Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse

The New Coffee Room

  1. TNCR
  2. General Discussion
  3. CDC revises fatality rate

CDC revises fatality rate

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved General Discussion
63 Posts 8 Posters 1.2k Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • jon-nycJ Offline
    jon-nycJ Offline
    jon-nyc
    wrote on last edited by
    #47

    “My model of heat dissipation in ceramic tiles was confirmed by 134 out of 135 Space Shuttle missions.”

    Only non-witches get due process.

    • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
    1 Reply Last reply
    • jon-nycJ Offline
      jon-nycJ Offline
      jon-nyc
      wrote on last edited by
      #48

      I get the model can’t conform to every conceivable subset of data but your biggest outbreak by far isn’t just another subset of data.

      If the model is going to have any useful predictive power it can’t miss the big important cases.

      Only non-witches get due process.

      • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
      1 Reply Last reply
      • HoraceH Offline
        HoraceH Offline
        Horace
        wrote on last edited by
        #49

        I wonder if the CDC has a better handle on the NYC numbers than we do in this thread. You appear to have been off in your total death count by about 25%, for instance.

        Education is extremely important.

        1 Reply Last reply
        • jon-nycJ Offline
          jon-nycJ Offline
          jon-nyc
          wrote on last edited by
          #50

          No. The NYDOH counts 21k. 4700 didn’t get a pcr test because they died at home.

          See the first hand story of the EMS guy that George posted in early April.

          Only non-witches get due process.

          • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
          1 Reply Last reply
          • HoraceH Offline
            HoraceH Offline
            Horace
            wrote on last edited by
            #51

            Ok then. For the record, I am betting that the CDC model will be a better predictor of future national numbers than the NYC numbers will be. I could certainly be wrong. I assume your bet is the opposite?

            Education is extremely important.

            1 Reply Last reply
            • jon-nycJ Offline
              jon-nycJ Offline
              jon-nyc
              wrote on last edited by
              #52

              CDC is using the higher NY number

              I can’t upload the screen shot because it’s too big

              Only non-witches get due process.

              • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
              1 Reply Last reply
              • jon-nycJ Offline
                jon-nycJ Offline
                jon-nyc
                wrote on last edited by
                #53

                No I think they’re wrong by minimum a factor of 2.

                My guess is 0.5<IFR<0.75

                Only non-witches get due process.

                • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
                jon-nycJ 1 Reply Last reply
                • HoraceH Offline
                  HoraceH Offline
                  Horace
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #54

                  I assume the fatality rate will inevitably decrease after the first wave of infections, since those who were at the bleeding edge of risk will have already died or become immune.

                  Education is extremely important.

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  • jon-nycJ jon-nyc

                    No I think they’re wrong by minimum a factor of 2.

                    My guess is 0.5<IFR<0.75

                    jon-nycJ Offline
                    jon-nycJ Offline
                    jon-nyc
                    wrote on last edited by jon-nyc
                    #55

                    @jon-nyc said in CDC revises fatality rate:

                    No I think they’re wrong by minimum a factor of 2.

                    My guess is 0.5<IFR<0.75

                    CDC revised the estimate again. As a reminder, in the first post of this thread, their 'best estimate' scenario had an IFR of 0.25. Their new update, published Friday, increased it to 0.65%, smack in the middle of my range.

                    https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html

                    Only non-witches get due process.

                    • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
                    L HoraceH 2 Replies Last reply
                    • jon-nycJ jon-nyc

                      @jon-nyc said in CDC revises fatality rate:

                      No I think they’re wrong by minimum a factor of 2.

                      My guess is 0.5<IFR<0.75

                      CDC revised the estimate again. As a reminder, in the first post of this thread, their 'best estimate' scenario had an IFR of 0.25. Their new update, published Friday, increased it to 0.65%, smack in the middle of my range.

                      https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html

                      L Offline
                      L Offline
                      Loki
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #56

                      @jon-nyc said in CDC revises fatality rate:

                      @jon-nyc said in CDC revises fatality rate:

                      My guess is 0.5<IFR<0.75

                      CDC revised the estimate again. As a reminder, in the first post of this thread, their 'best estimate' scenario had an IFR of 0.4. Their new update, published Friday, increased it to 0.65%, smack in the middle of my range.

                      https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html

                      I’ll take credit too as the Diamond Princess example I was using very early on seems to have stood the test of time.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      • jon-nycJ Offline
                        jon-nycJ Offline
                        jon-nyc
                        wrote on last edited by jon-nyc
                        #57

                        You're being a bit too generous with yourself. You were touting the DP when there were only 6 or 7 fatalities and pointed out that it needed to be adjusted downward because of the age distribution on the ship. You pushed back repeatedly when I pointed out how many of the cases weren't resolved yet.

                        Now there are 13 deaths out of 712 cases, for an IFR of 1.8%.

                        Only non-witches get due process.

                        • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
                        L 1 Reply Last reply
                        • jon-nycJ Offline
                          jon-nycJ Offline
                          jon-nyc
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #58

                          Screen Shot 2020-07-13 at 1.12.26 PM.png

                          Only non-witches get due process.

                          • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
                          1 Reply Last reply
                          • jon-nycJ jon-nyc

                            @jon-nyc said in CDC revises fatality rate:

                            No I think they’re wrong by minimum a factor of 2.

                            My guess is 0.5<IFR<0.75

                            CDC revised the estimate again. As a reminder, in the first post of this thread, their 'best estimate' scenario had an IFR of 0.25. Their new update, published Friday, increased it to 0.65%, smack in the middle of my range.

                            https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html

                            HoraceH Offline
                            HoraceH Offline
                            Horace
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #59

                            @jon-nyc said in CDC revises fatality rate:

                            @jon-nyc said in CDC revises fatality rate:

                            No I think they’re wrong by minimum a factor of 2.

                            My guess is 0.5<IFR<0.75

                            CDC revised the estimate again. As a reminder, in the first post of this thread, their 'best estimate' scenario had an IFR of 0.25. Their new update, published Friday, increased it to 0.65%, smack in the middle of my range.

                            https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html

                            Good job jon.

                            Education is extremely important.

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            • jon-nycJ jon-nyc

                              You're being a bit too generous with yourself. You were touting the DP when there were only 6 or 7 fatalities and pointed out that it needed to be adjusted downward because of the age distribution on the ship. You pushed back repeatedly when I pointed out how many of the cases weren't resolved yet.

                              Now there are 13 deaths out of 712 cases, for an IFR of 1.8%.

                              L Offline
                              L Offline
                              Loki
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #60

                              @jon-nyc said in CDC revises fatality rate:

                              You're being a bit too generous with yourself. You were touting the DP when there were only 6 or 7 fatalities and pointed out that it needed to be adjusted downward because of the age distribution on the ship. You pushed back repeatedly when I pointed out how many of the cases weren't resolved yet.

                              Now there are 13 deaths out of 712 cases, for an IFR of 1.8%.

                              Sorry but that is not age adjusted.

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              • L Offline
                                L Offline
                                Loki
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #61

                                New NHS study of 17M tracked over 3 months

                                Summary
                                Age 80 -20 times more likely to die than in your 50’s
                                -100 times more likely to die than under 40

                                Men 59% more likely to die

                                Death rates:

                                18-39. .06%
                                40-49. .30%
                                50-59. 1%
                                60-69. 2.4%
                                70-79. 6.08%
                                80+. 20.61%

                                Aqua LetiferA 1 Reply Last reply
                                • L Loki

                                  New NHS study of 17M tracked over 3 months

                                  Summary
                                  Age 80 -20 times more likely to die than in your 50’s
                                  -100 times more likely to die than under 40

                                  Men 59% more likely to die

                                  Death rates:

                                  18-39. .06%
                                  40-49. .30%
                                  50-59. 1%
                                  60-69. 2.4%
                                  70-79. 6.08%
                                  80+. 20.61%

                                  Aqua LetiferA Offline
                                  Aqua LetiferA Offline
                                  Aqua Letifer
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #62

                                  @Loki said in CDC revises fatality rate:

                                  New NHS study of 17M tracked over 3 months

                                  Summary
                                  Age 80 -20 times more likely to die than in your 50’s
                                  -100 times more likely to die than under 40

                                  Men 59% more likely to die

                                  Death rates:

                                  18-39. .06%
                                  40-49. .30%
                                  50-59. 1%
                                  60-69. 2.4%
                                  70-79. 6.08%
                                  80+. 20.61%

                                  Cite?

                                  Please love yourself.

                                  L 1 Reply Last reply
                                  • Aqua LetiferA Aqua Letifer

                                    @Loki said in CDC revises fatality rate:

                                    New NHS study of 17M tracked over 3 months

                                    Summary
                                    Age 80 -20 times more likely to die than in your 50’s
                                    -100 times more likely to die than under 40

                                    Men 59% more likely to die

                                    Death rates:

                                    18-39. .06%
                                    40-49. .30%
                                    50-59. 1%
                                    60-69. 2.4%
                                    70-79. 6.08%
                                    80+. 20.61%

                                    Cite?

                                    L Offline
                                    L Offline
                                    Loki
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #63

                                    @Aqua-Letifer said in CDC revises fatality rate:

                                    @Loki said in CDC revises fatality rate:

                                    New NHS study of 17M tracked over 3 months

                                    Summary
                                    Age 80 -20 times more likely to die than in your 50’s
                                    -100 times more likely to die than under 40

                                    Men 59% more likely to die

                                    Death rates:

                                    18-39. .06%
                                    40-49. .30%
                                    50-59. 1%
                                    60-69. 2.4%
                                    70-79. 6.08%
                                    80+. 20.61%

                                    Cite?

                                    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/health/coronavirus-risk-factors.html

                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    Reply
                                    • Reply as topic
                                    Log in to reply
                                    • Oldest to Newest
                                    • Newest to Oldest
                                    • Most Votes


                                    • Login

                                    • Don't have an account? Register

                                    • Login or register to search.
                                    • First post
                                      Last post
                                    0
                                    • Categories
                                    • Recent
                                    • Tags
                                    • Popular
                                    • Users
                                    • Groups