Or we can see the data ourselves. Updated CDC SARSCov2 survival rates by age group:
0-19: 99.997%
20-49: 99.98%
50-69: 99.5%
70+: 94.6%
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
OT: Covid-19 (Part 29) Sick Again...?
- Thread starter Lshap
- Start date
- Status
Or we can see the data ourselves. Updated CDC SARSCov2 survival rates by age group:
0-19: 99.997%
20-49: 99.98%
50-69: 99.5%
70+: 94.6%
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
waffledave
waffledave, from hf
The Daily — Provisional data on causes of death, January to April 2019 and January to April 2020
US numbers:
FastStats
This is data from 2017. COVID has already killed over 200,000 in the US over just 6-7 months.
cajmonkey
Registered User
- Mar 29, 2014
- 3,541
- 1,162
I'll trust professional opinions over yours. I hate to break it to you but...you aren't as intelligent as you might think.
I wonder if things aren't as bad as we first thought because of the things that were put in place. Nah couldn't be any of that.
I think everyone will admit that things went overboard in the beginning. There was a lot of information that changed or was unknown or still developing due to the fact that it's a new virus. I'm also sure that there were some public statements that were guided for other reasons (the mask thing by Health Canada is still a big question mark). The reality is that people think because you're a scientist or a doctor that whatever you say then will be true tomorrow and the next day and etc. That's simply not the reality. Science is at best, best guess. We know what we know today and and will never know what we'll know tomorrow until tomorrow actually comes.
Unfortunately too many stupid people can't accept that. You get these people who are by all accounts real scientists and doctors come out and say absolutely idiotic things that don't pass any smell test unless you have a particular motivation to deny the obvious. We don't have to look far (Hi Dr. Arruda). There are political and personal motivations all over the place. And unfortunately, as I said above, there are far too many people who simply lack the necessary intelligence or desire to look at things rationally.
Schools are going to be closing soon, people are getting sick and dying because of either covid or hospital congestion or both. I blame the government and people for hosting party's and stuff for their stupidity. Parents are going to have to choose to either work or be home with their kids unless the government comes through again. I blame the government for their stupidity and the parents for their inaction over the past four months. We think that we have it better here than down south and while we do have it better, it's not great as evidenced by the various anti mask protests and whatnot.
I just hope that whoever the liberal opposition is when the next election is called, they are smart enough to hammer the CAQ over everything wrong they've done and how their decisions has cost lives and I pray that people are smart enough to not vote these guys in a second time.
I think everyone will admit that things went overboard in the beginning. There was a lot of information that changed or was unknown or still developing due to the fact that it's a new virus. I'm also sure that there were some public statements that were guided for other reasons (the mask thing by Health Canada is still a big question mark). The reality is that people think because you're a scientist or a doctor that whatever you say then will be true tomorrow and the next day and etc. That's simply not the reality. Science is at best, best guess. We know what we know today and and will never know what we'll know tomorrow until tomorrow actually comes.
Unfortunately too many stupid people can't accept that. You get these people who are by all accounts real scientists and doctors come out and say absolutely idiotic things that don't pass any smell test unless you have a particular motivation to deny the obvious. We don't have to look far (Hi Dr. Arruda). There are political and personal motivations all over the place. And unfortunately, as I said above, there are far too many people who simply lack the necessary intelligence or desire to look at things rationally.
Schools are going to be closing soon, people are getting sick and dying because of either covid or hospital congestion or both. I blame the government and people for hosting party's and stuff for their stupidity. Parents are going to have to choose to either work or be home with their kids unless the government comes through again. I blame the government for their stupidity and the parents for their inaction over the past four months. We think that we have it better here than down south and while we do have it better, it's not great as evidenced by the various anti mask protests and whatnot.
I just hope that whoever the liberal opposition is when the next election is called, they are smart enough to hammer the CAQ over everything wrong they've done and how their decisions has cost lives and I pray that people are smart enough to not vote these guys in a second time.
groovejuice
Without deviation progress is not possible
The WH has recently taken over the dissemination of information regarding covid from the CDC. They are not doctors or specialists, so recent reports are at best questionable.
cajmonkey
Registered User
- Mar 29, 2014
- 3,541
- 1,162
Do you trust the WHO?
Mortality Risk of COVID-19 - Statistics and Research
"For many infectious diseases young children are most at risk. For instance, in the case of malaria, the majority of deaths (57% globally) are in children under five. The same was true for the largest pandemic in recorded history: During the ‘Spanish flu’ in 1918, children and young adults were at the greatest risk from the pandemic (we write more about this in the article here).
For COVID-19 cases the opposite seems to be true. The elderly are at the greatest risk of dying, if infected with this virus."
Lol.
Did you bother to read the linked report to see the citations? NVM, I'll save you the due diligence -
The best estimate representative of the point estimates of R0 from the following sources:
Chinazzi M, Davis JT, Ajelli M, et al. The effect of travel restrictions on the spread of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak. Science. 2020;368(6489):395-400; Imai N., Cori, A., Dorigatti, I., Baguelin, M., Donnelly, C. A., Riley, S., Ferguson, N.M. (2020). Report 3: Transmissibility of 2019-nCoV. Online report
Li Q, Guan X, Wu P, et al. Early Transmission Dynamics in Wuhan, China, of Novel Coronavirus-Infected Pneumonia. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(13):1199-1207
Munayco CV, Tariq A, Rothenberg R, et al. Early transmission dynamics of COVID-19 in a southern hemisphere setting: Lima-Peru: February 29th-March 30th, 2020 [published online ahead of print, 2020 May 12]. Infect Dis Model. 2020; 5:338-345
Salje H, Tran Kiem C, Lefrancq N, et al. Estimating the burden of SARS-CoV-2 in France [published online ahead of print, 2020 May 13] [published correction appears in Science. 2020 Jun 26;368(6498):]. Science. 2020;eabc3517.
The range of estimates for Scenarios 1-4 represent the upper and lower bound of the widest confidence interval estimates reported in: Li Q, Guan X, Wu P, et al. Early Transmission Dynamics in Wuhan, China, of Novel Coronavirus-Infected Pneumonia. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(13):1199-1207.
Substantial uncertainty remains around the R0 estimate. Notably, Sanche S, Lin YT, Xu C, Romero-Severson E, Hengartner N, Ke R. High Contagiousness and Rapid Spread of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020;26(7):1470-1477 (https://dx.doi.org/10.3201/eid2607.200282external icon) estimated a median R0 value of 5.7 in Wuhan, China. In an analysis of 8 Europe countries and the US, the same group estimated R0 of between 4.0 and 7.1 in the pre-print manuscript: Ke R., Sanche S., Romero-Severson, & E., Hengartner, N. (2020). Fast spread of COVID-19 in Europe and the US suggests the necessity of early, strong and comprehensive interventions. medRxiv.
† These estimates are based on age-specific estimates of infection fatality ratios from Hauser, A., Counotte, M.J., Margossian, C.C., Konstantinoudis, G., Low, N., Althaus, C.L. and Riou, J., 2020. Estimation of SARS-CoV-2 mortality during the early stages of an epidemic: a modeling study in Hubei, China, and six regions in Europe. PLoS medicine, 17(7), p.e1003189. Hauser et al. produced estimates of IFR for 10-year age bands from 0 to 80+ year old for 6 regions in Europe. Estimates exclude infection fatality ratios from Hubei, China, because we assumed infection and case ascertainment from the 6 European regions are more likely to reflect ascertainment in the U.S. To obtain the best estimate values, the point estimates of IFR by age were averaged to broader age groups for each of the 6 European regions using weights based on the age distribution of reported cases from COVID-19 Case Surveillance Public Use Data (https://data.cdc.gov/Case-Surveillance/COVID-19-Case-Surveillance-Public-Use-Data/vbim-akqf). The estimates for persons ≥70 years old presented here do not include persons ≥80 years old as IFR estimates from Hauser et al., assumed that 100% of infections among persons ≥80 years old were reported. The consolidated age estimates were then averaged across the 6 European regions. The lower bound estimate is the lowest, non-zero point estimate across the six regions, while the upper bound is the highest point estimate across the six regions.
§ The percent of cases that are asymptomatic, i.e. never experience symptoms, remains uncertain. Longitudinal testing of individuals is required to accurately detect the absence of symptoms for the full period of infectiousness. Current peer-reviewed and preprint studies vary widely in follow-up times for re-testing, or do not include re-testing of cases. Additionally, studies vary in the definition of a symptomatic case, which makes it difficult to make direct comparisons between estimates. Furthermore, the percent of cases that are asymptomatic may vary by age, and the age groups reported in studies vary. Given these limitations, the range of estimates for Scenarios 1-4 is wide. The lower bound estimate approximates the lower 95% confidence interval bound estimated from: Byambasuren, O., Cardona, M., Bell, K., Clark, J., McLaws, M. L., & Glasziou, P. (2020). Estimating the extent of true asymptomatic COVID-19 and its potential for community transmission: systematic review and meta-analysis. Available at SSRN 3586675. The upper bound estimate approximates the upper 95% confidence interval bound estimated from: Poletti, P., Tirani, M., Cereda, D., Trentini, F., Guzzetta, G., Sabatino, G., Marziano, V., Castrofino, A., Grosso, F., Del Castillo, G. and Piccarreta, R. (2020). Probability of symptoms and critical disease after SARS-CoV-2 infection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.08471. The best estimate is the midpoint of this range and aligns with estimates from: Oran DP, Topol EJ. Prevalence of Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Narrative Review [published online ahead of print, 2020 Jun 3]. Ann Intern Med. 2020; M20-3012.
¶ The current best estimate is based on multiple assumptions. The relative infectiousness of asymptomatic cases to symptomatic cases remains highly uncertain, as asymptomatic cases are difficult to identify, and transmission is difficult to observe and quantify. The estimates for relative infectiousness are assumptions based on studies of viral shedding dynamics. The upper bound of this estimate reflects studies that have shown similar durations and amounts of viral shedding between symptomatic and asymptomatic cases: Lee, S., Kim, T., Lee, E., Lee, C., Kim, H., Rhee, H., Park, S.Y., Son, H.J., Yu, S., Park, J.W. and Choo, E.J., Clinical Course and Molecular Viral Shedding Among Asymptomatic and Symptomatic Patients With SARS-CoV-2 Infection in a Community Treatment Center in the Republic of Korea. JAMA Internal Medicine; Zou L, Ruan F, Huang M, et al. SARS-CoV-2 Viral Load in Upper Respiratory Specimens of Infected Patients. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(12):1177-1179; and Zhou R, Li F, Chen F, et al. Viral dynamics in asymptomatic patients with COVID-19. Int J Infect Dis. 2020; 96:288-290. The lower bound of this estimate reflects data indicating that viral loads are higher in severe cases relative to mild cases (Liu Y, Yan LM, Wan L, et al. Viral dynamics in mild and severe cases of COVID-19. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020;20(6):656-657) and data showing that viral loads and shedding durations are higher among symptomatic cases relative to asymptomatic cases (Noh JY, Yoon JG, Seong H, et al. Asymptomatic infection and atypical manifestations of COVID-19: Comparison of viral shedding duration [published online ahead of print, 2020 May 21]. J Infect. 2020; S0163-4453(20)30310-8).
** The lower bound of this parameter is approximated from the lower 95% confidence interval bound from: He, X., Lau, E.H., Wu, P., Deng, X., Wang, J., Hao, X., Lau, Y.C., Wong, J.Y., Guan, Y., Tan, X. and Mo, X. (2020). Temporal dynamics in viral shedding and transmissibility of COVID-19. Nature medicine, 26(5), pp.672-675. The upper bound of this parameter is approximated from the higher estimates of individual studies included in: Casey, M., Griffin, J., McAloon, C.G., Byrne, A.W., Madden, J.M., McEvoy, D., Collins, A.B., Hunt, K., Barber, A., Butler, F. and Lane, E.A. (2020). Estimating pre-symptomatic transmission of COVID-19: a secondary analysis using published data. medRxiv.The best estimate is the geometric mean of the point estimates from these two studies.
Phil Parent
Sorel, 'fant d'chienne!
Ozmodiar
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2017
- 5,888
- 6,925
groovejuice
Without deviation progress is not possible
That's all fine. There's a good chance this predated the move for the WH to disseminate all official public covid information, which doesn't preclude the CDC from continuing to do research. No need to get yourself in a knot.
groovejuice
Without deviation progress is not possible
Here's a link to the article regarding the new procedure for public covid announcements.
Trump Administration Strips C.D.C. of Control of Coronavirus Data
Trump Administration Strips C.D.C. of Control of Coronavirus Data
MXD
Original #4
- Oct 27, 2005
- 50,840
- 16,583
The Like is obviously for the third line of your message.
llamateizer
Registered User
there is 4.5 millions canadian aged 70+. you are ok if we do nothing and let 243 000 Canadians die
99.993% of the planes did not crash on 9/11
you can see the data yourself.
Paddyjack
Registered User
I often say that the biggest difference between a scientist and a complotist is that the scientist is ready to change his opinion based on newly discovered data.
Non Player Canadiens
Registered User
what is this argument even? hundreds of thousands of people might die, but it's OK because it's a small fraction over all.
what??
MXD
Original #4
- Oct 27, 2005
- 50,840
- 16,583
what is this argument even? hundreds of thousands of people might die, but it's OK because it's a small fraction over all.
what??
Also problematic is the fact that death is implied to be the only negative consequence of the virus.
(Edited due to bad wording)
Last edited:
Non Player Canadiens
Registered User
hey, you can get a long-term disability from plenty of other diseases too, what's the big deal? nothing to see here.
waffledave
waffledave, from hf
what is this argument even? hundreds of thousands of people might die, but it's OK because it's a small fraction over all.
what??
People who post numbers like this are trying to cling to some kind of positive. They don't realize that the odds of dying from disease in general is pretty low. The fact remains that COVID is a leading cause of death in most countries and it has only been around for 6 months.
Seb
All we are is Dustin Byfuglien
- Jul 15, 2006
- 17,459
- 12,915
I don't pretend to be woke and I'm not a danger to the collectivity. I'm definitely not over confident and chose to listen to credible people.
I don't think I'm sitting at the top of Mount Dumbf*** of the D-K effect chart.
- Feb 23, 2006
- 18,528
- 4,150
So there is/was this party going on in the building next to mine. The kind where you hear the base through two walls with lots of yelling. I was surprised how quickly the cops showed up to break it up. Only took half hour or so for them to knock on the door and for the drunken idiots to start pouring out. There must've been 20-30 of them in there.
Maybe all a single family, was difficult to tell.
Maybe all a single family, was difficult to tell.
Milhouse40
Registered User
- Aug 19, 2010
- 22,153
- 24,771
Numbers of deaths by Million (Numbers of infected by Million).....Above 20 millions in population.
Peru : 895 deaths (23,663)
Spain: 664 deaths (14,883)
Brazil: 653 deaths (21,736)
USA: 623 deaths (21,538)
UK: 615 deaths (6,028)
Italy: 592 deaths (5,005)
*Sweden: 581 deaths (8,875) (Since so many used that country as a reference, only 10 millions in population)
Mexico: 575 deaths (5,457)
Colombia: 485 deaths (15,376)
France: 482 deaths (7,376)
Argentina: 317 deaths ( 14,678)
That's the top 10 of the most affected countries in the world.
In Canada we have 244 deaths (3,907)
I don't get conspirationists in Canada wanting to follow the US or Sweden.
Buying into their conspiracies and political games....trying to imitate them at every turns.
I simply don't get it.....it's like they really want us to suck too.
Peru : 895 deaths (23,663)
Spain: 664 deaths (14,883)
Brazil: 653 deaths (21,736)
USA: 623 deaths (21,538)
UK: 615 deaths (6,028)
Italy: 592 deaths (5,005)
*Sweden: 581 deaths (8,875) (Since so many used that country as a reference, only 10 millions in population)
Mexico: 575 deaths (5,457)
Colombia: 485 deaths (15,376)
France: 482 deaths (7,376)
Argentina: 317 deaths ( 14,678)
That's the top 10 of the most affected countries in the world.
In Canada we have 244 deaths (3,907)
I don't get conspirationists in Canada wanting to follow the US or Sweden.
Buying into their conspiracies and political games....trying to imitate them at every turns.
I simply don't get it.....it's like they really want us to suck too.
The main "argument" is that they believe Sweden will not have a 2nd wave and we will. They say they got all the deaths they would get so other countries lower are just going to catch up.
Crusher117
Registered User
But they are starting their second wave just like every one else and are now considering more restrictions and potentially a lockdown. Soon they won't be a reference anymore. I honestly believe by November/December. Most countries will be in a semi lockdown.
waffledave
waffledave, from hf
The people who think this way are too scared to face reality so they make up their own fantasy land where everything is fine. The funny thing is reality is not even scary if we all just take precautions.
- Status
