BlackGoldAg2011 said:

---

queso1 said:

---

If these figures hold up as true, the CFR for healthily people under 40 is probably less of a chance being eaten by a shark in a lake.

---

since you are making a quantifiable claim, would you mind providing what the percentages are for each of those scenarios? I assume you actually did some level of work to ballpark them before making such a statement...

---

SkiMo said:

---

ETFan said:

---

agforlife97 said:

---

And even with this many cases, the hospital system, while strained, was not overwhelmed in NYC. The hospital ship and overflow facilities were barely even used. That was the justification for the massive lockdown, the fear that the hospital systems in the US would be overwhelmed. It's clear that that won't happen in most places in the US at this point. In fact the hostpital systems are being strained to the breaking point for lack of patients.

This disease also ravages elderly people. The death rate for 75+ is pretty darn high. But the death rate for people under 60 for sure is probably not worse than seasonal flu, and is probably overall less dangerous, as seasonal flu can and does kill young children. The overall death rate from C-19 will probably be 0.3-0.6%.

---

Why do think that is?

---

Exactly. That was the entire point of the nationwide quarantine. And as predicted then, people would come out and say, "See! It wasn't that bad".

---

Complete Idiot said:

---

agforlife97 said:

---

But the death rate for people under 60 for sure is probably not worse than seasonal flu, and is probably overall less dangerous, as seasonal flu can and does kill young children.

---

From another thread, and I haven't personally confirmed the numbers

---

queso1 said:

---

BlackGoldAg2011 said:

---

queso1 said:

---

If these figures hold up as true, the CFR for healthily people under 40 is probably less of a chance being eaten by a shark in a lake.

---

since you are making a quantifiable claim, would you mind providing what the percentages are for each of those scenarios? I assume you actually did some level of work to ballpark them before making such a statement...

---

Well, ok. There are a variety of freshwater sharks, but to my knowledge, none of them are human predators or large enough to pose a risk. Of course, in North America, I believe the only shark able to survive for long periods of time in fresh water are bull sharks. They typically swim up rivers and foreseeably could get into a lake. Bull sharks are thought to be responsible for the majority of shark attacks in the United States; however, these attacks are typically limited to surf conditions in salt water. I understand that the movie Jaws was loosely based on the shark attacks in New Jersey in the early 20th Century. There's a great book on it called "Close to Shore." I highly recommend it. It's not as exciting as Jaws, but it's good. There are historical reports around that time that sharks (again, likely bull sharks) were responsible for some deaths in creeks and rivers. The book covers this. In any event, the point is that the chances of being attacked by a shark in a lake are very low...the chances of being eaten are even lower - bull sharks do not typically eat humans. Most sharks do not like the taste of human flesh; often it is an act of territorial aggression rather than hunger. So, the chances of being eaten by a shark in a lake are very slim. Did you get all that?

Stay with me here...it's critical to understand that I said "if these figures hold up as true." That might be difficult, but trust me, if you stay with me, you might get my point. My understanding is that there are 328,000,000 people in the United States. If the figures in New York State apply to the United States as a whole to the entire United States (after all, we are treating the entire United States the same as New York right now), that could mean there are (or could be) 49,200,000 people in our country infected with COVID (to calculate this, you multiply the total population by .15 - you are welcome to use .139 or .14, but I believe the distinction would be negligible).

Then, if you take the total amount of current deaths in the US "attributed" to Covid, let's just say 50,000, that gives you a CFR (for the entire population) of 50,000/49,200,000, which equals 0.1%. That's 1/10th of a percent. Now, this is where it it gets tricky...that's for all Americans from birth to lets say 112 years of age. We know that the elderly and sick have a much higher CFR than healthy people under 40. I've seen reports of the CFR for healthy people under 40 being right around 0.32% based on data that is only using current CDC numbers. Now, let's extrapolate that out with the potential higher numbers of potential cases, and the chances of death are much, much lower. I'll let someone with better math skills figure that out - right now were are just talking common sense and logic.

Now, it might not actually be as low as your chances of getting eaten by a shark in a lake, but I doubt anyone ever got as nervous as a long legged cat in a room full of rocking chairs either. People tend to use phrases that aren't intended to be taken literally such as "you've got a better chance of dying on the way to the airport than in a plane crash." But, if these figures hold up as true, the CFR for healthily people under 40 is probably less of a chance being eaten by a shark in a lake.

I hope this helps. Continue following your existing modeling.

---

agforlife97 said:

---

SkiMo said:

---

ETFan said:

---

agforlife97 said:

---

And even with this many cases, the hospital system, while strained, was not overwhelmed in NYC. The hospital ship and overflow facilities were barely even used. That was the justification for the massive lockdown, the fear that the hospital systems in the US would be overwhelmed. It's clear that that won't happen in most places in the US at this point. In fact the hostpital systems are being strained to the breaking point for lack of patients.

This disease also ravages elderly people. The death rate for 75+ is pretty darn high. But the death rate for people under 60 for sure is probably not worse than seasonal flu, and is probably overall less dangerous, as seasonal flu can and does kill young children. The overall death rate from C-19 will probably be 0.3-0.6%.

---

Why do think that is?

---

Exactly. That was the entire point of the nationwide quarantine. And as predicted then, people would come out and say, "See! It wasn't that bad".

---

There's really no evidence the full lockdown had any effect. There's not a lot of difference between many countries that did total lockdown vs. countries that took more sensible measures (social distancing plus telling old people to stay home).

---

Squadron7 said:

---

agforlife97 said:

---

SkiMo said:

---

ETFan said:

---

agforlife97 said:

---

And even with this many cases, the hospital system, while strained, was not overwhelmed in NYC. The hospital ship and overflow facilities were barely even used. That was the justification for the massive lockdown, the fear that the hospital systems in the US would be overwhelmed. It's clear that that won't happen in most places in the US at this point. In fact the hostpital systems are being strained to the breaking point for lack of patients.

This disease also ravages elderly people. The death rate for 75+ is pretty darn high. But the death rate for people under 60 for sure is probably not worse than seasonal flu, and is probably overall less dangerous, as seasonal flu can and does kill young children. The overall death rate from C-19 will probably be 0.3-0.6%.

---

Why do think that is?

---

Exactly. That was the entire point of the nationwide quarantine. And as predicted then, people would come out and say, "See! It wasn't that bad".

---

There's really no evidence the full lockdown had any effect. There's not a lot of difference between many countries that did total lockdown vs. countries that took more sensible measures (social distancing plus telling old people to stay home).

---

A NYC "Lockdown" that leaves mass transit still running is not a lockdown at all. Short of holding stadium events again, what could, say, Houston do that would match the effect of a virus spread that people crammed together in a subway car has? Especially now given the population as a whole is much more aware and careful....especially those in the highest risk groups.

---

agforlife97 said:

---

Complete Idiot said:

---

agforlife97 said:

---

But the death rate for people under 60 for sure is probably not worse than seasonal flu, and is probably overall less dangerous, as seasonal flu can and does kill young children.

---

From another thread, and I haven't personally confirmed the numbers

---

This graph shows you cumulative deaths, not death rate.

---

cone said:

---

the ultimate IFR seems destined for 1%

but that's heavily weighted for the above 60

and the hospitalization rate maybe much lower for the below 60 than anticipated, even with obesity, etc

I do hope that with a good early treatment and severe social distancing for the older people, you can knock this down to bad flu. give yourself enough time economically to get a booster shot or mass production of a antibody treatment

---

BlackGoldAg2011 said:

---

agforlife97 said:

---

Complete Idiot said:

---

agforlife97 said:

---

But the death rate for people under 60 for sure is probably not worse than seasonal flu, and is probably overall less dangerous, as seasonal flu can and does kill young children.

---

From another thread, and I haven't personally confirmed the numbers

---

This graph shows you cumulative deaths, not death rate.

---

that's because for COVID, we don't yet know the number of infected period (though the OP study gets us closer) much less by age group. What this graph shows is that, when compared to the worst seasonal flu year in the last decade, COVID is likely significantly more dangerous than the flu even for under 45 year olds. Now there may be some truth that for young children (<10) this is significantly less dangerous than flu, which as a parent makes me breathe much easier, but for the rest of the population that doesn't seem to hold true.

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

BlackGoldAg2011 said:

---

agforlife97 said:

---

Complete Idiot said:

---

agforlife97 said:

---

But the death rate for people under 60 for sure is probably not worse than seasonal flu, and is probably overall less dangerous, as seasonal flu can and does kill young children.

---

From another thread, and I haven't personally confirmed the numbers

---

This graph shows you cumulative deaths, not death rate.

---

that's because for COVID, we don't yet know the number of infected period (though the OP study gets us closer) much less by age group. What this graph shows is that, when compared to the worst seasonal flu year in the last decade, COVID is likely significantly more dangerous than the flu even for under 45 year olds. Now there may be some truth that for young children (<10) this is significantly less dangerous than flu, which as a parent makes me breathe much easier, but for the rest of the population that doesn't seem to hold true.

---

I haven't seen a CFR age breakdown for the US, but there has been a graph of data from Italy, Spain, and two other countries posted here a few times that showed the CFR for those between 30 and 40 at around 0.5%, under 30 was even lower. That is just for confirmed cases. The actual fatality rate is likely much lower. It is possible for this so be more dangerous than the flu for those under 40 and also still not a legitimate threat.

---

agforlife97 said:

---

Complete Idiot said:

---

agforlife97 said:

---

But the death rate for people under 60 for sure is probably not worse than seasonal flu, and is probably overall less dangerous, as seasonal flu can and does kill young children.

---

From another thread, and I haven't personally confirmed the numbers

---

This graph shows you cumulative deaths, not death rate.

---

Complete Idiot said:

---

agforlife97 said:

---

Complete Idiot said:

---

agforlife97 said:

---

But the death rate for people under 60 for sure is probably not worse than seasonal flu, and is probably overall less dangerous, as seasonal flu can and does kill young children.

---

From another thread, and I haven't personally confirmed the numbers

---

This graph shows you cumulative deaths, not death rate.

---

Actually I don't know what it shows since it shows cumulative death count rising and then going down for influenza. Resurrections?

But looking at the CDC data for 2017-2018 they estimated 3400 deaths for those under age 50, and we are maybe around half of that total for people under 45 with COvid. We'll have to compare later to get the real mortality rate, factoring in estimated covid cases in the denominator.

Cumulative deaths is used to calculated a death rate of some kind, if the approximate same number of people got covid and flu you could tell by cumulative deaths a rough rate.

---

BlackGoldAg2011 said:

---

finally got the Sensitivity and Specificity released for the NY antibody testing. Here is the updated plot using the real numbers. The last few sliders using NYC as a case study are average time from infection to death (which seems to still be holding around 21 days) and average time from infection to IgG development. but even playing with those sliders looks like NYC is settling into the 0.8%-1.1% range


applying that IFR to the USA as a whole, we would be sitting around 9.5MM-12MM cumulative infections to date.

---