New CDC Mortality Rate Down to .3%, There is No Reason for Any Distancing to Go on a Single Day Longer

munkle

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2012
Messages
711
Reaction score
452
Points
910
So now we know that the scientist who made the prediction that there could be "over 2 million dead in US" if there was no lockdown is a quack who is being called one of the "most wrong" scientists in the world, by other scientists. There was never any danger of millions dead, lockdown or no lockdown. See: "‘Professor Lockdown’ Modeler Resigns in Disgrace" (National Review)

Better yet, the new CDC coronavirus mortality rate estimated by CDC puts it firmly in the neighborhood of ordinary flu, which is .1% of cases. The revised estimate follows a study from U Penn Medical Centerwhich puts the real mortality rate even lower, .25%.

Shutdowns and social distancing are imposing the backwards science of preventing herd immunity. By delaying the wall of herd immunity, the RNA virus has more time to mutate into more deadly forms in a deadlier second wave.
For comparison:

Regular flu mortality rate: .1%

1968 Hong Kong flu mortality rate: .5%
1968 season US Hong Kong flu deaths:100,000

1957 H2N2 flu mortality rate .7%
1957 season US H2N2 deaths 116,000

2017 - 2018 US flu deaths: 80,000

Recall that in 1957 and 1968 the US had only 1/2 to 2/3 of the present population.


The CDC's New 'Best Estimate' Implies a COVID-19 Infection Fatality Rate Below 0.3%
By JACOB SULLUM|5.24.2020 5:35 PM
That rate is much lower than the numbers used in the horrifying projections that shaped the government response to the epidemic.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the current "best estimate" for the fatality rate among Americans with COVID-19 symptoms is 0.4 percent. The CDC also estimates that 35 percent of people infected by the COVID-19 virus never develop symptoms. Those numbers imply that the virus kills less than 0.3 percent of people infected by it—far lower than the infection fatality rates (IFRs) assumed by the alarming projections that drove the initial government response to the epidemic, including broad business closure and stay-at-home orders.

The CDC offers the new estimates in its "COVID-19 Pandemic Planning Scenarios," which are meant to guide hospital administrators in "assessing resource needs" and help policy makers "evaluate the potential effects of different community mitigation strategies." It says "the planning scenarios are being used by mathematical modelers throughout the Federal government."

The CDC's five scenarios include one based on "a current best estimate about viral transmission and disease severity in the United States." That scenario assumes a "basic reproduction number" of 2.5, meaning the average carrier can be expected to infect that number of people in a population with no immunity. It assumes an overall symptomatic case fatality rate (CFR) of 0.4 percent, roughly four times the estimated CFR for the seasonal flu. The CDC estimates that the CFR for COVID-19 falls to 0.05 percent among people younger than 50 and rises to 1.3 percent among people 65 and older. For people in the middle (ages 50–64), the estimated CFR is 0.2 percent.

That "best estimate" scenario also assumes that 35 percent of infections are asymptomatic, meaning the total number of infections is more than 50 percent larger than the number of symptomatic cases. It therefore implies that the IFR is between 0.2 percent and 0.3 percent. By contrast, the projections that the CDC made in March, which predicted that as many as 1.7 million Americans could die from COVID-19 without intervention, assumed an IFR of 0.8 percent. Around the same time, researchers at Imperial College produced a worst-case scenario in which 2.2 million Americans died, based on an IFR of 0.9 percent.

Such projections had a profound impact on policy makers in the United States and around the world. At the end of March, President Donald Trump, who has alternated between minimizing and exaggerating the threat posed by COVID-19, warned that the United States could see "up to 2.2 million deaths and maybe even beyond that" without aggressive control measures, including lockdowns.

One glaring problem with those worst-case scenarios was the counterfactual assumption that people would carry on as usual in the face of the pandemic—that they would not take voluntary precautions such as avoiding crowds, minimizing social contact, working from home, wearing masks, and paying extra attention to hygiene. The Imperial College projection was based on "the (unlikely) absence of any control measures or spontaneous changes in individual behaviour." Similarly, the projection of as many as 2.2 million deaths in the United States cited by the White House was based on "no intervention"—not just no lockdowns, but no response of any kind.

Another problem with those projections, assuming that the CDC's current "best estimate" is in the right ballpark, was that the IFRs they assumed were far too high. The difference between an IFR of 0.8 to 0.9 percent and an IFR of 0.2 to 0.3 percent, even in the completely unrealistic worst-case scenarios, is the difference between millions and hundreds of thousands of deaths—still a grim outcome, but not nearly as bad as the horrifying projections cited by politicians to justify the sweeping restrictions they imposed...
 

bluzman61

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
17,108
Reaction score
13,372
Points
2,395
Location
Valparaiso, Indiana USA
So now we know that the scientist who made the prediction that there could be "over 2 million dead in US" if there was no lockdown is a quack who is being called one of the "most wrong" scientists in the world, by other scientists. There was never any danger of millions dead, lockdown or no lockdown. See: "‘Professor Lockdown’ Modeler Resigns in Disgrace" (National Review)

Better yet, the new CDC coronavirus mortality rate estimated by CDC puts it firmly in the neighborhood of ordinary flu, which is .1% of cases. The revised estimate follows a study from U Penn Medical Centerwhich puts the real mortality rate even lower, .25%.

Shutdowns and social distancing are imposing the backwards science of preventing herd immunity. By delaying the wall of herd immunity, the RNA virus has more time to mutate into more deadly forms in a deadlier second wave.
For comparison:

Regular flu mortality rate: .1%

1968 Hong Kong flu mortality rate: .5%
1968 season US Hong Kong flu deaths:100,000

1957 H2N2 flu mortality rate .7%
1957 season US H2N2 deaths 116,000

2017 - 2018 US flu deaths: 80,000

Recall that in 1957 and 1968 the US had only 1/2 to 2/3 of the present population.


The CDC's New 'Best Estimate' Implies a COVID-19 Infection Fatality Rate Below 0.3%
By JACOB SULLUM|5.24.2020 5:35 PM
That rate is much lower than the numbers used in the horrifying projections that shaped the government response to the epidemic.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the current "best estimate" for the fatality rate among Americans with COVID-19 symptoms is 0.4 percent. The CDC also estimates that 35 percent of people infected by the COVID-19 virus never develop symptoms. Those numbers imply that the virus kills less than 0.3 percent of people infected by it—far lower than the infection fatality rates (IFRs) assumed by the alarming projections that drove the initial government response to the epidemic, including broad business closure and stay-at-home orders.

The CDC offers the new estimates in its "COVID-19 Pandemic Planning Scenarios," which are meant to guide hospital administrators in "assessing resource needs" and help policy makers "evaluate the potential effects of different community mitigation strategies." It says "the planning scenarios are being used by mathematical modelers throughout the Federal government."

The CDC's five scenarios include one based on "a current best estimate about viral transmission and disease severity in the United States." That scenario assumes a "basic reproduction number" of 2.5, meaning the average carrier can be expected to infect that number of people in a population with no immunity. It assumes an overall symptomatic case fatality rate (CFR) of 0.4 percent, roughly four times the estimated CFR for the seasonal flu. The CDC estimates that the CFR for COVID-19 falls to 0.05 percent among people younger than 50 and rises to 1.3 percent among people 65 and older. For people in the middle (ages 50–64), the estimated CFR is 0.2 percent.

That "best estimate" scenario also assumes that 35 percent of infections are asymptomatic, meaning the total number of infections is more than 50 percent larger than the number of symptomatic cases. It therefore implies that the IFR is between 0.2 percent and 0.3 percent. By contrast, the projections that the CDC made in March, which predicted that as many as 1.7 million Americans could die from COVID-19 without intervention, assumed an IFR of 0.8 percent. Around the same time, researchers at Imperial College produced a worst-case scenario in which 2.2 million Americans died, based on an IFR of 0.9 percent.

Such projections had a profound impact on policy makers in the United States and around the world. At the end of March, President Donald Trump, who has alternated between minimizing and exaggerating the threat posed by COVID-19, warned that the United States could see "up to 2.2 million deaths and maybe even beyond that" without aggressive control measures, including lockdowns.

One glaring problem with those worst-case scenarios was the counterfactual assumption that people would carry on as usual in the face of the pandemic—that they would not take voluntary precautions such as avoiding crowds, minimizing social contact, working from home, wearing masks, and paying extra attention to hygiene. The Imperial College projection was based on "the (unlikely) absence of any control measures or spontaneous changes in individual behaviour." Similarly, the projection of as many as 2.2 million deaths in the United States cited by the White House was based on "no intervention"—not just no lockdowns, but no response of any kind.

Another problem with those projections, assuming that the CDC's current "best estimate" is in the right ballpark, was that the IFRs they assumed were far too high. The difference between an IFR of 0.8 to 0.9 percent and an IFR of 0.2 to 0.3 percent, even in the completely unrealistic worst-case scenarios, is the difference between millions and hundreds of thousands of deaths—still a grim outcome, but not nearly as bad as the horrifying projections cited by politicians to justify the sweeping restrictions they imposed...
Thanks for the info. It's VERY cool that the idiot "professor" resigned in disgrace.
 

bluzman61

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
17,108
Reaction score
13,372
Points
2,395
Location
Valparaiso, Indiana USA

Asclepias

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2013
Messages
105,331
Reaction score
12,375
Points
2,195
Location
Breathing rarified air.
" if there was no lockdown "

Except there was a lock down. Where you been homie?
In a LOCK DOWN.
Did he turn retarded during the lock down? How did he miss the the word "if"?
It's possible. I, myself, have most likely lost 5-10 points from my I.Q., thanks to the lock down caused by the Chinese Virus, AKA Wu Flu, AKA Kung Flu. This virus has been tough on ALL of us.
I already told you there is no such thing as a test that can measure your intellect.
 

Polishprince

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
21,336
Reaction score
6,250
Points
290
I was over at my mum's today, and she definitely agrees that the social distancing bullshit has gone too far. Mind you that my mum is 90, takes blood thinners, and is walking around with 1 lung after having one cut out 18 years ago.

As it was explained to me, you need to exposed to some pathogens so you can build up your defenses. All of these masks, and gloves, and social distancing , will purify people's bodies far too much. Then when they get the slightest exposure to pathogens, their bodies can't handle it and they are rendered Extinct.

The hardiest species on the planet is the beloved cockroach. And they say that the cockroach will be on earth long after all of the other species go extinct. The roach's secret? Its his diet, roaches eat crap and it builds up their immunity.
 
OP
munkle

munkle

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2012
Messages
711
Reaction score
452
Points
910
I was over at my mum's today, and she definitely agrees that the social distancing bullshit has gone too far. Mind you that my mum is 90, takes blood thinners, and is walking around with 1 lung after having one cut out 18 years ago.

As it was explained to me, you need to exposed to some pathogens so you can build up your defenses. All of these masks, and gloves, and social distancing , will purify people's bodies far too much. Then when they get the slightest exposure to pathogens, their bodies can't handle it and they are rendered Extinct.

The hardiest species on the planet is the beloved cockroach. And they say that the cockroach will be on earth long after all of the other species go extinct. The roach's secret? Its his diet, roaches eat crap and it builds up their immunity.
Your mum is way smarter than 95% of these crackpot crazy scientists who think they can be smarter than nature.
 

buttercup

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
3,737
Reaction score
1,723
Points
355
Location
Baja California, Mx
This meme is actually an understatement. More like the destruction of millions of jobs and livelihoods purposely creating dependency on government, the destruction of more civil liberties and privacy, more power grabs and authoritarian globalist agendas using covid1984 as a pretext, an increasing number of suicides, and the list goes on. All of this leading to the NWO.

And all of this based on lies and demonstrably false "science."

 
OP
munkle

munkle

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2012
Messages
711
Reaction score
452
Points
910
This meme is actually an understatement. More like the destruction of millions of jobs and livelihoods purposely creating dependency on government, the destruction of more civil liberties and privacy, more power grabs and authoritarian globalist agendas using covid1984 as a pretext, an increasing number of suicides, and the list goes on. All of this leading to the NWO.

And all of this based on lies and demonstrably false "science."

 

dudmuck

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2017
Messages
6,089
Reaction score
1,249
Points
275
Location
Camarillo, CA
So now we know that the scientist who made the prediction that there could be "over 2 million dead in US" if there was no lockdown is a quack who is being called one of the "most wrong" scientists in the world, by other scientists. There was never any danger of millions dead, lockdown or no lockdown. See: "‘Professor Lockdown’ Modeler Resigns in Disgrace" (National Review)

Better yet, the new CDC coronavirus mortality rate estimated by CDC puts it firmly in the neighborhood of ordinary flu, which is .1% of cases. The revised estimate follows a study from U Penn Medical Centerwhich puts the real mortality rate even lower, .25%.

Shutdowns and social distancing are imposing the backwards science of preventing herd immunity. By delaying the wall of herd immunity, the RNA virus has more time to mutate into more deadly forms in a deadlier second wave.
For comparison:

Regular flu mortality rate: .1%

1968 Hong Kong flu mortality rate: .5%
1968 season US Hong Kong flu deaths:100,000

1957 H2N2 flu mortality rate .7%
1957 season US H2N2 deaths 116,000

2017 - 2018 US flu deaths: 80,000

Recall that in 1957 and 1968 the US had only 1/2 to 2/3 of the present population.


The CDC's New 'Best Estimate' Implies a COVID-19 Infection Fatality Rate Below 0.3%
By JACOB SULLUM|5.24.2020 5:35 PM
That rate is much lower than the numbers used in the horrifying projections that shaped the government response to the epidemic.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the current "best estimate" for the fatality rate among Americans with COVID-19 symptoms is 0.4 percent. The CDC also estimates that 35 percent of people infected by the COVID-19 virus never develop symptoms. Those numbers imply that the virus kills less than 0.3 percent of people infected by it—far lower than the infection fatality rates (IFRs) assumed by the alarming projections that drove the initial government response to the epidemic, including broad business closure and stay-at-home orders.

The CDC offers the new estimates in its "COVID-19 Pandemic Planning Scenarios," which are meant to guide hospital administrators in "assessing resource needs" and help policy makers "evaluate the potential effects of different community mitigation strategies." It says "the planning scenarios are being used by mathematical modelers throughout the Federal government."

The CDC's five scenarios include one based on "a current best estimate about viral transmission and disease severity in the United States." That scenario assumes a "basic reproduction number" of 2.5, meaning the average carrier can be expected to infect that number of people in a population with no immunity. It assumes an overall symptomatic case fatality rate (CFR) of 0.4 percent, roughly four times the estimated CFR for the seasonal flu. The CDC estimates that the CFR for COVID-19 falls to 0.05 percent among people younger than 50 and rises to 1.3 percent among people 65 and older. For people in the middle (ages 50–64), the estimated CFR is 0.2 percent.

That "best estimate" scenario also assumes that 35 percent of infections are asymptomatic, meaning the total number of infections is more than 50 percent larger than the number of symptomatic cases. It therefore implies that the IFR is between 0.2 percent and 0.3 percent. By contrast, the projections that the CDC made in March, which predicted that as many as 1.7 million Americans could die from COVID-19 without intervention, assumed an IFR of 0.8 percent. Around the same time, researchers at Imperial College produced a worst-case scenario in which 2.2 million Americans died, based on an IFR of 0.9 percent.

Such projections had a profound impact on policy makers in the United States and around the world. At the end of March, President Donald Trump, who has alternated between minimizing and exaggerating the threat posed by COVID-19, warned that the United States could see "up to 2.2 million deaths and maybe even beyond that" without aggressive control measures, including lockdowns.

One glaring problem with those worst-case scenarios was the counterfactual assumption that people would carry on as usual in the face of the pandemic—that they would not take voluntary precautions such as avoiding crowds, minimizing social contact, working from home, wearing masks, and paying extra attention to hygiene. The Imperial College projection was based on "the (unlikely) absence of any control measures or spontaneous changes in individual behaviour." Similarly, the projection of as many as 2.2 million deaths in the United States cited by the White House was based on "no intervention"—not just no lockdowns, but no response of any kind.

Another problem with those projections, assuming that the CDC's current "best estimate" is in the right ballpark, was that the IFRs they assumed were far too high. The difference between an IFR of 0.8 to 0.9 percent and an IFR of 0.2 to 0.3 percent, even in the completely unrealistic worst-case scenarios, is the difference between millions and hundreds of thousands of deaths—still a grim outcome, but not nearly as bad as the horrifying projections cited by politicians to justify the sweeping restrictions they imposed...
The purpose of lockdowns it to keep the hospitals from overflowing.
case in point: arizona, which lifted 3 weeks ago, and is about to overflow
see which states are doing better and worse: Rt Covid-19
 

Polishprince

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
21,336
Reaction score
6,250
Points
290
This meme is actually an understatement. More like the destruction of millions of jobs and livelihoods purposely creating dependency on government, the destruction of more civil liberties and privacy, more power grabs and authoritarian globalist agendas using covid1984 as a pretext, an increasing number of suicides, and the list goes on. All of this leading to the NWO.

And all of this based on lies and demonstrably false "science."


Until the situation is resolved, and it will be, and all of the data is analyzed as to antibodies, its really impossible to know what the death rate is from the Corona.

The reason is pretty obvious. Most people who come down with a case of the Covids don't consult a physician, they aren't feeling that bad, they don't get tested and are never confirmed.

Sure, this can be bad news for a certain subset of the population. But for most, its ho-hum.
 

WEATHER53

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
9,663
Reaction score
2,125
Points
290
Maryland reopening inside dining at 50% Friday and casinos andI think theaters the 19th . Still chickenshitting about “community discretion” which gives a hundred nitwits way too much power. Hand wringing and foot dragging.

NBC 4 should stop lying. PG and Mont Co are 2 of 3 largest in state. They have a higher number of infections because they are the biggest but only PG has a higher percentage .
 
OP
munkle

munkle

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2012
Messages
711
Reaction score
452
Points
910
So now we know that the scientist who made the prediction that there could be "over 2 million dead in US" if there was no lockdown is a quack who is being called one of the "most wrong" scientists in the world, by other scientists. There was never any danger of millions dead, lockdown or no lockdown. See: "‘Professor Lockdown’ Modeler Resigns in Disgrace" (National Review)

Better yet, the new CDC coronavirus mortality rate estimated by CDC puts it firmly in the neighborhood of ordinary flu, which is .1% of cases. The revised estimate follows a study from U Penn Medical Centerwhich puts the real mortality rate even lower, .25%.

Shutdowns and social distancing are imposing the backwards science of preventing herd immunity. By delaying the wall of herd immunity, the RNA virus has more time to mutate into more deadly forms in a deadlier second wave.
For comparison:

Regular flu mortality rate: .1%

1968 Hong Kong flu mortality rate: .5%
1968 season US Hong Kong flu deaths:100,000

1957 H2N2 flu mortality rate .7%
1957 season US H2N2 deaths 116,000

2017 - 2018 US flu deaths: 80,000

Recall that in 1957 and 1968 the US had only 1/2 to 2/3 of the present population.


The CDC's New 'Best Estimate' Implies a COVID-19 Infection Fatality Rate Below 0.3%
By JACOB SULLUM|5.24.2020 5:35 PM
That rate is much lower than the numbers used in the horrifying projections that shaped the government response to the epidemic.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the current "best estimate" for the fatality rate among Americans with COVID-19 symptoms is 0.4 percent. The CDC also estimates that 35 percent of people infected by the COVID-19 virus never develop symptoms. Those numbers imply that the virus kills less than 0.3 percent of people infected by it—far lower than the infection fatality rates (IFRs) assumed by the alarming projections that drove the initial government response to the epidemic, including broad business closure and stay-at-home orders.

The CDC offers the new estimates in its "COVID-19 Pandemic Planning Scenarios," which are meant to guide hospital administrators in "assessing resource needs" and help policy makers "evaluate the potential effects of different community mitigation strategies." It says "the planning scenarios are being used by mathematical modelers throughout the Federal government."

The CDC's five scenarios include one based on "a current best estimate about viral transmission and disease severity in the United States." That scenario assumes a "basic reproduction number" of 2.5, meaning the average carrier can be expected to infect that number of people in a population with no immunity. It assumes an overall symptomatic case fatality rate (CFR) of 0.4 percent, roughly four times the estimated CFR for the seasonal flu. The CDC estimates that the CFR for COVID-19 falls to 0.05 percent among people younger than 50 and rises to 1.3 percent among people 65 and older. For people in the middle (ages 50–64), the estimated CFR is 0.2 percent.

That "best estimate" scenario also assumes that 35 percent of infections are asymptomatic, meaning the total number of infections is more than 50 percent larger than the number of symptomatic cases. It therefore implies that the IFR is between 0.2 percent and 0.3 percent. By contrast, the projections that the CDC made in March, which predicted that as many as 1.7 million Americans could die from COVID-19 without intervention, assumed an IFR of 0.8 percent. Around the same time, researchers at Imperial College produced a worst-case scenario in which 2.2 million Americans died, based on an IFR of 0.9 percent.

Such projections had a profound impact on policy makers in the United States and around the world. At the end of March, President Donald Trump, who has alternated between minimizing and exaggerating the threat posed by COVID-19, warned that the United States could see "up to 2.2 million deaths and maybe even beyond that" without aggressive control measures, including lockdowns.

One glaring problem with those worst-case scenarios was the counterfactual assumption that people would carry on as usual in the face of the pandemic—that they would not take voluntary precautions such as avoiding crowds, minimizing social contact, working from home, wearing masks, and paying extra attention to hygiene. The Imperial College projection was based on "the (unlikely) absence of any control measures or spontaneous changes in individual behaviour." Similarly, the projection of as many as 2.2 million deaths in the United States cited by the White House was based on "no intervention"—not just no lockdowns, but no response of any kind.

Another problem with those projections, assuming that the CDC's current "best estimate" is in the right ballpark, was that the IFRs they assumed were far too high. The difference between an IFR of 0.8 to 0.9 percent and an IFR of 0.2 to 0.3 percent, even in the completely unrealistic worst-case scenarios, is the difference between millions and hundreds of thousands of deaths—still a grim outcome, but not nearly as bad as the horrifying projections cited by politicians to justify the sweeping restrictions they imposed...
The purpose of lockdowns it to keep the hospitals from overflowing.
case in point: arizona, which lifted 3 weeks ago, and is about to overflow
see which states are doing better and worse: Rt Covid-19
The article you link says exactly the opposite, that AZ is not overwhelmed. Right now Arizona deaths are about the same as during the 2018 flu season. This is not ebola or anything like it. It's just another flu.

Another thing everyone forgets is the 1957 and 1968 pandemics, when per capita deaths were much higher than COVID.

Per Capita Deaths Were Higher in 1968 and 1957 US Flu Epidemics, and Everything Was Normal, Including Woodstock

1592174170403.png

 

dudmuck

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2017
Messages
6,089
Reaction score
1,249
Points
275
Location
Camarillo, CA
So now we know that the scientist who made the prediction that there could be "over 2 million dead in US" if there was no lockdown is a quack who is being called one of the "most wrong" scientists in the world, by other scientists. There was never any danger of millions dead, lockdown or no lockdown. See: "‘Professor Lockdown’ Modeler Resigns in Disgrace" (National Review)

Better yet, the new CDC coronavirus mortality rate estimated by CDC puts it firmly in the neighborhood of ordinary flu, which is .1% of cases. The revised estimate follows a study from U Penn Medical Centerwhich puts the real mortality rate even lower, .25%.

Shutdowns and social distancing are imposing the backwards science of preventing herd immunity. By delaying the wall of herd immunity, the RNA virus has more time to mutate into more deadly forms in a deadlier second wave.
For comparison:

Regular flu mortality rate: .1%

1968 Hong Kong flu mortality rate: .5%
1968 season US Hong Kong flu deaths:100,000

1957 H2N2 flu mortality rate .7%
1957 season US H2N2 deaths 116,000

2017 - 2018 US flu deaths: 80,000

Recall that in 1957 and 1968 the US had only 1/2 to 2/3 of the present population.


The CDC's New 'Best Estimate' Implies a COVID-19 Infection Fatality Rate Below 0.3%
By JACOB SULLUM|5.24.2020 5:35 PM
That rate is much lower than the numbers used in the horrifying projections that shaped the government response to the epidemic.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the current "best estimate" for the fatality rate among Americans with COVID-19 symptoms is 0.4 percent. The CDC also estimates that 35 percent of people infected by the COVID-19 virus never develop symptoms. Those numbers imply that the virus kills less than 0.3 percent of people infected by it—far lower than the infection fatality rates (IFRs) assumed by the alarming projections that drove the initial government response to the epidemic, including broad business closure and stay-at-home orders.

The CDC offers the new estimates in its "COVID-19 Pandemic Planning Scenarios," which are meant to guide hospital administrators in "assessing resource needs" and help policy makers "evaluate the potential effects of different community mitigation strategies." It says "the planning scenarios are being used by mathematical modelers throughout the Federal government."

The CDC's five scenarios include one based on "a current best estimate about viral transmission and disease severity in the United States." That scenario assumes a "basic reproduction number" of 2.5, meaning the average carrier can be expected to infect that number of people in a population with no immunity. It assumes an overall symptomatic case fatality rate (CFR) of 0.4 percent, roughly four times the estimated CFR for the seasonal flu. The CDC estimates that the CFR for COVID-19 falls to 0.05 percent among people younger than 50 and rises to 1.3 percent among people 65 and older. For people in the middle (ages 50–64), the estimated CFR is 0.2 percent.

That "best estimate" scenario also assumes that 35 percent of infections are asymptomatic, meaning the total number of infections is more than 50 percent larger than the number of symptomatic cases. It therefore implies that the IFR is between 0.2 percent and 0.3 percent. By contrast, the projections that the CDC made in March, which predicted that as many as 1.7 million Americans could die from COVID-19 without intervention, assumed an IFR of 0.8 percent. Around the same time, researchers at Imperial College produced a worst-case scenario in which 2.2 million Americans died, based on an IFR of 0.9 percent.

Such projections had a profound impact on policy makers in the United States and around the world. At the end of March, President Donald Trump, who has alternated between minimizing and exaggerating the threat posed by COVID-19, warned that the United States could see "up to 2.2 million deaths and maybe even beyond that" without aggressive control measures, including lockdowns.

One glaring problem with those worst-case scenarios was the counterfactual assumption that people would carry on as usual in the face of the pandemic—that they would not take voluntary precautions such as avoiding crowds, minimizing social contact, working from home, wearing masks, and paying extra attention to hygiene. The Imperial College projection was based on "the (unlikely) absence of any control measures or spontaneous changes in individual behaviour." Similarly, the projection of as many as 2.2 million deaths in the United States cited by the White House was based on "no intervention"—not just no lockdowns, but no response of any kind.

Another problem with those projections, assuming that the CDC's current "best estimate" is in the right ballpark, was that the IFRs they assumed were far too high. The difference between an IFR of 0.8 to 0.9 percent and an IFR of 0.2 to 0.3 percent, even in the completely unrealistic worst-case scenarios, is the difference between millions and hundreds of thousands of deaths—still a grim outcome, but not nearly as bad as the horrifying projections cited by politicians to justify the sweeping restrictions they imposed...
The purpose of lockdowns it to keep the hospitals from overflowing.
case in point: arizona, which lifted 3 weeks ago, and is about to overflow
see which states are doing better and worse: Rt Covid-19
The article you link says exactly the opposite, that AZ is not overwhelmed. Right now Arizona deaths are about the same as during the 2018 flu season. This is not ebola or anything like it. It's just another flu.

Another thing everyone forgets is the 1957 and 1968 pandemics, when per capita deaths were much higher than COVID.

Per Capita Deaths Were Higher in 1968 and 1957 US Flu Epidemics, and Everything Was Normal, Including Woodstock

View attachment 350371
Deaths lag cases by 3 to 4 weeks.
Arizona cases started climbing after may 26th, stable prior to that. Today 3 times the cases per day as there was before may 26th in Arizona.
Now Arizona has the worst spreading rate in the nation: Rt Covid-19
 

RoshawnMarkwees

Assimilationist
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
22,097
Reaction score
3,855
Points
280
Location
Middle class, suburban ghetto.
So now we know that the scientist who made the prediction that there could be "over 2 million dead in US" if there was no lockdown is a quack who is being called one of the "most wrong" scientists in the world, by other scientists. There was never any danger of millions dead, lockdown or no lockdown. See: "‘Professor Lockdown’ Modeler Resigns in Disgrace" (National Review)

Better yet, the new CDC coronavirus mortality rate estimated by CDC puts it firmly in the neighborhood of ordinary flu, which is .1% of cases. The revised estimate follows a study from U Penn Medical Centerwhich puts the real mortality rate even lower, .25%.

Shutdowns and social distancing are imposing the backwards science of preventing herd immunity. By delaying the wall of herd immunity, the RNA virus has more time to mutate into more deadly forms in a deadlier second wave.
For comparison:

Regular flu mortality rate: .1%

1968 Hong Kong flu mortality rate: .5%
1968 season US Hong Kong flu deaths:100,000

1957 H2N2 flu mortality rate .7%
1957 season US H2N2 deaths 116,000

2017 - 2018 US flu deaths: 80,000

Recall that in 1957 and 1968 the US had only 1/2 to 2/3 of the present population.


The CDC's New 'Best Estimate' Implies a COVID-19 Infection Fatality Rate Below 0.3%
By JACOB SULLUM|5.24.2020 5:35 PM
That rate is much lower than the numbers used in the horrifying projections that shaped the government response to the epidemic.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the current "best estimate" for the fatality rate among Americans with COVID-19 symptoms is 0.4 percent. The CDC also estimates that 35 percent of people infected by the COVID-19 virus never develop symptoms. Those numbers imply that the virus kills less than 0.3 percent of people infected by it—far lower than the infection fatality rates (IFRs) assumed by the alarming projections that drove the initial government response to the epidemic, including broad business closure and stay-at-home orders.

The CDC offers the new estimates in its "COVID-19 Pandemic Planning Scenarios," which are meant to guide hospital administrators in "assessing resource needs" and help policy makers "evaluate the potential effects of different community mitigation strategies." It says "the planning scenarios are being used by mathematical modelers throughout the Federal government."

The CDC's five scenarios include one based on "a current best estimate about viral transmission and disease severity in the United States." That scenario assumes a "basic reproduction number" of 2.5, meaning the average carrier can be expected to infect that number of people in a population with no immunity. It assumes an overall symptomatic case fatality rate (CFR) of 0.4 percent, roughly four times the estimated CFR for the seasonal flu. The CDC estimates that the CFR for COVID-19 falls to 0.05 percent among people younger than 50 and rises to 1.3 percent among people 65 and older. For people in the middle (ages 50–64), the estimated CFR is 0.2 percent.

That "best estimate" scenario also assumes that 35 percent of infections are asymptomatic, meaning the total number of infections is more than 50 percent larger than the number of symptomatic cases. It therefore implies that the IFR is between 0.2 percent and 0.3 percent. By contrast, the projections that the CDC made in March, which predicted that as many as 1.7 million Americans could die from COVID-19 without intervention, assumed an IFR of 0.8 percent. Around the same time, researchers at Imperial College produced a worst-case scenario in which 2.2 million Americans died, based on an IFR of 0.9 percent.

Such projections had a profound impact on policy makers in the United States and around the world. At the end of March, President Donald Trump, who has alternated between minimizing and exaggerating the threat posed by COVID-19, warned that the United States could see "up to 2.2 million deaths and maybe even beyond that" without aggressive control measures, including lockdowns.

One glaring problem with those worst-case scenarios was the counterfactual assumption that people would carry on as usual in the face of the pandemic—that they would not take voluntary precautions such as avoiding crowds, minimizing social contact, working from home, wearing masks, and paying extra attention to hygiene. The Imperial College projection was based on "the (unlikely) absence of any control measures or spontaneous changes in individual behaviour." Similarly, the projection of as many as 2.2 million deaths in the United States cited by the White House was based on "no intervention"—not just no lockdowns, but no response of any kind.

Another problem with those projections, assuming that the CDC's current "best estimate" is in the right ballpark, was that the IFRs they assumed were far too high. The difference between an IFR of 0.8 to 0.9 percent and an IFR of 0.2 to 0.3 percent, even in the completely unrealistic worst-case scenarios, is the difference between millions and hundreds of thousands of deaths—still a grim outcome, but not nearly as bad as the horrifying projections cited by politicians to justify the sweeping restrictions they imposed...
The purpose of lockdowns it to keep the hospitals from overflowing.
case in point: arizona, which lifted 3 weeks ago, and is about to overflow
see which states are doing better and worse: Rt Covid-19
The article you link says exactly the opposite, that AZ is not overwhelmed. Right now Arizona deaths are about the same as during the 2018 flu season. This is not ebola or anything like it. It's just another flu.

Another thing everyone forgets is the 1957 and 1968 pandemics, when per capita deaths were much higher than COVID.

Per Capita Deaths Were Higher in 1968 and 1957 US Flu Epidemics, and Everything Was Normal, Including Woodstock

View attachment 350371
Deaths lag cases by 3 to 4 weeks.
Arizona cases started climbing after may 26th, stable prior to that. Today 3 times the cases per day as there was before may 26th in Arizona.
Now Arizona has the worst spreading rate in the nation: Rt Covid-19
A lot of that is expanded Wuhan testing. Death rates have been declining in spite of cases increasing.
 
OP
munkle

munkle

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2012
Messages
711
Reaction score
452
Points
910
So now we know that the scientist who made the prediction that there could be "over 2 million dead in US" if there was no lockdown is a quack who is being called one of the "most wrong" scientists in the world, by other scientists. There was never any danger of millions dead, lockdown or no lockdown. See: "‘Professor Lockdown’ Modeler Resigns in Disgrace" (National Review)

Better yet, the new CDC coronavirus mortality rate estimated by CDC puts it firmly in the neighborhood of ordinary flu, which is .1% of cases. The revised estimate follows a study from U Penn Medical Centerwhich puts the real mortality rate even lower, .25%.

Shutdowns and social distancing are imposing the backwards science of preventing herd immunity. By delaying the wall of herd immunity, the RNA virus has more time to mutate into more deadly forms in a deadlier second wave.
For comparison:

Regular flu mortality rate: .1%

1968 Hong Kong flu mortality rate: .5%
1968 season US Hong Kong flu deaths:100,000

1957 H2N2 flu mortality rate .7%
1957 season US H2N2 deaths 116,000

2017 - 2018 US flu deaths: 80,000

Recall that in 1957 and 1968 the US had only 1/2 to 2/3 of the present population.


The CDC's New 'Best Estimate' Implies a COVID-19 Infection Fatality Rate Below 0.3%
By JACOB SULLUM|5.24.2020 5:35 PM
That rate is much lower than the numbers used in the horrifying projections that shaped the government response to the epidemic.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the current "best estimate" for the fatality rate among Americans with COVID-19 symptoms is 0.4 percent. The CDC also estimates that 35 percent of people infected by the COVID-19 virus never develop symptoms. Those numbers imply that the virus kills less than 0.3 percent of people infected by it—far lower than the infection fatality rates (IFRs) assumed by the alarming projections that drove the initial government response to the epidemic, including broad business closure and stay-at-home orders.

The CDC offers the new estimates in its "COVID-19 Pandemic Planning Scenarios," which are meant to guide hospital administrators in "assessing resource needs" and help policy makers "evaluate the potential effects of different community mitigation strategies." It says "the planning scenarios are being used by mathematical modelers throughout the Federal government."

The CDC's five scenarios include one based on "a current best estimate about viral transmission and disease severity in the United States." That scenario assumes a "basic reproduction number" of 2.5, meaning the average carrier can be expected to infect that number of people in a population with no immunity. It assumes an overall symptomatic case fatality rate (CFR) of 0.4 percent, roughly four times the estimated CFR for the seasonal flu. The CDC estimates that the CFR for COVID-19 falls to 0.05 percent among people younger than 50 and rises to 1.3 percent among people 65 and older. For people in the middle (ages 50–64), the estimated CFR is 0.2 percent.

That "best estimate" scenario also assumes that 35 percent of infections are asymptomatic, meaning the total number of infections is more than 50 percent larger than the number of symptomatic cases. It therefore implies that the IFR is between 0.2 percent and 0.3 percent. By contrast, the projections that the CDC made in March, which predicted that as many as 1.7 million Americans could die from COVID-19 without intervention, assumed an IFR of 0.8 percent. Around the same time, researchers at Imperial College produced a worst-case scenario in which 2.2 million Americans died, based on an IFR of 0.9 percent.

Such projections had a profound impact on policy makers in the United States and around the world. At the end of March, President Donald Trump, who has alternated between minimizing and exaggerating the threat posed by COVID-19, warned that the United States could see "up to 2.2 million deaths and maybe even beyond that" without aggressive control measures, including lockdowns.

One glaring problem with those worst-case scenarios was the counterfactual assumption that people would carry on as usual in the face of the pandemic—that they would not take voluntary precautions such as avoiding crowds, minimizing social contact, working from home, wearing masks, and paying extra attention to hygiene. The Imperial College projection was based on "the (unlikely) absence of any control measures or spontaneous changes in individual behaviour." Similarly, the projection of as many as 2.2 million deaths in the United States cited by the White House was based on "no intervention"—not just no lockdowns, but no response of any kind.

Another problem with those projections, assuming that the CDC's current "best estimate" is in the right ballpark, was that the IFRs they assumed were far too high. The difference between an IFR of 0.8 to 0.9 percent and an IFR of 0.2 to 0.3 percent, even in the completely unrealistic worst-case scenarios, is the difference between millions and hundreds of thousands of deaths—still a grim outcome, but not nearly as bad as the horrifying projections cited by politicians to justify the sweeping restrictions they imposed...
The purpose of lockdowns it to keep the hospitals from overflowing.
case in point: arizona, which lifted 3 weeks ago, and is about to overflow
see which states are doing better and worse: Rt Covid-19
The article you link says exactly the opposite, that AZ is not overwhelmed. Right now Arizona deaths are about the same as during the 2018 flu season. This is not ebola or anything like it. It's just another flu.

Another thing everyone forgets is the 1957 and 1968 pandemics, when per capita deaths were much higher than COVID.

Per Capita Deaths Were Higher in 1968 and 1957 US Flu Epidemics, and Everything Was Normal, Including Woodstock

View attachment 350371
Deaths lag cases by 3 to 4 weeks.
Arizona cases started climbing after may 26th, stable prior to that. Today 3 times the cases per day as there was before may 26th in Arizona.
Now Arizona has the worst spreading rate in the nation: Rt Covid-19
A lot of that is expanded Wuhan testing. Death rates have been declining in spite of cases increasing.
You cannot explain this to some people. Announcing new cases every day is like announcing how many people caught a cold. The mortality rate is what is important.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top