The Nursing Home Deaths
-
@Horace said in The Nursing Home Deaths:
I suspect the CDC included this info in their model. The random sampling antibody rates are useless to determine infection rates of the cohort which produced the numerator of the fatality rate. Basically random samples of the population say very little about those who died. But the model is supposed to apply to random samples.
Of course the CDC did and the massive objection to it demonstrates the total lack of awareness by all. It should be hailed as great progress that we can most effectively address the lethality of Covid by protecting the vulnerable! The press covered all the one off deaths on the front page, they could really help by focusing on how we can drive down deaths by focusing where the biggest problem is.
-
-
@jon-nyc said in The Nursing Home Deaths:
Sorry. You can assume everyone in NYC over 75 is positive, whether they live in a nursing home or placed in the marathon last November, and the CDC’s IFR still doesn’t make sense.
The difference between their worst case of .4 and your low end range of .5 is minimal.
-
@jon-nyc said in The Nursing Home Deaths:
It’s 25% by the way.
But the whole thread was about criticizing their ‘best estimate’.
You could be right and the CDC could be wrong that’s for sure. But to get maximum points on the rubric you need to say why they are wrong. I mean qualified individuals who presumably know what you know made the calculation.
And while you may be right on the narrow point, the big news is the death rate by age is finally coming out and it paints a very different narrative than what’s been pumped out to us.
-
@jon-nyc said in The Nursing Home Deaths:
Sorry. You can assume everyone in NYC over 75 is positive, whether they live in a nursing home or placed in the marathon last November, and the CDC’s IFR still doesn’t make sense.
Are you talking about the global IFR across all ages?
-
@jon-nyc said in The Nursing Home Deaths:
So you’re not going to answer?
I thought it was big news?
It was until it was forgotten and we had all the young people that died profiled as evidence that this disease was going after everyone. The fear in this country became quite elevated that everyone was at risk, no?
-
@Horace said in The Nursing Home Deaths:
Well considering what the graph of IFR looks like when plotted against age, it is clear that it makes little sense to think or talk about an IFR that applies to everybody. Which renders most uses one sees of IFR borderline meaningless.
It would an interesting question to ask 80 years about what is the best way to protect them. Would they want 20%+ unemployment and no opportunity for youth?
-
@jon-nyc said in The Nursing Home Deaths:
Sorry. You can assume everyone in NYC over 75 is positive, whether they live in a nursing home or placed in the marathon last November, and the CDC’s IFR still doesn’t make sense.
More evidence NYC is an anomaly.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-28/why-was-new-york-hit-so-badly-with-covid-19
-
@Loki said in The Nursing Home Deaths:
More evidence NYC is an anomaly.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-28/why-was-new-york-hit-so-badly-with-covid-19
With New York’s outbreak eclipsing others around the world, it’s logical to look for somebody to blame.
Swell.
-
@Loki said in The Nursing Home Deaths:
@Horace said in The Nursing Home Deaths:
Well considering what the graph of IFR looks like when plotted against age, it is clear that it makes little sense to think or talk about an IFR that applies to everybody. Which renders most uses one sees of IFR borderline meaningless.
It would an interesting question to ask 80 years about what is the best way to protect them. Would they want 20%+ unemployment and no opportunity for youth?
Would they want wild parties being thrown on the lake with thousands of people shoulder to shoulder?
There is a middle ground, here.
-
The best way to protect them might be to test out the experimental vaccines on the entitled knobheads partying as though there's no tomorrow.
