61 New COVID-19 Cases and 2 Deaths

And how can your number be anywhere near valid worldwide, when it's so dependent on time and location?

But they apply well only to a given time and place, and since you have to wait for cases to resolve, they apply to a time weeks past, since current, unresolved cases aren't used. Are you now saying you're switching to fatality/case ratio? That's a much higher number.

Test results only show cases. That is, people who are known to have the virus. It doesn't necessarily say much about the prevalence of the virus in the population, especially when you have poor testing coverage.

The CDC’s infection mortality rate? Those numbers apply to anyone who gets sick...They are the CDC’s best guess using he latest data from around the world as to what your chance of living/dying from Covid if you catch it... broken down by age.

And the 24-36 hours is for the low priority (but free!) tests that you can take at the revolving testing spots in sb, Goleta, Buellton, Oxnard, arroyo grande and Pismo...

I don’t follow... why weeks? The state Tests are all coming back within 24-36 hours now... those are going straight to the cdc. So it’s not their only metric... But the CDC is finding out quite quickly and it’s a useful number to know and have (what percent are testing positive). Part of the test is background data as they are trying to learn as much from every test as possible...

So, to what particular place and time do the numbers you posted apply?

But your response would be weeks late. Again, it seems like more concrete metrics would be preferable.

In my defense I did post that earlier with appropriate labeling... I do not count the copy and paste function on the iPhone as one of my friends (And on a side note: yes I did fail several courses in college.. though I think those were more attendance related than unit labeling related... not 100% sure... It was a wild sophomore year!!!).

Yes, it varies by place... But that’s quite useful! And you don’t have to wait for things to resolve. If % testing positive crosses a certain threshold you can implement a localized response. So say you get A spike in New Jersey, it doesn’t necessitate the closure of a school in Goleta kind of thing.

But percent testing positive varies by time and place. Such a number would only be valid for a certain local area, and only valid for an earlier time, since it would depend on cases having resolved (per 9:15 pm), which takes at least a couple of weeks.

In a rapidly changing pandemic environment, that doesn't seem to be a particulary good number to use for decision making.

percent testing positive is the big indicator as it lets you make some quite reasonable assumptions on how many untested people are positive (the general sentiment being that when that number crosses 10%, containment in that area is going to be tough as it’s raging).

Also, given that the infection incidence is so variable from location to location, say comparing here to the White House, and also varies greatly over time, since this seems to be a super-spreader driven virus, rather than straight Rnought, how can anyone come up with a valid "vanilla" number that applies to the whole country?

How do they come up with the denominator (the number infected) without knowing how many people are infected, since not everyone has been tested, and various studies have come up with wildly different estimates of the prevalence of the disease in the general population?

Good point!!!!

It’s the CDC’s Infection Fatality Ratio

So if you are 70+, the CDC believes that if you catch Covid (on average) you have a 5.4% chance of dying from this thing (and on the other end, if you are 0-19 they are predicting you have a .003% chance). The CDC is averaging it out at .5% over all who get infected, which is a tad lower than the WHO (along with a few of the European and Asian models I’ve seen, which mostly say .55 to .65%).

Without giving the units you're working with for numerator and denominator to come up with those numbers, that's a pretty meaningless post! Are they furlongs per fortnight?

1:27: What a bizarre attitude. The fact that Utah's hospitals are being overwhelmed by the pandemic, and they may have to start triage on incoming patients isn't newsworthy? Just be glad you don't live in a state that resisted public health advice for so long, and instead in one took steps to keep its citizens safer. Assuming you even live in California, and not Russia.

Glad you brought up Utah. Their hospitalizations per million are lower than NJ's currently and they still do not have a statewide mask mandate. A lot of panic porn out there right now regarding Utah's covid hospitalizations, be careful what you read in the media (disclaimer: the media is not a news organization but a FOR PROFIT enterprise with the #1 goal of making money. Do you think a headline that reads "everting is OK" or "Utah hospitals could start rationing health care" would make them more money via clicks, ads and viewers? )

Utah is already implementing the dreaded "death panels" that repubs warned us about in the 90s when they were trying to offer universal healthcare. But this time it is the repubs implementing them, so it is okay, I guess. Don't tell anyone about your underlying health conditions when you go to the hospital or they might put you on the soylent green list.

Just want to applaud this post... that’s good Humor!!

Do you mean this quote?

A 1% mortality rate “means it is 10-times more lethal than the seasonal flu,” Fauci said. “I think that’s something people can get their arms around and understand.”

Last time I checked in 2020 the flu had killed more people under the age of 18 than Covid. The stats show for the young, the flu is more dangerous. This is the opposite for the elderly as covid is much earlier than the flu. The elderly get both ends of the short stick as the flu is also very dangerous for them.

Table 3 of https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#Comorbidities

Dr. Fauci says covid is at least 10 times more deadly than the worst flu virus since the 1918 pandemic.

DUKEMUNSON for the WIN today! HAHA! Yessssss!

There have been at least 21 deaths of people without underlying conditions. I have been keeping a spreadsheet of deaths as reported by the PHD.

99 yes, 21 no, 6 unknown (not reported)

The truth is somewhere in the middle. Always remember that.

The projections at this point (population wide) say .6%

That number goes up exponentially for over 70 year olds and down exponentially for kids.

Hold on Duke, let's not misconstrue that Pitmix / Fauci quote. He did not say covid is 10 times as dangerous as the flu. -- A 1% mortality rate “means it is 10-times more lethal than the seasonal flu,” Fauci said. “I think that’s something people can get their arms around and understand.” -- He did not say Covid has a 1% mortality rate, he was just using that as an example he uses to better help laymen understand. So the 0.3% would mean covid is 3 x as deadly as the flu. Deadly, yes, so deadly we need to close schools for 8+ months, force businesses into bankruptcy, launch unemployment into the stratosphere, and forever widen the income and execution gap, I say hell no. Especially when that .3% number drops for the young (as bad or not even as bad as the flu) and increases for the old (wow that's dangerous, better focus our resources protecting them).

The "guesses" are all scientific models designed to understand a pandemic...does that not register in any capacity?

But let's explore and dive in! We have an interesting and instructive local example: The Lompoc Correctional facility. In it, there were 1026 cases and 3 deaths. This obviously makes sense (well to everyone but you), because you had a controlled environment and everyone was tested. The number of .3% is in line with projections for the demographic.

I'd be curious to see how would you look at that number? Perhaps convicted felons are immune (like the North Koreans) to Covid-19?

We are in a pandemic. It's dangerous and terrible and life altering. It's 10 times as dangerous as the flu (as per Dr. Fauci). But say that...say the truth...don't change or exaggerate it...and yeah dont water it down either...just say the truth...it's a good maxim to live by.

1:17 pm: Yes! You should look at the test result positives! But not at the guesses at positives in the untested population, as you keep blathering to try to water down the severity of the pandemic.

And you are right...these are some of the numbers scientists are looking at...your just missing the thought/idea that they are then using those numbers to actually figure things out. In essence...you've shown that you can read numbers. You don't have any idea what to do with those numbers...but you are able to look at numbers and letters and discern the difference, and that's great...I'm working with my 3 year old on that very concept...it's not easy!!

Good article (if somewhat dated at 3.5 months old). What jumped out to me was the below quote, which is exactly what I'm talking about!

One of the most useful numbers to determine isn’t the sheer number of cases, but rather the percentage of tests that come back positive, or simply the percent positive.

According to Johns Hopkins University, positive COVID-19 tests in the United States surged to nearly 22 percent at the end of March when testing wasn’t as widely available and was being reserved for hospitalized patients.

Those numbers dipped to around 4 percent in June as more people were being tested — such as essential workers with asymptomatic infections — but as of Wednesday had a 7-day average of 8.7 percent.

Dr. Amesh Adalja, an infectious disease expert and senior scholar at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Maryland, says, for example, if testing in an area shows 10 percent of people have the virus, then the infection is now “out of control.”

These are the statistics people should pay attention to, not the fuzzy estimates of mortality rate based on guesses as to the number of actual infections that have occurred.

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/cases-deaths-hospitalizations-how-to-make-sense-of-covid-19-stats

Your not correcting anyone though...you are literally trying to misinform people! The accepted mortality rate is .6%. THAT'S A BIG SCARY/DANGEROUS number!!! But stop exaggerating it! It's like saying masks are useless...they obviously aren't useless!!! Stop being the idiot on the other side though that is desperately misleading people the other way. TRUST THE SCIENTISTS ON THIS ONE (and well, all ones going forward)!!!!!!

Not really a statistic that anyone in the medical profession relies on, but used very early on in the pandemic to try to get a handle on things. Now that we have more data, other metrics predominate. But you'll keep repeating it, and attacking anyone who corrects you.

The "dodgy statistic" is literally the statistic all scientists and researchers are operating on/via. When we didn't test anyone...do you think that the only people that had it died? Honestly it's probably not your fault... science and logic aren't really taught or respected these days...

DuMun is only logical if you think repeating the same dodgy statistic that's not a true measure of mortality over and over makes it true, and claiming anything else is a lie.

DM - all of your points in this thread track and have been completely logical. Not sure why anyone would want to lie/embellish in order to make things seem worse than they are. Nobody here is denying covid...

227000 people dead. 8.2M infected (CFR). 2.6% fatality rate. Data from Oct 27, not April like DM's link. Cannot find any reliable data on DM's beloved IFR numbers or the death undercount. Probably both factors cancel each other out.

You were anti CDC on your last post... common Pitmix... at least be consistent in your misinformation... err wait that might defeat some of your purpose..

Yes your right, every single Covid positive person has been tested and accounted for. That just holds to reason... I mean obviously...

What about the cdc’s .7%? Did you not like that link so just ignore it... pretend like it didn’t happen? CDC... Are they fringe or crazy or can we trust that...?

DM, did you even read the Forbes link? More caveats than a pre-nup, and they are basing most of their conclusions on Indiana data from April . (Note to self, stop interacting with people that post links that don't support their arguments. ) . I know you love to say IFR but I don't see how you can put any stock in those numbers as the number of asymptomatic infections are just wild a$$ guesses (WAGs). They sample a few people, and extrapolate out to the entire population. WAG.