Cataholic wrote: ↑
Fri Mar 13, 2020 9:23 am
Cledus wrote: ↑
Fri Mar 13, 2020 8:25 am
Cataholic wrote: ↑
Fri Mar 13, 2020 7:53 am
I just saw the Ohio Governor and their top medical official estimate that at least 100,000 people in Ohio are infected. That is despite only a small number of people being tested. The key point being is that most people don’t get tested because they think they have a cold. Ohio still shut down schools for 3 weeks to slow the speed of the spread for the explicit reason of taking some pressure off of health care facilities.
Case mortality rate tells us nothing.
It excludes the vast majority of our population falsely inflating a mortality rate. To be helpful, the demographics of the cases used for mortality must be evaluated. If every person in the cases evaluated were 60 years old, we could determine the mortality rate for 60 year old individuals.
At this point, it seems that the spread of the disease is inevitable. I saw a report where the expert believes that 50% of the country will have coronavirus by the end of the year. He stated that 20% of the US population actually contracted H1N1 during that outbreak. The vast majority of our population will be okay, but individuals with weak immune systems can get very sick.
Really? Nothing at all?
The case fatality rate for last year's flu season was .0962%, as in 9.62 x 10^-4. That means this coronavirus is AT LEAST 60x more deadly to anyone who becomes infected than the annual flu.
Here's where I got my numbers since you'll ask: CDC 2018-2019 Flu Season
"CDC estimates that the burden of illness during the 2018–2019 season included an estimated 35.5 million people getting sick with influenza, 16.5 million people going to a health care provider for their illness, 490,600 hospitalizations, and 34,200 deaths from influenza (Table 1). The number of influenza-associated illnesses that occurred last season was similar to the estimated number of influenza-associated illnesses during the 2012–2013 influenza season when an estimated 34 million people had symptomatic influenza illness"
I am not trying to be argumentative, but you are not seeing the critical flaw in the case mortality rates you quote for coronavirus. The problem is the sample size and test pool. Only people considered with immune deficiencies are getting tested - primarily the elderly. A large portion of the general population exhibits nothing more than a bad cold and they don’t get tested (see 100,000 estimated infected in Ohio).
CDC shows only 1 to 5 officially recognized positive cases in
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... in-us.html
The Ohio state department chief states that over 100,000 people have already been infected:
https://www.daytondailynews.com/news/lo ... WnR9yNoxH/
It should be evident that many people are not getting tested because they are either not in the “at risk category” or they don’t feel sick. This limits the case test pool which you are basing a mortality rate. The case mortality rate only tells you what is happening in the test pool. If the test pool is only limited to elderly, it will only provide you a mortality rate for the elderly - not the general population.
The objections you've raised are already cooked into my calculations because I'm using global numbers. The gold star countries - S Korea, Hong Kong, and Taiwan - that have done a crapload more testing still have very high case fatality rates and are several weeks ahead of us here in the USA. Thus, all the variance you've noted (age, race, ethnicity, general level of health, etc) have already been cooked in and smoothed out the variance to an extent.
We simply have to look at the countries that have a several week head start on us. We can look at them and know EXACTLY how it will play out here. We also have to note that the data coming out of Italy and Iran are so vastly different from every other country that there is probably a new and more deadly strain that will crowd out the current strain and propagate like a noxious weed.
But I accept your premise that the number of diagnoses are understated and there will be some regression towards the mean because of undersampling. By how much? Let's say I'm overstating the case fatality rate by exactly 100%. Not because of anything I've done incorrectly, but because of sampling.
As of this exact moment, the case fatality rate is 6.32% and so the adjusted for 100% error would actually be 3.16%. That is still 34x higher than the case fatality rate for last year's flu. I've been tracking the case fatality rate for 1.5 weeks now. It started at 5.4% last Monday and right now it's 6.32%. And that's with even more testing that you say is the flaw in my position. So, it's growing and there are no indications it's getting better even with more tests being conducted.
If 70% of this country contracts the disease (the upper end of the range of estimates), there will be AT LEAST 19 million people dead. And that's just in the USA.
If you're willing to hang your hat and the safety of yourself and the people you love on this disease not being deadly because of undersampling, then all I have to say is God bless you and I really hope things work out.