This thread reminds me of the passenger who complains that we won't take off with sever thunderstorm over the airport.

the same CDC that said we shouldn’t wear face masks and is now saying we should? That CDC?


but yes, from their website:

https://i.ibb.co/vPtpnzM/4-E11-C6-DE...643-A3-A65.jpg

My quick and dirty numbers assumed that our population was steady state, which of course it hasn’t been, it’s been expanding over that 80 year period. On the other hand, it has been getting larger AND older which means it still is likely higher than what they are showing which is 2017 figures. Even using their figure of 863.8 deaths per hundred thousand against a population of 340 million (counting non citizens) gives 3 million a year.

But the numbers of people 90 and over and 100 and over are right out of the census figures, 1.9 million and less than 75,000, so - yes, again allowing for 10 years of population growth, we are STILL talking about the US losing 180,000 people between the age if 90 and 100 alone every year.

while the quick and dirty numbers I threw out can be refined, the point is the same. Many and perhaps most of these coronavirus deaths were scarcely unexpected. And the case-fatality rate based upon the NYC finding of 21% positive for antibodies is scarcely more than a bad flu year.

At least you tried.

Remember this one from the 12th:
Would you like to reconsider, or maybe find a better epidemiology school than Riddle?

Between the "shut down" crowd and "open up crowd" what is our common ground? Do you Agree, Disagree or shades in between with the following;

--The *case* numbers rise, but that was expected. right?

-- Total Case *numbers* will rise but *ratios*, particularly the fatality ratio, from hence forth should be fairly steady. Agree?

--COVID's so contagious the expectation was expected we will all get COVID eventually. Yes?

--Two recent studies show a REALLY low fatality rate. Rate is on par with the average seasonal flu, perhaps lower. Agree?

Supporting bullet points;
1. Stanford study states; "The Stanford study, led by Assistant Professor Eran Bendavid, concluded that the mortality rate in Santa Clara County is between 0.12% and 0.2%"

2. USC study finds; "Assuming a higher infection rate consequently lowers the disease’s estimated fatality rate, driving it from around 1 percent to just 0.12 to 0.2 percent. For the record, the death rate from the flu is about 0.1 percent."

3.Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, put it plainly: "The seasonal flu that we deal with every year has a mortality of 0.1%,”

Open Ended Final question:
--What fatality rate necessitates a shutdown?

another high iq post by atooraya.
the whole point of his post was to say that like many of the studies have confirmed as of late that millions of people had it and didn't know it.
Maybe educate yourself?

If the Stanford and USC studies can be replicated repeatedly, that would be the best news we've had in a long darn time. Because if the fatality rate really is just like the seasonal flu, we need to rip the damn bandaid off and get this country working again.

The problem is, there's no coherent strategy to perform testing at the scale we need. Just read that of 14 available antibody tests, only 3 have an error rate below 5 percent. We're all reacting to numbers that may or may not be correct, based on testing we can't trust, with every politician from the local city council on up to the White House providing their own (often clueless) spin on things. None of us trust the news, the data, our leaders. This is what happens when one side of the political spectrum screams 'fake news' about anything they disagree with -- truth and facts are suddenly politicized and perverted to match an agenda.

The result? Even if every single politician got up tomorrow and said, 'Look, we have data, it's no deadlier than the flu', I think the vast majority of people would be too damn scared to resume their normal lives. Our Dear Leader has done such a tremendous job of attacking and discrediting the very concept of 'reality', of 'facts', that we have a major loss of public trust in news sources, in politicians, in really anything that doesn't agree with their chosen world view.

Other countries, like Germany and Hong Kong, are re-opening cautiously and, it would seem, intelligently. But to do that, you need:

1. A consensus that facts are facts, and can be reported impartially.
2. That occasionally the rights of a few (to go wherever they please, whenever they please, and ignore any recommendations such as wearing masks) may rarely have to be subsumed for the greater good.
3. A belief that by working together, we can solve this crisis. And most importantly a willingness to do so.

Unfortunately the political climate in this country has become so hyper partisan, so inflamed, so hysterical, that we are laughably incapable of any of the above. While it certainly didn't start with the reality show star now occupying the White House, his administration's relentless assault on the very concept of 'truth' has left us in a position where we have less chance of handling this thing capably than some banana republics.

what about the Ny study that Cumomo briefed the press on yesterday? There are daily anti-body studies coming out saying the same thing.

A 5% error rate (and there really is no such thing with a laboratory test, they have sensitivity and specificity levels only, and given those and knowing the rough background level of a disease in the population you can generate precictive value positive and predictive value negative IAW Baye’s theorem) would not even matter when you are finding 21% of the population positive in the epicenter of coronavirus deaths which is NYC, and less than 2%positive in Wyoming where they’ve had less than 20 identified cases.

Three weeks ago there may have been an arguable case for containment. Not a strong case, but at least arguable, but 21% of NYC is 1.7 million. We are NOT going to contain that and it IS going to spread. The good news is that the case fatality rate is turning out to not be much worse than a moderately bad flu year.

But out of “an over abundance of caution” we are depriving the nation’s school children of ten weeks of schooling, putting 30% of the workers on unemployment, and destroying 30% of our small businesses while dramatically increasing the rate of domestic violence and suicide.

ladies and gentlemen, that’s a really $h|tty trade off.

at the end of the day it doesn't matter anymore, the damage to the economy has been done and most of the sane states not run by morons are starting to slowly open theirs back up.