Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Good News: COVID-19 Fatality Rate Likely Much Less Lower Than Claimed

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Good News: COVID-19 Fatality Rate Likely Much Less Lower Than Claimed

    New research by Stanford University indicates that the rate is likely much lower, by orders of magnitude. Rather than the 1% to 3.4% rate being bandied about, the actual fatality rate is likely much closer to 0.01%, which is comparable to the seasonal flu, I believe.

    The true fatality rate of the novel coronavirus may be much lower than current projections imply, according to two professors of medicine at Stanford University.

    Dr. Eran Bendavid and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya postulate, in The Wall Street Journal, that the high estimated fatality rate of the coronavirus of 2%-4% is “deeply flawed.” They base their argument around the metrics of total individuals infected who die, rather than individuals with identified cases of the virus who have died.

    “If the number of actual infections is much larger than the number of cases – orders of magnitude larger – than the true fatality rate is much lower as well,” the doctors write.

    The numbers the doctors use to extrapolate their case come from Wuhan, the northeastern Italian town of Vò, and the NBA. According to their calculations, the prevalence rate of the coronavirus is much higher than the reported numbers in any country imply, and therefore the death rates are lower, relative to population infected.

    They estimate that the epidemic could result in a national death tally of closer to 20,000-40,000, as opposed to the upper-limit estimates of several million, and a fatality rate of 0.01%.

    “If we’re right about the limited scale of the epidemic, then measured focused on older populations and hospitals are sensible," conclude Bendavid and Bhattacharya. "A universal quarantine may not be worth the costs it imposes on the economy, community and individual mental and physical health.”

    https://justthenews.com/politics-pol...wTJMcc.twitter
    This seems to dovetail perfectly with another bit of new research, from Oxford University, which revealed flaws in the Imperial study (the one claiming millions of deaths in the UK and the US, which has caused all of thse lockdowns). That research indicates that possibly up to 50 percent of the UK has already had coronavirus in their systems and have antibodies to it, and that the outbreak in the UK likely began in January (back before China was even admitting it could go human to human), and that the amount with little to no symptoms is much higher - something that is likely the case here in the US.
    A model predicting the progression of the novel coronavirus pandemic produced by researchers at Imperial College London set off alarms across the world and was a major factor in several governments' decisions to lock things down. But a new model from Oxford University is challenging its accuracy, the Financial Times reports.

    The Oxford research suggests the pandemic is in a later stage than previously thought and estimates the virus has already infected at least millions of people worldwide. In the United Kingdom, which the study focuses on, half the population would have already been infected. If accurate, that would mean transmission began around mid-January and the vast majority of cases presented mild or no symptoms.

    The head of the study, professor Sunetra Gupta, an Oxford theoretical epidemiologist, said she still supports the U.K.'s decision to shut down the country to suppress the virus even if her research winds up being proven correct. But she also doesn't appear to be a big fan of the work done by the Imperial College team. "I am surprised that there has been such unqualified acceptance of the Imperial model," she said.

    If her work is accurate, that would likely mean a large swath of the population has built up resistance to the virus. Theoretically, then, social restrictions could ease sooner than anticipated. What needs to be done now, Gupta said, is a whole lot of antibody testing to figure out who may have contracted the virus. Her research team is working with groups from the University of Cambridge and the University of Kent to start those tests for the general population as quickly as possible.

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/oxford-st...221100162.html
    I remember back in early January, I had a nasty little flu, and my thought was "Well so much for taking that vaccine". I remember clearly that the symptoms I had do seem to match Coronavirus' symptoms. I even had a dry cough that continued for almost a month.

  • #2
    Originally posted by forwardinchrist48 View Post
    New research by Stanford University indicates that the rate is likely much lower, by orders of magnitude. Rather than the 1% to 3.4% rate being bandied about, the actual fatality rate is likely much closer to 0.01%, which is comparable to the seasonal flu, I believe.



    This seems to dovetail perfectly with another bit of new research, from Oxford University, which revealed flaws in the Imperial study (the one claiming millions of deaths in the UK and the US, which has caused all of thse lockdowns). That research indicates that possibly up to 50 percent of the UK has already had coronavirus in their systems and have antibodies to it, and that the outbreak in the UK likely began in January (back before China was even admitting it could go human to human), and that the amount with little to no symptoms is much higher - something that is likely the case here in the US.

    I remember back in early January, I had a nasty little flu, and my thought was "Well so much for taking that vaccine". I remember clearly that the symptoms I had do seem to match Coronavirus' symptoms. I even had a dry cough that continued for almost a month.
    Me too. I had a slight fever and shortness of breath for days, my wife did too.

    Comment


    • #3


      New data from Iceland it gives us a little more information too. They tested random samplings of people in society and found that 50% of all cases are asymptomatic. Then we have to take into account that it's more likely that the more extreme cases are the ones that seek hospital and medical care and get diagnosed. That still seems like a very large percentage of people with very extreme symptoms.

      There are a few other things that we need to take into account when we compare this to the flu.
      As far as I understand the flu doesn't come in a frenzy overwhelming hospitals all at once so much so that there is no protective wear for the medical staff. We can't treat this like the flu. I am not saying that you are saying this but we must take into account that our medical staff is on the front line of a war risking their own life and their families lives to help us through this crisis. We must not overwhelm them.

      As far as I know, the flu doesn't leave people with permanent damage to their lungs and reduced capacity up to 20 to 30%. However, in some of the more critical cases coronavirus it can leave lasting damage in cured patients.

      Let's remember that lots of young healthy people are dying of coronavirus that would likely easily kick the flu. For example, the Chinese Doctor who was trying to sound the alarm was 33 or 35 years old or something. He died. I do not personally worry about dying of the flu because I am in my thirties and I know that I could kick it. But I am worried about the coronavirus because I know that it can strike my generation very seriously. My chances of needing hospital care are significantly higher with the coronavirus than the flu.

      Anyway, if this ends up being much less deadly than we think of course that is relieving compared to the level of death rate numbers we are seeing in some reports. That being said, seeing that places in like Italy a death rate of 10% is quite alarming even with older generation.


      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by forwardinchrist48 View Post
        New research by Stanford University indicates that the rate is likely much lower, by orders of magnitude. Rather than the 1% to 3.4% rate being bandied about, the actual fatality rate is likely much closer to 0.01%, which is comparable to the seasonal flu, I believe.



        This seems to dovetail perfectly with another bit of new research, from Oxford University, which revealed flaws in the Imperial study (the one claiming millions of deaths in the UK and the US, which has caused all of thse lockdowns). That research indicates that possibly up to 50 percent of the UK has already had coronavirus in their systems and have antibodies to it, and that the outbreak in the UK likely began in January (back before China was even admitting it could go human to human), and that the amount with little to no symptoms is much higher - something that is likely the case here in the US.

        I remember back in early January, I had a nasty little flu, and my thought was "Well so much for taking that vaccine". I remember clearly that the symptoms I had do seem to match Coronavirus' symptoms. I even had a dry cough that continued for almost a month.
        I think that there is good evidence that the new coronavirus is much more dangerous than the flu. Perhaps the closed thing a controlled experiment is the Diamond Princess cruise ship, where all the passengers were tested:

        As of 16 March 2020, at least 712 out of the 3,711 passengers and crew had tested positive for the virus. As of March 24, ten of those who were on board have died from the disease.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_Princess_(ship)

        That works out to a fatality rate of 1.4% of cases, which is roughly 10 times the fatality rate for the flu.

        Even more worrisome is that for every fatality several more required hospitalization with ventilators. In widespread epidemic, the number of patients would exceed the number of ventilators and many more would die. That is what is happening in parts of northern Italy, and the fatality rate is many times higher than that for the flu.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Theophilos View Post

          I think that there is good evidence that the new coronavirus is much more dangerous than the flu. Perhaps the closed thing a controlled experiment is the Diamond Princess cruise ship, where all the passengers were tested:

          As of 16 March 2020, at least 712 out of the 3,711 passengers and crew had tested positive for the virus. As of March 24, ten of those who were on board have died from the disease.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_Princess_(ship)

          That works out to a fatality rate of 1.4% of cases, which is roughly 10 times the fatality rate for the flu.

          Even more worrisome is that for every fatality several more required hospitalization with ventilators. In widespread epidemic, the number of patients would exceed the number of ventilators and many more would die. That is what is happening in parts of northern Italy, and the fatality rate is many times higher than that for the flu.
          3,711

          How many Obituaries in 2 months in a town of 3,711

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by nouveau View Post

            3,711

            How many Obituaries in 2 months in a town of 3,711
            For 712 people who tested positive there should be an average of 1 death in a two-month period based on the average death rate in the US (863 deaths/year/100000 people).

            The crew is probably younger and healthier than the general population. Likewise people with severe health problems may be too sick to travel so the people who are most likely to die are not likely to be on a cruise.

            If you doubt the potential magnitude of the problem, there are videos online showing page upon page of obituaries from towns in northern Italy where normally there are only one or two pages.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by forwardinchrist48 View Post
              New research by Stanford University indicates that the rate is likely much lower, by orders of magnitude. Rather than the 1% to 3.4% rate being bandied about, the actual fatality rate is likely much closer to 0.01%, which is comparable to the seasonal flu, I believe.



              This seems to dovetail perfectly with another bit of new research, from Oxford University, which revealed flaws in the Imperial study (the one claiming millions of deaths in the UK and the US, which has caused all of thse lockdowns). That research indicates that possibly up to 50 percent of the UK has already had coronavirus in their systems and have antibodies to it, and that the outbreak in the UK likely began in January (back before China was even admitting it could go human to human), and that the amount with little to no symptoms is much higher - something that is likely the case here in the US.

              I remember back in early January, I had a nasty little flu, and my thought was "Well so much for taking that vaccine". I remember clearly that the symptoms I had do seem to match Coronavirus' symptoms. I even had a dry cough that continued for almost a month.
              I really, sincerely hope this is the actual case. I fear it isn't, but I hope it is.
              Jo Jorgensen 2020


              A CARM Liberal:

              "What is it about these mongoloids"

              Another CARM Liberal:
              "'Mongoloid' isn’t racist."

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Gondwanaland4815 View Post

                I really, sincerely hope this is the actual case. I fear it isn't, but I hope it is.


                500,000 adjusted to 20,000

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by forwardinchrist48 View Post
                  New research by Stanford University indicates that the rate is likely much lower, by orders of magnitude. Rather than the 1% to 3.4% rate being bandied about, the actual fatality rate is likely much closer to 0.01%, which is comparable to the seasonal flu, I believe.



                  This seems to dovetail perfectly with another bit of new research, from Oxford University, which revealed flaws in the Imperial study (the one claiming millions of deaths in the UK and the US, which has caused all of thse lockdowns). That research indicates that possibly up to 50 percent of the UK has already had coronavirus in their systems and have antibodies to it, and that the outbreak in the UK likely began in January (back before China was even admitting it could go human to human), and that the amount with little to no symptoms is much higher - something that is likely the case here in the US.

                  I remember back in early January, I had a nasty little flu, and my thought was "Well so much for taking that vaccine". I remember clearly that the symptoms I had do seem to match Coronavirus' symptoms. I even had a dry cough that continued for almost a month.
                  I hope they are right. Lots of experts disagree. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...still-unclear/

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by forwardinchrist48 View Post
                    New research by Stanford University indicates that the rate is likely much lower, by orders of magnitude. Rather than the 1% to 3.4% rate being bandied about, the actual fatality rate is likely much closer to 0.01%, which is comparable to the seasonal flu, I believe.
                    So in a country like Italy, with 60,000,000 people, there will only be about 6,000 deaths, even if everyone in the country is infected.

                    I'm sure they'll be glad to know that it's all over, and the last couple of thousand deaths were imaginary. And the people in Spain will be glad to know they only have a few hundred deaths to go.


                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                      So in a country like Italy, with 60,000,000 people, there will only be about 6,000 deaths, even if everyone in the country is infected.

                      I'm sure they'll be glad to know that it's all over, and the last couple of thousand deaths were imaginary. And the people in Spain will be glad to know they only have a few hundred deaths to go.



                      Don't hold your breath for a [rational] reply to that!
                      "Mother Nature is not only all powerful, she’s also unfeeling. She can inflict her virus on your grandmother on Monday and blow down your house with a tornado on Wednesday and come back on Friday and flood your basement. We need to reopen and we need to adapt, but not in ways that challenge Mother Nature to a duel. That is not smart. Because she hasn’t lost a duel in 4.5 billion years."

                      Thomas L Friedman, NYT 19 May 2020

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                        So in a country like Italy, with 60,000,000 people, there will only be about 6,000 deaths, even if everyone in the country is infected.

                        I'm sure they'll be glad to know that it's all over, and the last couple of thousand deaths were imaginary. And the people in Spain will be glad to know they only have a few hundred deaths to go.

                        Estimated average.

                        There are other factors that have an effect on mortality rates.
                        "The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society" Edward Bernays

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by forwardinchrist48 View Post
                          This seems to dovetail perfectly with another bit of new research, from Oxford University, which revealed flaws in the Imperial study (the one claiming millions of deaths in the UK and the US, which has caused all of thse lockdowns). That research indicates that possibly up to 50 percent of the UK has already had coronavirus in their systems and have antibodies to it, and that the outbreak in the UK likely began in January (back before China was even admitting it could go human to human), and that the amount with little to no symptoms is much higher - something that is likely the case here in the US.
                          The original article on the Oxford research appeared in the Financial Times, to which there was an interesting letter in response.

                          That letter stated that the Oxford study figure had no empirical justification. It also pointed out "that the study paper included a contact for press inquiries even before it was peer reviewed, or even checked against the Italian hospitalisation and death data."

                          While acknowledging that the reason behind the authors’ intention may have been to highlight the need for the serological antibody test, the letter cautioned that "the sensationalist media headlines the paper is generating have dangerous implications." The letter was from six senior figures in epidemiology and public health.
                          Last edited by Hypatia_Alexandria; 03-28-2020, 11:02 AM.
                          "Mother Nature is not only all powerful, she’s also unfeeling. She can inflict her virus on your grandmother on Monday and blow down your house with a tornado on Wednesday and come back on Friday and flood your basement. We need to reopen and we need to adapt, but not in ways that challenge Mother Nature to a duel. That is not smart. Because she hasn’t lost a duel in 4.5 billion years."

                          Thomas L Friedman, NYT 19 May 2020

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by joyous song View Post

                            Estimated average.

                            There are other factors that have an effect on mortality rates.
                            Of course. If hospitals are overwhelmed, then the mortality rate is much higher. This is the whole idea behind the "flatten the curve" meme.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X