Latest from the CDC
 

I will point out updated numbers from the CDC which is showing a newly revised average mortality rate of .004% which I will opine is a very conservative number as the known exposure rate is still a relative unknown but the numbers in that regard continue to rise at such a significant rate the mortality rate will continue to fall. Here is the "official" break down by age group:

Age Group : Mortality Rate

0-49: 0.0005
50-64: 0.002
65+: 0.013
Overall: 0.004

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...scenarios.html

I have said all along and some have scoffed at my saying so, that the numbers (based on first hand knowledge of ongoing COVID studies) are showing and continue to show it is not as deadly as early indications seemed to have indicated. I can tell you these numbers as reported by the CDC are estimates and very conservative however as the data continues to pour in they will likely be further revised downwards. Like any kind of statistical data gathering it takes time to compile the numbers to reach such conclusions.

What is known right now is quite interesting when you consider this information is being fed into the CDC and is being shared with those that are making decisions on public policy regarding what the public is "allowed" to do.

You can reach your own conclusions on why we continue to see extensions of forced business closures and lockdowns - especially when the data is also showing "social distancing", wearing of face masks (with a few exceptions) and isolation is widely ineffective.

Me thinks your decimal point is in the wrong location based upon collaborative CDC data....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Hi Maxum,

I cannot find the actual data you used from the site you linked. Can you cut and paste a chart so we can see if granite is correct? Thanks

Scenario planning infomation
 

The linked report from the CDC was not dated, but appears to have been published around May 20'th. Some interesting data there. Not official numbers, but best estimates to be used for scenario planning. What caught my eye was the best estimate for R0, the spreading ratio. They set it at 2.5, meaning on average, those who catch it spread it to 2.5 people. That is a recipe for a return to epidemic growth. A low ratio of deaths among those with symptoms is still a problem if 10's of millions more people catch it.

There is a epidemic calculator at https://gabgoh.github.io/COVID/ where you can plug in the CDC numbers and come up with your own scenarios. After playing with it for a while, it appears that there are scenarios where the lakes region is not out of the woods yet, having seen less than 15% of what the total death count could be.

The paper is worth a read though. New information about time from exposure to symptoms, infectious period, percentage with no symptoms, hospital stay lengths and some morbidity topics.

Fatality ratios
 

This is what the data means:

4 of 1000 people who show symptoms of the disease die.

35% of people asymptomatic means there are a lot of people walking around that don't know they have it. Be aware this is not only highly unusual, but also greatly increases the number of spreaders that are out there

R-sub 0 of 2.5 means that it's transmission spreads 2.5 times greater than influenza (R-sub-0 of influenza is around 1)

Bottom-line is there are a lot of people who are spreading it (through no fault - they don't know they are doing it!), and the transmission rate is exceptionally high

Funny how some think this isn't a big deal.

There is certainly new information coming out daily from around the world as we continue to learn about this novel virus. There are indications that the virus may not be as contagious as previously thought during asymptomatic cases or during incubation times as the viral load is considerably weaker. There is a study out of California that showed less contagion during asymptomatic times. There is also a report out of Germany agreeing. This is significant as people can quarantine if showing symptoms greatly reducing spread and threat of second wave.

There is also a report out of Italy indicating the virus may be losing its potency thereby weakening COVID-19.

This is definitely an optimistic post as I tend to be a glass is half full person. It looks like we are turning the corner in our battle against this virus and a second wave is far from a guarantee.

Not a certainty - but probably will come back
 

I agree anything can happen. Nevertheless it more than likely will be back. See my post on a separate thread...

Will be interesting to see....
 

...how many outbreaks of Covid will result from the riots. Few are wearing masks so if what we've been told is accurate then there WILL be huge outbreaks in the riot cities. No mask = outbreak. Especially in highly populated areas.

I think the Chinese virus reporting has moved to the “2nd hand news” category...

Just to be clear, .004% is 4 in 100,000 NOT 1,000.

The original poster, unintentionally I assume, confused ratio with percentage. 0.4% (or 4 in 1,000 ) is correct. This had been previously noted in this thread.

WorldOmeter
 

According to WorldOmeter, the current death rate in the US is 323 per million of Americans which is .0323%. Of course, this is an estimate and could be high or low based on what you want to believe.

You are confusing things. The number that this thread is about is the risk of dying IF you get sick from the virus. The death rate you are you are referencing above is the number of deaths per the entire population, not the chance of dying if u get sick.

Actually, the Worldometer Mortality rate in the US and the Johns Hopkins mortality rate is about 100,000 US deaths with 1.8 million cases which is about a case mortality rate of 5.8%.

This is at odds with the CDC numbers but that is a different issue.

I am only discussing math, not what the real numbers are.

Why is data so hard to interpret?
 

For anyone who looks at the data, it is NOT expressed in percentages. So as some of you have correctly picked up it is 4 in 1000.

The challenge is obvious.

Liars figure and figures lie.

People will present any data in a light that supports their position - no one is going to present negative data when they voice and opinion so the challenge is always:

1. When pronouns are used such as "they" or "them" we need to determine the actual source, generic pronouns are near useless to me, I always need the who.

2. I also verify the data - in this case the data was presented but the OP didn't do the math right and presented a number that supported his view and wasn't the data presented by the original source.

In the end, I'm skeptical of all information until I can verify it myself. Unfortunately it's the way of the world and it's been that way for me long before our current president.

Is it true that the average age of those who die from covid19 is older than the average age that folks die in the US?

If that's true does anyone have any regrets in the way this has been handled?

What?
 

I don't get the stream of consciousness...

You have two complete thoughts that don't relate to each other at all. Maybe you can expand?

Is it true that the sky is blue?
If it is, do you have regrets about eating too much ice cream?

That's what they want you to believe!

I just go along with the blue sky theory so I can get more ice cream.