CDC now estimates 0.05% CFR (1 out of 2000) for symptomatic Americans younger than 50

12,295 Views | 89 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by buffalo chip
buffalo chip
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to beerad12man • 9:27a, 5/29/20
S
beerad12man said:
I wouldn't go as far as to say everyone gets it. Eventually you get to a point where the R0 is less than 1 and it dies out before infecting 100%. There's estimates that number is anywhere from 50-70% depending on who you are listening to.

And again, this is spread over time. Even at 40%, the number of infections goes down and takes longer to spread. We wont have herd immunity, but the cases go down dramatically. While 380K lost to this is tragic, if it's spread over 6 or 8 years? We are still likely going to end up in line with the normal 65, 70, 75, 80, and 85 year old death rates. Maybe slightly higher. But not significantly.

We are living longer than ever before. All COVID might do is take us back to our rates 5 years ago.
Not to minimize the death of anybody from any cause, but that is the absolutely certain outcome of all of our lives after being born. Death from some cause or another, sometimes just old age. It has always been the case that the older one gets, the more likely death from any cause becomes.

My personal opinion is that the policies adopted at the onset of COVID19 were reasonable and that anybody who second guesses those policies now is not doing so objectively, but with 20/20 hindsight.

Now that we have data about this pandemic from all over the world, we have a basis to determine policies for the future based on that data. Since actual data can be interpreted differently, we have reason to debate where we go from here. If the data presented here is reliable, then I believe that there is reason for an age-related dichotomy of response to the risks of COVID19. As a member of the 65+ class, I need to take precautions with my personal response to COVID19 while feeling confident that those 55 and under seem to be reasonably safe to return to a normal life.

So, all you youngsters get back to work!
Reply Quote
4
ETFan
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:17p, 5/29/20
Looking again, these numbers from the CDC make absolutely no sense given every other study and observation we have about this virus.

0.4% symptomatic-cfr, simply not based in reality. Love the note on the CDC page Parameter values are based on data received by CDC prior to 4/29/2020 and it appears this is based on data from a controversial paper published on April 6th.

This s-ifr, which I thought, from not reading carefully the first time I replied, was an ifr, is simply not possible given what we currently know. What the **** is going on at the CDC?
Reply Quote
cone
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ETFan • 12:40p, 5/29/20
AG
it can be reasonable if you think the deaths are front loaded

ie the virus is attacking and killing the most vulnerable in the early stage

I haven't seen evidence of that, but it's plausible
Reply Quote
2
ETFan
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to cone • 1:24p, 5/29/20
cone said:
it can be reasonable if you think the deaths are front loaded

ie the virus is attacking and killing the most vulnerable in the early stage

I haven't seen evidence of that, but it's plausible
They're saying our CFR (because that's basically what S-IFR is) is orders of magnitude lower than what we see because... reasons? Where are their methods and sources.

That's what I'm complaining about, we have no reliable data that points to a CFR/S-IFR of 0.4%. The world average is 6%. South Korea is 2.36%.

103k deaths / .004 = 25million symptomatic cases in the US. 38million total cases. A whopping 11% of the entire US has COVID. Nothing points to this. How front loaded is this thing and where is the data to show that this is what is happening?

Just frustration at lack of transparency and data that clearly deviates from any kind of scientific current-consensus.
Reply Quote
2
NASAg03
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:36p, 5/29/20
wrong thread!
Mike Shaw - Class of '03
Reply Quote
1 edit
cone
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ETFan • 2:39p, 5/29/20
AG
Quote:
How front loaded is this thing and where is the data to show that this is what is happening?
front loaded could just mean that the death tail is fatter than expected

when it gets loose in the nursing homes, it's a reaper

but eventually, you run out of those frail, target-rich environments

the fat tail, especially if you fail at or cannot protect that cohort, would look ugliest earliest

i still operate with the assumed IFR being 1%, but the tail is still much fatter than we thought. and the hospitalization rate is no longer considered cataclysmic.
Reply Quote
1
fat girlfriend
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ETFan • 12:00a, 5/30/20
ETFan said:
cone said:
it can be reasonable if you think the deaths are front loaded

ie the virus is attacking and killing the most vulnerable in the early stage

I haven't seen evidence of that, but it's plausible
They're saying our CFR (because that's basically what S-IFR is) is orders of magnitude lower than what we see because... reasons? Where are their methods and sources.

That's what I'm complaining about, we have no reliable data that points to a CFR/S-IFR of 0.4%. The world average is 6%. South Korea is 2.36%.

103k deaths / .004 = 25million symptomatic cases in the US. 38million total cases. A whopping 11% of the entire US has COVID. Nothing points to this. How front loaded is this thing and where is the data to show that this is what is happening?

Just frustration at lack of transparency and data that clearly deviates from any kind of scientific current-consensus.


I expect it's because their models show that the data indicates way more people have actually had symptomatic Covid 19 than have tested posted. They they the denominator is considerably larger than reported cases us my guess. I strongly suspect that that is accurate.
Reply Quote
1
DadHammer
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to fat girlfriend • 11:10a, 5/30/20
AG
Agree the denominator is much larger. Your not going to go get tested if you had the virus and showed no symptoms or thought you had a head cold. Why would you waste your time and money?
Reply Quote
cone
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DadHammer • 12:23p, 5/30/20
AG
why do you not trust the NYC serology results when they put the IFR at 1%
Reply Quote
DadHammer
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to cone • 12:58p, 5/30/20
AG
I don't trust NY because they forced people with covid into retirement communities and caused many many more deaths that may or may not have happened. We will see but 1% just seems really really high, going to end up closer to 0.2% after all the counts are in. Just MHO reading and listening to everything in aggregate. I read Dr. Coates daily as well and he seems to believe it's gonna be way lower than 1% also.

NYC is probably going to be way higher than the rest of the country as well. They did a horrible job protecting the elderly as compared to other places. Look at Florida as one example.
Reply Quote
2
Squadron7
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DadHammer • 1:38p, 5/30/20
AG
DadHammer said:
I don't trust NY because they forced people with covid into retirement communities and caused many many more deaths that may or may not have happened. We will see but 1% just seems really really high, going to end up closer to 0.2% after all the counts are in. Just MHO reading and listening to everything in aggregate. I read Dr. Coates daily as well and he seems to believe it's gonna be way lower than 1% also.

NYC is probably going to be way higher than the rest of the country as well. They did a horrible job protecting the elderly as compared to other places. Look at Florida as one example.


If having a high IFR was the actual goal then you'd do what NYC did.
Reply Quote
3
Pulmcrit_ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:55p, 5/30/20
1% overall IFR would be devastating. IFR can't be based on New York though. IFR should reflect a not overrun hospital system. People say New York wasn't overrun but having hospitalists and residents running vents on patients is going to result in much higher mortality. I've had patients survive after 20+ days on vent but those patients take a significant amount of time. When an attending ICU physician gets past a certain number of patients bad things happen. If we stay below max ICU physician capacity I think the overall IFR is ~ 0.6% which is still fairly terrible from a loss of life perspective.
Reply Quote
5
cone
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DadHammer • 2:18p, 5/30/20
AG
seems really high

because it actually is really high

not sure why you don't trust the serology results in a high prevalence area
Reply Quote
2
Bruce Almighty
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to cone • 2:48p, 5/30/20
AG
cone said:
seems really high

because it actually is really high

not sure why you don't trust the serology results in a high prevalence area


My problem with the results is the nursing home problem. I get that they're part of the general population and should be counted, but if 5% of NYC has been infected, but 40% of nursing home patients have been infected, then it's not an accurate representation of the city as those nursing home deaths can dramatically influence the results.
Reply Quote
5
cone
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bruce Almighty • 4:41p, 5/30/20
AG
we don't really know the infection rate breakdown by age based on serology

we know 25% of the city was infected

someone said 40% of the deaths came from LTC

the death rate in the tail might be huge and not require as much prevalence in that cohort to make it a 1% overall IFR

we just don't know

my suspicion is it spreads in group homes fast and kills them off. but outside of such a superspread venue it's not as quick to catch. so maybe the deaths are front loaded. but Italy had like 60% prevalence in some places and a 1% IFR. it might be as bad as advertised in the vulnerable populations.
Reply Quote
Fitch
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:33p, 5/31/20
AG
From a serology perspective, intuition makes me think it would track along the population distribution, given that same pattern is observed in the case data.
Reply Quote
Keegan99
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:25p, 6/1/20
AG
Reply Quote
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Keegan99 • 10:54a, 6/2/20
AG
The paper says:

Quote:
With a study mid-point of April 23, and literature estimates of mean 4 days from infection to symptom onset and mean 21 days from onset to IgG detection, results represent cumulative incidence through approximately March 29.

For primary analyses, we accumulated diagnoses through April 9, based on the March 29 final infection date, 4 days to symptom onset, and mean 7 days from onset to diagnosis. Supplemental upper-bound estimates used the last plausible diagnosis date of May 8th, based on the April 28 final study day, 4 days being earliest time from onset to IgG detection and allowing PCR detection up to 14 days post-onset
If I'm thinking about this correctly, they're saying the infection happened by March 29 to produce IgG detection by the study date. That means their snapshot captures infections which began on or before March 29.

So you'd have to move forward to mean time to fatality from March 29 to close those cases to estimate the numerator for IFR. I've seen that number to be 12-18 days from symptom onset, and 4 days from infection to symptoms. Then we move forward 16-22 days from infection to see fatalities.

That implies that any infections that started by March 29 that would be fatal would have resulted in a fatality by April 14-20. Those dates show 11,586 to 14,828 fatalities recorded in the state.

The serology study estimates 2,139,300 cases statewide by March 29. So, that range winds up at 0.54-0.69% IFR.

Am I doing this right?
Reply Quote
2
BiochemAg97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to buffalo chip • 11:24a, 6/2/20
AG
buffalo chip said:


My personal opinion is that the policies adopted at the onset of COVID19 were reasonable and that anybody who second guesses those policies now is not doing so objectively, but with 20/20 hindsight.
Except for papers published by scientists several years ago that said mass quarantines were unsustainable and therefor would be ineffective, that closing schools for more than a couple weeks would be bad, etc.

Reply Quote
DTP02
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BiochemAg97 • 5:39p, 6/2/20
AG
BiochemAg97 said:
buffalo chip said:


My personal opinion is that the policies adopted at the onset of COVID19 were reasonable and that anybody who second guesses those policies now is not doing so objectively, but with 20/20 hindsight.
Except for papers published by scientists several years ago that said mass quarantines were unsustainable and therefor would be ineffective, that closing schools for more than a couple weeks would be bad, etc.



Closing schools is definitely a move that was questioned at the time. And you still see some of the same irrational fear in play regarding schools discussions even now, which is crazy because there is so much more we know about his virus now. I can only hope that the next couple of months will Be enough time to purge all that knee jerk "won't someone think of the children!" irrational thinking from our decision-making.
Reply Quote
2
buffalo chip
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BiochemAg97 • 10:02p, 6/2/20
S
BiochemAg97 said:
buffalo chip said:


My personal opinion is that the policies adopted at the onset of COVID19 were reasonable and that anybody who second guesses those policies now is not doing so objectively, but with 20/20 hindsight.
Except for papers published by scientists several years ago that said mass quarantines were unsustainable and therefor would be ineffective, that closing schools for more than a couple weeks would be bad, etc.

Peer reviewed, mainstream scientific journal papers or opinion pieces? Interesting... Why were these papers ignored by the "experts" who set the lock down standards in March 2020? Any discussion or debate concurrent with those decisions being made?
Reply Quote
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.