CDC revises fatality rate
-
wrote on 25 May 2020, 13:55 last edited by
It would be nice to know how they came up with these numbers. Presumably the numbers were crunched at the CDC by people qualified to crunch them. I find it nearly as difficult to believe that those people would have made obvious blunders, as I find the results themselves.
-
I don't trust much of any numbers analysis I read about this right now. The numbers ignore the human cost entirely. If we just let it run rampant we may as well just euthanize our elderly population in group settings.
wrote on 25 May 2020, 13:59 last edited by@Mik said in CDC revises fatality rate:
I don't trust much of any numbers analysis I read about this right now. The numbers ignore the human cost entirely. If we just let it run rampant we may as well just euthanize our elderly population in group settings.
Regardless of framings like this, the question of what a society should do in response to covid does not boil down to whether a society cares about the lives of its citizens, elderly or otherwise.
-
wrote on 25 May 2020, 14:38 last edited by
Of course not. There are lots of considerations, of which I mentioned one.
-
wrote on 25 May 2020, 14:45 last edited by
The human cost of mass euthanization doesn't leave much room in the discussion for any other sorts of costs.
-
wrote on 25 May 2020, 14:48 last edited by
It is so..if you think so...
-
It would be nice to know how they came up with these numbers. Presumably the numbers were crunched at the CDC by people qualified to crunch them. I find it nearly as difficult to believe that those people would have made obvious blunders, as I find the results themselves.
wrote on 25 May 2020, 15:08 last edited by@Horace said in CDC revises fatality rate:
It would be nice to know how they came up with these numbers. Presumably the numbers were crunched at the CDC by people qualified to crunch them. I find it nearly as difficult to believe that those people would have made obvious blunders, as I find the results themselves.
I don’t see how any amount of credentialing can bridge the gap between that estimate and the reality of NYC.
-
wrote on 25 May 2020, 15:09 last edited by
It's not the credentials I am appealing to, it is the numbers and methods they worked with, which I assume they are sufficiently expert in, not to make certain mistakes. Maybe there is something wrong with other numbers that we're taking as gospel.
-
wrote on 25 May 2020, 15:16 last edited by
Take this number as gospel: 100.
The percentage of covid-19 statistics that will be revised by better statistics.
-
wrote on 25 May 2020, 15:18 last edited by jon-nyc
21k deaths in a population of 8.4MM with a 20% serology result that suffered from selection bias.
You’d have to make a pretty drastic change to those numbers to get consistent with their estimate
-
wrote on 25 May 2020, 15:29 last edited by
It doesn't seem drastically different from their estimate for CFR in the elderly. Of that 21k, what is the age breakdown?
-
wrote on 25 May 2020, 15:47 last edited by Loki
Remember the CDC shows death modeling at 65+. We know several states have 70%+ mortality from nursing homes where the average age is 80+.
I believe that younger people don’t generally die of this and that includes the vast vast majority of those under 60.
To say the CDC is dead wrong is fascinating to me.
-
wrote on 25 May 2020, 16:12 last edited by
At the end of this, we will find (IMO of course) that the most prevalent misleading numbers we were all fed will be the death count at the beginning of the pandemic where lots of folk clinging to life are pushed over the edge by Covid. Using that number to extrapolate much about the severity of the virus amongst those not clinging to life, is a non sequitur that will be seen to have been used over and over both scientifically and of course rhetorically.
-
At the end of this, we will find (IMO of course) that the most prevalent misleading numbers we were all fed will be the death count at the beginning of the pandemic where lots of folk clinging to life are pushed over the edge by Covid. Using that number to extrapolate much about the severity of the virus amongst those not clinging to life, is a non sequitur that will be seen to have been used over and over both scientifically and of course rhetorically.
wrote on 25 May 2020, 16:16 last edited by@Horace said in CDC revises fatality rate:
At the end of this, we will find (IMO of course) that the most prevalent misleading numbers we were all fed will be the death count at the beginning of the pandemic where lots of folk clinging to life are pushed over the edge by Covid. Using that number to extrapolate much about the severity of the virus amongst those not clinging to life, is a non sequitur that will be seen to have been used over and over both scientifically and of course rhetorically.
I agree but when it comes out the argument will be that it is the past and therefore irrelevant. It will become whadaboutism.
-
Remember the CDC shows death modeling at 65+. We know several states have 70%+ mortality from nursing homes where the average age is 80+.
I believe that younger people don’t generally die of this and that includes the vast vast majority of those under 60.
To say the CDC is dead wrong is fascinating to me.
wrote on 25 May 2020, 17:43 last edited by@Loki said in CDC revises fatality rate:
To say the CDC is dead wrong is fascinating to me.
Of the dozens of threads where we hammer on the faults of official models, why does this one fascinate you so?
-
wrote on 25 May 2020, 17:58 last edited by
One might expect this model from the CDC, using the most recent data available, and with country's eyes on its results, would be more solid than whatever models were hammered on in those dozens of other threads.
-
It doesn't seem drastically different from their estimate for CFR in the elderly. Of that 21k, what is the age breakdown?
wrote on 25 May 2020, 18:11 last edited by jon-nyc@Horace said in CDC revises fatality rate:
It doesn't seem drastically different from their estimate for CFR in the elderly. Of that 21k, what is the age breakdown?
Even if 100% of cases (not deaths) were over 65, it would still be double their estimate.
-
wrote on 25 May 2020, 18:17 last edited by
Even in NY the vast majority of deaths are over 75, more than double the 65-75.
Under 65 is fractional.
All that is according to the NY DOH
-
wrote on 25 May 2020, 18:22 last edited by
Even if 100% of cases were over 65 the CDC number would still be off by a factor of 2.
-
wrote on 25 May 2020, 18:25 last edited by
@jon-nyc said in CDC revises fatality rate:
Even if 100% of cases were over 65 the CDC number would still be off by a factor of 2.
If it were that obvious and the CDC posted it they should have been gone a long long time ago.
But getting back to who Covid is really lethal to at scale, I think all media has done a miserable job of telling that story. And it is important because some people have a sense and it is part of the tension to open the country and economy again.
-
@Horace said in CDC revises fatality rate:
It doesn't seem drastically different from their estimate for CFR in the elderly. Of that 21k, what is the age breakdown?
Even if 100% of cases (not deaths) were over 65, it would still be double their estimate.
wrote on 25 May 2020, 19:05 last edited by Horace@jon-nyc said in CDC revises fatality rate:
@Horace said in CDC revises fatality rate:
It doesn't seem drastically different from their estimate for CFR in the elderly. Of that 21k, what is the age breakdown?
Even if 100% of cases (not deaths) were over 65, it would still be double their estimate.
I was going by 21k deaths out of 20% of 8.4m which is 1.25%, below their estimate for 65+ individuals. I understand that you can zoom in on each of those numbers to find reasons it's a flawed estimate. But an important piece of info would be the age breakdown of the 21k.