- 0-49 years old: .05%
- 50-64 years old: .2%
- 65+ years old: 1.3%
- Overall ages: .4%
CDC says Chinese Lung AIDS death rate is .4%
- Thread starter Hornacious
- Start date
If China told me it was sunny and clear outside, I'm putting on galoshes and grabbing an umbrella. You can't trust their numbers on anything related to this disease.
A
anon_xdkqbpnrbtnct
Guest
0.26 actually if you include their numbers on people with no symptoms
I must have missed where these numbers were coming from China.
A
anon_xdkqbpnrbtnct
Guest
Linkage to these numbers...I perused the CDC website yesterday and didn't notice
Significantly lower than that when you count people that actually died FROM COVID instead of people they died WITH COVID.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html
Far right column of the table about halfway down on the page has their current best estimate.
has symptomatic cases at 0.4%, and then has 35% of cases being asymptomatic
Last edited:
I still worry about my parents. They're both in great health and want to go out and do stuff (especially my pop), but their age group is the most vulnerable.
Yeah, the whole "Chinese Lung" thing threw me off.
That being said, even at 0.4 its 4x higher than seasonal flu, and the reality is that it might be considerably higher, though it couldn't be considerably lower. The real IFR is a moving target that won't be known with any certainty until after this has passed us.
Whether or not our efforts were warranted, too much or too little will be explored in detail in the years to come. It's too early to make any determinations now, which is why this data wasn't accompanied by a recommendation to ditch all precautions and move forward.
But, like I said two weeks ago now, those of us who aren't substantially at risk need to get back to our lives as best we can, and as far as I can tell, that more or less happened in most places.
You can't parse those numbers.
Being the straw that broke the camel's back still makes it the secondary or tertiary cause of death.
While it is still somewhat unknown, the fact is that as more data clarifies the statistic, it trends lower and lower. I fully recognize there is a floor and it could be somewhat higher than these last numbers. This is great news and indicates it is much lower than original estimates and likely much much closer to these numbers than earlier ones.
In each and every case, the death rates always fall precipitously. That’s why when I saw the initial death rates, I thought this would be much to do about nothing. If we could’ve kept it from spreading so fast, we would’ve been still living our lives within the contiguous 48.
But I still don’t see a scenario where we have something that’s untreatable and we can’t vaccinate for, and we do nothing. Even with the smaller pandemics, we took action, we just didn’t need nearly this much because we neutralized the threats so quickly.
But I still don’t see a scenario where we have something that’s untreatable and we can’t vaccinate for, and we do nothing. Even with the smaller pandemics, we took action, we just didn’t need nearly this much because we neutralized the threats so quickly.
Yeah. This isn't the first time lower numbers have appeared, just the first time the CDC has confirmed them. We've known for the better part of a month that the numbers were lower.
how can it be considerably higher but not lower?
So how do you factor in the deaths of people who never went to the hospital and never got tested, which in some areas is a large figure?
Because it's already low.
EDIT: If you go look at available data on the IFR, it varies widely by region...it's all over the map, and mostly much higher. The only way for it to come down significantly is for us to test on a massive scale which won't happen until we have a cheap, reliable, almost immediate antibody test. That's why I said we won't know the answer to this question for a long time.
Not sure. I’m going to need a link so I can read up on the large number of people dropping dead at home from COVID without seeking medical attention.
There are a number of articles out there. Here's one google found for me: https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...covid-19-death-toll-undercounted/?arc404=true
The point is that - like the IFR - we won't get REAL, HARD #s until AFTER this is over, because the numbers are both over- and underestimated by current data available.
There are many states that have less deaths ytd than the last year of available data.
Amen to that. Using China as a source is worse than using "unnamed sources" in sports reporting, however, they use it if it fits the narrative they want to spew.
Sure there are. There are many states that COVID has scarcely touched at all, states with low population density, as might be expected. Once again, the point is that you can't make conclusions based upon available data. People have to be governed by common sense and a sense of obligation to fellow citizens.
So you think the CDC is in China doing their own investigations and counting bodies? Where do you think they are getting their information?
Of course, no one was going out to get sick, no one was spreading diseases, not man were driving, so other than suicides, everyone in general, was a lot healthier and Uber cautious. No one wanted to get hurt, because they were scared to go to hospital. Health insurance companies probably made a killing. Remember your parents saying, if you ain't dead or seriously bleeding, get a band aid and stop whining. I was remodeling the shower and took the handle off the shower valve. That keyed threaded bolt that sticks out at the end, yeah, I took that to the forehead, laid the skin wide open. Instead of getting stitches (about 10), I super glued that bitch back together. Have a scar, but didn't go to hospital.
I believe it is much more reasonable to draw conclusions from this data than making decisions with zero data.
Last edited:
So you mean the controlled data, the official test vs deaths can’t be lower, right? The real number could be considerably lower. The actual mortality rate could be ridiculously low if we truly knew now many people have contracted the virus but we will never know that.
Wouldn't it be nice if we had this data established as a baseline before the decisions were made?
We didn't.
Odd that nobody at the federal, state or local levels is recommending that we just say "F it" and go about our lives as if nothing is happening. Now, if you're not suggesting that, then you and I are in the same boat...those who aren't at risk should be getting out and about and resuming normal activities, keeping in mind that they can easily spread the disease if they have it, sick or not, and that some people can easily die from it if they contract it. Use common sense and be considerate of others who are much more likely to get sick and die from it than you are.
There was data for making decisions. The models were included in those data sets. Remember those fake numbers foisted upon our leaders to encourage them to act as the death cult wished?
The same way you factor in the number of asymptomatic cases that never get tested. This number can go way down but not up. The assumption that a ton of people have been dying in the last few months who are not being counted with COVID is likely not as high as the people not getting tested who have COVID. The reason we need data is so we can take subgroups and extrapolate to the general population. The problem we have is we don't have quite enough data and the data we receive can be different by regions. Then you throw in living conditions, medical availability as another wrench.
The point of the lock down was always to avoid hospital saturation. The problem we had is people were playing politics with this. The scaring of our population with disinformation has now put a huge burden on our middle class. The people who make in that 60,000 to about 140,000 per year. They are going to have to try and fund the government while trying to keep their jobs. Rough times ahead because of politics and not a really educated population.
