Beat the Hell said:

---

Which means 75-90%. Which makes you CFR???

---

That means that cases are 1.25 to 1.5 times as high as those reported. Not 75-90%.

cone said:

---

it's gotta be higher than that

---

Why? What other studies do you know about other than the Diamond Princess and Vo' Italy?

VaultingChemist said:

---

cone said:

---

it's gotta be higher than that

---

Why? What other studies do you know about other than the Diamond Princess and Vo' Italy?

---

If I'm not mistaken those only looked at the number of asymptotic cases. There is anecdotal evidence that large amounts of mild cases aren't being counted either due to our inability to test everyone.

well it's the combined asymptomatic and the people who have mild symptoms and didn't/haven't/won't get tested

that's more about our lack of testing tbh

there's no way there's only 1400 cases of the bug in Harris County

Beat the Hell said:

---

Facts

---

I would like to see those facts. I'm not disagreeing. I just haven't seen them.

Right now if you divide deaths (69,424) by confirmed cases (1,272,869) you get a 5.45 death rate. In order to get to a <1% death rate you have to have roughly 7 million total infections. So that means there would need to be 5,700,000 asymptomatic and undiagnosed cases. Or roughly 80% of cases are going unconfirmed. Again this isn't impossible and I'd love for this to be accurate.

Just where are the facts stating this?

none of that matters now, though

only thing we're concerned about really is hospitalizations

the undercounted infection numbers will wash out in the serology surveillance and generally will factor into how we approach the second and third and fourth waves

it's good if this thing is wider than we hope, but it doesn't help or hurt us. we aren't going to let it go wild in any event and it's likely we'll get a vaccine prior to any sort of herd immunity

Beat the Hell said:

---

Well since will never know how many people of have had it... CFR is useless. Count deaths and hospitalizations.

I would bet a handsome amount that less than 1% of those infected die from CV.

---

I believe you're confusing CFR with IFR. Case fatality rate Just depends on whatever you're defining as a case for your study. If we say cases are symptomatic infections, it'll be higher. If you were doing a study on medication and cases were defined as only severe or critical it would be very high, maybe 15%.

Infection fatality rate is an estimate including all infections - including asymptomatic infections. Well have a good idea eventually of this based off of antibody testing.

VaultingChemist said:

---

Beat the Hell said:

---

Well since will never know how many people of have had it... CFR is useless. Count deaths and hospitalizations.

I would bet a handsome amount that less than 1% of those infected die from CV.

---

Antibody tests will be able to determine the CFR when they become available. Dr. Fauci just stated that the percentage of people that have been infected but not counted in official numbers is between 25% and 50% of the number of current cases.

---

Fauci said that? I'd like to see that. Does he not realize that people who show symptoms but aren't at high risk generally aren't even getting tested ? Add to that the large number of asymptomatic infections and there is no chance only 25-50% of infected aren't getting confirmed and counted. Frankly, I don't think that estimate is anywhere close to accurate.

DTP02 said:

---

VaultingChemist said:

---

Beat the Hell said:

---

Well since will never know how many people of have had it... CFR is useless. Count deaths and hospitalizations.

I would bet a handsome amount that less than 1% of those infected die from CV.

---

Antibody tests will be able to determine the CFR when they become available. Dr. Fauci just stated that the percentage of people that have been infected but not counted in official numbers is between 25% and 50% of the number of current cases.

---

Fauci said that? I'd like to see that. Does he not realize that people who show symptoms but aren't at high risk generally aren't even getting tested ? Add to that the large number of asymptomatic infections and there is no chance only 25-50% of infected aren't getting confirmed and counted. Frankly, I don't think that estimate is anywhere close to accurate.

---

Yes, he stated the number of asymptomatic cases being between 25% and 50% higher than reported cases, with those figures being a very wild guess, and no agreement among the task force experts.

VaultingChemist said:

---

DTP02 said:

---

VaultingChemist said:

---

Beat the Hell said:

---

Well since will never know how many people of have had it... CFR is useless. Count deaths and hospitalizations.

I would bet a handsome amount that less than 1% of those infected die from CV.

---

Antibody tests will be able to determine the CFR when they become available. Dr. Fauci just stated that the percentage of people that have been infected but not counted in official numbers is between 25% and 50% of the number of current cases.

---

Fauci said that? I'd like to see that. Does he not realize that people who show symptoms but aren't at high risk generally aren't even getting tested ? Add to that the large number of asymptomatic infections and there is no chance only 25-50% of infected aren't getting confirmed and counted. Frankly, I don't think that estimate is anywhere close to accurate.

---

Yes, he stated the number of asymptomatic cases being between 25% and 50% higher than reported cases, with those figures being a very wild guess, and no agreement among the task force experts.

---

So if you have 50% asymptomatic plus another 30% with symptoms that don't get a test and you are below a 1% CFR. It's possible. Not factual yet though.

I've admittedly tuned out the live news for a few days now. We've been on the ~1% CFR for a (relatively) long time and now people are saying its 4-7%?! That's kind of a big jump.

How am I not seeing that as major freaking headlines?

YouBet said:

---

I've admittedly tuned out the live news for a few days now. We've been on the ~1% CFR for a (relatively) long time and now people are saying its 4-7%?! That's kind of a big jump.

How am I not seeing that as major freaking headlines?

---

They're looking backwards 7 days I believe

YouBet said:

---

I've admittedly tuned out the live news for a few days now. We've been on the ~1% CFR for a (relatively) long time and now people are saying its 4-7%?! That's kind of a big jump.

How am I not seeing that as major freaking headlines?

---

You want full scale panic? Tell people "right now if you have a confirmed case of covid-19 the world wide average says you have a 1 in 18.5 chance of dying"

Even though that is a fact, it's not a complete picture. There are asymptomatics and people that don't get tested.

It would be irresponsible to report that fact.

BTHOthatguy said:

---

YouBet said:

---

I've admittedly tuned out the live news for a few days now. We've been on the ~1% CFR for a (relatively) long time and now people are saying its 4-7%?! That's kind of a big jump.

How am I not seeing that as major freaking headlines?

---

You want full scale panic? Tell people "right now if you have a confirmed case of covid-19 the world wide average says you have a 1 in 18.5 chance of dying"

Even though that is a fact, it's not a complete picture. There are asymptomatics and people that don't get tested.

It would be irresponsible to report that fact.

---

Then it's an irrelevant number and pointless to throw around on here as if that is the CFR when we know it's bullsh^t.

YouBet said:

---

BTHOthatguy said:

---

YouBet said:

---

I've admittedly tuned out the live news for a few days now. We've been on the ~1% CFR for a (relatively) long time and now people are saying its 4-7%?! That's kind of a big jump.

How am I not seeing that as major freaking headlines?

---

You want full scale panic? Tell people "right now if you have a confirmed case of covid-19 the world wide average says you have a 1 in 18.5 chance of dying"

Even though that is a fact, it's not a complete picture. There are asymptomatics and people that don't get tested.

It would be irresponsible to report that fact.

---

Then it's an irrelevant number and pointless to throw around on here as if that is the CFR when we know it's bullsh^t.

---

Yep. Need more testing so we have that context. The discouraging thing is the "confirmed CFR" has gone up as testing has improved. S Korea might be the best example. They have the best testing and their system hasn't been overrun. Still their "confirmed CFR" has tripled in a month.

again. Death per case is CFR. The definition of a case right now is lab confirmed. It is not a lie or wrong.

Infection fatality rate includes lab confirmed PLUS an estimate of all others. CFR can be true at 7% and IFR can be true at 0.7%.

k2aggie07 said:

---

again. Death per case is CFR. The definition of a case right now is lab confirmed. It is not a lie or wrong.

Infection fatality rate includes lab confirmed PLUS an estimate of all others. CFR can be true at 7% and IFR can be true at 0.7%.

---

So if S Korea is the gold standard and you assume 50% asymptomatic. You get an IFR of .9% or 1 in 111 infected die.

S Korea also makes me really doubt 50% asymptomatic. Or at least if you are asymptomatic you are also contagious. How would you possibly stop the spread as well as they have if there are that many healthy people walking around shedding the virus.

Nearly universal mask usage probably plays a significant role.

k2aggie07 said:

---

again. Death per case is CFR. The definition of a case right now is lab confirmed. It is not a lie or wrong.

Infection fatality rate includes lab confirmed PLUS an estimate of all others. CFR can be true at 7% and IFR can be true at 0.7%.

---

True. I am looking for any and all reasons that the IFR will eventually be lower than 3%. Right now I am not seeing much in the U.S. numbers to contradict it. Of course NY statistics are predominantly represented in the cases and deaths.

k2aggie07 said:

---

again. Death per case is CFR. The definition of a case right now is lab confirmed. It is not a lie or wrong.

Infection fatality rate includes lab confirmed PLUS an estimate of all others. CFR can be true at 7% and IFR can be true at 0.7%.

---

I have forgotten this over this exponentially long disease outbreak.

VaultingChemist said:

---

What's your best guess on U.S. CFR currently? I think it is close to 4%, with a chance to approach 7% if hospitals are overwhelmed. I find it odd that these numbers are not being discussed in the media.

---

Made a mistake with the NY calc on the last graph.

That's roughly what I suspect as well. Death rate will be quite a bit higher if the hospitals are overrun.

Deaths lead recoveries by 1-2 weeks.
Many recoveries aren't documented.
Deaths are over counted. Yeah, they might test positive, but if they had serious co-morbidities, is the virus really what killed everyone who died while testing positive? Many, yes. Most, probably. All? Not a chance.

FYI...there are side effects to treatments....

Mr.Infectious said:

---

FYI...there are side effects to treatments....

---

As I said on one of the first threads about this treatment. Still, many/most people don't have hallucinations on chloroquine.

>2000 people on unemployment per 1 death

This seems like it's going to be an effective solution....

aginlakeway said:

---

DeWrecking Crew said:

---

UncoverAg00 said:

---

We have innate immunity to flu, not so for covid 19. That means that you go longer where the virus replication goes unchallenged by any immune response, meaning more damge while showing no symptoms. This results in more contact transmission than the flu. Compound that with a more efficient means of attachment than that of the flu and you have an recipe for ridiculous spread. It's not "just the flu". It very much needs to be respected for what it is... a silent invader on the prowl for the immuno-compromised. This is the flu's big brother and if we're not careful it'll be happy to prove it.

---

You care to wager? I'll take the flu kills more people this year, you take the silent invader? $100?

---

I'd like some of that action. I'll take flu. And give him odds.

---

Is this still open for wagers?

Mr.Infectious said:

---

FYI...there are side effects to treatments....

---

I have read this happens with Chloroquine and not Hydroxycholoroquine.

So about that bright idea San Francisco had to move the homeless into hotels.

To recap:

Quote:

---

The city is working to set up the Moscone Center as a shelter, a sensible idea. An even better one would be to revive the recently closed California Pacific Medical Center hospital campus and erect MASH-style medical units. These would allow for closely monitored and efficient care. In fact, the city could use this as an opportunity to provide intensive integrated treatment, including substance-abuse services.

Instead, Mayor London Breed and the Human Services Agency came up with the plan to route over 3,000 people currently living in shelters and navigation centers into hotels. The city is planning to put thousands of physically and psychologically sick people into private hotel rooms, in some of the most luxurious hotels in San Franciscothe InterContinental, Mark Hopkins, and The Palace. Occupants would receive three meals per day, hygiene products, and access to nurses.

---

Those are some pricey hotel rooms!

Quote:

---

At first glance, the plan appears sensible. The shutdown has devastated the hospitality industry, and hotels stand empty. Filling rooms with guests of any kind is attractive for hotel owners, especially since tax dollars will foot nearly all of the bill.

On closer examination, however, serious problems emerge. According to Matt Haney, a city supervisor actively promoting the proposal, occupants would be quarantined to their assigned rooms and be required to follow strict rules. But many of these future luxury hotel guests are hardcore drug addicts. How will the city manage their drug needs in the midst of a pandemic?

---

Quote:

---

Haney concedes that intravenous drug use presents a major challenge to the city's plan. It's likely, for instance, that many guests will overdose in their rooms. Others may detox, alone and in agony. Providing addicts with access to maintenance medication such as Suboxone or methadone is a good idea, Haney says, yet these treatments require precise administration. No one has figured out the logistics of providing drug treatment to thousands of addicted residents who may not be interested in receiving it.

---

You think?? But wait, it gets worse.

Quote:

---

There's also no exit plan. A four-month contract for the room occupants is being considered, but where all these people will go afterward is undetermined. California law stipulates that a person lodging in a hotel room for longer than 30 days is considered a tenant. Therefore, thousands of homeless people who have stayed in the posh hotels would become legal permanent residents, with protections against eviction.

Even Haney acknowledges the problem. "The city should make it clear that they would not be considered tenants," he says. "It needs to be temporary. Once the emergency is over, they should leave." Yet sending people back onto the streets will surely be met with resistance from homeless-rights activists, some government officials, and the homeless themselves. Who would want to pack up and move from The Palace, after all?

---

LINK

Nancy? Your district is about to make a huge mistake.

This past weekend was a Chinese holiday. They were packing the tourist sites, despite government warnings to not do it.

How long before the housekeeping staff has to clean up **** in the hallways?

I'm going to say under 2.5 days...