More good news.
Post Reply
1 of 1
USA Death Count in the last 7 days, lowest weekly total since first week of April
5,886 Views |
28 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by DadHammer
El Hombre Mas Guapo
Joined:
Jun 23, 2009
Posts:
6,607
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Death count is where the focus needs to be, lowering death count means we are protecting the people that are high risk effectively. Will be interesting to see if cases keep rising without any real measurable increase in death rate.
lower death count is the only metric that matters
imo it means
the drs are getting better at treating it
people who are at risk of catching it health care, LEO, bus drivers etc are getting better at not catching it
& we are doing better at keeping it out of nursing facilities
imo it means
the drs are getting better at treating it
people who are at risk of catching it health care, LEO, bus drivers etc are getting better at not catching it
& we are doing better at keeping it out of nursing facilities
Good bull. Hopefully this trend continues.
Social distancing works. Let's not be so stupid and/or irresponsible as to abandon it as we reopen! It's the only tool we have to buy time until we get therapeutics or vaccines. BTHO Covid-19!
Especially considering the increase in testing. More testing equals more confirmed cases. Additionally, since a lot of that additional testing is survey testIng (everyone in meat packing plant or at a nursing home), we will pick up a lot of asymptomatic cases that weren't identified when you had to have symptoms to get tested.culdeus said:
Death count is where the focus needs to be, lowering death count means we are protecting the people that are high risk effectively. Will be interesting to see if cases keep rising without any real measurable increase in death rate.
It's still death rate, right? I mean, death rate is what ultimately determines the overall death count should we never find a vaccine and this thing spread to everyone at some point. The difference in deaths between 0.2%, 0.6% or 1% is huge. So to me, finding out the true death rate of this thing so that we can have an idea of what the total deaths will likely be seems like a big deal to mentally prepare for. We can keep a moving target: 2.2mm, 65k, 137k, 147k, etc., but until we know the true death rate, this will keep moving until there is a cure and/or significantly better treatment plans to continue lowering the death rate.
beerad12man said:
It's still death rate, right? I mean, death rate is what ultimately determines the overall death count should we never find a vaccine and this thing spread to everyone at some point. The difference in deaths between 0.2%, 0.6% or 1% is huge. So to me, finding out the true death rate of this thing so that we can have an idea of what the total deaths will likely be seems like a big deal to mentally prepare for. We can keep a moving target: 2.2mm, 65k, 137k, 147k, etc., but until we know the true death rate, this will keep moving until there is a cure and/or significantly better treatment plans to continue lowering the death rate.
As long as we understand that there is a tradeoff and that a death due to a "elective" procedure being deferred by the COVID shutdown counts just as much as a COVID death.
You are definitely correct 2 out of 1000 vs 6 out of 1000 is significant.
Obviously some numbers from some counties are really questionable and need to be excluded from the conversation.
That being said the death rate for the first wave is likely around 5 out of 1000. Basing that estimate on Northern Italy , NYC, Nola , and Albany GA.
The Numbers in Northern Italy were likely worse Than 5 out of 1000 Given the health system collapsed and they were the first Western Country to have a large number of cases needing hospitalization.
The death counts are approximately 1 out of 1000 in the hardest hit US areas and preliminary estimates are that 15-20 % of the population were infected. Both the death count and % infected are debatable. IMO the Us health care system did slightly better than Northern Italy and should continue to improve. The next wave of outbreaks will hopefully result in a death rate of 3 out of 1000. Hopefully the Drs can get it down to 5 out of 10,000.
Obviously some numbers from some counties are really questionable and need to be excluded from the conversation.
That being said the death rate for the first wave is likely around 5 out of 1000. Basing that estimate on Northern Italy , NYC, Nola , and Albany GA.
The Numbers in Northern Italy were likely worse Than 5 out of 1000 Given the health system collapsed and they were the first Western Country to have a large number of cases needing hospitalization.
The death counts are approximately 1 out of 1000 in the hardest hit US areas and preliminary estimates are that 15-20 % of the population were infected. Both the death count and % infected are debatable. IMO the Us health care system did slightly better than Northern Italy and should continue to improve. The next wave of outbreaks will hopefully result in a death rate of 3 out of 1000. Hopefully the Drs can get it down to 5 out of 10,000.
Sq 17 said:
You are definitely correct 2 out of 1000 vs 6 out of 1000 is significant.
Obviously some numbers from some counties are really questionable and need to be excluded from the conversation.
That being said the death rate for the first wave is likely around 5 out of 1000. Basing that estimate on Northern Italy , NYC, Nola , and Albany GA.
The Numbers in Northern Italy were likely worse Than 5 out of 1000 Given the health system collapsed and they were the first Western Country to have a large number of cases needing hospitalization.
The death counts are approximately 1 out of 1000 in the hardest hit US areas and preliminary estimates are that 15-20 % of the population were infected. Both the death count and % infected are debatable. IMO the Us health care system did slightly better than Northern Italy and should continue to improve. The next wave of outbreaks will hopefully result in a death rate of 3 out of 1000. Hopefully the Drs can get it down to 5 out of 10,000.
At this point we know more than enough to stop using an IFR that assumes that it is spread equally across age groups. Indeed, it actually detracts from the understanding of the overall threat of COVID19.
What real information is conveyed by using an IFR estimate of, say, 0.5% when for anyone under 50 it is waaaaay below that?
Estimating the IFR gives the decision makers a range of possible outcomes.Squadron7 said:
At this point we know more than enough to stop using an IFR that assumes that it is spread equally across age groups. Indeed, it actually detracts from the understanding of the overall threat of COVID19.
What real information is conveyed by using an IFR estimate of, say, 0.5%
Are you willing to accept that the IFR For the first Communities hit was 5 out of 1000 ? I understand the dead people are more likely to be old fat diabetic ...
but if it is 5 out of 1000 then
5 out of 1000 is approximately 900,000 dead Americans
300 million Americans 60% catch it which is 180 million
5 out of 1000 is 900,000. Again these dead people will be old fat diabetic
Almost Every country decided 5 out of 1000 was too high of a death toll , They all decided shut down their country in the hope that given a few months the Drs would get better at treating it.
The Methodist Hospital Houston Plasma thread although only one cohort had 1 death out of 25. The dr estimated that without plasma he would have lost 12 out 25. This treatment which was not available in Milan or Albany
IF TRUE THIS ONE BREAKTHROUGH REDUCED the IFR 90%.
Other Drs have commented that they are doing better identifying and treating the clotting issue earlier in the disease. The IFR is going down and the initial IFR if .5% was high enough that most Govts decided to hit the pause button and hope the Drs could get better at treating it
Sq 17 said:Estimating the IFR gives the decision makers a range of possible outcomes.Squadron7 said:
At this point we know more than enough to stop using an IFR that assumes that it is spread equally across age groups. Indeed, it actually detracts from the understanding of the overall threat of COVID19.
What real information is conveyed by using an IFR estimate of, say, 0.5%
Are you willing to accept that the IFR For the first Communities hit was 5 out of 1000 ? I understand the dead people are more likely to be old fat diabetic ...
but if it is 5 out of 1000 then
5 out of 1000 is approximately 900,000 dead Americans
300 million Americans 60% catch it which is 180 million
5 out of 1000 is 900,000. Again these dead people will be old fat diabetic
Almost Every country decided 5 out of 1000 was too high of a death toll , They all decided shut down their country in the hope that given a few months the Drs would get better at treating it.
The Methodist Hospital Houston Plasma thread although only one cohort had 1 death out of 25. The dr estimated that without plasma he would have lost 12 out 25. This treatment which was not available in Milan or Albany reduced the IFR 90%.
Other Drs have commented that they are doing better identifying and treating the clotting issue earlier in the disease. The IFR is going down and the initial IFR if .5% was high enough that most Govts decided to hit the pause button and hope the Drs could get better at treating it
I understand all that...but my post began with "At this point". And at this point, if someone were to try and assess their risk of succumbing to COVID19 then it simply cannot be done accurately enough to possess any meaning without first considering age.
I'm guessing you think the infected population is significantly different than community at large ? I always include Albany and Nola because Milan & NYC are not similar to how most People live.
If you think the infected population skewed towards the weak and old then the IFR is also skewed. Personally I don't think you can presume the infected vary significantly from the total population. I would take the point of view old people are less likely to become infected because they have fewer interactions and have a smaller circle they interact with.
Of course the dead skew toward the weak and the old but if the infected demographic is similar to the at large community than the IFR is valid and letting the virus run through the population unchecked leads to a very large number of dead Americans unless the Drs get better at treating it Which it appears the Drs are doing that everyday
& at this point we are opening back up and data going forward is going to be different than data from 4 weeks ago
If you think the infected population skewed towards the weak and old then the IFR is also skewed. Personally I don't think you can presume the infected vary significantly from the total population. I would take the point of view old people are less likely to become infected because they have fewer interactions and have a smaller circle they interact with.
Of course the dead skew toward the weak and the old but if the infected demographic is similar to the at large community than the IFR is valid and letting the virus run through the population unchecked leads to a very large number of dead Americans unless the Drs get better at treating it Which it appears the Drs are doing that everyday
& at this point we are opening back up and data going forward is going to be different than data from 4 weeks ago
Quote:
I'm guessing you think the infected population is significantly different than community at large ?
No way for me to know. I would venture a guess that the infected population would skew towards whatever group is more active and engaged relatively in both work and play. I'm guessing that it skews younger since it became apparent a while ago that this disease discriminates at a high level on who it kills. Attendant to that, I would bet that those shrugging off the Blue State lockdowns and heading into the parks and on to the beaches skew younger.
your question is the key and the problem with public health stats. They can estimate what tthe IFR & they can estimate the demographic breakdown of the fatalities & they can estimate how cntagious it is. They can't tell you who will catch it and out of that population who will die.
Quote:
They can't tell you who will catch it and out of that population who will die.
What disease can we do that with?
I live in Virginia and our state reports data by demographic.
We have had:
0 deaths under the age of 20.
2 deaths under the age of 30.
7 deaths between 30 and 39.
22 deaths between 40 and 49.
53 deaths between 50 and 59.
929 deaths for 60 and over of which 532 deaths were 80 and over.
We have had the lowest testing per capita in the US so I'm assuming we identified 10% of actual cases. Rough IFR below using 2010 census data for demographic breakdown:
Below 20 = 0%
20-29 = .005%
30-39 = .02%
40-49 = .05%
50-59 = .15%
60-69 = .90%
70+ = 3.7%
We have had:
0 deaths under the age of 20.
2 deaths under the age of 30.
7 deaths between 30 and 39.
22 deaths between 40 and 49.
53 deaths between 50 and 59.
929 deaths for 60 and over of which 532 deaths were 80 and over.
We have had the lowest testing per capita in the US so I'm assuming we identified 10% of actual cases. Rough IFR below using 2010 census data for demographic breakdown:
Below 20 = 0%
20-29 = .005%
30-39 = .02%
40-49 = .05%
50-59 = .15%
60-69 = .90%
70+ = 3.7%
Good data , what is the IFR for the entire population ?
Its likely somewhere between .3 and 1.0. For the above analysis I ended up with .33 but you can multiply the numbers by 2x or 3x if you think .33 is to low. Its hard to know without population tests.
I bet it's closer to your 0.33 number
somewherde around 4 out of 1000 is probably the number
Personally I think the IFR will drop as more is learned about treating and managing it. I think the early communities that got hit hard were closer to the 6 out of thousand number
Personally I think the IFR will drop as more is learned about treating and managing it. I think the early communities that got hit hard were closer to the 6 out of thousand number
You might be right. Early studies have come in between 0.5 and 1.3. That is testing the entire population and not looking at risk by cohort. It's easy to see from the data that the risk increases substantially for people over the age of 60. Comorbidity could also be a major driving factor in that group.Sq 17 said:
somewherde around 4 out of 1000 is probably the number
Personally I think the IFR will drop as more is learned about treating and managing it. I think the early communities that got hit hard were closer to the 6 out of thousand number
One thing that I'm really curious about and haven't seen studied is how risky is this for people under 60 without comorbidities? Is it actually any riskier than the flu? If so, how much riskier? All I have seen is anecdotes about a handful of healthy people in their 30s or 40s who passed away.
Unless they are confined to a nursing home and someone brings it in and most get it and large # die - which is what has happened in some instances.Sq 17 said:
..... I would take the point of view old people are less likely to become infected because they have fewer interactions and have a smaller circle they interact with.
https://texags.com/forums/84/topics/3112374Gumby said:You might be right. Early studies have come in between 0.5 and 1.3. That is testing the entire population and not looking at risk by cohort. It's easy to see from the data that the risk increases substantially for people over the age of 60. Comorbidity could also be a major driving factor in that group.Sq 17 said:
somewherde around 4 out of 1000 is probably the number
Personally I think the IFR will drop as more is learned about treating and managing it. I think the early communities that got hit hard were closer to the 6 out of thousand number
One thing that I'm really curious about and haven't seen studied is how risky is this for people under 60 without comorbidities? Is it actually any riskier than the flu? If so, how much riskier? All I have seen is anecdotes about a handful of healthy people in their 30s or 40s who passed away.
The number 0.7% does seem to keep coming up. I think 1.3 is way high. But as we all know, it's fluid right now and no one knows the exact answer. It's a bit of a guessing game still.
I prefer .5 it makes the math easier. .5 is less likely to be called an over estimate and even at .5 the death toll is a big number
Healthy and under 50 low risk you will die but if the virus moves through the community Unabated even at 5 out of 1000 IFR, still a large number of dead people.
PJYoung said:
More good news.
This is because very smart leaders have banned SITTING while fishing (but not standing) and walking on DRY sand (but not wet sand). Hats off to them for delivering these improved results!
Sq 17 said:
Healthy and under 50 low risk you will die but if the virus moves through the community Unabated even at 5 out of 1000 IFR, still a large number of dead people.
Why do you think it will be unabated? People are being safe and more and more data showing lockdowns are going to be worse than the virus itself.
Sweden has shown no such trend and never went into lock down.