A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data By John P.A. Ioannidis March 17, 2020

[Tiny]

Based on antibody studies, where you divide total people who've died by total infected, you've got several data points for the death rate. The low end would be Santa Clara and Los Angeles counties, at around 0.2%. New York comes in around 0.5% or 0.6%, Italy 0.8%, and Spain 1.2%. I read a criticism of the California studies, that they overestimated the number of people infected.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

Any link that puts a count with these serological studies? You still mixed apples with oranges in post #40.

Right now in the USA you have 3 million infections (includes with symptoms and without symptoms) and 88,000 deaths. Do the math, death rate of CV19 is higher than .3% which is what the professor from Stanford calculated/estimated for SARS.

no. it's about 0.5 % for the US in total.


https://www.google.com/search?client...4dUDCAs&uact=5

Originally Posted by Tiny

Based on antibody studies, where you divide total people who've died by total infected, you've got several data points for the death rate. The low end would be Santa Clara and Los Angeles counties, at around 0.2%. New York comes in around 0.5% or 0.6%, Italy 0.8%, and Spain 1.2%. I read a criticism of the California studies, that they overestimated the number of people infected.

exactly.

one half of one percent.

[gnadfly]

The "death rate" or "mortality rate" or whatever scare number the media, the govt and the "freedom grabbers" are touting is inconsequential.

You only need to be worried about COVID if you are elderly and have comorbidities. If so, stay isolated.

Everyone else, as you were.

Quarantine is over, if you want it.

[oeb11]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Based on antibody studies, where you divide total people who've died by total infected, you've got several data points for the death rate. The low end would be Santa Clara and Los Angeles counties, at around 0.2%. New York comes in around 0.5% or 0.6%, Italy 0.8%, and Spain 1.2%. I read a criticism of the California studies, that they overestimated the number of people infected.

If you wish to "quote studies" - please provide the references for the studies Tiny.

The numbers you allude to - IMHO- do not include the undiagnosed asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic infections.

Case mortality for Wuhan virus is higher - significantly - in elderly with underlying obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes, and those with immune suppression disorders.

IMHO the above - from multiple publications - and if One wants proper epidemiology - see Dr. John Ioaniddis from Stanford (hardly a Conservative bastion) and read his articles.

What is true is the case mortality rate is nowhere near the DPST estimate of millions dead in America - providing their "rationale" for forcing America into home imprisonment and devastating the economy - which they won't let go of because of their addiction to authoritarian power.

See - Whitmer, deBlasio, and all of the west coast states for examples.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by oeb11

If you wish to "quote studies" - please provide the references for the studies Tiny.

The numbers you allude to - IMHO- do not include the undiagnosed asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic infections.

Case mortality for Wuhan virus is higher - significantly - in elderly with underlying obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes, and those with immune suppression disorders.

IMHO the above - from multiple publications - and if One wants proper epidemiology - see Dr. John Ioaniddis from Stanford (hardly a Conservative bastion) and read his articles.

What is true is the case mortality rate is nowhere near the DPST estimate of millions dead in America - providing their "rationale" for forcing America into home imprisonment and devastating the economy - which they won't let go of because of their addiction to authoritarian power.

See - Whitmer, deBlasio, and all of the west coast states for examples.

The reason America was forced into imprisonment was because of the incompetence of the CDC, President Trump and other politicians and governmental entities. If we had been properly prepared, worn masks, and done a good job of tracing and testing, tens of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars would have been saved.

My numbers are based on antibody tests and do include asymptomatic and minimally symptomatic infections.

Sample calculation:

Spain: Population is 46.94 million.

Estimated percent of population infected is 5%: https://english.elpais.com/society/2...ronavirus.html

Coronavirus Deaths = 27,650.

27,650 / (46.94 million x .05)= 1.2%

You can perform a similar exercise for other places if you wish. I'm tired of jumping through hoops to provide examples based on sound reasoning and science to people who aren't going to believe anything except what politicians and media pundits tell them to believe. About the California studies, which indicate much lower death rates than others, here's an article describing flaws:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/04/...ll-an-apology/

You assume 0.5% death rate and assume 70% of people are infected to get to herd immunity and you get 1.1 million deaths in the USA. This won't happen, but could have if there were no change in peoples' behavior and no vaccine. Two of the posters in this forum who suffer from TES (Trump Enlightenment Syndrome) have estimated 330 million Americans could have died.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Tiny

The reason America was forced into imprisonment was because of the incompetence of the CDC, President Trump and other politicians and governmental entities. If we had been properly prepared, worn masks, and done a good job of tracing and testing, tens of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars would have been saved.

My numbers are based on antibody tests and do include asymptomatic and minimally symptomatic infections.

Sample calculation:

Spain: Population is 46.94 million.

Estimated percent of population infected is 5%: https://english.elpais.com/society/2...ronavirus.html

Coronavirus Deaths = 27,650.

27,650 / (46.94 million x .05)= 1.2%

You can perform a similar exercise for other places if you wish. I'm tired of jumping through hoops to provide examples based on sound reasoning and science to people who aren't going to believe anything except what politicians and media pundits tell them to believe. About the California studies, which indicate much lower death rates than others, here's an article describing flaws:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/04/...ll-an-apology/

You assume 0.5% death rate and assume 70% of people are infected to get to herd immunity and you get 1.1 million deaths in the USA. This won't happen, but could have if there were no change in peoples' behavior and no vaccine. Two of the posters in this forum who suffer from TES (Trump Enlightenment Syndrome) have estimated 330 million Americans could have died.

330 million? so that's 326.5 million Americans .. the entire population and 3.5 million illegals?


BAHHAHAA

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by oeb11

Adding these extra sources of uncertainty, reasonable estimates for the case fatality ratio in the general U.S. population vary from 0.05% to 1%.

The case fatality ratio in the USA will not be in the .05% to 0.15% range, as you were thinking. It's much more likely to be closer to the middle of Ioannidis' range, maybe around 0.5% to 0.6%. Since he published that article, six more people from the Diamond Princess have died. That would make the case fatality ratio on the cruise ship 1.9%, so far, instead of 1% assumed by Ioannidis. Adjust for age and you're going to end up with higher numbers than he came up with originally. Ioannidis from memory was coming up with 10,000 total fatalities in the USA at the low end. We've shot far past that already.

We are not getting close to herd immunity anywhere in America, except the Bronx, where 40% have been infected according to antibody studies. Google the Los Angeles and Santa Clara County antibody studies and you'll see estimates that less than 5% of the population was infected. These studies were criticized for potentially overestimating the number infected, because among other reasons the tests they used had false positives.

The majority of people are wearing masks at least some of the time. This is not primarily because they are required to because of the government, but because they exhibit common sense. They're washing their hands more often, not gathering as close together, and dispensing with hand shakes and hugs.

What I'm getting at, we're probably not going to get to herd immunity if we get a vaccine in the next year or two. It pays to be cautious. The risk of getting the disease is lower than you think, based on your posts here. It's not inevitable. The risk of dying from it if a person gets it is higher than you think.

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by Tiny

The case fatality ratio in the USA will not be in the .05% to 0.15% range, as you were thinking. It's much more likely to be closer to the middle of Ioannidis' range, maybe around 0.5% to 0.6%. Since he published that article, six more people from the Diamond Princess have died. That would make the case fatality ratio on the cruise ship 1.9%, so far, instead of 1% assumed by Ioannidis. Adjust for age and you're going to end up with higher numbers than he came up with originally. Ioannidis from memory was coming up with 10,000 total fatalities in the USA at the low end. We've shot far past that already.

We are not getting close to herd immunity anywhere in America, except the Bronx, where 40% have been infected according to antibody studies. Google the Los Angeles and Santa Clara County antibody studies and you'll see estimates that less than 5% of the population was infected. These studies were criticized for potentially overestimating the number infected, because among other reasons the tests they used had false positives.

Good post Tiny. I tried to tell the eccie repubtards the same thing. Maybe it will get through this time. Your memory is correct,
Ioannidis estimated 10,000 deaths if 1% of the USA population got infected with SARS virus. He assumes a death rate of .3% for SARS virus. Here is his calculation.

If we assume that case fatality rate among individuals infected by SARS-CoV-2 is 0.3% in the general population — a mid-range guess from my Diamond Princess analysis — and that 1% of the U.S. population gets infected (about 3.3 million people), this would translate to about 10,000 deaths.

In the USA we have 90,000 deaths with just about 1% of the population getting infected. The USA has 9 times more deaths from CV19 than what he estimated for SARS with the amount of people getting infected.

You are correct about the Herd Immunity. It would be difficult to get there with the practice of social distance concepts. The USA has been practicing the social distance concepts for almost eight weeks. This has saved lives. The reason for the high infection rate in the Bronx, is it is the poorest section and has just as much density in population as the sections of New York city.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

Good post Tiny. I tried to tell the eccie repubtards the same thing. Maybe it will get through this time. Your memory is correct,
Ioannidis estimated 10,000 deaths if 1% of the USA population got infected with SARS virus. He assumes a death rate of .3% for SARS virus. Here is his calculation.

If we assume that case fatality rate among individuals infected by SARS-CoV-2 is 0.3% in the general population — a mid-range guess from my Diamond Princess analysis — and that 1% of the U.S. population gets infected (about 3.3 million people), this would translate to about 10,000 deaths.

In the USA we have 90,000 deaths with just about 1% of the population getting infected. The USA has 9 times more deaths from CV19 than what he estimated for SARS with the amount of people getting infected.

You are correct about the Herd Immunity. It would be difficult to get there with the practice of social distance concepts. The USA has been practicing the social distance concepts for almost eight weeks. This has saved lives. The reason for the high infection rate in the Bronx, is it is the poorest section and has just as much density in population as the sections of New York city.

Thanks for that adav8s28. At the time he wrote the paper, there were 7 people who had died on the Diamond Princess and 700 who were infected. So before adjusting for age he came up with a 1% fatality rate. Since then 6 more people have died, making a total of 13. If you take the 0.3% he used in your passage above and multiply by 13/7, you get 0.56%, which is reasonable given the recent antibody studies.

Ioannidis however is digging in and still saying the death rate may be around 0.1%. He was one of the authors of the Santa Clara, California study, which probably overestimated the number of people infected there and underestimated the death rate.

https://undark.org/2020/04/24/john-i...-rate-critics/

Maybe he's reluctant to admit he's wrong. He's made the round on Fox, appearing on Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin and has become some kind of a poster child for pandemic deniers.

Actually you have to give Trump some credit. Trump initially painted a rosier picture than Ioannidis. Unlike Ioannidis, when it became obvious he was wrong, he switched to saying that the government had saved more than a million lives. Later he said "millions" of lives. So he does recognize the truth in this instance. That he doesn't admit it sometimes doesn't necessarily mean he's stupid. Rather he practices Imelda Marcos' maxim, what's important is perception, not the truth.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Based on antibody studies, where you divide total people who've died by total infected...

What is said number of total people infected and where did you divine it from?

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

What is said number of total people infected and where did you divine it from?

Look at the Spain example I gave above. Google "new york antibody study", "Santa Clara County Antibody Study", "Los Angeles County Antibody Study". Like I said,

Originally Posted by Tiny

I'm tired of jumping through hoops to provide examples based on sound reasoning and science to people who aren't going to believe anything except what politicians and media pundits tell them to believe.

That's a general statement btw, not trying to categorize you and certainly not Oeb, who I was responding to and who actually does often take the initiative to search out the facts.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Look at the Spain example I gave above. Google "new york antibody study", "Santa Clara County Antibody Study", "Los Angeles County Antibody Study". Like I said,...

Recapping; you say we don't do nearly enough testing and from the testing we have done, which is more than everyone else in the world combined and now we can safely decide a value of how many total people are infected. What is that value that you elude to? Care to break down into the proper buckets too? Later on we can hash out - WTF is a COVID death?

Though I did get a chuckle out of the State related studies you cite, given the below:

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Thanks for that adav8s28. At the time he wrote the paper, there were 7 people who had died on the Diamond Princess and 700 who were infected. So before adjusting for age he came up with a 1% fatality rate. Since then 6 more people have died, making a total of 13. If you take the 0.3% he used in your passage above and multiply by 13/7, you get 0.56%, which is reasonable given the recent antibody studies.

Ioannidis however is digging in and still saying the death rate may be around 0.1%. He was one of the authors of the Santa Clara, California study, which probably overestimated the number of people infected there and underestimated the death rate.

https://undark.org/2020/04/24/john-i...-rate-critics/

Maybe he's reluctant to admit he's wrong. He's made the round on Fox, appearing on Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin and has become some kind of a poster child for pandemic deniers.

+1
Good post Tiny. Excellent point about Ioannidis underestimating the death rate and refusing to admit he was wrong.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

+1
Good post Tiny. Excellent point about Ioannidis underestimating the death rate and refusing to admit he was wrong.

Originally Posted by oeb11

IMHO the above - from multiple publications - and if One wants proper epidemiology - see Dr. John Ioaniddis from Stanford (hardly a Conservative bastion) and read his articles.

Gentlemen, I believe the truth probably lies somewhere between your initial views. We weren't at risk of millions of deaths in the USA from this. And this is much worse than the flu. Oeb, I believe infection fatality rate from the flu is much lower than you thought. This is because the fatality rates you were looking at didn't include all the people who were infected with the flu, only the ones who tested positive. In other words, the rates you were looking at were calculated the same way the high coronavirus fatality rates were calculated, by excluding untested and asymptomatic individuals from the denominator. The actual average infection fatality rate for the flu might be around 0.01%, not 0.1%. See Table 1, here,
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3809029/


Ioannidis came out with a recent metastudy,

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....full.pdf+html

He comes up with infection fatality rates of .03% to 0.50%.

Some of his peers have torn into it. You can go here, and click on "Show this thread" under the first post, by Health "Physical Isolation" Nerd for a taste.

https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1262956011872280577

Also, see discussion comments on Ioannidis' paper here, https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....13.20101253v1

A couple of the biggest failings are he excluded some large government studies, including the Spanish antibody study of 70,000 individuals that I described above, which would point toward an infection fatality rate of 1.2%. Someone wrote that's over double the number of participants of all the other studies he examined. The second, like the Diamond Princess, he doesn't take into account that additional participants, who tested positive, are going to die after the study's completed. Recall above that 7 people had died on the Diamond Princess at the time he wrote his earlier paper, and 700 people were infected, so he came up with an infection fatality ratio of 1%, unadjusted for age. Since then 6 more people have died so the ratio is now 1.85%. In addition, you've got people with either valid criticisms or nitpicking about sample selection. For example, one of the studies, which Ioannidis coauthored and was included in the metastudy, recruited off Facebook. You see an ad on Facebook and think you had the coronavirus, so you're going to be more likely to volunteer for the study. Also blood donors, who likely are in better health and less likely to shelter at home (thus more likely to have been infected because they're out and about more) were disproportionately represented.

I think Ioannidis is low, although yes, Oeb, you can rightly point to his work as good evidence that millions of Americans were never going to die from this.

Here's a recent metastudy that comes up with an infection fatality rate of 0.49% to 1.01%:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....full.pdf+html

Here's another with an estimate of 1.04%:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....full.pdf+html

The thing to like though about Ioannidis' methodology is that he's using ONLY antibody tests, and these two papers aren't. The thing not to like is that he appears to be a little sloppy and maybe biased.

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Gentlemen, I believe the truth probably lies somewhere between your initial views. We weren't at risk of millions of deaths in the USA from this. And this is much worse than the flu. Oeb, I believe infection fatality rate from the a recent metastudy,

A couple of the biggest failings are he excluded some large government studies, including the Spanish antibody study of 70,000 individuals that I described above, which would point toward an infection fatality rate of 1.2%. Someone wrote that's over double the number of participants of all the other studies he examined. The second, like the Diamond Princess, he doesn't take into account that additional participants, who tested positive, are going to die after the study's completed. Recall above that 7 people had died on the Diamond Princess at the time he wrote his earlier paper, and 700 people were infected, so he came up with an infection fatality ratio of 1%, unadjusted for age. Since then 6 more people have died so the ratio is now 1.85%. In addition, you've got people with either valid criticisms or nitpicking about sample selection. For example, one of the studies, which Ioannidis coauthored and was included in the metastudy, recruited off Facebook. You see an ad on Facebook and think you had the coronavirus, so you're going to be more likely to volunteer for the study. Also blood donors, who likely are in better health and less likely to shelter at home (thus more likely to have been infected because they're out and about more) were disproportionately represented.

I think Ioannidis is low, although yes, Oeb, you can rightly point to his work as good evidence that millions of Americans were never going to die from this.

Here's a recent metastudy that comes up with an infection fatality rate of 0.49% to 1.01%:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....full.pdf+html

If it turns out to be 1.01% and 200 million USA citizens become infected with CV19, then 2 million citizens would die. We have 105,000 deaths already with just 1.8 million citizens with symptoms. Not 2% of the USA population has been infected yet. It would be difficult for anyone to opt for Herd Immunity with that high a number. Fauci and the others were wise to advise Trump to shut things down to control the spread.

https://www.trackcorona.live/