Magox

Uh oh. This is going to be used by all the "Stay at home" crowd which will then be parroted by their dopey followers as a pretext to "You see, You can't trust De Santis, their numbers are off, Stay Home! People are going to die!"

Thanks Hedge. Dr Atlas makes note exactly what I was referring to that for people under age 60 that the virus is no worse than influenza and that for children COVID is much worse.

@Hedge Martha McCallum had Dr Atlas talking about how COVID 19 was comparable to the seasonable fly for those under the age of 60 and far less risky for kids in school. can you find that clip?

Trend is still in the right direction even though the positive test rate went up one tick.

So here is Avik Roy's take on the previous discussion. His takeaway is that under age 25 the relative risk is "Much lower" with COVID vs Influenza but that from ages 25-65 the relative risk is higher than Influenza based of the CDC information he is using. (Which goes contrary to the other compiled data, but the difference is small. However, the larger point that I was originally making was that for people under 65, there isn't much of a risk relative to the FLU but once you get past 65 years old, then the risk becomes "absolute".

More excellent news, on the R rate. The number is going lower and below one. Why is a number above one dangerous? If the reproduction number is higher than one, then the number of cases increases exponentially - it snowballs. But if the number is lower, the disease will eventually peter out, as not enough new people are being infected to sustain the outbreak.

The more data that comes out the more we are learning about it. Here is a serological study commissioned by the city of Los Angeles. It has been peer -reviewed. The mortality rate: .2%

Hey guys, I think you'll be glad to know:

That for me is the big unknown. What are the secondary effects and how prevalent are they? Are they statistically noteworthy? In regards to hospitalization numbers, no, I can't safely say that as I am not privy to that sort of granular data. With that said, even if the numbers are not very accurately reflected from what the CDC is reporting, and there was about a 50% variance from what they are showing, it's still low enough to support my views within the context that I was making them, which is that for people under 65, the risk of COVID 19 are similar in terms of health outcomes to that of seasonal influenza. That's based off of the available data and it is supported by hospitalization data throughout the world, not just CDC.

No, because COVID 19 and Influenza don't run on parallel tracks. This goes by the aggregate total of "influenza seasons", which is a more complete data subset. And when you take this into consideration along with the higher mortality rates with the flu for those under the age of 65, especially so for those under 50, then it's clear that COVID produces not only less hospitalizations, ICU's but deaths as well than COVID for that age group. Even if you think this data is not fully representative of what you believe it to be, the data is clear enough to show that at a very minimum it's not that much more dangerous than the flu for the aforementioned age groups.

You can say it to you're blue in the face it won't change the fact that it's not. The data does not back up your assertion.

Now I get why that data you sent was completely lacking in context and contrary to all the other data that was out there. Look at the time period they chose. They chose a particular small time period, and not even the most recent year.. That's odd that they would do that, makes me question their motives. The data that I posted above goes to even more recent data throughout a 12 month time period. Which in this case works perfectly fine because it is based off of per 100k and is based off of a much larger subset of data as opposed to a tiny 6 week window where the sample size is smaller and data is more volatile.

From the CDC Table 2: Estimated rates of influenza-associated disease outcomes, per 100,000, by age group — United States, 2018-2019 influenza season Illness rate Medical visit rate Hospitalization rate Mortality rate Age group Estimate 95% UI Estimate 95% UI Estimate 95% UI Estimate 95% UI 0-4 yrs 18,339.50 (12,652.8, 36,341.4) 12,287.50 (8,419.3, 24,332.1) 127.9 (88.2, 253.4) 1.3 (0.4, 3.6) 5-17 yrs 14,300.10 (11,248.5, 19,478.6) 7,436.10 (5,724.0, 10,106.0) 39.2 (30.8, 53.4) 0.4 (0.1, 1.2) 18-49 yrs 8,621.50 (7,293.1, 11,602.9) 3,190.00 (2,532.0, 4,388.9) 48.4 (40.9, 65.1) 1.8 (1.0, 4.2) 50-64 yrs 14,627.10 (10,422.7, 24,952.5) 6,289.60 (4,295.4, 10,903.7) 155.1 (110.5, 264.6) 9 (5.6, 21.4) 65+ yrs 5,861.40 (3,831.5, 11,502.1) 3,282.40 (2,093.2, 6,475.1) 532.9 (348.3, 1,045.6) 48.7 (34.1, 78.9) This shows that hospitalization rates for ages 50-65 is 155.1 out of every 100k for the influenza The link to where you can see that from the CDC is here. Here is the COVID related data: The COVID-19-Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network (COVID-NET) conducts population-based surveillance for laboratory-confirmed COVID-19-associated hospitalizations in select counties participating in the Emerging Infections Program (EIP) and states participating in the Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Project (IHSP). COVID-NET-estimated hospitalization rates are updated weekly. A total of 19,637 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19-associated hospitalizations were reported by sites between March 1, 2020, and May 9, 2020. The overall cumulative hospitalization rate was 60.5 per 100,000 population. Among the 0-4 years, 5-17 years, 18-49 years, 50-64 years, and ≥ 65 years age groups, the highest rate of hospitalization is among adults aged 65 years (192.4 per 100,000), followed by adults aged 50-64 years (94.4 per 100,000) and adults aged 18-49 years (32.6 per 100,000). resize iconView Larger Within the 18-49 years and ≥ 65 years age groups, the hospitalization rates increased with increasing age. Age Group Cumulative Rate per 100,000 Population Overall 60.5 0-4 years 3.0 5-17 years 1.4 18-49 years 32.6 18-29 years 15.4 30-39 years 32.0 40-49 years 55.6 50-64 years 94.4 65+ years 192.4 65-74 years 141.2 75-84 years 232.0 85+ years 352.0 Here is the CDC Link

It is not higher for COVID for people under 65. I just showed it to you from the CDC and from verified hospital data from the Netherlands and Spain. If you aren't going to accept the data then there is no more use talking to you on this matter. And please provide me that source, because it completely contradicts the outcomes and hospital Spanish and Dutch data.

@plenzmd1 We were having this discussion the other day. Look at the USA FLU/Pneumonia vs COVID chart. This is compiled using data by the CDC btw. Adjusted Life years Lost This is a very interesting stat. It goes back to our previous conversation. What this stat shows is based off the median age of life expectancy in the U.S - it places it up against Flu deaths vs COVID 19 deaths. And what this chart shows is that people who die from the Flu there are more years of life being lost than COVID during the same time periods with similar levels of mortalities. In other words, the people who are dying the vast majority of them were at the end of their natural lives. Fascinating stuff. Also, not sure if you caught the explanation of what Colorado did. They reduced their deaths by 25% due to COVID. They determined that even though some of these people have COVID, they concluded that the death wasn't due to COVID but other conditions. This is something that I think has to be investigated further and I believe it is part of the friction that Dr. Birx has with the CDC. The CDC just wants to not only count ALL COVID infected patients who die to count as COVID but even "possible's". Even though it doesn't go into detail what Dr Birx's frustrations with the way they are tallying up death counts. My hunch tells me that she agrees with Colorado's stance. Obviously I don't know the details of how Colorado is making this determination but if we want to truly understand the VIRUS it is imperative that we get the correct data. If you have someone in Hospice care that was on their last days or weeks and they die of COVID or if they had terminal illness or anything along those lines and they pass away while they had COVID, that shouldn't be counted as a COVID related death. This is not a matter of trying to make the stats look better, this is a matter of data integrity and better understanding the Virus.

No, it will not go out in a global chain all at the same time. You are woefully mistaken. That's not how it works. They don't just ramp up from 100 vaccines to hundreds of millions overnight. It is a long process and as they are being created the ones that are created initially will go for their citizens first. If you don't think that is how it's going to work, then you are awfully naive. Secondly, it is not more dangerous than the flu for people under age 65. That has already been established by the data. Have you not been paying attention? Again - You either believe in the data or you don't. Just admit it, you've been wrong quite a few times.

But we need more testing!

I'm sure that there will be as whoever is the first to make it won't have enough global supply. You would think that in the process of ramping up production and distribution another Vaccine developer will have come on line. With that said, you should care of who makes it first. I know I was discussing the sense of national pride and standing but the reason why it will be important to be first if not soon after is that whoever makes it first will distribute it to their people first. Then after that, who knows would have dibs and be next in line. So yeah, being first makes a difference, a big difference. It would be very important to restore public confidence. Personally and for my family, it's not important. We have decided not to take the vaccine. But for my parents, we are recommending that they do. Truth be told, the idea of injecting a vaccine after it has been developed in record time with processes that are being shortened doesn't appeal to me, especially knowing that COVID 19 for my wife, kids and myself is no more dangerous than the common flu.

Very good news. Whichever country can get to it first it will serve as a huge boon for that countries standing in the world.

And this. I get confused with the timelines and what this all means.

@Deranged Rhino what does all this imply?

More positive data

Trend keeps going in the right direction Look at those tests 422k and positive test rate of only 5%. ?

Excellent take by Zakaria. It’s only 5 minutes. I think it’s worth listening to