COVID-19

[ab2cmiller]

You are right, it is clearly it is not 17% for all infected.

There is, as you correctly say, a huge group, estimated at about 10-11 million or 80+%, who are/were asymptomatic or mild cases - but they generally do not test; no or low symptoms, you generally cannot get a test.

My question is: If you TEST POSITIVE (ie- among the 1,800,000 positives, not the 11 million asymptomatic/mild), what is your survival rate?

Not the overall survival or infection rate, just among the tested positive (and in this case, with symptoms sufficient for a test).

For C-19 we have some very solid US numbers

Total Tested Positive - 1,792,893
Total Deaths - 104,526
Total Recovered - 519,296
Total Active Cases - 1,169,071 (no outcome yet)

A sample size of 600,000 definite outcomes in a population of 1,800,000 positives is one-third, statistically very sure.

And that shows a 17% death rate of those who HAVE (tested positive for) C-19.

I hope I am wrong, but just for a person in that 1,800,000 group of positives right now, what is the survival rate?

Unfortunately, the calculation is far far more nuanced than the above.

Here are the issues that would need to be taken into consideration to make the calculation more reasonable. The problem is that their is a ton of moving pieces, so it becomes difficult for even the experts to come up with good estimates.

Deaths on average take place sooner than the recoveries. I don't even know if there is any consistency in how states keep track of recoveries. In Indiana you are counted in the recovery column 21 days after testing positive unless you are later admitted to the hospital. On average deaths are occurring 15 days after testing positive. So I suppose you could take today's death count and use the recovery number 6 days from now and you would be closer. But again, I have no clue if what is being reported by the states is consistent.

About half of the deaths in the US came from people who were exposed as the virus slammed nursing homes. In order for the current ratio of deaths/recovery to continue at the same rate, nursing home deaths would have to continue making up half the deaths. At some point there wouldn't be anyone remaining living in the nursing homes.

For about the first month, the only people that were able to get tested were people who were sick enough to require hospitalization skews the stats as well. If people didn't require hospitalization, doctors were telling lots of people that they likely have it, but tests are at a premium, so we aren't going to test you. They were just sent home with instructions on returning to the hospital if their conditions worsened. Your death/recovery ratio is inflated because of the lack of testing. during that period.

Bottom line is this. I don't see much value in looking at the death/recovery ratio based upon only people who found out they tested positive. The experts believe that the mortality rate is around 1% for those that contracted the virus, regardless of if they knew they had it or not. That's around 10 times more deadly than the flu, but not remotely close to 17%.

Of those that contracted the virus and require hospitalization, a study estimated the mortality rate to be 18.9%. But the vast majority of people won't require hospitalization.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/impact-of-covid-19-on-us-hospitals-worse-than-predicted#Hospital-admissions

Unless you have underlying conditions, your chances of dying are extremely small. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to minimize the risk, but certainly shouldn't cause fear and panic either.

 

[Legacy]

We're a long way from herd immunity (70-90%) with flu vaccination in many age groups, including high risk ones. Most adult groups (18-64) are in the 30-40%.

2018-19 Influenza Season Vaccination Coverage Dashboard

- Can be filtered by Region or State

Link with states in each Region

CDC Seasonal Flu Vaccine Effectiveness (VE)Studies
- from 2018-19 (29%) back to 2009-10 (56%)
- Hopefully, flu vaccine rates and VE will be higher for a COVID-19 vaccine.

Of course, vaccine rates and VE effectiveness as well as the strain affect flu mortality rates.

 

[NDRock]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/coronavirus-losing-potency-top-italian-184358113.html

Interesting

 

[MJ12666]

Unfortunately, the calculation is far far more nuanced than the above.

Here are the issues that would need to be taken into consideration to make the calculation more reasonable. The problem is that their is a ton of moving pieces, so it becomes difficult for even the experts to come up with good estimates.

Deaths on average take place sooner than the recoveries. I don't even know if there is any consistency in how states keep track of recoveries. In Indiana you are counted in the recovery column 21 days after testing positive unless you are later admitted to the hospital. On average deaths are occurring 15 days after testing positive. So I suppose you could take today's death count and use the recovery number 6 days from now and you would be closer. But again, I have no clue if what is being reported by the states is consistent.

About half of the deaths in the US came from people who were exposed as the virus slammed nursing homes. In order for the current ratio of deaths/recovery to continue at the same rate, nursing home deaths would have to continue making up half the deaths. At some point there wouldn't be anyone remaining living in the nursing homes.

For about the first month, the only people that were able to get tested were people who were sick enough to require hospitalization skews the stats as well. If people didn't require hospitalization, doctors were telling lots of people that they likely have it, but tests are at a premium, so we aren't going to test you. They were just sent home with instructions on returning to the hospital if their conditions worsened. Your death/recovery ratio is inflated because of the lack of testing. during that period.

Bottom line is this. I don't see much value in looking at the death/recovery ratio based upon only people who found out they tested positive. The experts believe that the mortality rate is around 1% for those that contracted the virus, regardless of if they knew they had it or not. That's around 10 times more deadly than the flu, but not remotely close to 17%.

Of those that contracted the virus and require hospitalization, a study estimated the mortality rate to be 18.9%. But the vast majority of people won't require hospitalization.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/impact-of-covid-19-on-us-hospitals-worse-than-predicted#Hospital-admissions

Unless you have underlying conditions, your chances of dying are extremely small. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to minimize the risk, but certainly shouldn't cause fear and panic either.

100% agreed. Why the CDC hasn't done a random sample to determine a statistically valid estimate as to how many individuals have contracted the virus is baffling to me. The closest to this appears to have been completed in Indiana. Per the attached article these were some of the results:

Preliminary results showed that the coronavirus had infected about 3% of the state's population, or 188,000 people.

"That 188,000 people represented about 11 times more people than conventional selective testing had identified in the state to that point," Menachemi says.

And 45% of the infected people reported having no symptoms at all.

For Menachemi and his team, it was like finally getting a glimpse of the entire coronavirus iceberg, instead of just the part above the water.

And the data allowed them to calculate something called the infection fatality rate — the odds that an infected person will die. Previously, scientists had relied on what's known as the case fatality rate, which calculates the odds that someone who develops symptoms will die.

Indiana's infection fatality rate turned out to be about 0.58%, or roughly one death for every 172 people who got infected.

And the results in Indiana are similar to those suggested by antibody studies in several other areas. In New York, for example, an antibody study indicated the state has an infection fatality rate around 0.5%.

Additional pertinent information from the same article:

Calculating infection fatality rates in the U.S. is useful for researchers but less so for individuals who have been infected, Rivers says.

"Thankfully, children and young adults are at low risk of severe illness and death," she says. "But older adults are at quite high risk."

Studies suggest a healthy young person's chance of dying from an infection is less than 1 in 1,000. But for someone in poor health in their 90s, it can be greater than 1 in 10.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health...h-rate-for-the-coronavirus-than-first-thought

 

[Irish YJ]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/coronavirus-losing-potency-top-italian-184358113.html

Interesting

I saw some doctor last month that predicted the viral load would reduce as the virus spread/replicated/mutated. If the Italians are correct, and that's what happened, great news.

 

[Irishize]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Antibody tests are finding thousands of people who were infected — but never became seriously ill. <br><br>And when these mild infections are included in coronavirus statistics, the virus appears less dangerous.<a href="https://t.co/4aJcWtAE21">https://t.co/4aJcWtAE21</a></p>— NPR (@NPR) <a href="https://twitter.com/NPR/status/1267221121130266631?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 31, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Legacy]

Risk for Diabetics in COVID 19 pandemic

Risk for Diabetics in COVID 19 pandemic

Unfortunately, the calculation is far far more nuanced than the above.

Here are the issues that would need to be taken into consideration to make the calculation more reasonable. The problem is that their is a ton of moving pieces, so it becomes difficult for even the experts to come up with good estimates.

Deaths on average take place sooner than the recoveries. I don't even know if there is any consistency in how states keep track of recoveries. In Indiana you are counted in the recovery column 21 days after testing positive unless you are later admitted to the hospital. On average deaths are occurring 15 days after testing positive. So I suppose you could take today's death count and use the recovery number 6 days from now and you would be closer. But again, I have no clue if what is being reported by the states is consistent.

About half of the deaths in the US came from people who were exposed as the virus slammed nursing homes. In order for the current ratio of deaths/recovery to continue at the same rate, nursing home deaths would have to continue making up half the deaths. At some point there wouldn't be anyone remaining living in the nursing homes.

For about the first month, the only people that were able to get tested were people who were sick enough to require hospitalization skews the stats as well. If people didn't require hospitalization, doctors were telling lots of people that they likely have it, but tests are at a premium, so we aren't going to test you. They were just sent home with instructions on returning to the hospital if their conditions worsened. Your death/recovery ratio is inflated because of the lack of testing. during that period.

Bottom line is this. I don't see much value in looking at the death/recovery ratio based upon only people who found out they tested positive. The experts believe that the mortality rate is around 1% for those that contracted the virus, regardless of if they knew they had it or not. That's around 10 times more deadly than the flu, but not remotely close to 17%.

Of those that contracted the virus and require hospitalization, a study estimated the mortality rate to be 18.9%. But the vast majority of people won't require hospitalization.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/impact-of-covid-19-on-us-hospitals-worse-than-predicted#Hospital-admissions

Unless you have underlying conditions, your chances of dying are extremely small. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to minimize the risk, but certainly shouldn't cause fear and panic either.

A new study by French researchers on diabetics with C-19 concludes that one in 10 coronavirus patients with diabetes died within the first seven days of hospitalization, and one in five needed a ventilator to breathe.

The researchers looked at more than 1,300 coronavirus patients in 53 hospitals in France between March 10 and March 31. Most -- 89% -- had Type 2 diabetes; 3% had Type 1 diabetes; and the rest had other forms of the disease. A majority of the patients were men and the average age of all the patients in the study was 70.

By day seven of the study, 29% of the patients were either on a ventilator or had died. Researchers said 1 in 5 patients were on a ventilator and 1 in 10 had died, while 18% had been discharged from the hospital.

Those in France with diabetes amount to 4.8% of their population. Americans diagnosed with diabetes amount to 10.5% of our population.

- 34.2 million Americans, or 10.5% of the population, had diabetes.
- Nearly 1.6 million Americans have type 1 diabetes, including about 187,000 children and adolescents
- Undiagnosed: Of the 34.2 million adults with diabetes, 26.8 million were diagnosed, and 7.3 million were undiagnosed.
- Prevalence in seniors: The percentage of Americans age 65 and older remains high, at 26.8%, or 14.3 million seniors (diagnosed and undiagnosed).

(American Diabetes Association)

An Italian study reports a diabetic prevalence in their ICU admits was 17%. The prevalence of diabetics in U.S. was 28.3% in hospitalized patients.

Patients with diabetic complications were more than twice as likely to die within a week, the researchers concluded. They also found that patients 75 years and older were 14 times more likely to die than patients under 55; and patients 65 to 74 years old were three times more likely to die than those under 55.

As far as older Americans with diabetes, the American Diabetes Association
Management of Diabetes in Long-term Care and Skilled Nursing Facilities: A Position Statement of the American Diabetes Association

The epidemic growth of type 2 diabetes in the U.S. has disproportionately affected the elderly. In 2012, the prevalence of diabetes among people aged ≥65 (25.9%) was more than six times that of people aged 20–24 years (4.1%) (1). In the long-term care (LTC) population, the prevalence of diabetes ranges from 25% to 34% across multiple studies (2–4)....The high prevalence of diabetes in older adults is due to age-related physiological changes, such as increased abdominal fat, sarcopenia, and chronic low-grade inflammation, that lead to increased insulin resistance in peripheral tissues and relatively impaired pancreatic islet function (6). Diabetes increases the risk of cardiovascular and microvascular complications but also increases the risk of common geriatric syndromes, including cognitive impairment, depression, falls, polypharmacy, persistent pain, and urinary incontinence (7,8). The older diabetes population is highly heterogeneous in terms of comorbid illnesses and functional impairments.

The risk for diabetics who have been hospitalized is four times greater than non-diabetics. Diabetes is more prevalent in minorities who are also have a greater disparity in having health insurance. Without health insurance deprives them of physician visits with diagnoses, appropriate education and treatment, and required medications.

 

[SonofOahu]

WHO stated yesterday no need for healthy people to wear masks. LOL! I am sure they will change their minds again tomorrow. Not sure who flip flops more the CDC or the WHO with their claims and policies.

https://www.businessinsider.com/who-no-need-for-healthy-people-to-wear-face-masks-2020-4?op=1

The article you cited was from April 7th.

 

[SonofOahu]

It has been shown in the last 4 nights that everything is ok to be in large groups. Open everything up and lets move on.

I can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic, here. Knowing your post history, though, I'm guessing serious.

 

[SonofOahu]

The antibody tests are not accurate, I would not put much stock in them.

With all these protests going on, the second wave is damn well guaranteed. I expect 150K deaths by the end of August, 200K by the end of 2020.

 

[Valpodoc85]

During the 1916-1919 pandemic the second wave was the most deadly.

 

[Irish#1]

During the 1916-1919 pandemic the second wave was the most deadly.

Any idea of the precautions and testing back then? Seems with the advancement of medical technology and the ability to immediately reach the masses today, the second wave shouldn't be as severe.

 

[Irish YJ]

Any idea of the precautions and testing back then? Seems with the advancement of medical technology and the ability to immediately reach the masses today, the second wave shouldn't be as severe.

I thought everything was OK now. I keep seeing on my TV that big lefty cities have let everyone come out to play. Not sure if you can go to church though...

 

[ClausentoTate]

I thought everything was OK now. I keep seeing on my TV that big lefty cities have let everyone come out to play. Not sure if you can go to church though...

Huh?

 

[Irish YJ]

Huh?

sarcasm font

 

[notredomer23]

During the 1916-1919 pandemic the second wave was the most deadly.

There's also multiple studies from multiple sources saying the virus is starting to lose it's potency, so maybe we shouldn't expect a deadly second wave especially given the precautions we have in place.

Sources: https://jvi.asm.org/content/early/2020/04/30/JVI.00711-20?fbclid=IwAR26-C1m72LoTTyxJWnYpaT9g5A8OvdKgox3RtpIzm267_1NmQMMT2i0ArM

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-italy-virus/new-coronavirus-losing-potency-top-italian-doctor-says-idUSKBN2370OQ

 

[Irish YJ]

There's also multiple studies from multiple sources saying the virus is starting to lose it's potency, so maybe we shouldn't expect a deadly second wave especially given the precautions we have in place.

Sources: https://jvi.asm.org/content/early/2020/04/30/JVI.00711-20?fbclid=IwAR26-C1m72LoTTyxJWnYpaT9g5A8OvdKgox3RtpIzm267_1NmQMMT2i0ArM

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-italy-virus/new-coronavirus-losing-potency-top-italian-doctor-says-idUSKBN2370OQ

I've been hoping to see more steam from this topic from MSM and US scientist. If true, could be huge.

 

[yankeehater]

https://www.espn.com/college-footba...miga-tests-positive-coronavirus-tulsa-protest

Star Okla State LB tests positive for virus after attending protest in Tulsa. We may hit those original model numbers after all. No italics. They don't mention any symptoms. He was only tested because he returned for football camp. If most of the protesters are young, they may be asymptomatic and walking around with the virus without even knowing it.

 

[Valpodoc85]

Last pandemic was influenza which typically has a bimodal distribution. My take on this is uncharted water. Maybe it fizzles out maybe a second or third wave. I wouldn’t start booking that fall Caribbean cruise just yet

 

[Legacy]

When the second wave hit in 1918-19 flu pandemic, some cities like St Louis re-instituted mitigation measures while cities like Philadelphia which exposed hundreds saw a much worse death toll stemmed only by a delayed decision to shutdown.

 

[Valpodoc85]

I suspect if there is a second or third wave it will pose a unique set of difficulties. On another thought, this is the stuff of which evolution is made. A novel virus, the stuff of evolutionary chance, exposes our genetic heritage, and sculpts the genetic future.

 

[Bishop2b5]

I suspect if there is a second or third wave it will pose a unique set of difficulties. On another thought, this is the stuff of which evolution is made. A novel virus, the stuff of evolutionary chance, exposes our genetic heritage, and sculpts the genetic future.

Most people don't want to hear this and write it off as being cold and unfeeling, but it's 100% true.

 

[JurDocDuLac]

Absolutely NOT true.

"Evolution" does not care about any defect past general reproduction age (14 to 30?) and even less about men (which are 2/3 of C-19 victims).

"Evolution" only cares about reproduction, there is NO genetic impact past that stage.

 

[PerthDomer]

Evolution cares about men, population dynamics don't. Additionally child rearing is evolutionarily beneficial hence making it to 50/60 is beneficial in the long run. Living to 70 vs 80 or 90 is much more marginal a contribution.

This is going to teach us a ton about the human immune system.

 

[JurDocDuLac]

Thanks ABC2Miller, MJ12666 and Legacy, for intelligently reviewing my post.


Thanks.

 

[Irishize]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-covid-19-in-high-profile-study-idUSKBN23A34F

 

[Irish YJ]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-covid-19-in-high-profile-study-idUSKBN23A34F

So basically, not effective in preventing it, but is safe, and positively impacts COVID side effects. The headline is a

In the University of Minnesota trial, 40% of the those who took hydroxychloroquine reported less serious side effects like nausea and abdominal discomfort versus 17% in the placebo group.

The new trial found no serious side effects or heart problems from use of hydroxychloroquine.

 

[ab2cmiller]

So basically, not effective in preventing it, but is safe, and positively impacts COVID side effects. The headline is a

Who knows if it's truly effective.

What seems odd to me is that the two studies that have been done so far, haven't even been for what was originally deemed the most likely best use. That of moderate symptoms with hopes of preventing progressing to serious symptoms.

Instead they did a study on prevention and another on giving it to those with serious symptoms. It's almost as if they intentionally picked studies where they knew the drug was more likely to be proven ineffective.

 

[Irish YJ]

Who knows if it's truly effective.

What seems odd to me is that the two studies that have been done so far, haven't even been for what was originally deemed the most likely best use. That of moderate symptoms with hopes of preventing progressing to serious symptoms.

Instead they did a study on prevention and another on giving it to those with serious symptoms. It's almost as if they intentionally picked studies where they knew the drug was more likely to be proven ineffective.

Yup. Very strange.

All I know is a guy I went to HS with was hospitalized with Covid, took it, and felt a lot better within hours.

The big takeaway though from at least this study, is that it's safe..... Folks were feigning outrage over it's "danger". So more or less I'm back to my original thoughts on the topic, which is "if there's no risk, why not try it". Even if the only potential value is making me feel better, or potentially prevents the symptoms from worsening, why not.

 

[Henges24]

Yup. Very strange.

All I know is a guy I went to HS with was hospitalized with Covid, took it, and felt a lot better within hours.

Can confirm that some I know's SIL also took it and felt better after a couple hours. Was discharged the following day.