further filtering the cloud.

I'm defeating the argument by some that masks absolutely do no good. Of course, a good-fitting two-layer cloth mask does better than a bandana, and a 3-layer mask with central water-vapor absorbing layer does better yet (assuming you're not playing soccer and saturating that layer so you can't breathe), and wearing three separate masks on top of each other does better yet, and an N95 mask does better yet, and an N99 mask does better yet. That's also just common sense and physics.

Of course, the total amount of leakage through a mask is the integral over time of the mask leakage rate, so that explains why sitting is a crowded bar (where everybody's talking) for a 3-hour football game is riskier than a 5-minute encounter in the Speedway while paying for your gas (but not at the pump).

I just get tired of the claims that masks absolutely do no good. They do varying amounts of good depending on the quality of the mask (and what fraction of the time you need to take it off to eat). That's just pure physics. I can say that because I'm essentially a Physics minor. If anyone doesn't trust my statement, just go take 4 physics classes, and then think it out for yourself.
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
17,088
Reaction score
2,418
Points
113
There was a discussion about cases and I injected test positivity because it was a more meaningful stat. And then you questioned why.

You changed the subject.
The subject is that reopening bars leads to surges/outbreaks. You introduced the red herring of cases because you have some weird beef with me.

You like to make generalizations about what I do or say without providing evidence.
Again, I posted ONE article that uses cases because it had meaningful information. The VAST majority of the evidence I've posted in this thread has been using the other 3 big metrics, and I've demonstrated that.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Huh?
Generalizations work well for what you do on here.

I'm guessing at this point that even you don't believe much of what you post.
 

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
2,496
Reaction score
704
Points
113
It looks a lot different if you take population into account. I agree case counts alone aren’t anything to get too worked up about. At the same time it’s not something to completely ignore and dismiss either.

View attachment 9362
This shows that some of the more remote (and less-dense) states that were able to delay the start of the meaty-part of their pandemic (in some cases due to effective but not over-reactive policies by their governors) are going to get the peak of their pandemic later on (as in, now) when the state starts to nearly fully open up. This assumes that there is no vaccine yet such that herd immunity is the only thing that can really halt the growth of the virus spread.

This is actually good for these states (most notably, North Dakota, South Dakota, Missouri) since they are getting their peak cases much later in time, when what prevails is: much better treatments overall and perhaps even a weaker strain of virus - such that the average severity and death rate (per infection) are typically much lower than what happened in, say, New York. I'd much rather be catching Covid right now in North Dakota than catching it in April in New York when the hospitals are overloaded, and they didn't know that you should avoid intubating until it's absolutely a last resort.
 

GophersInIowa

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
26,129
Reaction score
1,513
Points
113
Yes, that looks very dramatic when not in the context to the rest of the US. It should be that much easier to turn those case counts down as we have in much larger states.

My point isn’t that ND’s case count isn’t rising, but that the news media is looking for problems to continue the fear and “downplay” the improvement in CV.
Has there really been a huge focus on the Dakotas and Iowa in the MSM? I guess I haven’t seen it.
 

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
2,496
Reaction score
704
Points
113
Clarity (@covid_clarity): A twitter account dedicated to the obfuscation of the truth about Covid-19!

Some interesting things to note from that graph.

Most notably, it looks like gradually, over time (ever since about the end of May) the Minnesota policy on testing in nursing homes and LTCFs gradually got better such that they started discovering infections in LTCFs sooner on average, and with the additional benefits of better treatments over time, deaths in LTCFs gradually declined to a new base rate about the August timeframe. This is good, and what I've been harping on for a while. Now I can stop harping, I guess.

Also note the obvious, that stay-at-home end had no effect on nursing homes, since they are always locked up.

For the regular people (general population) we saw what might be expected too - an initial peak, which after some further measures started to decline (but not far enough) and then started to increase again with some open-up measures, which peaked out and then started to decline again. With the level it declined to, again influenced by better treatments.

Then the final thing is that we now sit at some sort of random baseline level, amazingy the same for both LTCF and regular-people groups - but worryingly with a little bit of gradual rise to it as well. Perhaps that gradual rise is inevitable as people get sick of lockdowns and start to socialize again.

As far as Clarity's comments go ...

> Deaths were highest in the shutdown period

That's a pure BS comment. It's a truism, but only highest in the shutdown period because the LTCF deaths were making the total deaths highest there. You absolutely need to look at the two separate curves separately. So I say to Clarity, what's the point of posting these quite useful two separate (LTCF vs regular people) graphs in your post, and being a total ass about not using the data-value of these two separate curves to discuss them separately. The statement "Deaths were highest in the shutdown period" is completely meaningless. In fact, it appears to be intended as a completely misleading statement. The reason that statement is there, seems to be to argue that shutdowns did not have any affect on cases or deaths. That's total BS. Of course shutdowns are not going to have any effect on people already locked up in LTCFs, Clarity (you f-ing idiot).

Shutdowns only affect the mobile regular people. For those people (the blue line) you can clearly see that the shutdowns helped bring down the deaths to a temporary low right at the point when shutdowns were lifted, and then when lifted, deaths started increasing again to a new peak. Clearly a causal relationship there, when you think about it.

But then, after lifting of original shutdown restrictions, a new peak was reached for regular people. This peak was largely determined by reaching partial herd immunity among regular people, along with better treatments kicking in. That brought the regular people deaths back down to a now baseline level, and it's been randomly varying about that baseline (with a slight upward trend) since then.

The second regular-people peak was higher than the first peak. So Clarity's first statement should have been "Deaths among the general population were highest in the second peak, after the ending of the shutdown period. Thus, the shutdowns were beneficial in delaying the peak."

> Virulence in the general population hasn't materialized

Another total BS statement. How can Clarity be so dumb as to make this erroneous statement. Within the general populations, deaths in Minnesota peaked at an average of about 7 per day! Subsequently to that peak, it has come down to a low of about 1 or 2 per day, and now risen again to about 2-4 per day. That's called virulence. Right there in the general population. Clarity is again FoS.

> Deaths outside long term care have steadily averaged 3/day no matter what the policy or mandate

(As proved by my prior paragraph) this is actually the most completely BS statement by Clarity, who apparently has no skills whatsoever in spotting peaks and valleys in the regular-people deaths curve. The statement that (among regular people) "deaths have steadily averaged 3/day no matter what the policy or mandate" is completely disproved by the blue graph that Clarity posts. [How can somebody be so stupid as to post a graph that proves X and then argue from that graph that (not X) is true?] That blue line has peaks and valleys, and they are causal peaks and valleys, caused by variations among policy or mandate, among other causal factors (such as a general decline in deaths per infection over time thanks to better treatments).

My general conclusion: In spite of the fact that Clarity posted a nice graph, I wouldn't place two cents worth of confidence in anything that comes out of Clarity's mouth (or Twitter).
 
Last edited:

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
45,293
Reaction score
2,037
Points
113
> the US is most likely worse with respect to COVID because we are fat and unhealthy and we test more. Not because we aren’t wearing masks enough. testing is not uniform. Data is all over the place. We don’t even have dependable death totals.

Completely agree with all of that.

But my post was more oriented toward the common-sense and physics-based reasoning that masks do at least some good toward cutting down on the distance and speed of virus particles (and their droplets/aerosols) on the expel side and cutting down on the reach of expelled virus cloud (due to their lost speed so some of them hit the floor) such that on the inbound side the further cut of an inbound-mask-wearer's mask also does some good by further filtering the cloud.

I'm defeating the argument by some that masks absolutely do no good. Of course, a good-fitting two-layer cloth mask does better than a bandana, and a 3-layer mask with central water-vapor absorbing layer does better yet (assuming you're not playing soccer and saturating that layer so you can't breathe), and wearing three separate masks on top of each other does better yet, and an N95 mask does better yet, and an N99 mask does better yet. That's also just common sense and physics.

Of course, the total amount of leakage through a mask is the integral over time of the mask leakage rate, so that explains why sitting is a crowded bar (where everybody's talking) for a 3-hour football game is riskier than a 5-minute encounter in the Speedway while paying for your gas (but not at the pump).

I just get tired of the claims that masks absolutely do no good. They do varying amounts of good depending on the quality of the mask (and what fraction of the time you need to take it off to eat). That's just pure physics. I can say that because I'm essentially a Physics minor. If anyone doesn't trust my statement, just go take 4 physics classes, and then think it out for yourself.
Masks work in certain environments and situations. Do regions which employ mask mandates have superior outcomes to regions which don’t? I have not seen any evidence that this is true at all. Many cities and states had huge outbreaks post mask mandates. And then you have Sweden, who if they had taken greater steps to protect nursing homes, got their virus done with no disruption over a short time period with results very comparable to other areas. And perhaps superior results after this winter.
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
1,969
Reaction score
626
Points
113
Has there really been a huge focus on the Dakotas and Iowa in the MSM? I guess I haven’t seen it.
South Dakota has almost 4 times Minnesotas new cases weekly per capita right now.

It's totally open, the deniers can go get a lungful and report back to us how much fun they had.

My uncle told me yesterday he knows someone in his 50's who went to Vegas for his anniversary and he just kicked the bucket from Covid, good times....
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
18,038
Reaction score
2,178
Points
113
South Dakota has almost 4 times Minnesotas new cases weekly per capita right now.
Well, that’s not true. South Dakota does currently have more new cases per day per capita than Minnesota, but it was never 4 times and it is dropping fast in SD (see first chart below). More importantly, deaths per day in SD has always been better than Minnesota with the current deaths per million at 208 per million in SD and 351 per million in Minnesota. The second chart below compares deaths per capita since the pandemic started. I don’t think that comparing the two is apples to apples in that Minnesota has a large metro area that SD does not, so the comparison may not be fair. But I’m just responding to your comment.

22E6A477-2531-4D70-8950-9F3940C65508.jpeg
E2CA0A47-D261-457B-A734-D71FC4A12254.jpeg
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
1,969
Reaction score
626
Points
113
Well, that’s not true. South Dakota does currently have more new cases per day per capita than Minnesota, but it was never 4 times and it is dropping fast in SD (see first chart below). More importantly, deaths per day in SD has always been better than Minnesota with the current deaths per million at 208 per million in SD and 351 per million in Minnesota. The second chart below compares deaths per capita since the pandemic started. I don’t think that comparing the two is apples to apples in that Minnesota has a large metro area that SD does not, so the comparison may not be fair. But I’m just responding to your comment.

View attachment 9366
View attachment 9367
I said ALMOST :cool:
 

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
2,496
Reaction score
704
Points
113
Masks work in certain environments and situations. Do regions which employ mask mandates have superior outcomes to regions which don’t? I have not seen any evidence that this is true at all. Many cities and states had huge outbreaks post mask mandates. And then you have Sweden, who if they had taken greater steps to protect nursing homes, got their virus done with no disruption over a short time period with results very comparable to other areas. And perhaps superior results after this winter.
Apart from the fact that Sweden errored about as badly as Minnesota or New York (initially, anyway) in terms of their handling of nursing homes and long term care facilities, I think Sweden handled Covid extremely well (for their size and population density and other demographic factors).
 

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
2,496
Reaction score
704
Points
113
As of Tuesday (Sep 15, 2020) and per Worldometers data, the US just passed 200K deaths (200,174, actually), The last daily 1,174 deaths pushed us over the top, on a total of 6,787,640 cases.

If we go back three weeks (to Aug 25) in order to offset for average time between case detection and conditional death, we had 5,954,346 cases as of then.

That means that right now, the US has an overall offset-adjusted Case Fatality Rate of 200,174 / 5,954,346=3.36%.

That stat, of course, is tilted to the high side by states like New York and New Jersey.

Maybe I'll compute the same stat, state by state, just for grins.

We can compare the current overall (offset-adjusted) CFR of 3.36% to the marginal (offset-adjusted) CFR for various points in time.

Currently, the marginal (offset-adjusted) CFR = 1.71%. That's just a little over half of the overall statistic shown above. This is based on a two-week sample to largely eliminate noise from the statistic.

We can repeat this computation for the two weeks ending April 14 - fairly near the beginning of the US pandemic (but not so far back that we have insufficient data). At that point in time, the marginal (offset-adjusted) CFR = 44.5%. Now in digesting that number, one must realize that at that point in time we had hardly any testing at all, and the only people being tested were the infections that were already (by that time) severe enough to be in a hospital, so that the definition of a "case" at that point amounted to a "severe case." Nevertheless, just think of this: Between April 14 and now (Sept 15) we have reduced the (offset-adjusted) marginal Case Fatality Rate by a factor of 26, from 44.5% down to 1.71% !

In other words, for those first few severe cases (especially the nursing-home cases in New York, thank you governor Cuomo) back in the April time frame, you had about a 50/50 coin-flip's chance of Covid being a death sentence for you. [Or to do an estimated breakdown by age, at that time if the infected person was in a nursing home or otherwise of nursing-home age, you probably had about a 90% chance of a death sentence; whereas if the infected person was younger you probably had about a 10% chance of a death sentence; based on an appoximate equal mixture of those two age groups.] But currently, if you catch a (diagnosed) case of Covid (in North Dakota, say), you have only about a 1.71% chance of dying from it (and its comorbidities). That's the (offset-adjusted) marginal CFR. If you guess that there's maybe 8X more actual infections than detected cases these days (a figure used in a recent report) - thanks to lots of mild or asymptomatic cases that don't get tested - then the (offset-adjusted) marginal Infection Fatality Risk (IFR) is about 0.214% right now (maybe about 4 to 5 times worse than the flu).

Conclusion #1: If you're going to get infected with Covid, then it's better to get infected in September in North Dakota than to get infected in April in New York !

Conclusion #2a: Given the caliber of Covid treatment currently available, the risk of death if you get a case of Covid is, on average, about 4 or 5 times greater than if you catch the flu. Conclusion #2b: However, the risk versus age + comorbidity spectrum of Covid makes the chances of Covid death much more severe than for flu within the old and obese and comorbid. Conclusion #2c: If you catch Covid but do not die, there are a much higher percentage of survivors that have severe ongoing health issues than for the flu.

Conclusion #3: If we could (magically) largely eliminate the fatso epidemic and the comorbidity epidemic among Americans, then Covid could be reduced in its level-of-harm to only about the magnitude of the flu (but subject to 2b and 2c, above). Although there is no magic bullet for this, should there not be a multi-billion-dollar (free to the populace) government-sponsored crash program to achieve the goal of massively reducing the fatso epidemic and the comorbidity epidemic among Americans?

So we've gotten Covid much closer to the flu in severity, yet not nearly close enough to the flu to treat it lightly. And, of course, a Covid vaccine will not likely arrive until about the end of the year. Yet we have made large strides in the right direction.

Conclusion #4: We should be talking about marginal CFR and marginal IFR, not total CFR and total IFR. The latter should be saved for the history books. The former are what we should be using right now to drive policy.

Yet (and does anybody else find this rather odd?) we have never ever heard people like Fauci or Birx or Osterholm talk about marginal CFR or marginal IFR. That makes me think that we have a bunch of total clowns leading this Covid circus.
 
Last edited:

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
22,788
Reaction score
1,474
Points
113
Cool stuff.... and yet hospitalizations and deaths continue to drop, and drop, and drop...

Gotta love the WaPo, always on the case for doom and gloom. I would imagine that if Grandpa Joe wins in November, the data will suddenly be trending in a very positive direction, looking better every day? I would be flat out shocked if the tone remains the same...
Damn you, why aren't you scared & blaming it all on Trump!?
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
22,788
Reaction score
1,474
Points
113
Stop the nonsense. I wasn't "questioning" it. I blatantly asked you "who mentioned it" as you injected it into a debate that wasn't even discussing it. Why be so dishonest here?

I'm not even debating the values of positivity rate with you now - I'm wondering why someone who claims not to follow case count uses it whenever it is convenient to supporting their claim? You, are just changing the subject.
JTF got rekt!

 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
22,788
Reaction score
1,474
Points
113
As of Tuesday (Sep 15, 2020) and per Worldometers data, the US just passed 200K deaths (200,174, actually), The last daily 1,174 deaths pushed us over the top, on a total of 6,787,640 cases.

If we go back three weeks (to Aug 25) in order to offset for average time between case detection and conditional death, we had 5,954,346 cases as of then.

That means that right now, the US has an overall offset-adjusted Case Fatality Rate of 200,174 / 5,954,346=3.36%.

That stat, of course, is tilted to the high side by states like New York and New Jersey.

Maybe I'll compute the same stat, state by state, just for grins.

We can compare the current overall (offset-adjusted) CFR of 3.36% to the marginal (offset-adjusted) CFR for various points in time.

Currently, the marginal (offset-adjusted) CFR = 1.71%. That's just a little over half of the overall statistic shown above. This is based on a two-week sample to largely eliminate noise from the statistic.

We can repeat this computation for the two weeks ending April 14 - fairly near the beginning of the US pandemic (but not so far back that we have insufficient data). At that point in time, the marginal (offset-adjusted) CFR = 44.5%. Now in digesting that number, one must realize that at that point in time we had hardly any testing at all, and the only people being tested were the infections that were already (by that time) severe enough to be in a hospital, so that the definition of a "case" at that point amounted to a "severe case." Nevertheless, just think of this: Between April 14 and now (Sept 15) we have reduced the (offset-adjusted) marginal Case Fatality Rate by a factor of 26, from 44.5% down to 1.71% !

In other words, for those first few severe cases (especially the nursing-home cases in New York, thank you governor Cuomo) back in the April time frame, you had about a 50/50 coin-flip's chance of Covid being a death sentence for you. [Or to do an estimated breakdown by age, at that time if the infected person was in a nursing home or otherwise of nursing-home age, you probably had about a 90% chance of a death sentence; whereas if the infected person was younger you probably had about a 10% chance of a death sentence; based on an appoximate equal mixture of those two age groups.] But currently, if you catch a (diagnosed) case of Covid (in North Dakota, say), you have only about a 1.71% chance of dying from it (and its comorbidities). That's the (offset-adjusted) marginal CFR. If you guess that there's maybe 8X more actual infections than detected cases these days (a figure used in a recent report) - thanks to lots of mild or asymptomatic cases that don't get tested - then the (offset-adjusted) marginal Infection Fatality Risk (IFR) is about 0.214% right now (maybe about 4 to 5 times worse than the flu).

Conclusion #1: If you're going to get infected with Covid, then it's better to get infected in September in North Dakota than to get infected in April in New York !

Conclusion #2a: Given the caliber of Covid treatment currently available, the risk of death if you get a case of Covid is, on average, about 4 or 5 times greater than if you catch the flu. Conclusion #2b: However, the risk versus age + comorbidity spectrum of Covid makes the chances of Covid death much more severe than for flu within the old and obese and comorbid. Conclusion #2c: If you catch Covid but do not die, there are a much higher percentage of survivors that have severe ongoing health issues than for the flu.

Conclusion #3: If we could (magically) largely eliminate the fatso epidemic and the comorbidity epidemic among Americans, then Covid could be reduced in its level-of-harm to only about the magnitude of the flu (but subject to 2b and 2c, above). Although there is no magic bullet for this, should there not be a multi-billion-dollar (free to the populace) government-sponsored crash program to achieve the goal of massively reducing the fatso epidemic and the comorbidity epidemic among Americans?

So we've gotten Covid much closer to the flu in severity, yet not nearly close enough to the flu to treat it lightly. And, of course, a Covid vaccine will not likely arrive until about the end of the year. Yet we have made large strides in the right direction.

Conclusion #4: We should be talking about marginal CFR and marginal IFR, not total CFR and total IFR. The latter should be saved for the history books. The former are what we should be using right now to drive policy.

Yet (and does anybody else find this rather odd?) we have never ever heard people like Fauci or Birx or Osterholm talk about marginal CFR or marginal IFR. That makes me think that we have a bunch of total clowns leading this Covid circus.
Too long.
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
22,788
Reaction score
1,474
Points
113
A) I don't have an obsession with case counts. Here are 2 pages of posts of me focusing on positivity rate. https://www.forums.gopherhole.com/b...&c[thread]=95159&c[users]=justthefacts&o=date

For every graph you can find in this thread that I've posted that ONLY shows cases, I'll find 10 that didn't show cases at all. KGF has picked up on using DIVOC, but this board only knows about it because I started posting positivity, hospitalization, and death graphs. The very first reference to DIVOC was me posting a hospitalization graph: https://www.forums.gopherhole.com/b...s-should-we-worry.95159/page-493#post-1981716 The second is a deaths graph, again by me: https://www.forums.gopherhole.com/b...s-should-we-worry.95159/page-498#post-1987817

Here's me specifically talking about cases vs positivity: https://www.forums.gopherhole.com/b...s-should-we-worry.95159/page-618#post-2020376

Here's you questioning the very use of positivity and me explaining its value to you: https://www.forums.gopherhole.com/b...rona-virus-should-we-worry.95159/post-2002918

B) The WaPo article was focused on case counts, but the test positivity, hospitalizations, and deaths followed. Take the example of Arizona above. Bars reopened May 15, and the positivity rate, hospitalizations, and deaths followed. Cases also went up of course.



C) Positivity rate (and cases) shot up all over the Sun Belt and you guys were so quick to talk about how it was limited to that. Then hospitalizations and deaths followed and you forgot all about it. Now that positivity rate (and cases) have gone up in certain states, you're back to pretending there's no link at all.

D) Why are you so defensive? We know there was a surge in this country. Something had to have caused it. Isn't it better to know?
Credit where credit's due for writing out your own thoughts. Strangely, not too long.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
11,737
Reaction score
2,108
Points
113
So 6 of the 7 were at a nursing home.

I thought masks were supposed to prevent this?
A) Yes, that's the point. Isolating the elderly only works if we also isolate the people working with the elderly.

B) For the 2578th time, masks are not a cure-all. They need to be used in conjunction with other measures. At this point I'm quite sure you know this and have digested it, and thus are merely arguing in bad faith.

C) More evidence that the big thing we need to avoid is large gatherings. Super spreader events are a key source of spread. The wedding in Ghent last month was also proof of this.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
11,737
Reaction score
2,108
Points
113
Trump takes credit for Big Ten football, meanwhile completely ignoring that daily rapid testing makes it possible:

 

GopherWeatherGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
7,879
Reaction score
1,256
Points
113
A) Yes, that's the point. Isolating the elderly only works if we also isolate the people working with the elderly.

B) For the 2578th time, masks are not a cure-all. They need to be used in conjunction with other measures. At this point I'm quite sure you know this and have digested it, and thus are merely arguing in bad faith.

C) More evidence that the big thing we need to avoid is large gatherings. Super spreader events are a key source of spread. The wedding in Ghent last month was also proof of this.
Weddings have been going on across the country all summer.

Of course the media will cherry pick one or two that caused issues. And you'll continue to eat it up.

As far as mask go, you must have missed all of the politicians and media members who have said, 'just wear a mask and we'll stop the spread in 4-8 weeks'.
 
Top Bottom