Trump Has Saved 330 million in the U.S.

Either way, fact remains, total death toll is calculated against entire population,
Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

WRONG!!!!!

The death rate of CV19 = Total # Deaths/ Total # infected

Professor John Ioannidis of Stanford Univ used the same equation to calculate # deaths due to SARs virus

If we assume that case fatality rate among individuals infected by SARS-CoV-2 is 0.3% in the general population — a mid-range guess from my Diamond Princess analysis — and that 1% of the U.S. population gets infected (about 3.3 million people), this would translate to about 10,000 deaths.

You simply do not know what you are talking about. You must not have read the link on Ioannidis or if you read it, you did not understand what you were reading.


https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/...reliable-data/

We do not know the total number "infected" by the flue or Covid19.

But 90,000 deaths out of the total population = .0002678571 or .027%

At the moment the 90,000 deaths figure is being examined to cull out those who died "with" Covid19 virus in their systems at the time of death and those who actually died "OF" the Covid19 virus.

Colorado has already revised their numbers down by about 20% initially, and the CDC was reporting closer to 60,000 rather than the media reports.

The operative word is "politics"! Look at this forum!

WRONG!!!!!...The death rate of CV19 = Total # Deaths/ Total # infected... Originally Posted by adav8s28

So how many are infected then? Tell us. But also tell s how you know that number to be accurate.

why cant the death rate be the actual real wuhan virus deaths divided by the population?

seems like the death rate to me

you might also calculate the rate of death in any subset of the population you might want but that rate would not be as accurate

Lidttle a misconstrues the article i posted originally from march 2020.

The denominator is unknown - due to the number of undiagnosed asymptomatic and minimally symptomatic - and al attempts are simply "guesstimates".
What is clear - the virus disproportionately affects elderly with underlying diseases - many obesity related - and those with immune disorders - diabetes for example.





I think we fell into a DPST trap to shut down the economy as tool to "get Trump".

Far better to provide shelter as chosen - optional- for affected groups - and let the world go its own way.

We don't have this mess with Influenza A - a similar behaving virus - but now tht the DPST marxists have a tool - - an Economy wrecking edict for every virus- they will want to use it more and more in the name of "protecting " the populace.
what Hypocritical Bs they spout! It is all about the Control - see NYC, Gov Whitmer, and other DPST controlled areas where they are struggling to maintain absolute control by their own decree.

why cant the death rate be the actual real wuhan virus deaths divided by the population?

seems like the death rate to me

you might also calculate the rate of death in any subset of the population you might want but that rate would not be as accurate Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

That's what I was largely pointing out in the my previous post in this thread.

There are many who are using the term "death rate" without actually qualifying which one it is. This is being done for both statistical analysis and by some to try and spread fear by always choosing the worst case scenarios in their usage of it.

If you look at the touted John Ioannidis piece, he very explicitly refers to his discussion being the "case" fatality rate and he throws in qualifiers and estimates all over the place as caveats and that his estimate was based almost solely on very early on data from that Princess Line Cruise.

While his thesis of the WHO's numbers being way high is certainly coming to fruition, he's gotta be laughing at anyone trying to pin his early March numbers as anything close to "accurate".

In the end, the crude(or population based) fatality rate is all that is going to matter, but will not be known(and obviously as Ioannidis notes with the flu) not actually accurate as you will never have accurate counts of true cause of death, just approximations.

The other "death rates" as Ioannidis points out are only useful in trending and only if the reliability of the trending data is there, which it to date hasn't been.

The true value of Ioannidis's pieces lies in that the many used the initial numbers like the WHO, to overblow the expected worldwide death rate and reasoned analysis should occur and be reviewed regularly.

EL - well written Good Sir!

That's what I was largely pointing out in the my previous post in this thread.

There are many who are using the term "death rate" without actually qualifying which one it is. This is being done for both statistical analysis and by some to try and spread fear by always choosing the worst case scenarios in their usage of it.

If you look at the touted John Ioannidis piece, he very explicitly refers to his discussion being the "case" fatality rate and he throws in qualifiers and estimates all over the place as caveats and that his estimate was based almost solely on very early on data from that Princess Line Cruise.

While his thesis of the WHO's numbers being way high is certainly coming to fruition, he's gotta be laughing at anyone trying to pin his early March numbers as anything close to "accurate".

In the end, the crude(or population based) fatality rate is all that is going to matter, but will not be known(and obviously as Ioannidis notes with the flu) not actually accurate as you will never have accurate counts of true cause of death, just approximations.

The other "death rates" as Ioannidis points out are only useful in trending and only if the reliability of the trending data is there, which it to date hasn't been.

The true value of Ioannidis's pieces lies in that the many used the initial numbers like the WHO, to overblow the expected worldwide death rate and reasoned analysis should occur and be reviewed regularly. Originally Posted by eccielover

if a person is attempting to assess their individual risk of death due to the Wuhan virus- well good luck with that

there's so many pieces to the puzzle and so many unknowns its meaningless

on the one hand we are fairly confident of the population size and the announced Wuhan virus deaths, we know

so that rate is calculable within an acceptable tolerance and if anything its overstated as the numerator is subject to attribution error and politics

on the other hand, every other rate of death is for sure even more a guessing game of supposition and politics

That's what I was largely pointing out in the my previous post in this thread.

There are many who are using the term "death rate" without actually qualifying which one it is. This is being done for both statistical analysis and by some to try and spread fear by always choosing the worst case scenarios in their usage of it... Originally Posted by eccielover

It is all about fear. They are searching for a way to scare people into believing a falsehood. For example: what is the death rate of dementia? Is it calculated against the population as a whole or against people that have dementia? In the case of the latter, that would yield a 100% death rate. Nobody knows how many people have had COVID, nobody. Any conjecture is just fear-porning.

It is all about fear. They are searching for a way to scare people into believing a falsehood. For example: what is the death rate of dementia? Is it calculated against the population as a whole or against people that have dementia? In the case of the latter, that would yield a 100% death rate. Nobody knows how many people have had COVID, nobody. Any conjecture is just fear-porning. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

It's actually funny you say that. I was discussing with a rather liberal member of my family the lock down and over reaction, and they actually said that 100% of those who have died from Covid-19 had coronavirus. I was floored, but was also reminded of the arguments of some of the liberal posters here.

But in your example of Dementia, you would have to have determined that the death was always due to dementia(not heart attack, stroke, etc. etc.) even among those having dementia to reach a 100%.

From what we know as actual facts; dieing from COVID and only from COVID is extraordinarily rare, more like infinitesimal. Many die from pneumonia, like they do each and every years for ever. But if they also have COVID - viola it's because of COVID, even though there is no direct link to prove it. It would be like saying you died of having blue eyes, which is just as true. You had blue eyes and you are dead, ergo, you died of having blue eyes and pneumonia. But, if you also had COVID, you only died of COVID.

Over simplification? Sure. But even plain-Jane pneumonia doesn't just jump out from behind a tree to get you. It is a condition brought on by some stimulus, be it influenza, whooping cough, allergies or cold gone bad, whatever. Did you die of allergies if it ended up with pneumonia? What about high blood pressure or many of the underlying conditions? If you catch a cold with high blood pressure and die, did you die from a cold? High blood pressure? Pneumonia?

Wade through the fear-porn with basic logic. Are all who died, that have COVID in their system assumed or proven to have died from COVID? Do you believe that because you are dead and have the bug in you that that is the only logical reason you are dead? While we're talking about it; regardless of how you died, why is it you only ever vote Demonicrat afterwards?

It's actually funny you say that. I was discussing with a rather liberal member of my family the lock down and over reaction, and they actually said that 100% of those who have died from Covid-19 had coronavirus. I was floored, but was also reminded of the arguments of some of the liberal posters here.

But in your example of Dementia, you would have to have determined that the death was always due to dementia(not heart attack, stroke, etc. etc.) even among those having dementia to reach a 100%. Originally Posted by eccielover

Again, assume the ratio of people with symptoms to the infected people without symptoms is 1 to 1.

Total infected in USA 1.5 million * 2 = 3 million

89,932/3,000,000 = 2.9% death rate

To get a death rate of .5 % there would need to be 13 million asymptomatic people out there in the USA. There is no proof of that. None. Originally Posted by adav8s28

Where did you get these figures, not to mention the terminology?

This reporting reminds of the "body" counts back in the 60's-70's.

A very good old friend (rip) used to report his based on looking back over his shoulder in a fast climb bank after a low level napalm run over a village. Those on fire running out of the huts were counted then an "x-factor" applied.

Walter Cronkite bought it.

[QUOTE=LexusLover;1062064046]Where did you get these figures, not to mention the terminology?

1=1QUOTE

The Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...-cases-deaths/

a misconstrues the article i posted originally from march 2020.
Originally Posted by oeb11

Lil "O" That is not what you were saying on May 11 in this thread

a - it is "Herd Immunity" - but I will give you a typo.

Generally you are correct - but the Wuhan virus case mortality rate is likely less than the SARS virus - when on include a very large, but as yet impossible to determine accurately denominator of asymptomatic and minimally symptomatic wuhan virus cases.

I put Ioaniddis article on site months ago.

Thank You for referencing him - he was far more accurate than the "models" of millions of deaths used to shut us down.

I didn't misconstrue anything. Ioannidis calculated that 10,000 would die from Sars virus if 1% of the USA population got infected. Well there are 90,000 deaths due to CV19 in the USA and the number of people with symptoms is 1,500,000. Ioannidis calculation is off by a factor of 9 to actual numbers

His calculation:
If we assume that case fatality rate among individuals infected by SARS-CoV-2 is 0.3% in the general population — a mid-range guess from my Diamond Princess analysis — and that 1% of the U.S. population gets infected (about 3.3 million people), this would translate to about 10,000 deaths.

The data is the data.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...-cases-deaths/

WRONG!!!!! Originally Posted by adav8s28

Actually, you are the one wrong, AGAIN!

Do you (personally) determine the death rate by firearm based on the number of firearm owners? Or do you (personally) measure the rate by the total U.S. population? Or let's take incarcerations! Do you use the number of convicted criminals or do you use total population when determining a percentage?

Your bias shows as apparent as your prejudice.

Trump has saved 330 million U.S. citizens.