vtsnowedin wrote:
Ah John? Your facts only add to 39.2%. What age are the other 60.8%. that die?
I think using my small VT sample the real figures Are for 80+ people 42% and for all 60+ 93% (based by 1084 cases and 55 deaths)
No
Because those people who are already seriously sick enough to be admitted to ICU are already self selected to have a higher CFR than all of those who were sick but did not need to get admitted into ICU.
Of all of the people who contract Covid 19 in any age group, the numbers I have quoted are correct and are based on the official data that is globally available.
And, to repeat, they are based on only those people who were sick enough to at least register their sickness with the medical system. Given there is a massive percentage of people with the virus who do not get sick enough to even have their sickness registered in the system (and that will even include the elderly - albeit in relatively smaller numbers), the infection fatality rate will be even lower than the numbers quoted.
Your oft repeated figures LJ aren't about the number of people who will be hospitalised and recover. Many of these people are in hospital and really sick for months at a time. It's about clogging up hospitals. If the hospitals get clogged more people who should be hospitalised and can't will die.
vtsnowedin wrote:
Ah John? Your facts only add to 39.2%. What age are the other 60.8%. that die?
I think using my small VT sample the real figures Are for 80+ people 42% and for all 60+ 93% (based by 1084 cases and 55 deaths)
No
Because those people who are already seriously sick enough to be admitted to ICU are already self selected to have a higher CFR than all of those who were sick but did not need to get admitted into ICU.
Of all of the people who contract Covid 19 in any age group, the numbers I have quoted are correct and are based on the official data that is globally available.
And, to repeat, they are based on only those people who were sick enough to at least register their sickness with the medical system. Given there is a massive percentage of people with the virus who do not get sick enough to even have their sickness registered in the system (and that will even include the elderly - albeit in relatively smaller numbers), the infection fatality rate will be even lower than the numbers quoted.
Yes I realize the IFR is much lower then any available figures that was not my point. I'm using official confirmed cases which includes both hospitalized and asymptomatic people that have tested positive so not all have self selected to be in a high CFR group. For the whole group of 1084 cases ( 128 are new enough to not be resolved as yet) 55 have died or 5.06% of known confirmed cases. That further breaks down to 30-39 (0.09%), 49-49 (0.18%), 50-55(0.09%), 60-69 (0.9%), 70-79 (1.7%) and 80+ (2.1%) which add back up to the 5.06%.
Edit Add: Cases confirmed based on 44,228 tests of a population of 623,989 or 7.1% of the population but not randomly applied with a positive per test rate of 2.4%
kenneal - lagger wrote:Your oft repeated figures LJ aren't about the number of people who will be hospitalised and recover. Many of these people are in hospital and really sick for months at a time. It's about clogging up hospitals. If the hospitals get clogged more people who should be hospitalised and can't will die.
You are comparing apples and oranges.
How many people, as a proportion, are sick and in hospital for months. Do you actually know the numbers?
Doing a little back of the envelope modeling: Suppose they test the oldest 400,000 Vermonters. That would be all over 30 with a few thousand for younger that show symptoms. If the 2.4 % positive rate held a worst case guess they would find 9600 cases and if 5% of those die would end up with 480 deaths.
Now look at the cost to the economy which just for state and education funds is estimated to be $500 million. Of course you can't count cost per death but have to estimate number of deaths saved by the control measures employed.
Suppose an uncontrolled state death rate was four times what we are seeing with the lockdowns presently in place so 1440 lives may have been saved.
Large error bars on that figure but carrying on, 500 million divided by 1440 comes to $347,222 per death avoided and that is just the governments loss not the loss of income the citizens have endured which are perhaps five times that as taxes of all types amount to about 20% of all income.
UndercoverElephant wrote:
It wasn't meant precisely.
Then why did you say it? Doesn't precision in language matter to you?
Sure, but in this case there is a limit to what sort of precision is possible. It was a vague guess about what might happen in six months time. All that matters for the purpose of my post is that we're talking about a situation where the infection rate starts climbing sharply when the weather starts getting seriously cold and miserable in November. The actual numbers don't matter as much as the direction of travel.
UndercoverElephant wrote:
It wasn't meant precisely.
Then why did you say it? Doesn't precision in language matter to you?
Sure, but in this case there is a limit to what sort of precision is possible. It was a vague guess about what might happen in six months time. All that matters for the purpose of my post is that we're talking about a situation where the infection rate starts climbing sharply when the weather starts getting seriously cold and miserable in November. The actual numbers don't matter as much as the direction of travel.
Nope. What matters is what portion of people get seriously ill or die and we already know that and we already know, even, which sub groups will be most likely to be in that portion.
People, this is starting to look like a lynch of UE for no reason. If anyone want's to see what a board of self satisfied, self reinforcing, narrow biased whiners look like - I refer you to this place:
We all have different priorities, things could have been better etc. Most things except hospitality and schools will try opening soon. If they don't see big case increases, the rest will avalanche open anyway.
There should already be big case increases due to the non-socially-distanced mass BLM protests and violent insurrections both here in the UK and elsewhere and, as a consequence if the pant shitters are correct, mass admissions to hospital of the otherwise young and healthy.
Where are they?
And I will not apologize for pinning to the ground those people who blithely sit by, at best, or actively support, at worst, the wholesale removal of the rights of men that were won with the blood of our ancestors and also of the biggest economic catastrophe to hit this country for a century. Possibly, even, three centuries.
Because it is my class - My F*cking Class - that always ends up picking up the tab for this self indulgent beurgois bullshit.
Little John wrote:There should already be big case increases due to the non-socially-distanced mass BLM protests and violent insurrections both here in the UK and elsewhere and, as a consequence if the pant shitters are correct, mass admissions to hospital of the otherwise young and healthy.
Where are they?
I just told you. There is evidence that the virus is less transmissible during warm, dry weather (for a whole bunch of obvious reasons). It may well be that a combination of the weather and most people still being quite careful keeps the lid on infections for quite some time. If so, we might expect the infection rate to take off again not now, but in the late autumn.
And I will not apologize for pinning to the ground those people who blithely sit by, at best, or actively support, at worst, the wholesale removal of the rights of men that were won with the blood of our ancestors and also of the biggest economic catastrophe to hit this country for a century. Possibly, even, three centuries.
If the removal was permanent I'd understand what you are so angry about. Clearly it isn't.
And it isn't just the working class who are paying for this. In fact, we don't yet know who is going to end up paying for it.
Little John wrote:There should already be big case increases due to the non-socially-distanced mass BLM protests and violent insurrections both here in the UK and elsewhere and, as a consequence if the pant shitters are correct, mass admissions to hospital of the otherwise young and healthy.
Where are they?
I just told you. There is evidence that the virus is less transmissible during warm, dry weather (for a whole bunch of obvious reasons). It may well be that a combination of the weather and most people still being quite careful keeps the lid on infections for quite some time. If so, we might expect the infection rate to take off again not now, but in the late autumn.
And I will not apologize for pinning to the ground those people who blithely sit by, at best, or actively support, at worst, the wholesale removal of the rights of men that were won with the blood of our ancestors and also of the biggest economic catastrophe to hit this country for a century. Possibly, even, three centuries.
If the removal was permanent I'd understand what you are so angry about. Clearly it isn't.
And it isn't just the working class who are paying for this. In fact, we don't yet know who is going to end up paying for it.
UndercoverElephant wrote:Exactly the same reasoning as the millenium bug. There was no large first wave because action was taken to prevent it. Doh!
Factually incorrect.
With the possible exception of out and out dictatorships who have full command and control economies and political systems, all countries have observed more or less the same curve of infection irrespective of measures taken. Or, at least, to any extent that they have diverged from one another, this is not particularly correlated with lock-down measures. Indeed, there are now plenty of example of countries that have employed significantly milder lock-downs and obtained a lower CFR than countries who have employed more draconian lock-downs.
There is no clear line relationship between lock-downs and CFR. You are making shit up again.
Last edited by Little John on 11 Jun 2020, 11:36, edited 3 times in total.
