CDC revises fatality rate

[Mik]

Of course not. There are lots of considerations, of which I mentioned one.

[Horace]

The human cost of mass euthanization doesn't leave much room in the discussion for any other sorts of costs.

[Mik]

It is so..if you think so...

[jon-nyc]

@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.

[Horace]

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.

[Copper]

Take this number as gospel: 100.

The percentage of covid-19 statistics that will be revised by better statistics.

[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

[Horace]

It doesn't seem drastically different from their estimate for CFR in the elderly. Of that 21k, what is the age breakdown?

[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.

[Horace]

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.

[Loki]

@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.

[jon-nyc]

@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?

[Horace]

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.

[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.

[Loki]

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

[jon-nyc]

Even if 100% of cases were over 65 the CDC number would still be off by a factor of 2.

[Loki]

@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]

@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.

[Horace]

@Loki said in CDC revises fatality rate:

@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.

I am not holding my breath for any smart, numerate folk to take a public deep dive into the IFR for healthy young adults. I am glad the CDC did. Nobody else has so much as attempted to do so, from what I've seen.

[jon-nyc]

@Horace said in CDC revises fatality rate:

@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.

Your mistake was not taking into account their 35% asymptomatic number. Which would push it to 2%.