Bad News Thread

whatithink said:
Are you getting the 98% from this source, or similar?

www.worldometers.info

Coronavirus Update (Live): 52,588,544 Cases and 1,292,109 Deaths from COVID-19 Virus Pandemic - Worldometer

Live statistics and coronavirus news tracking the number of confirmed cases, recovered patients, tests, and death toll due to the COVID-19 coronavirus from Wuhan, China. Coronavirus counter with new cases, deaths, and number of tests per 1 Million population. Historical data and info. Daily...
www.worldometers.info www.worldometers.info

I ask because, obv. a survival rate of 98% sounds great, but based on that it still means 4 million dead. So if vaccines can move the needle to a survival rate of 98.5% or 99% or 99.5%, you are talking about millions of lives.

To me, 98% sounds great, but saving millions of lives sounds better.
Click to expand...

The IFR for this thing at the beginning of the pandemic was something like .6%. Pre vaccine it had fallen to somewhere like .2%. Post vaccines the measure hasn't been calculated yet but given the continuing fallen IFR it's somewhere less than .1% the equivalent of bad flu in the vaccinated. The issue is it's more contagious, and the delta is more contagious, so more people get it than the flu.
 
whatithink said:
Are you getting the 98% from this source, or similar?

www.worldometers.info

Coronavirus Update (Live): 52,588,544 Cases and 1,292,109 Deaths from COVID-19 Virus Pandemic - Worldometer

Live statistics and coronavirus news tracking the number of confirmed cases, recovered patients, tests, and death toll due to the COVID-19 coronavirus from Wuhan, China. Coronavirus counter with new cases, deaths, and number of tests per 1 Million population. Historical data and info. Daily...
www.worldometers.info www.worldometers.info

I ask because, obv. a survival rate of 98% sounds great, but based on that it still means 4 million dead. So if vaccines can move the needle to a survival rate of 98.5% or 99% or 99.5%, you are talking about millions of lives.

To me, 98% sounds great, but saving millions of lives sounds better.
Click to expand...
It always "sounds" better when you make a lot of assumptions while ignoring the facts.
 
Grace T. said:
The IFR for this thing at the beginning of the pandemic was something like .6%. Pre vaccine it had fallen to somewhere like .2%. Post vaccines the measure hasn't been calculated yet but given the continuing fallen IFR it's somewhere less than .1% the equivalent of bad flu in the vaccinated. The issue is it's more contagious, and the delta is more contagious, so more people get it than the flu.
Click to expand...
Is it fair to compare it to the flu from a deaths perspective? From 2010 US flu deaths range from 12K to 60K per year. Corona is 600K+ to date in 18 months.

My comment related to the 98% from Bru and I was wondering what the source of that was, i.e. context.

I struggle with the cold evaluation approach based on %s. I get why its done, but it seems callous to me during a pandemic and can, to my view, mask the scale of the potential impact. If one person has a disease and they have a 98% or higher survivability rate, then that's one thing, but when tens of millions have it, then we are looking at millions of lost lives potentially.
 
Grace T. said:
The IFR for this thing at the beginning of the pandemic was something like .6%. Pre vaccine it had fallen to somewhere like .2%. Post vaccines the measure hasn't been calculated yet but given the continuing fallen IFR it's somewhere less than .1% the equivalent of bad flu in the vaccinated. The issue is it's more contagious, and the delta is more contagious, so more people get it than the flu.
Click to expand...
Virus's are a part of the evolutionary process. Why wouldn't the Delta be more contagious? And thus why wouldn't our immune systems be more prepared and resistant?
 
whatithink said:
Is it fair to compare it to the flu from a deaths perspective? From 2010 US flu deaths range from 12K to 60K per year. Corona is 600K+ to date in 18 months.

My comment related to the 98% from Bru and I was wondering what the source of that was, i.e. context.

I struggle with the cold evaluation approach based on %s. I get why its done, but it seems callous to me during a pandemic and can, to my view, mask the scale of the potential impact. If one person has a disease and they have a 98% or higher survivability rate, then that's one thing, but when tens of millions have it, then we are looking at millions of lost lives potentially.
Click to expand...
CDC is the source of the "98%". And that is for older high risk folks. Younger folks are nearly 100%.
 
whatithink said:
Is it fair to compare it to the flu from a deaths perspective? From 2010 US flu deaths range from 12K to 60K per year. Corona is 600K+ to date in 18 months.

My comment related to the 98% from Bru and I was wondering what the source of that was, i.e. context.

I struggle with the cold evaluation approach based on %s. I get why its done, but it seems callous to me during a pandemic and can, to my view, mask the scale of the potential impact. If one person has a disease and they have a 98% or higher survivability rate, then that's one thing, but when tens of millions have it, then we are looking at millions of lost lives potentially.
Click to expand...
I’d agree with this pre vaccine. But post vaccine the numbers will be more in line (barring yet another breakthrough) with a bad flu season so the analysis has to updated to reflect that reality. Also: a. Given the level of breakthrough (as outlined in the gummy thread) and b. That the world won’t even be initially vaxxed until 2022 at the earliest, the analysis has to reflect that this is now endemic and won’t be going anywhere for at least a few years to come.
 
Grace T. said:
I’d agree with this pre vaccine. But post vaccine the numbers will be more in line (barring yet another breakthrough) with a bad flu season so the analysis has to updated to reflect that reality. Also: a. Given the level of breakthrough (as outlined in the gummy thread) and b. That the world won’t even be initially vaxxed until 2022 at the earliest, the analysis has to reflect that this is now endemic and won’t be going anywhere for at least a few years to come.
Click to expand...
Sure, agreed. The limited data I saw published - the data Pfizer was trying to use to sell a booster (of their profits for sure) shot - was that the highest risk (age wise) was where the overwhelming majority of deaths were. The "problem" with the data was that it didn't have or provide details into how high risk those people were anyway despite having been vaccinated.
 
whatithink said:
All you had to say was from the CDC, as you subsequently did.

And I love to read.
Click to expand...
Me too. I assumed the CDC data was widely known by now since it's been around for decades. So I started off with assuming that you already knew what I've known and experienced as well. Corona is just a common cold virus. The vaccines have nullified conversations about therapies as if they are a silver bullet. They are not.
 
Grace T. said:
Thread. The UK is now nearing the winter wave peak and may even surpass that. The data out of Israel seems to confirm that the vaccines aren't perfect at stopping infections. Most of the infections are occurring in the vaccinated. The idea that the vaccine---> magically make this go away is over. It's time for a serious discussion for what an off ramp looks like. Either perpetual lockdowns for the next several years (knowing that you'll have to cope with the Australia-style lockdown fatigue...some areas are on their 5th lockdown) while we focus on boosters trying to race against ever evolving variants or we do what the UK is trying (knowing that when you remove the restrictions there will be some deaths) and learn to live with it.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1416073099158691842
Click to expand...
Do "Gummi's" retweet of the table allow one to calculate something like an odds-risk ratio or related statistic that is more quantitative than "no longer effective"? Those real treatments of the data are out there. Variants and persistence of acquired immunity are real issues, and this was always going to be a bumpy ride. But maybe a bit premature for "oh well, screw it".
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
Do "Gummi's" retweet of the table allow one to calculate something like an odds-risk ratio or related statistic that is more quantitative than "no longer effective"? Those real treatments of the data are out there. Variants and persistence of acquired immunity are real issues, and this was always going to be a bumpy ride. But maybe a bit premature for "oh well, screw it".
Click to expand...

I'd agree that it's a bit premature for "oh well, screw it"...but we really need to be thinking and discussing of an off ramp here. Otherwise what will happen is that we'll back into a situation like California did previously where the restrictions were a. ruinous, b. didn't stop a serious peak from happening, c. didn't please anyone. The deal was 2 weeks/then 30/then until treatments/then until vaccines but the bargain keeps getting altered. So rather than reflexively go back (remember dad 4 said masks might be needed again this fall....we are already there in July) to the low hanging fruit (masks) which did little the first time around will do do even less this time around (if you accept dad4's argument masks helped in Asia, they didn't do that great this time around against the delta) and you end up shutting down schools, we as a society need to have a reasonable discussion over what an off ramp looks like because the curve will look something like the UK's and we need to be prepared for that.
 
kickingandscreaming said:
Lately, I haven't been following the COVID numbers - @dad4, how long before Santa Clara County says regarding this, "Oh yeah? Hold my beer."
Click to expand...
I don’t do political tea leaves very well.

Best bet is they will act when beds or ICU beds get short. Now at 16 used and 100 available. So, 2.5 doublings before it gets tight. Less if we take LA patients, which we will.

Problem is, our doubling time is pretty short right now. So, 3 weeks?

I haven’t tried to predict peak height for us. Will be kind of low, due to the vax rate. That may make the mask phase short.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top