0-49 years old: 0.05% 50-64 years old: 0.2% 65+ years old: 1.3% Overall ages: 0.4%
The CDC has also cautioned that the numbers are likely to change as new data arrives. But, if you consider how we have gone from 3.4 % to 2.0 % to now 0.26 %, it seems more likely that the number might get even lower as we get more data.
From the page you linked to, right at the bottom:
Addendum:
The ever-growing confusion between the two numbers - 0.26 % by the CDC and 3.4% by the WHO:
Although it appears as if 0.26 % is a small fraction of the 3.4 %
that the World Health Organization (WHO) originally estimated, there is a
difference between the two numbers. WHO's 3.4% is the Case Fatality
Rate (CFR) - the ratio of the number of deaths divided by the number of confirmed (preferably by nucleic acid testing) cases of
the disease. CDC's new number 0.26% is the Infection Fatality Rate
(IFR), which is the ratio of deaths divided by the number of actual infections with SARS-CoV-2.
One should note that the IFR is likely to be significantly lower than
the CFR since the RT- PCR testing is limited and currently available
primarily to people with significant indications of and risk factors for
COVID-19 disease, and because a large number of infections with
SARS-CoV-2 result in only mild or even asymptomatic disease.
There is one in particular who goes out of his way to say repeatedly how much blood Trump has on his hands because of his handling of this virus. Many others post similar but more veiled thoughts on this. Maybe you should pay more attention and call these thoughts out when you see them such as you do mine since you seem to disagree with this notion, too. Eh ?
Yes I'm serious and trump can have plenty of blood on his hands without having all of it. There's plenty to go around. And nothing excuses your claiming that as a basis for thinking all democrats want people to die to defeat trump.
I have never heard anyone blame nearly all USA deaths on trump. Certainly not here, although I'm sure that there are jerks with almost any opinion. Like I say you are being offensive, you know you are being offensive and you don't care as long as you can find a way to look past the legitimate management failures of Trump and his administration.
You're kidding ? Right ?
There is one in particular who goes out of his way to say repeatedly how much blood Trump has on his hands because of his handling of this virus. Many others post similar but more veiled thoughts on this. Maybe you should pay more attention and call these thoughts out when you see them such as you do mine since you seem to disagree with this notion, too. Eh ?
Just returning all the love from your blue side that blames nearly all, if not all, USA deaths on Trump because of his "inaction".
Just as offensive to me and with little difference.
So there.
I have never heard anyone blame nearly all USA deaths on trump. Certainly not here, although I'm sure that there are jerks with almost any opinion. Like I say you are being offensive, you know you are being offensive and you don't care as long as you can find a way to look past the legitimate management failures of Trump and his administration.
Saying that democrats want people to die is beyond offensive, but you know that. And I will keep calling you out for it, even though you will likely justify being shitty because some wounded feelings from something or other sometime.
Just returning all the love from your blue side that blames nearly all, if not all, USA deaths on Trump because of his "inaction".
Just as offensive to me and with little difference.
Location: Half inch above the K/T boundary Gender:
Posted:
May 26, 2020 - 9:25pm
One fact: Almost 100,000 confirmed covid-19 fatalities in about three months with the count certainly higher if more testing had been available. Difficult to throw out stats that seem to try to minimize the reality of this number or the impact of the disease.
0-49 years old: 0.05% 50-64 years old: 0.2% 65+ years old: 1.3% Overall ages: 0.4%
The CDC has also cautioned that the numbers are likely to change as new data arrives. But, if you consider how we have gone from 3.4 % to 2.0 % to now 0.26 %, it seems more likely that the number might get even lower as we get more data.
That's the wonderful thing about the situation. There's always something good to hang your hat on. Of course the death rate goes down as you look outside the hospitals (especially if you don't look too hard inside the aged care facilities). But yes, this is good news as long as the number of hospitalised cases continues to decrease and as long as the authorities don't try to game the system on how they define deaths due to the virus.
Saying that democrats want people to die is beyond offensive, but you know that. And I will keep calling you out for it, even though you will likely justify being shitty because some wounded feelings from something or other sometime.
The new estimates of fatality rate released by the CDC are as follows for different age groups:
0-49 years old: 0.05% 50-64 years old: 0.2% 65+ years old: 1.3% Overall ages: 0.4%
The CDC has also cautioned that the numbers are likely to change as new data arrives. But, if you consider how we have gone from 3.4 % to 2.0 % to now 0.26 %, it seems more likely that the number might get even lower as we get more data.
On a visit to Brazil last year, I had a chat with a prominent financier about the parallels between Donald Trump and Jair Bolsonaro.
âThey are very similar,â she said, before adding: âBut Bolsonaro is much stupider.â This answer took me aback since the US president is not generally regarded as a towering intellect. But my banker friend was insistent. âLook,â she said. âTrump has run a major business. Bolsonaro never made it above captain in the army.â
The coronavirus pandemic has reminded me of that observation. Brazilâs president has taken an approach that is strikingly similar to that of Mr Trump â but even more irresponsible and dangerous. Both leaders have become obsessed with the supposedly curative properties of the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine. But while Mr Trump is merely taking it himself, Mr Bolsonaro has forced the Brazilian health ministry to issue new guidelines, recommending the drug for coronavirus patients. The US president has squabbled with his scientific advisers. But Mr Bolsonaro has sacked one health minister and provoked his replacement to resign. Mr Trump has expressed sympathy for anti-lockdown protesters; Mr Bolsonaro has addressed their rallies.
Sadly, Brazil is already paying a high price for its presidentâs antics â and things are getting worse fast. Coronavirus hit Brazil relatively late. But the country has the second-highest infection rate in the world and the sixth-highest recorded Covid-19 deaths. The number of deaths in Brazil, which accounts for roughly half the population of South America, is now doubling every two weeks, compared with every two months in the hard-hit UK. (...)
We were supposed to get up to 2 ½ million dead in the USA alone when this started according to the first models.
If we did nothing. We weren't supposed to lose that many ever, especially when you consider that it was "under control" 3 months ago. February 26 - âWeâre going to be pretty soon at only five peopleâ... âAnd we could be at just one or two people over the next short period of time.â... âwhen you have 15 people, and the 15 within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero, thatâs a pretty good job weâve done.â
Now that we've handled it so poorly....the only way to spin a positive story is to explain how "We saved millions".
You'll get another chance to chase that number when the re-opening creates big pockets of outbreaks. When that happens....it'll be the Governors who screwed up.
Yes the numbers are going up regardless of how they are presently counted. We were supposed to get up to 2 ½ million dead in the USA alone when this started according to the first models. Again, this is just in the starting phase. Using only the data to date for basing final conclusions is not sound practice. Sure as hell ain't scientific ... it's more like tossing spaghetti at the wall. Like spaghetti, the longer you cook it, the more will stick to the wall.
Projections (there are a lot of them, anyone can make one, and I don't know which one you're referring to) if done properly, don't pick some random number and say "Ta-da, this is how many holes to dig!" They give a range reflecting the assumptions in the modeling (what, if anything, is done in response to the pandemic; how virulent the disease turns out to be; etc.) and the uncertainties in the driving factors. Again since I don't know which projection you're referring to I can't tell if that's an estimate from the high end (do nothing, very virulent, bad luck) or just some number you heard on Fox & Friends.
What's your point? Projections are always wrong so pay them no mind? Wait until the pandemic is over so we have good solid numbers, then declare "Oh that's what we should have done!"? Other than the data to date what data should we use, and when is a conclusion "final"?
We were supposed to get up to 2 ½ million dead in the USA alone
People say exactly this a lot and what are we supposed to take away from it? That they're disappointed? Some of them (present company excepted I guess) are simply too stupid to understand how projections work in the early stages of an unprecedented event; the others may be maliciously misrepresenting the projections as some sort of promise but I can't imagine what the goal there would be. Certainly not simple political polarization, scoring points during a crisis? No. Must be disappointment.
Funny how you key on that and ignore this which is the point.
kurtster wrote:
Using only the data to date for basing final conclusions is not sound practice.
Go with the set up and ignore the point. Whatever.
You may need to sign up for a Medscape account in order to read this, but it is free and they are not spammy (also, you know, evidence-based medicine). The full text is available from The Lancet here.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
May 26, 2020 - 7:36am
ScottFromWyoming wrote:
kurtster wrote:
We were supposed to get up to 2 ½ million dead in the USA alone
People say exactly this a lot and what are we supposed to take away from it? That they're disappointed? Some of them (present company excepted I guess) are simply too stupid to understand how projections work in the early stages of an unprecedented event; the others may be maliciously misrepresenting the projections as some sort of promise but I can't imagine what the goal there would be. Certainly not simple political polarization, scoring points during a crisis? No. Must be disappointment.
That estimate, I believe, was the one from the Imperial study, which also estimated up to 500,000 covid-19 deaths in UK.. My understanding of those projections, as publicly stated by Dr. Birx, is that they were based on us doing essentially little or nothing in terms of restrictions/mitigation. The later projection of 100,000 to 240,000 made a month or so agoâ where we now appear likely to fall â was based on mitigation strategies being employed and followed.
