All things Corona Virus

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

The US Death Rate From The Coronavirus Is 49 Times Higher Than The Flu

https://www.sciencealert.com/the-us-death-rate-for-covid-19-is-50-times-higher-than-the-flu

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

2 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

The US Death Rate From The Coronavirus Is 49 Times Higher Than The Flu

https://www.sciencealert.com/the-us-death-rate-for-covid-19-is-50-times-higher-than-the-flu

Check your facts bro, Biden just said there's over 120 million dead. That's 50,000 times higher. Trump's killed 1/3 of the US population! Impeach!

Edited June 26, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

On 6/24/2020 at 1:55 AM, OriZ said:

The whole point of what I wrote is that not wearing a mask doesn't automatically make one "irresponsible", "rude", or "selfish" and that kind of mindset is no more than a wrong, grave, generalization. There is no science that really points to one side being more right than the other.

Not only that, but it is a generalized, sweeping assessment against a broad demographic, and worthy of a timeout.  I do hope the mods are taking note.

Edited June 26, 2020 by Voice of Reason

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

3 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

The US Death Rate From The Coronavirus Is 49 Times Higher Than The Flu

https://www.sciencealert.com/the-us-death-rate-for-covid-19-is-50-times-higher-than-the-flu

Are you posting on Ambien again?

 

In order for your post to be accurate, there would have to have been 1,675,800 Covid deaths in the US.  I know you can’t be held accountable for your grammar, but as a car salesman, I would expect your maff abilities to be above par...

Edited June 26, 2020 by Voice of Reason

[Steeleballz 7,550]

20 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

Are you posting on Ambien again?

 

In order for your post to be accurate, there would have to have been 1,675,800 Covid deaths in the US.  I know you can’t be held accountable for your grammar, but as a car salesman, I would expect your maff abilities to be above par...

 

  NB didn't make that up. He linked to the data. If you have a calculator handy, you can probably confirm fairly quickly that 4.9 divided by 0.1 does actually work out to 49. 

[laylalex 7,289]

Death rate (comparison of how many people who contract the flu or coronavirus go on to die from the flu or coronavirus) is different from number of deaths (raw number comparison). The number of cases is the denominator, and the number of deaths resulting from contracting the flu or coronavirus is the numerator. 

 

If you read the article, it's pretty clear, but basically it's this: 

Quote

While about 0.1 percent of people who got the flu died in the US last year, according to the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, the coronavirus' death rate is currently about 4.9 percent, based on the reported totals of cases and deaths. That makes the coronavirus' average death rate 49 times higher than that of the flu.

Actually, the data cited in Nature Boy's article have now been tweaked -- I went to the Business Insider article his link was quoting. Here's the corrected version: https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-death-rate-us-compared-to-flu-by-age-2020-6

 

The real difference between that article and this one is this bit: 

Quote

While about 0.1% of people who got the flu died in the US last year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the coronavirus' death rate is currently about 5.2%, based on the reported totals of cases and deaths. That makes the coronavirus' average death rate 52 times higher than that of the flu.

 

[OriZ 3,157]

4 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

The US Death Rate From The Coronavirus Is 49 Times Higher Than The Flu

https://www.sciencealert.com/the-us-death-rate-for-covid-19-is-50-times-higher-than-the-flu

 

1 hour ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  NB didn't make that up. He linked to the data. If you have a calculator handy, you can probably confirm fairly quickly that 4.9 divided by 0.1 does actually work out to 49. 

 

I thought we have already discussed this many times...

 

There are likely at least 10-15 times more covid cases than we know of. This brings the actual rate down to the 0.2-0.4% range. That range is of course skewed by the unproportional number of deaths in older people. Within the rest of the population, only one out of several thousands of people who get covid will actually die from it. I'm confused as to why we keep revisiting this and why anyone would put an article out there with stats that we have known for over 3 months should not be looked at the way they did.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

 

 

Quote

What Parents Can Learn From Child Care Centers That Stayed Open During Lockdowns

Quote

Throughout the pandemic, many child care centers have stayed open for the children of front-line workers — everyone from doctors to grocery store clerks. YMCA of the USA and New York City's Department of Education have been caring for, collectively, tens of thousands of children since March, and both tell NPR they have no reports of coronavirus clusters or outbreaks. As school districts sweat over reopening plans, and with just over half of parents telling pollsters they're comfortable with in-person school this fall, public health and policy experts say education leaders should be discussing and drawing on these real-world child care experiences.

Quote

 

In a separate, unscientific survey of child care centers, Brown University economist Emily Oster found that, as of Tuesday afternoon, among 916 centers serving more than 20,000 children, just over 1% of staff and 0.16% of children were confirmed infected with the coronavirus.

The Y emphasized to NPR that its data is not comprehensive, and the availability of testing has varied across the country. But experts say it's worth taking these low numbers into account.

 

Quote

 

Pods and "airplane arms"

In March, the CDC had yet to issue its official guidance about how to safely operate schools or group child care. And yet, the protocols that the Y and New York City came up with were strikingly similar to the CDC's May recommendations, as well as guidelines now being considered by states and districts.

In order to slow the spread of illness, local YMCAs and New York City grouped "pods" of no more than nine children with each adult. Heidi Brasher of the YMCA of the USA says this often meant using spaces such as basketball courts or even boardrooms, taking advantage of buildings that were otherwise closed. "They were very creative in the way they utilized space," Brasher says.

 

Quote

 

"These experiences illustrate that it's possible to bring kids together without a guarantee of an outbreak or a serious situation developing," he explains. On the other hand, they don't guarantee the opposite.

Sharfstein agrees it's OK to extrapolate — not only from essential worker child care in the U.S., but from the experiences of countries around the world where schools have already opened up. "There are ways to substantially reduce the risks when kids get together," he says.

He also agrees with Haspel, the child care advocate, in saying that "there is converging evidence that the coronavirus doesn't transmit among children like the flu — that it's a lower risk."

 

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/24/882316641/what-parents-can-learn-from-child-care-centers-that-stayed-open-during-lockdowns

 

For parents facing sending kids to school, verify their program, and if satisfied, just do it.

 

We've already seen the precautionary measures, on top of the science like this, it's far more harmful to our kids to keep them locked in the house.

Edited June 26, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, OriZ said:

 

 

I thought we have already discussed this many times...

 

There are likely at least 10-15 times more covid cases than we know of. This brings the actual rate down to the 0.2-0.4% range. That range is of course skewed by the unproportional number of deaths in older people. Within the rest of the population, only one out of several thousands of people who get covid will actually die from it. I'm confused as to why we keep revisiting this and why anyone would put an article out there with stats that we have known for over 3 months should not be looked at the way they did.

 

  We have discussed it, but the article did say it's based on reported totals. That is the confirmed death rate. There is also an estimated death rate, but it's only as good as the data used, and it may still be a while before they have an accurate estimate with any degree of confidence. The "official" estimate I saw somewhere was 0.75% IIRC, which was estimating more than 20 million positive cases so far in the USA and also estimating the death totals have been under counted.

[Dashinka 24,519]

7 hours ago, OriZ said:

 

 

I thought we have already discussed this many times...

 

There are likely at least 10-15 times more covid cases than we know of. This brings the actual rate down to the 0.2-0.4% range. That range is of course skewed by the unproportional number of deaths in older people. Within the rest of the population, only one out of several thousands of people who get covid will actually die from it. I'm confused as to why we keep revisiting this and why anyone would put an article out there with stats that we have known for over 3 months should not be looked at the way they did.

Wait, doesn’t the media report that getting the Chinese Bat Flu is a death sentence?

[OriZ 3,157]

9 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  We have discussed it, but the article did say it's based on reported totals. That is the confirmed death rate. There is also an estimated death rate, but it's only as good as the data used, and it may still be a while before they have an accurate estimate with any degree of confidence. The "official" estimate I saw somewhere was 0.75% IIRC, which was estimating more than 20 million positive cases so far in the USA and also estimating the death totals have been under counted.

Funny thing is, they go by estimated flu cases to determine flu mortality, but only confirmed cases to determine covid mortality. Even if it's 0.75% that's far from 49 times higher.

[OriZ 3,157]

2 hours ago, Dashinka said:

Wait, doesn’t the media report that getting the Chinese Bat Flu is a death sentence?

Not sure to be honest, I don't pay attention to it lol

[Steeleballz 7,550]

6 minutes ago, OriZ said:

Funny thing is, they go by estimated flu cases to determine flu mortality, but only confirmed cases to determine covid mortality. Even if it's 0.75% that's far from 49 times higher.

 

  It is somewhat of an apples to oranges comparison, but the model data for the flu estimates is comprehensive enough to give an accurate estimate, whereas the models for Covid-19 are not really there yet. We see that in the number of times they have been revised. Both times I have had the flu (that I know of), I just stayed home, (but I did test myself both times to confirm). One time was basically just a runny nose so really no symptoms. I wasn't part of any recorded statistics, but the scope of the CDC modeling data takes things like that into account. It takes a while to get an accurate model to account for all those types of variables. I just don't think we are there yet with Covid-19.

 

  Barring something unforeseen, I agree, the Covid death rate (estimates) should trend farther down as they gather more data and construct better models. Even the rates for recorded numbers will go down as they test more. For all the criticism level at those who have come up with predictions, they basically started with nothing and are dealing with an illness where a large but still unknown number of people have no symptoms, and a small group has severe life threatening illness. It took almost a year to get accurate data for H1N1 death rates and that was something that basically fell into the existing model after the initial pandemic phase. It will probably take longer with Covid-19. 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

2 hours ago, Dashinka said:

Wait, doesn’t the media report that getting the Chinese Bat Flu is a death sentence?

 

  Not really. I think you are mixing that up with the portrayal by the opinion pundits who make a living from getting reactions out of their chosen demographic targets. 

[Dashinka 24,519]

30 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Not really. I think you are mixing that up with the portrayal by the opinion pundits who make a living from getting reactions out of their chosen demographic targets. 

I think you are mistaking the fact that most reporters today are actually activists trying to create a narrative.