Michigan Protesters Cause Gridlock

[pmv]

Is it to high? How many deaths are there that we don't know about, or are classified incorrectly under something else? Even the experts believe that our death count is way under what it really is.

I agree, even if it is 1.5%, that is a lot of deaths. I am right there with you with your annoyances, but I am more angry than annoyed with the disregard to people's lives that those people seem to have.

Your fatality rate is too high because you are underestimating the number of cases (i.e. the denominator), as the confirmed cases miss all the mild or asymptomatic ones. You are probably also undercounting the deaths, but not by so much. That's the point I made with the data in the NYT link - looking at excess deaths compared to the historical average gives a pretty good estimate of what the true death count of the virus is.

I'm not convinced by the claims made by the minimizers that the infection numbers are massively greater than thought. That seems to be based on very questionable studies (and in some cases I've seen, where they are claiming absurdly low CFR numbers, they seem to have just made up their numbers from nowhere). But the numbers of actual infections are quite clearly substantially greater than the counted cases. The New York City study seems, as far as I can make out, to be one of the more plausible ones, so I'm basing the numbers on that. But really I guess we'll only have good numbers once the damn thing is almost over.

 

[NWRMidnight]

Your fatality rate is too high because you are underestimating the number of cases (i.e. the denominator), as the confirmed cases miss all the mild or asymptomatic ones. You are probably also undercounting the deaths, but not by so much. That's the point I made with the data in the NYT link - looking at excess deaths compared to the historical average gives a pretty good estimate of what the true death count of the virus is.

I'm not convinced by the claims made by the minimizers that the infection numbers are massively greater than thought. That seems to be based on very questionable studies (and in some cases I've seen, where they are claiming absurdly low CFR numbers, they seem to have just made up their numbers from nowhere). But the numbers of actual infections are quite clearly substantially greater than the counted cases. The New York City study seems, as far as I can make out, to be one of the more plausible ones, so I'm basing the numbers on that. But really I guess we'll only have good numbers once the damn thing is almost over.

There is no way to say for sure how far off the death count is. Many are being classified as pneumonia if they where not diagnosed with COVID-19 prior to death.

You are right in saying that we really won't know till it's all over. In all honesty, it way to soon to tell, and non of the numbers are accurate and won't be for a very long time.

 

[amrnuke]

You are ignoring the overloaded health system. New York wouldn't have as high a death count now if their facilities weren't overloaded.

You also can't use other countries as a comparison becaus of all the different influences. That and we are talking about New York, not the country. However, France, Italy, Spain, all issues quarantines, lock downs and other measures. And they still have a 10 to 13% death rate.

This Virus is nothing like the Spanish flu, where it is contagious up to 2 weeks before symptoms among other factors, and most die within 2 to 3 weeks after symptoms appear (not sure about the spanish flu). We also have 3.5 time the population with 10 times the population density in the high populated areas, if not more. Granted, we have came a long ways medically.

You also have to realize, most of the deaths from the spanish flu came after they removed the "lock down" restrictions (yes they had them back then, just like we have them right now). We may be headed for the same result with the push that is going on to open everything up.

I am not ignoring the overloaded health system. Even if every patient with severe symptoms died (they don't) that's less than a 12.5% death rate.

Over 90% of patients in NYC who ended up on a ventilator died and NYC death rate even among only positive cases (not even counting untested and asymptomatic) is: confirmed cases 158000, deaths 12067 = death rate is less than 10%.

Can you show your work? Assuming herd immunity, your numbers predict 80-100 million deaths in the US. No one --- NO ONE --- has come within an order of magnitude of that number in their projections.

 

[amrnuke]

There is no way to say for sure how far off the death count is. Many are being classified as pneumonia if they where not diagnosed with COVID-19 prior to death.

Unaccounted deaths in NYC are double what they normally are, with over 12,500 excess deaths 2/1/2020 until now. But let's assume ALL of the deaths in NYC from 2/1/2020 until now are due to COVID, just for fun to inflate the numerator to help you out. That's 25978 deaths among the 21% (1,764,000) seropositive.

But hell, to make your numbers look better, let's deflate the denominator and just assume the serum test is off by 50% (which is not within the realm of possibility, but shows just how far off you are), and only 875,000 actually are seropositive.

Even then, the death rate is 2.9%.

 

[pmv]

There is no way to say for sure how far off the death count is. Many are being classified as pneumonia if they where not diagnosed with COVID-19 prior to death.

You are right in saying that we really won't know till it's all over. In all honesty, it way to soon to tell, and non of the numbers are accurate and won't be for a very long time.

There's a very good way to say how far off the death count is. Did you look at the NYT link I gave? You look at the excess death rates compared to the historical average. Why do you think that data isn't any good?

Sheesh - I normally find myself in disagreement with people determined to minimise the fatality rate, but in this instance you seem to be trying to believe the rate is higher than it is. We can't say for sure, but it seems very likely its between 1% and 2%. The Diamond Princess death rate is at the upper end of that range, and those were all elderly people. Even 1% is considerably worse than seasonal flu.

 

[Jhhnn]

You are ignoring the overloaded health system. New York wouldn't have as high a death count now if their facilities weren't overloaded.

You also can't use other countries as a comparison becaus of all the different influences. That and we are talking about New York, not the country. However, France, Italy, Spain, all issues quarantines, lock downs and other measures. And they still have a 10 to 13% death rate.

This Virus is nothing like the Spanish flu, where it is contagious up to 2 weeks before symptoms among other factors, and most die within 2 to 3 weeks after symptoms appear (not sure about the spanish flu). We also have 3.5 time the population with 10 times the population density in the high populated areas, if not more. Granted, we have came a long ways medically.

You also have to realize, most of the deaths from the spanish flu came after they removed the "lock down" restrictions (yes they had them back then, just like we have them right now). We may be headed for the same result with the push that is going on to open everything up.

The outbreak did initially overload the NYC hospital system but they seem to have caught up. The hospital ship has been sent home after little use. Whether that system or any other will be able to hold up as restrictions are lifted remains to be seen. The actual mortality rate is unknowable at this point because deaths lag infections & the infection rate is just a guess. What we know for sure is that the number of people seeking medical attention & the mortality rate among them are many, many times greater than for the flu.

 

[NWRMidnight]

I am not ignoring the overloaded health system. Even if every patient with severe symptoms died (they don't) that's less than a 12.5% death rate.

Over 90% of patients in NYC who ended up on a ventilator died and NYC death rate even among only positive cases (not even counting untested and asymptomatic) is: confirmed cases 158000, deaths 12067 = death rate is less than 10%.

Can you show your work? Assuming herd immunity, your numbers predict 80-100 million deaths in the US. No one --- NO ONE --- has come within an order of magnitude of that number in their projections.

Where did we go from talking about New York to the whole country? We where talking about New York, and ONLY New York, as that was where the death rate discussion started with 1.1%. And yes, you are ignoring the overloaded Health system, because it is already overloaded in New York. So if it is already overloaded with the Stay in Place orders, what do you think would have happened without those stay in place orders? I 'm not talking about going forward, I'm talking about from when it started.. with no stay in place orders every implemented. Herd immunity hasn't happened yet, and you sure as hell can't assume anything about it. Because that chapter hasn't been written as of yet.

There's a very good way to say how far off the death count is. Did you look at the NYT link I gave? You look at the excess death rates compared to the historical average. Why do you think that data isn't any good?

What historical averages? This virus has only been in the US for a little over 3 months, there hasn't been data to determine any historical averages, and you can't go off of any other viruses numbers. First it is to early to determine any averages, as this isn't over yet. Not even close. And that is why there is no way to really know how far off the death count is. Even if we had historical averages for this virus, which we don't, it wouldn't take into account all the deaths that have been miss classified.

edit: Oh wait, you are talking about historical averages of normal deaths. Historical averages can't be used to determine death rate. They can only be used as a guide to help estimate normal deaths that MAY happen, and for sure can't be used to determine how far off the COVID-19 death rate is. You also have to realize that historical averages also include disasters or other random influences that don't happen all the time. If you go look up the historical data for the year 9/11 happened, you will see that those numbers will be drastically higher then other years. Just like this years historical data is going to be higher due to the COVID-19 deaths. Unless you have someway of knowing what influences effected those historical averages each and every day/week/month/year, you can't use them to determine anything other than to give you some idea of what the normal death count MIGHT be.

Unaccounted deaths in NYC are double what they normally are, with over 12,500 excess deaths 2/1/2020 until now. But let's assume ALL of the deaths in NYC from 2/1/2020 until now are due to COVID, just for fun to inflate the numerator to help you out. That's 25978 deaths among the 21% (1,764,000) seropositive.

But hell, to make your numbers look better, let's deflate the denominator and just assume the serum test is off by 50% (which is not within the realm of possibility, but shows just how far off you are), and only 875,000 actually are seropositive.

Even then, the death rate is 2.9%.

I see you are using the numbers from the preliminary antibody testing to get your 2.9%.. those numbers are not accurate because the antibody testing is not accurate, and it is based on only testing 3000 people out of 8.5 Million. Until we have an accurate antibody test, and every one is tested, there is no accuracy to your conclusions. The only numbers we can currently go by are the CONFIRMED cases. People also have to realize that the death count is 2 weeks behind. Meaning, that the majority of deaths that happened today, are from those that showed symptoms 2 weeks ago, or longer. (diagnosed) So, if we brought the case count down to zero, meaning that every person has been tested, and we have an accurate count. We still have to wait a minimum of 2 weeks after that point before we can determine the death count, because we will still have deaths happening that are tied to the virus for up to 2 weeks later, if not slightly longer. We also have to hope we don't find another group who are not reporting the deaths and not piling bodies up in rooms like we had last week, or the week before.

If History has taught us anything (mainly the Spanish flu), we will have the majority of deaths happening after the stay in place restrictions are lifted, and it will make the current death count look like child's play.

 

[pmv]

edit: Oh wait, you are talking about historical averages of normal deaths. Historical averages can't be used to determine death rate. They can only be used as a guide to help estimate normal deaths that MAY happen, and for sure can't be used to determine how far off the COVID-19 death rate is. You also have to realize that historical averages also include disasters or other random influences that don't happen all the time. If you go look up the historical data for the year 9/11 happened, you will see that those numbers will be drastically higher then other years. Just like this years historical data is going to be higher due to the COVID-19 deaths. Unless you have someway of knowing what influences effected those historical averages each and every day/week/month/year, you can't use them to determine anything.

I completely disagree. The death rate remains fairly constant over many years. The only major difference, I think, is whether there's a particularly bad flu season. Its very clear from the data that this year the deaths followed the normal pattern very closely till suddenly, bang, corvid19 kicked-in. That's apparent in data from many countries. We _know_ when there's a big disaster like 911. Of course we have some way of knowing what influences affected those historical averages, because we are aware of what is going on around us.

Just look at the graphs - this year is _way_ out of whack with previous years. I don't think it's hard to see why.

 

[pmv]

Incidentally, looking at historical averages and departures thereof, is, I believe, how we conclude how bad a particular seasonal flu outbreak was. Not sure how else you could do it.

 

[pmv]

But I'm against being too quick to end the 'lock-downs'. It is a very tricky trade-off, though, because a bad economy also kills people. What I object to are those who are very blase about sacrificing 1 or 2% of the population for the 'good of the many'. Especially as those people get upset if I suggest killing and eating the top 0.1% of the wealthy and redistributing their wealth 'for the good of the many'.

 

[NWRMidnight]

I completely disagree. The death rate remains fairly constant over many years. The only major difference, I think, is whether there's a particularly bad flu season. Its very clear from the data that this year the deaths followed the normal pattern very closely till suddenly, bang, corvid19 kicked-in. That's apparent in data from many countries. We _know_ when there's a big disaster like 911. Of course we have some way of knowing what influences affected those historical averages, because we are aware of what is going on around us.

Just look at the graphs - this year is _way_ out of whack with previous years. I don't think it's hard to see why.

View attachment 20236

Being out of wack still doesn't give you any way to use that data to determine how far the death count is off for COVID-19, specially when there are deaths not being reported at all, as we learned last week with the Nursing home or what ever it was that hide what, something like 17 bodies in a room.

Anyhow, I'm done. I need to get to bed.

 

[pmv]

Being out of wack still doesn't give you any way to use that data to determine how far the death count is off for COVID-19, specially when there are deaths not being reported at all, as we learned last week with the Nursing home or what ever it was that hide what, something like 17 bodies in a room.

If you believe thousands of people are dying in NYC (and every other city in the world) and their deaths not even being noticed at all, then you might as well give up on the idea that you can know anything at all.

 

[amrnuke]

Where did we go from talking about New York to the whole country? We where talking about New York, and ONLY New York, as that was where the death rate discussion started with 1.1%. And yes, you are ignoring the overloaded Health system, because it is already overloaded in New York. So if it is already overloaded with the Stay in Place orders, what do you think would have happened without those stay in place orders? I 'm not talking about going forward, I'm talking about from when it started.. with no stay in place orders every implemented. Herd immunity hasn't happened yet, and you sure as hell can't assume anything about it. Because that chapter hasn't been written as of yet.

Forget about the last paragraph. Let's stick with NYC.

What you need to do is stop wildly throwing out absolutely unfounded 30-40% death rate numbers. You have no basis for that. Even if there were no hospitals at all, the death rate would be less than 12.5% because the vast majority of COVID positive people never even need hospitalized.
cf a number of demographic results from China, South Korea, Italy infections

I see you are using the numbers from the preliminary antibody testing to get your 2.9%.. those numbers are not accurate because the antibody testing is not accurate, and it is based on only testing 3000 people out of 8.5 Million. Until we have an accurate antibody test, and every one is tested, there is no accuracy to your conclusions.

Accuracy is grayscale. No test is ever 100% accurate. No death count will ever be 100% accurate on a large scale. We can get a range of possibilities. How inaccurate do you think the current serotesting is? 50% accurate?

The only numbers we can currently go by are the CONFIRMED cases. People also have to realize that the death count is 2 weeks behind. Meaning, that the majority of deaths that happened today, are from those that showed symptoms 2 weeks ago, or longer. (diagnosed) So, if we brought the case count down to zero, meaning that every person has been tested, and we have an accurate count. We still have to wait a minimum of 2 weeks after that point before we can determine the death count, because we will still have deaths happening that are tied to the virus for up to 2 weeks later, if not slightly longer. We also have to hope we don't find another group who are not reporting the deaths and not piling bodies up in rooms like we had last week, or the week before.

Let's apply today's death count for NYC to the case count from 2 weeks ago.

Source
Cases 4/13/2020 = 123,078
Source
Deaths 4/27/2020 = 11,460 + 5,213 = 16,673

Death rate = 13.5% of confirmed cases

 

[NWRMidnight]

Forget about the last paragraph. Let's stick with NYC.

What you need to do is stop wildly throwing out absolutely unfounded 30-40% death rate numbers. You have no basis for that. Even if there were no hospitals at all, the death rate would be less than 12.5% because the vast majority of COVID positive people never even need hospitalized.
cf a number of demographic results from China, South Korea, Italy infections


Accuracy is grayscale. No test is ever 100% accurate. No death count will ever be 100% accurate on a large scale. We can get a range of possibilities. How inaccurate do you think the current serotesting is? 50% accurate?


Let's apply today's death count for NYC to the case count from 2 weeks ago.

Source
Cases 4/13/2020 = 123,078
Source
Deaths 4/27/2020 = 11,460 + 5,213 = 16,673

Death rate = 13.5% of confirmed cases

You are ignoring what I am saying.. all your numbers are based off stay at home orders in place.. My estimations is based off of IF we NEVER had any stay at home order put in place which is the part that you and so many other's missed, or ignored. (go read my first comment on this subject in this thread where I brought up the 30 to 40% death rate all though I used the term shut downs and not stay in place orders, but they are the same). So you 13.5% death rate wouldn't just double (27%), it would triple (40.5%) if those stay in place orders where never enacted In New York. We are both making estimates off of unfounded numbers (results from inaccurate testing are the same as unfounded). You and others are trying to use the preliminary results from antibody testing that has already been determined by the experts to not be accurate yet. But even if it was accurate, we don't know who the 3000 out of 8.5 Million people who where tested.. how many of them where front line workers who have been exposed day in and day out for months? What conditions where these people exposed to the virus.. There are many variables that you can't just estimate numbers based off those preliminary 3000 tests.. no 2 people are the same.

You also can't use numbers from different countries to support your claim of how the virus will effect us in our country because once again, there are 100's of variables that will effect the outcome. There are so many things at play here, that at this point and time, there is no accuracy to any numbers yet. We won't come close to an accurate number for years down the road.

 

[NWRMidnight]

If you believe thousands of people are dying in NYC (and every other city in the world) and their deaths not even being noticed at all, then you might as well give up on the idea that you can know anything at all.

That's not even close to what I said. There are 100's if not 1000's of deaths being incorrectly classifieds because they where never diagnosed with the virus prior to dying, and other reasons. WE also have people dying that are not being reported, 17, or 19 (can't remember off the top of my head) just in one nursing home alone was just found a week or so ago, that wasn't being reported. The only reason they where discovered is because they put in an order for a large number of body bags that was way out of the normal. To even add to that, it was 2 weeks ago, that NYC had to adjust their death count by over 3700 deaths for just one day, because of inaccurately classifying deaths. You think this is only going to happen once?

 

[amrnuke]

You are ignoring what I am saying.. all your numbers are based off stay at home orders in place.. My estimations is based off of IF we NEVER had any stay at home order put in place which is the part that you and so many other's missed, or ignored. (go read my first comment on this subject in this thread where I brought up the 30 to 40% death rate all though I used the term shut downs and not stay in place orders, but they are the same). So you 13.5% death rate wouldn't just double (27%), it would triple (40.5%) if those stay in place orders where never enacted In New York. We are both making estimates off of unfounded numbers (results from inaccurate testing are the same as unfounded). You and others are trying to use the preliminary results from antibody testing that has already been determined by the experts to not be accurate yet. But even if it was accurate, we don't know who the 3000 out of 8.5 Million people who where tested.. how many of them where front line workers who have been exposed day in and day out for months? What conditions where these people exposed to the virus.. There are many variables that you can't just estimate numbers based off those preliminary 3000 tests.. no 2 people are the same.

You also can't use numbers from different countries to support your claim of how the virus will effect us in our country because once again, there are 100's of variables that will effect the outcome. There are so many things at play here, that at this point and time, there is no accuracy to any numbers yet. We won't come close to an accurate number for years down the road.

1) You're just doubling and tripling numbers based off absolutely zero data. While my data may be off by 10-20% and actually has some testing behind it, yours is entirely based in imagination. That you fail to see that zero data is different from partial data is just absurd.

2) As before, even if we assume that the serotesting is off by 50% (it's not) and every single death in NYC from 2/1/2020 until now are due to COVID, the death rate is still 2.9%.

3) Sweden has no shelter in place, and has extremely poor testing of mild symptoms, and even then its death rate is not even 15% among confirmed cases.

4) More people getting the disease doesn't increase the % of severe cases. People under the age of 45 make up the majority of this country and have a death rate <0.1%. If we overload the system -- nay, let's say we close every hospital - since <20% of people get severe disease even NOT including asymptomatic untested carriers, there is statistically no way, even with NO hospitals, for COVID to produce a 30-40% true death rate.

 

[NWRMidnight]

1) You're just doubling and tripling numbers based off absolutely zero data. While my data may be off by 10-20% and actually has some testing behind it, yours is entirely based in imagination. That you fail to see that zero data is different from partial data is just absurd.

2) As before, even if we assume that the serotesting is off by 50% (it's not) and every single death in NYC from 2/1/2020 until now are due to COVID, the death rate is still 2.9%.

3) Sweden has no shelter in place, and has extremely poor testing of mild symptoms, and even then its death rate is not even 15% among confirmed cases.

4) More people getting the disease doesn't increase the % of severe cases. People under the age of 45 make up the majority of this country and have a death rate <0.1%. If we overload the system -- nay, let's say we close every hospital - since <20% of people get severe disease even NOT including asymptomatic untested carriers, there is statistically no way, even with NO hospitals, for COVID to produce a 30-40% true death rate.

1) go read my first comment where I said that IT WOULD BE 30 to 40%. Which requires taking into account the 2/3 of the population that are currently under orders to stay home as I said If we did not have the shut down orders. Aka stay in place. You keep looking at the current numbers.. as if that is what I am talking about. Comprehension is important.


2. How do you get 2.9% when the current death rate is 5.5% for New York City if you use Friday's numbers (I haven't looked up todays, but state wide it is 7.5%). But in reality, you should be using the case count from 2 weeks ago, and todays death count, which is a death rate of 13.5%. Oh wait you are using the estimates derived from the innacurate antibody testing preliminary results . Those numbers at this point and time are useless because the test themselves are faulty and not accurate, so your whole death rate percentage is faulty.

3. You cannot use another country to compare. Do you not read what I have already stated. There are 100's of differences between each country. You are trying to compare apples to oranges. Just their health care system alone is drastically different, not taking into account population density, citizens health/ages, envirement, etc.

4)Oh really? So since this all started, and the more people who where infected, the severe cases stayed contant % wise? Is that why when this started we had a low death rate that has climbed since the beginning of march? Wouldn't it stay contant % wise if that was the case. Don't you understand that the more infecteed we get, the more likely that those that have compimised immune systems will catch it? The severe cases % wise will for sure increase. Just look at the numbers since this began. You also keep trying to bring the whole country into this.. I am not talking about the whole country, It has all been about New York.

As for th hospitals being over loaded. You bet your ass the death count will double and triple. New York's death count isn't just the virus itself. It's because their hospitals where overloaded and they had to chose which patients to help, and many died because of that. So, if you add minimum 2 to 3 times the number of patients to the already overloaded system, what do you think is going to happen to them since the hospitals would be unable to help them? You need to realize that roughy 2/3 of New York's population is ordered to stay at home. That is over 6 Million people. So yes, if there was no stay at home orders, the death count would be exponential over what it is now, because they wouldn't be able to get the healthcare they need to live. This isn't like any other business that gets overloaded, where they can just delay everything and reschedule. When it comes to life or death, and you can't get the help to stop death, that's it, done.

 

[pmv]

That's not even close to what I said. There are 100's if not 1000's of deaths being incorrectly classifieds because they where never diagnosed with the virus prior to dying, and other reasons. WE also have people dying that are not being reported, 17, or 19 (can't remember off the top of my head) just in one nursing home alone was just found a week or so ago, that wasn't being reported. The only reason they where discovered is because they put in an order for a large number of body bags that was way out of the normal. To even add to that, it was 2 weeks ago, that NYC had to adjust their death count by over 3700 deaths for just one day, because of inaccurately classifying deaths. You think this is only going to happen once?

I don't see why you keep repeating the bit about 'incorrectly classifying' when I've already included that by looking at total deaths, not just confirmed virus deaths. Absolutely some won't be classified as Corvid19 deaths, that's why it's necessary to consider the deviation from the historic death figures, and adjust the figures accordingly, as I've said repeatedly. You seem to be unable to keep in your memory the fact that I repeatedly have addressed that very point - in fact I think I posted those total death data ages ago, before you started going on about it. I really don't understand why you keep bringing it up again.

My point adresses exactly what you said, you were referring to deaths not being counted _at all_. You keep slipping back-and-forth between 'not counted at all' and 'misclassified'. Which do you mean? The lattter is already addressed by looking at the total death figures.

As for 'dying and not reported' - how big a number do you imagine that is? A dozen? - maybe, possibly some deaths slip through uncounted entirely, though even that will eventually be discovered because people aren't dropping bodies in construction site building foundations mafia-style. Deaths are relatively easy to count, because there's usually a body. But to have a real impact on the case fatality rate you'd have to have thousands of bodies being 'vanished'.

I'm starting to think you aren't arguing in good-faith.

 

[HomerJS]

Am I missing something in going back to the real time Hopkins map?

COVID-19 Map - Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center

Coronavirus COVID-19 Global Cases by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University (JHU)

coronavirus.jhu.edu

It shows...
3,060,000 cases worldwide
212,000 deaths

That's 6.9% mortality.

Also the US does very little testing compared to other countries which means there are possibly more cases and more deaths due to COVID.

 

[amrnuke]

1) go read my first comment where I said that IT WOULD BE 30 to 40%. Which requires taking into account the 2/3 of the population that are currently under orders to stay home as I said If we did not have the shut down orders. Aka stay in place. You keep looking at the current numbers.. as if that is what I am talking about. Comprehension is important.

You have no data to support your argument. Period. When you want to bring any form of data - even partially incomplete or partially inaccurate data - I'll entertain discussing this 30-40% death rate among COVID infected patients again.

2. How do you get 2.9% when the current death rate is 5.5% for New York City if you use Friday's numbers (I haven't looked up todays, but state wide it is 7.5%). But in reality, you should be using the case count from 2 weeks ago, and todays death count, which is a death rate of 13.5%. Oh wait you are using the estimates derived from the innacurate antibody testing preliminary results . Those numbers at this point and time are useless because the test themselves are faulty and not accurate, so your whole death rate percentage is faulty.

I already explained this previously, but here we go again. The antibody testing results being inaccurate is far different from them being unusable. You know what other tests are inaccurate? All of them. Including the very COVID test you are using as your denominator in the death rate. You fail to even consider that. What we know from the Stanford studies and other studies is that our serologic testing is likely within 10-20% accuracy. When we account for those numbers, NYC's death rate among seropositive cases cannot, statistically, be 30-40%. So those seropostivity numbers aren't useless, they are inaccurate by about 10-20%, and since we know the uncertainty we can create bounds (confidence interval), and those bounds all put the true death rate at <10% (and actually <5%).

3. You cannot use another country to compare. Do you not read what I have already stated. There are 100's of differences between each country. You are trying to compare apples to oranges. Just their health care system alone is drastically different, not taking into account population density, citizens health/ages, envirement, etc.

Fair enough. Even more (yes, flawed, but better than nothing) data you want to dismiss in favor of your opinion.

4)Oh really? So since this all started, and the more people who where infected, the severe cases stayed contant % wise? Is that why when this started we had a low death rate that has climbed since the beginning of march? Wouldn't it stay contant % wise if that was the case. Don't you understand that the more infecteed we get, the more likely that those that have compimised immune systems will catch it? The severe cases % wise will for sure increase. Just look at the numbers since this began. You also keep trying to bring the whole country into this.. I am not talking about the whole country, It has all been about New York.

Yes. Because initially we were only testing severe cases, and now we are testing more asymptomatic (exposed) and mild cases. If we had done full serotesting back in the beginning on the entire population of NYC and followed it over time, we would have almost certainly found that, accounting for lag time for symptom onset of 2-3 weeks and lag time from symptom onset to progression to severe cases to death (which often takes 10 days after initial symptom onset, or more), the proportion of asymptomatic, mild, moderate, and severe cases would have been about the same over time. The death rate is climbing because of a number of statistical factors including testing protocols, lag from time of infection -> symptoms -> hospital admission -> ICU admission -> death, and many other things that you can read about in the literature, but I'm honestly just too sick of discussing with someone who has a pre-formed opinion and refuses to consider the science and data behind it.

As for th hospitals being over loaded. You bet your ass the death count will double and triple. New York's death count isn't just the virus itself. It's because their hospitals where overloaded and they had to chose which patients to help, and many died because of that. So, if you add minimum 2 to 3 times the number of patients to the already overloaded system, what do you think is going to happen to them since the hospitals would be unable to help them? You need to realize that roughy 2/3 of New York's population is ordered to stay at home. That is over 6 Million people. So yes, if there was no stay at home orders, the death count would be exponential over what it is now, because they wouldn't be able to get the healthcare they need to live. This isn't like any other business that gets overloaded, where they can just delay everything and reschedule. When it comes to life or death, and you can't get the help to stop death, that's it, done.

Note your subtle change in statement. Before, you said the death % of COVID infected people would be double or triple, or that the death rate would be 30-40% of COVID patients, and now you've changed to death count among all people due to lack of resources for other issues not related to COVID infection. Which is it? Of course if we have more infections we'll have more deaths. I never debated that. I am debating your specific 30-40% death rate among COVID infected patients. So please, don't move the goalposts.

 

[NWRMidnight]

I don't see why you keep repeating the bit about 'incorrectly classifying' when I've already included that by looking at total deaths, not just confirmed virus deaths. Absolutely some won't be classified as Corvid19 deaths, that's why it's necessary to consider the deviation from the historic death figures, and adjust the figures accordingly, as I've said repeatedly. You seem to be unable to keep in your memory the fact that I repeatedly have addressed that very point - in fact I think I posted those total death data ages ago, before you started going on about it. I really don't understand why you keep bringing it up again.

My point adresses exactly what you said, you were referring to deaths not being counted _at all_. You keep slipping back-and-forth between 'not counted at all' and 'misclassified'. Which do you mean? The lattter is already addressed by looking at the total death figures.

As for 'dying and not reported' - how big a number do you imagine that is? A dozen? - maybe, possibly some deaths slip through uncounted entirely, though even that will eventually be discovered because people aren't dropping bodies in construction site building foundations mafia-style. Deaths are relatively easy to count, because there's usually a body. But to have a real impact on the case fatality rate you'd have to have thousands of bodies being 'vanished'.

I'm starting to think you aren't arguing in good-faith.

There is some confusing here, mostly from me when I answered your question yesterday. My answer was from the standpoint of why the death count is not accurate, which is because of the miss-classifications, and the uncounted deaths, which has been my argument all along when it comes to the death count. So I am not bouncing back and forth, I am including BOTH in that reasoning.

Now, you talk about good faith arguing. But the argument has changed. So lets go thru the arguments we have had just in the last page or so:

1. The 1.1% death rate calculations, which you said your math was solid, as it was based off of the results of the Antibody testing, and estimates from that. Which I pointed out are based off testing that is flawed and inaccurate, which means any calculations made from those numbers are garbage, so not solid. (I never even touched the flawed testing locations of the "randomly" 3000, which the locations they used will give inflated numbers - grocery stores and shopping centers). As of yet, we still don't have an accurate antibody test available, which is still being worked on. So right now, the ONLY numbers that have any accuracy are the confirmed case count and death count, and they are far from accurate, but it's the most accurate numbers we have at this time, anything else, is just numbers being pulled out of thin air.

2. Next it was that the case count and death count are under counted. You argument is that the case count is way under counted, and so is the death count, just not near as much. I don't agree with that. I believe the death count is under counted just as much because of the miss-classifications and the unknown deaths, of course that doesn't include the numerous deaths that will continue to come in long after people stop contracting the virus. Now, there is information being reported, that there is a failure of counting nursing home deaths in New York, so that is going to skew the death count even further.

3. Next, you argued that you can use the historical death count data to determine how off the death count is for COVID-19. I argued that you can't use historical data to determine that, as it's impossible to do based if previous years numbers and the fact that there is missing data in the death count numbers. All you can do is try to Guess how inaccurate the numbers are, but that is all it is, is a guess.

4. You then decided to throw out a new 2.9% death count number using, all KNOWN deaths and half of the estimated case count numbers derived from the antibody test. which is nothing but a made up equation using a case count number with no accuracy at all. In other words, useless.

that is just a quick run down of the different arguments.

Now, how many deaths that are not being reported? well, we already know of 17 from last week from just 1 nursing home that was hiding the bodies in a room. How many other's are doing similar? We don't know. How many single people have died that are alone and the body is just sitting in their houses waiting for someone to discover it. I am sure there are many, specially in the low income areas. These are all reasons why there is no way to have an accurate death rate number.

What it comes down to is it is Way to early to have any real accuracy on the real death rate, and we won't have that for months. All we have at this time, that has any meaning at all, are the confirmed case count, and confirmed death count. That's it.

 

[amrnuke]

There is some confusing here, mostly from me when I answered your question yesterday. My answer was from the standpoint of why the death count is not accurate, which is because of the miss-classifications, and the uncounted deaths, which has been my argument all along when it comes to the death count. So I am not bouncing back and forth, I am including BOTH in that reasoning.

Now, you talk about good faith arguing. But the argument has changed. So lets go thru the arguments we have had just in the last page or so:

1. The 1.1% death rate calculations, which you said your math was solid, as it was based off of the results of the Antibody testing, and estimates from that. Which I pointed out are based off testing that is flawed and inaccurate, which means any calculations made from those numbers are garbage, so not solid. (I never even touched the flawed testing locations of the "randomly" 3000, which the locations they used will give inflated numbers - grocery stores and shopping centers). As of yet, we still don't have an accurate antibody test available, which is still being worked on. So right now, the ONLY numbers that have any accuracy are the confirmed case count and death count, and they are far from accurate, but it's the most accurate numbers we have at this time, anything else, is just numbers being pulled out of thin air.

2. Next it was that the case count and death count are under counted. You argument is that the case count is way under counted, and so is the death count, just not near as much. I don't agree with that. I believe the death count is under counted just as much because of the miss-classifications and the unknown deaths, of course that doesn't include the numerous deaths that will continue to come in long after people stop contracting the virus. Now, there is information being reported, that there is a failure of counting nursing home deaths in New York, so that is going to skew the death count even further.

3. Next, you argued that you can use the historical death count data to determine how off the death count is for COVID-19. I argued that you can't use historical data to determine that, as it's impossible to do based if previous years numbers and the fact that there is missing data in the death count numbers. All you can do is try to Guess how inaccurate the numbers are, but that is all it is, is a guess.

4. You then decided to throw out a new 2.9% death count number using, all KNOWN deaths and half of the estimated case count numbers derived from the antibody test. which is nothing but a made up equation using a case count number with no accuracy at all. In other words, useless.

that is just a quick run down of the different arguments.

Now, how many deaths that are not being reported? well, we already know of 17 from last week from just 1 nursing home that was hiding the bodies in a room. How many other's are doing similar? We don't know. How many single people have died that are alone and the body is just sitting in their houses waiting for someone to discover it. I am sure there are many, specially in the low income areas. These are all reasons why there is no way to have an accurate death rate number.

What it comes down to is it is Way to early to have any real accuracy on the real death rate, and we won't have that for months. All we have at this time, that has any meaning at all, are the confirmed case count, and confirmed death count. That's it.

You're confusing things.

Let's go back to the beginning. You stated that there would be a 30-40% death rate among COVID positive patients if there were no lockdown.

All of the numbers I've thrown out are me trying to prove your point. I have taken worst-case-scenario data, and have been trying to prove your point, and the numbers I presented are my findings, which are far different from what you proposed.

Therefore, if you cannot prove your point and I go through the data and try to prove your point and cannot do so, then we are done, you are incorrect and making things up, and your proposal presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence as well.

There is zero data behind your original statement -- it is pure speculation, isn't it?

 

[NWRMidnight]

You have no data to support your argument. Period. When you want to bring any form of data - even partially incomplete or partially inaccurate data - I'll entertain discussing this 30-40% death rate among COVID infected patients again.


I already explained this previously, but here we go again. The antibody testing results being inaccurate is far different from them being unusable. You know what other tests are inaccurate? All of them. Including the very COVID test you are using as your denominator in the death rate. You fail to even consider that. What we know from the Stanford studies and other studies is that our serologic testing is likely within 10-20% accuracy. When we account for those numbers, NYC's death rate among seropositive cases cannot, statistically, be 30-40%. So those seropostivity numbers aren't useless, they are inaccurate by about 10-20%, and since we know the uncertainty we can create bounds (confidence interval), and those bounds all put the true death rate at <10% (and actually <5%).


Fair enough. Even more (yes, flawed, but better than nothing) data you want to dismiss in favor of your opinion.


Yes. Because initially we were only testing severe cases, and now we are testing more asymptomatic (exposed) and mild cases. If we had done full serotesting back in the beginning on the entire population of NYC and followed it over time, we would have almost certainly found that, accounting for lag time for symptom onset of 2-3 weeks and lag time from symptom onset to progression to severe cases to death (which often takes 10 days after initial symptom onset, or more), the proportion of asymptomatic, mild, moderate, and severe cases would have been about the same over time. The death rate is climbing because of a number of statistical factors including testing protocols, lag from time of infection -> symptoms -> hospital admission -> ICU admission -> death, and many other things that you can read about in the literature, but I'm honestly just too sick of discussing with someone who has a pre-formed opinion and refuses to consider the science and data behind it.


Note your subtle change in statement. Before, you said the death % of COVID infected people would be double or triple, or that the death rate would be 30-40% of COVID patients, and now you've changed to death count among all people due to lack of resources for other issues not related to COVID infection. Which is it? Of course if we have more infections we'll have more deaths. I never debated that. I am debating your specific 30-40% death rate among COVID infected patients. So please, don't move the goalposts.

There is no data to support my argument? Did you have your head in the sand when the experts started talking about what the death count models where showing if we didn't start doing quarantines and stay at home orders? Some of those predictions where Millions dead.

They are way far from being usable. IN ACCURATE and flawed testing is useless.! You are using bullshit numbers to come up with bullshit death rate %. Here is the thing.. if you have a 5.5% death rate now derived from a over loaded health care system, with 2/3 of the population in lock down.. What happens if those 2/3 of the population wasn't in lock down.. the already overloaded health care system can all of a sudden handle 3 times the patient load ALL at once... that's like trying to dump 15 gallons of water into a 5 gallon bucket... what happens to the 10 gallons that won't fit.. it all goes on the ground.. same theory here when hospitals can't handle 3 times the patents.

Math.... if you have more people with the virus, you will have more people being exposed all at once, which means you will have a substantial increase in severe cases because you will have a higher amount of vulnerable people exposed. Why do you think the stay at home orders where put in place?

The death rate is influenced by the lack of resources.. it is all part of the death rate.. you can't remove it. It's not moving the goal posts.. it's all part of the same equation.

In the end, we won't have any real accurate number for months.

 

[NWRMidnight]

You're confusing things.

Let's go back to the beginning. You stated that there would be a 30-40% death rate among COVID positive patients if there were no lockdown.

All of the numbers I've thrown out are me trying to prove your point. I have taken worst-case-scenario data, and have been trying to prove your point, and the numbers I presented are my findings, which are far different from what you proposed.

Therefore, if you cannot prove your point and I go through the data and try to prove your point and cannot do so, then we are done, you are incorrect and making things up, and your proposal presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence as well.

There is zero data behind your original statement -- it is pure speculation, isn't it?

Are you pmv? You are arguing with me about my 30% to 40% claim, which has nothing to do with my response to pmv or the arguments pmv and I are having. How about you Keep trying to figure out how you can get 15 gallons of water in a 5 gallon bucket all at the same time. When you figure it out, or realize you can't, you might realize where the 30% to 40% death rate figure came from.

 

[amrnuke]

There is no data to support my argument? Did you have your head in the sand when the experts started talking about what the death count models where showing if we didn't start doing quarantines and stay at home orders? Some of those predictions where Millions dead.

They are way far from being usable. IN ACCURATE and flawed testing is useless.! You are using bullshit numbers to come up with bullshit death rate %. Here is the thing.. if you have a 5.5% death rate now derived from a over loaded health care system, with 2/3 of the population in lock down.. What happens if those 2/3 of the population wasn't in lock down.. the already overloaded health care system can all of a sudden handle 3 times the patient load ALL at once... that's like trying to dump 15 gallons of water into a 5 gallon bucket... what happens to the 10 gallons that won't fit.. it all goes on the ground.. same theory here when hospitals can't handle 3 times the patents.

Math.... if you have more people with the virus, you will have more people being exposed all at once, which means you will have a substantial increase in severe cases because you will have a higher amount of vulnerable people exposed. Why do you think the stay at home orders where put in place?

The death rate is influenced by the lack of resources.. it is all part of the death rate.. you can't remove it. It's not moving the goal posts.. it's all part of the same equation.

In the end, we won't have any real accurate number for months.

First, experts said it could be as many as 3 million deaths. 3 million! That was based on herd immunity of 80% of Americans getting the virus. That means the death rate would still be <2%.
- again -- this does not support your original statement.

There is zero data behind your original statement (30-40% death rate among COVID positive patients) -- it is pure speculation, isn't it?

You are arguing with me about my 30% to 40% claim, which has nothing to do with my response to pmv, which you just quoted. How about you Keep trying to figure out how you can get 15 gallons of water in a 5 gallon bucket.

As for 15 gallons in a 5 gallon bucket -- what do you call fitting a 30-40% death rate into <20% of cases being severe?

Again, I tried to find ANY data that proved your point and found none.

I'll repeat:

There is zero data behind your original statement (30-40% death rate among COVID positive patients) -- it is pure speculation, isn't it?