You can literally throw out any confirmed infection number if you doing any projection model since we don't know as testing is only applied to those showing symptoms at this point. You have 8.9 million people in NYC yet 800,000 that have been tested. You simply can't do a projection on testing...
Seriously? Aren't you the one using a non-peer reviewed "study" to say how many more people are infected than the WHO and CDC numbers are showing? And now you're saying, "Well, you can't do projections because it doesn't test everyone"?
LMAO - Weren't you the one using a group of 3300, poorly selected individuals to somehow obtain useful data?
OF FRIGGIN' COURSE WE DON'T TEST EVERYONE. Have you ever had the flu? Did you go in and get tested? Because, they don't test everyone, and most people don't even go to the doctors for it. By most estimates, only about 40-50% of the actual cases are ever "confirmed".
So, I compared confirmed cases to confirmed cases and hypothesized, unconfirmed cases to hypothesized unconfirmed cases.
In any scenario, including an incredibly rosie-eyed best-case scenario which involves a lot of asymptomatic, infected people - this is worse than the flu.
Anyway, you can literally throw out any denominator you want, and use any questionable study that found subjects on Facebook to form your hypothesis of why the basis of an argument that the death rate is as low as you'd like to believe.
you could do a projection on actual deaths compared to total population which would actually give you a more predictable number...and that would be an extremely aggressive projection given that most of the country isn't going to have the same infection rate as the most populated city in the country.
Perhaps you missed it, so I will restate....
Using basic math - I did do a projection of total population. You know, using the % of the total population that is infected with the flu, which would be optimistic to apply to another disease with an R0 2-3X as high. I didn't get my subject's on Facebook though, and I only have just over 900,000 of them. Oh, wait, isn't that closer to the total population than 3300?
The percent of the population currently infected, vs. the death toll is reasonably known. Even using your Facebook group that was promised free testing - 4%
at most. 50,000 people have died. Even if you think only 8% of the population will get this in the next 10 months, it's going to likely kill 100,000 people this year. And those are extremely optimistic numbers.
And stating that infection rates are lower in other areas and higher in NYC I can agree with - it will be transmitted much more quickly there. But again, maybe you missed it - we have direct Flu to Covid comparisons to NYC itself above - we are already more than double the flu deaths in NYC from Covid. Maybe more than triple depending where you're getting your numbers from.
As you can see, I am being very conservative with my math here. I'm even giving into some of the claims that so many uncounted people are infected. And even with that, this is looking like it will be catastrophic (if it isn't already).
Its very tough to follow your logic as this is all over the place.
It's really hard to have to explain every step, but here goes.
We have 323,000,000 people in the US. Right now, a little over 900,000 are confirmed infected - let's just say 1M.
1,000,000 / 323,000,000 = .00309 = 0.31%. I Rounded up to 0.33%.
The "study" you keep referencing has headings that say "50-85x higher" infections rates than are being reported. I mean, I will concede a little, but 85x is maybe pushing it. So, 50X0.33% = 16.5%.
16.5% of the population = 323,000,000 X 0.165 = 53,295,000 infections so far.
55,156 deaths/53,295,000 = .1% of the infections.
Given the R0 of 5.7 for Covid-19 and the flu's R0 of 1.3 - I think saying that Covid should infect 3X the population is pretty conservative and doesn't even take into account any exponential growth. So, if the flu infects about 35,000,000 - we're looking at just over 100M infections in the US - or about 30% of the population.
We are halfway there according to your study. at halfway we have over 53,000 deaths in the US. 2X53,000 = 106,000 deaths in this relatively rosie picture. And by relatively, I mean...extremely.
In order to come up with that, I've had to play all the sig figs in order to create the lowest outcomes, assume an OUTRAGEOUS number of asymptomatic infections based on some crazy study. The better questions: do you REALLY believe over 50M people in the US have already had Covid?? Or over 85M per some of the articles???? If so, then why the heck is anyone complaining about social distancing? Cuz they aren't doing it.
It really depends on what.
Of a new virus nobody really knew of? Well sure, you would be crazy to bet on that.
That is my point, I would have seemed crazy to bet on it back then. Now it has happened. Now we have data showing what has happened and people are grasping at straws and saying, "This study says the denominator is 50-85X higher than the CDC or WHO says! The death rate is only going to be 0.1%".
But the data points to more coming down the pike from this. Do you really think we're going to have a pandemic l like this, and be done with it in 2 months? I seriously hope you are right. I really, really do.
If we looked at numbers in a linear fashion yes...but it usually doesn't work like that.
Correct, they aren't linear. Extrapolating in a linear fashion skews the numbers to show a lower death level and lower risk. The more infections we have, THE MORE WILL COME. That's how infectious disease works. A sick person infects a number of non-sick people. The more people you have that are sick, the more chances to spread the infection, and with an R0 above 1 - this grows at an increasing rate. With an R0 above 5, this means that 1 person will infect more than 5 people, and those 5 people will infect 25 more people, and those 25 will infect 125 more people - so just by the time 4th iteration you have 156 infected people. Of course it doesn't work in the real world like this if you can keep people quarantined, etc.
Have no idea where you are getting this from. The first anti-body tests that both US tests are based on...originated from the German government.
The people who conducted these studies aren't authors.
They aren't studies either. They're news articles. But anyway, I was using "authors" as a loose means of describing the people reporting the "study".
Study Author. An individual, group, or organization primarily responsible for the content of a planned study.
There are loads of articles about all of the studies, all are flawed. The people in German didn't even preprint or try to get peer review, they went to newspapers instead. Some of the people had previously made cases to lift restrictions, and it's highly questionable if they were just trying to make results fit their own hopes.
The Standford study advertised on Facebook and was likely to attract a large number of sick individuals who were not able to obtain testing - thus skewing the results.
It goes on and on. All of the studies are highly questionable.
But, we do have numbers reported by doctors and collected by the CDC with n=900,000+ and everyone somehow wants to ignore that. As if there is some denominator that will make this all better.
No, we are sure. Its literally what a vaccine is and there ARE people who have been infected with COVID-19 and recovered without any medical treatment at all. That in itself tells you natural immunity does work.
You should call the WHO. Apparently they are wrong - what a bunch of dummies. Obviously if anyone has recovered, that itself is proof of immunity. How did they miss THAT evidence?
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/04/25/844939777/no-evidence-that-recovered-covid-19-patients-are-immune-who-says
[/QUOTE]
I believe 26 diseases can be vaccinated for at this point. That's a relatively small number.
Youtube censors that recommendation now.
I don't blame them. It was just me throwing out a statement of, "Hey, maybe it's something simple and this will all go away in a month. You know, since we're looking for easy answers."
I do believe in Vitamins C & D - but they won't prevent or cure this disease. At best, they will improve your chances of survival ...but I'll take it.
Avoidance isn't a treatment. Its a recommendation. And you're wrong it being the ONLY method. If it was the ONLY method of treatment you wouldn't have people walking around that have contracted and recovered without any treatment and in most cases no knowledge of them having it at all.
Yes, do nothing, pray and let nature takes it course.
Its as if you don't read anything that I type...at all.
Um, so no treatment IS a treatment?
"Oh, you got cancer!! I have the perfect treatment for you - JUST SURVIVE!!"
Or maybe, just forgetting you have it is the treatment?
I guess, using that logic, death is a viable treatment as well. I mean, if you die, your Covid problems are behind you.
But, more to the point, I said the only scientifically valid treatment - not the only POSSIBLE treatment. One day, we should have a treatment for it - sure. There has to be a way to treat it.