New COVID survival rates. Good news.

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
93,064
75,435
113
Does that factor in all the people who contracted COVID-19 and didn't know they even had it so they were never tested. This is the actual number we need.
You're referring to IFRs.

I posted CFRs. There is no reason to believe the relative ratios between those for Covid and flu are different.
The numbers you need are how lethal this is relative to other pandemic viruses, like flu.

Covid IFR/Flu IFR will approximately equal Covid CFR/Flu CFR



Those numbers are posted. They are 30x worse on the low end, 300x worse on the high end.
It's >60x more lethal to babies.

This means, unchecked, we will have 20x to 30x or more people die from this than in a flu season. Flu kills 15k - 40k a year. 10x that is 150k to 400k. We're at nearly 210k now, and the contagion season is just starting. Covid killed >200,000 Americans during the flu "off season", which is what has so many healthcare professionals and epidemiologists pretty concerned for what will happen during flu/contagion season.
 

RonaldMexico

Rookie
Aug 11, 2020
36
57
18
That is comparing CFR data to CFR data.
Which is what the original post/tweet refers to.
That has nothing to with my point, which still stands. I am not referencing Samadis tweet as there is no link to his data to support his percentages. Your data on the other hand reads like a 6th grade algebra story problem.

“if X number of people test positive for Covid, and Y people die, what percentage of people die from Covid?” Cross multiplication gets you an A in sixth grade algebra. Here it just makes you look silly.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: waterboy4582

Bank of Hawk

HR All-American
Gold Member
Feb 24, 2007
3,091
1,408
113
Actual rates, from CDCs demographics site:

Covid19
0-4 yrs: 0.04% 1 in 2600
5-17 yrs: 0.02% 1 in 5700
18-29 yrs: 0.07% 1 in 1500
30-39 yrs: 0.23% 1 in 430
40-49 yrs: 0.61% 1 in 164
50-64 yrs: 2.2% 1 in 46
65-74 yrs: 8.1% 1 in 12
75-84 yrs: 17.8% 1 in 6
85+ yrs: 28.5% 1 in 3.5
Now, let's go to the scorecards, Jim and compare this to typical flu mortality:

2017-18 FLU
0-4 yrs: 0.0006% 1 in 166,667
5-17 yrs: 0.001% 1 in 100,000
18-29 yrs: 0.002% 1 in 50,000
30-39 yrs: 0.002% 1 in 50,000
40-49 yrs: 0.002% 1 in 50,000
50-64 yrs: 0.011% 1 in 9434
65+: 0.1% 1 in 1000

Relative Risk Ratio: Covid Vs 2017-18 Flu:

0-4 yrs: 64x
5-17 yrs: 17.5x
18-29 yrs: 32x
30-39 yrs: 116x
40-49 yrs: 306x
50-64 yrs: 207x
65+:
80-285x

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#demographics
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2017-2018.htm


#GoReviewActualDataNotSomeRandomDude'sTweet
Wait so I did the math on flu mortality for 0-4 year old.

115/3,678,342 = 0.00003 or 3 out of every 100,000 ... for the 0-4 years old.

so I did the math on this one and double checked. Unless my math is wrong, I’m not saying math is right, but I believe it is and your math is wrong.

if your math is wrong — you have made your ratio for the 0-4 year old category look a lot more scarier than it should.

I stopped after that because it’s difficult to do on a phone and it was the first error I saw on the first calculation my trust in the rest of the numbers you put down i question.

can you look into the 0-4 age range and flu mortality and check your ratio again? I am sincerely curious if I got the math wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: waterboy4582

SWIowahawks

HR Legend
Gold Member
Sep 2, 2006
16,567
11,261
113
Tabor
How about the fact that when you’re sick from the flu you stay home, not infecting as many people? Asymptomatic spread is a huge problem.
Doesn’t at all answer my question. You do bring up another question, can you spread the flu without having symptoms?
 

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
93,064
75,435
113
Wait so I did the math on flu mortality for 0-4 year old.

115/3,678,342 = 0.00003 or 3 out of every 100,000 ... for the 0-4 years old.

so I did the math on this one and double checked. Unless my math is wrong, I’m not saying math is right, but I believe it is and your math is wrong.

if your math is wrong — you have made your ratio for the 0-4 year old category look a lot more scarier than it should.
I used the Table 2 estimate of deaths per 100,000 for each age group.

Which lists as 0.6 per 100,000
 
Last edited:

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
93,064
75,435
113
That has nothing to with my point, which still stands. I am not referencing Samadis tweet as there is no link to his data to support his percentages. Your data on the other hand reads like a 6th grade algebra story problem.
That's because it's literally all you have to do to compare risks for Covid and flu.
CDC lists the raw data. If the CDC data are incorrect, then the numbers are incorrect.

Based on the CDC Demographic data, it is not possible for the 50-74 age group to be "99.5% surviving" or 0.5% mortality. The mortality number is between 2% and 8%.

You have no point, then.
If you disagree with my numbers, run them yourself.
 

farmandfleet

HR MVP
May 31, 2020
1,205
961
113
Does that factor in all the people who contracted COVID-19 and didn't know they even had it so they were never tested. This is the actual number we need.
Also does this number contain the fraudulent data such as motor vehicle accidents heart attacks and advanced cancer ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: UIHawkGuy8

Bank of Hawk

HR All-American
Gold Member
Feb 24, 2007
3,091
1,408
113
I used the Table 2 estimate of deaths per 100,000 for each age group.

Which lists as 0.6 per 100,000
I see that now but why such the large difference between table 1 & 2 ... if using table 1 — the ratio which you calculated with table 2 would be cut almost in half.
 

Bank of Hawk

HR All-American
Gold Member
Feb 24, 2007
3,091
1,408
113
There is a large difference between 3 in 100,000 and 1 in 166,667 chances of dying ... when you are calculating a comparative ratio like you have
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: farmandfleet

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
93,064
75,435
113
There is a large difference between 1 in 100,000 and 1 in 166,667 chances of dying ...
Here are the Risk Ratios if you use the table you are citing:

0-4 yrs: 12.3x
5-17 yrs: 2.5x
18-49 yrs: 3.4x/12x/31.5x (age breakdowns don't align, so flu number is lumped together)
50-64 yrs: 43.1x
>65 yrs: 9.5x/20.8x/33.3x (age breakdowns don't align here either)


So, if these lower #s are the correct interpretation, then we still are looking at >10x higher mortality than flu across most demographics.

This is also consistent with WHO and other claims that Covid is at least 10x more lethal than flu.
It also has more post-exposure sequellae than flu, which we are still learning about.

The doctors keep telling people "this is not the flu" and that it's dangerous. People keep pulling up nonsense propaganda and not listening.
 

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
93,064
75,435
113
Well it makes for a much better story for you the way you pick and choose which numbers to use and how you choose a comparative ratio that isn’t truly appropriate to say Covid is xxxx deadlier.
No idea which numbers are the "right" ones.
I used the # per 100,000 and presumed those were for cases.
 

RonaldMexico

Rookie
Aug 11, 2020
36
57
18
That's because it's literally all you have to do to compare risks for Covid and flu.
CDC lists the raw data. If the CDC data are incorrect, then the numbers are incorrect.

Based on the CDC Demographic data, it is not possible for the 50-74 age group to be "99.5% surviving" or 0.5% mortality. The mortality number is between 2% and 8%.

You have no point, then.
If you disagree with my numbers, run them yourself.
I acknowledged that your ability to cross multiply is truly impressive. You refuse to acknowledge that the numbers you use for your equation are wrong.
 

Bank of Hawk

HR All-American
Gold Member
Feb 24, 2007
3,091
1,408
113
Here are the Risk Ratios if you use the table you are citing:

0-4 yrs: 12.3x
5-17 yrs: 2.5x
18-49 yrs: 3.4x/12x/31.5x (age breakdowns don't align, so flu number is lumped together)
50-64 yrs: 43.1x
>65 yrs: 9.5x/20.8x/33.3x (age breakdowns don't align here either)


So, if these lower #s are the correct interpretation, then we still are looking at >10x higher mortality than flu across most demographics.

This is also consistent with WHO and other claims that Covid is at least 10x more lethal than flu.
It also has more post-exposure sequellae than flu, which we are still learning about.

The doctors keep telling people "this is not the flu" and that it's dangerous. People keep pulling up nonsense propaganda and not listening.
I can get on board with those numbers although I haven’t checked the Covid numbers you are using, I’ll take you’re word for it. Yes the majority of the population needs to take this much more serious than they are.
 

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
93,064
75,435
113
I can get on board with those numbers although I haven’t checked the Covid numbers you are using, I’ll take you’re word for it. Yes the majority of the population needs to take this much more serious than they are.
The other consideration, is that Covid has potentially become LESS lethal over the past months as people mask-up and distance, lowering their viral inoculum levels (how much virus you are exposed to). There are many examples that this may be a highly significant factor in how sick you get. So, if people "return to normal" and start congregating indoors in the winter, it is quite possible and likely that the mortality rates climb.
 

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
93,064
75,435
113
You refuse to acknowledge that the numbers you use for your equation are wrong.
They aren't wrong. They are CDC numbers.

So long as you are comparing CFR to CFR, you get a good relative risk ratio. At a minimum, that ratio is 10 or more for Covid compared to seasonal flu.
 

farmandfleet

HR MVP
May 31, 2020
1,205
961
113
Right now it seems the only three things that can’t be done safely are fans at the football stadium, church and in person elections.

Seems weird huh?
Yes. Cheat in the election with mail in voting/ballot harvesting

and prevent the worship of God

quite the evil agenda they have going

also Covid is very smart it avoids all violent Marxist antifa/blm riots but it spreads like wildfire at any biker rally or Trump rally

the media is dogshit
 

Hawkeye_311

HR Heisman
Nov 21, 2010
6,431
5,596
113

The current Serious/Critical cases in the United States are 14,059 (population: 330 million), out of what is reported as 2,549,641 “active” cases (right at HALF OF ONE PERCENT
 

Hawkeye_311

HR Heisman
Nov 21, 2010
6,431
5,596
113
  • A fascinating new study suggesting“Increased household exposure to young children was associated with an attenuated risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 and appeared to also be associated with an attenuated risk of COVID-19 disease severe enough to require hospitalization”
 

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
93,064
75,435
113

The current Serious/Critical cases in the United States are 14,059 (population: 330 million), out of what is reported as 2,549,641 “active” cases (right at HALF OF ONE PERCENT
Yep
If you wear masks and distance, you make Covid less dangerous.

Go back to normal, and Covid goes back to normal, too.
 

SoMplsHawkI

HR Heisman
Apr 20, 2006
6,898
4,392
113
Now open shit up and let’s occupy Kinnick

if you are old stay the Fock home!’
I worked 40 years, saved my money, sacrificed to send my kids to school. I'm debt free and intend to enjoy the rest of my life because I earned it. You want me to stay home because otherwise you can't have fun? Go fvck yourself.
 

LBoogie28

HR MVP
Feb 5, 2007
1,703
1,737
113
Right now it seems the only three things that can’t be done safely are fans at the football stadium, church and in person elections.

Seems weird huh?
What’s weird is all three you listed are being done where I live (and other parts of the country). Very weird.
 

jasonrann

HR Legend
Gold Member
Apr 11, 2007
15,166
19,723
113
That is not the actual mortality data of all infected with the virus. That is the mortality data for the people who tested positive for the virus. There is a difference and you know this.
I wish I could give you 100 likes for your name. Well done!
 

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
93,064
75,435
113
U.S. records over 7 million COVID-19 cases as Midwest outbreak surges


The number of novel coronavirus cases in the United States topped 7 million - more than 20% of the world’s total - as Midwest states reported spikes in COVID-19 infections in September, according to a Reuters tally.

The latest milestone on Thursday comes just days after the nation surpassed over 200,000 COVID-19 deaths, the world’s highest death toll from the virus. Each day, over 700 people die in the United States from COVID-19.

California leads the country with over 800,000 total cases, followed by Texas, Florida and New York. (Graphic: tmsnrt.rs/363tab5)

All Midwest states except Ohio reported more cases in the past four weeks as compared with the prior four weeks, led by South Dakota and North Dakota. South Dakota had the biggest percentage increase at 166% with 8,129 new cases, while North Dakota’s new cases doubled to 8,752 as compared to 4,243 during the same time in August.


Many cases in those two states have been linked to the annual motorcycle rally in Sturgis, South Dakota, that annually attracts hundreds of thousands of visitors.

According to a Reuters analysis, positive cases rose in half of the 50 U.S. states this month. Ten states have reported a record one-day increase in COVID-19 cases in September, including Montana, South Dakota and Utah on Thursday.

New cases rose last week after falling for eight consecutive weeks. Health experts believe this spike was due to reopening schools and universities as well as parties over the recent Labor Day holiday.


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...n-as-midwest-outbreak-flares-up-idUKKCN26G053
 

shank hawk

HR Heisman
Gold Member
Feb 3, 2015
5,232
5,349
113
Kinda like people with cancer that don't realize until it's way too late huh?

Lol, wait..... not really
A disease, by it’s very definition, produces specific symptoms in the afflicted.

Calling something ‘novel’ lets the powers that be rewrite the laws of nature. Obviously. :rolleyes: