since itll be about 2month that we have covid testing (well, in a couple of weeks), iI looked at the total death rate in SF according to official numbers (20) and compared it to the population size rather than positive tests, since most don't get tested.
The result is 0.002%
For the record, USA's 2019 flu death rate in the best case conditions according to CDC was 0.01% (thats several magnitudes higher).
This is quite revolting to say the least. Since this isn't enough for us to enforce the constitution I honestly don't know what is. We're just a bunch of pussies hoping for a single man to do it for us.
sources:
You are confusing mortality rate with CFR/IFR.
0.01% is most certainly not "... several magnitudes higher." than 0.002% (it's not even 1 order of magnitude).
In any case, the average CFR for seasonal flu is ~0.1%, I have no idea where you come up with "0.01%".
The gist of your post somewhat holds, in light of the recent study of seroprevalence out of Stanford for a large California county. There, the IFR for covid-19 appears to be within an order of magnitude of that for seasonal flu, with the caveat that the latter's IFR may be an overestimate since the level of testing done for influenza is less covering than the study's testing.
you can simply take the cdc number and divide by the total population to get the number. note that this is taking the most generous cdc number (ie the cases were they estimate the flu was strictly the reason for death)
also yes, magnitudes is a common exaggeration, i like to use it
"you can simply take the cdc number and divide by the total population to get the number".
Well, you can just pick a number out of a hat then. What you've done is a pretty meaningless comparison.
because?
Because the numbers CDC publishes are after resolution of the season.
Until this outbreak is resolved, the best estimates for it are from IFR via seroprevelance and confirmed case fatalities, or alternatively CFR from confirmed case fatalities.
Taking current deaths vs total population is providing no useful information for comparison when one component is resolved and the other isn't.
Let's not post nonsense that makes the sub look naïve.
thanks for the respectful answer appreciate it. i think the data is valuable as long as you understand where its from and why.
ifr isnt great because the testing is artificially limited. in the sf data for example you can easily tell a large part of the testing was done only on cases that they were already quite sure were infected and were likely to die.
this has improved if you look at the past 7 days but its a small sample.
in any case i expect the death rate isnt higher than 1% and its possible that is close to the flu. which leads me to wonder wtf is going on. trump obviously did not want to close the economy and obviously wants to turn it back on asap. the lack of transparency from the govt is annoying ..
No worries, and I concur: the recent spate of additional seroprevalence surveys out of Germany, New York, Los Angeles, etc. are pointing to an IFR of 0.2-0.5%, so definitely in the same ballpark as influenza, and certainly not the doomsday numbers bandied about.
Sweden seems to have gotten it right here: keep the vulnerable out of reach (old and/or significant comorbidities), let the rest carry on life with minimal interference (groups < 50 or so per gathering), build herd immunity until sheltered can reenter society.
With only a slightly higher deaths/millions rate, seems to be working out well for them.
Here, this is more and more looking like power drunk state governments, though to be fair at least some may be doing this with good intentions, based on poor data.
you can do the math its pretty simple.
on the same trajectory it would put covid as 2x less deadly than the flu. but thats not all:
last year flu has a ~50% successful vaccine (that means people who are given it, and hospitals will give it to you if you are sick enough to go there - will get immunity or reduced effects 50% of the time). note: i did not lookup the exact percentage, as usually they give a percentage range which muddies the water (like 30-42%)
if using the same measures as they do for covid, cdc numbers double. this makes covid 4x less deadly when extrapolating for 6month
i would greatly encourage looking at the data critically and adding the numbers its really easy
yup but beside the questionable effectiveness (i live in sf getting food is much less safe than normal right now because you stay with others for hours..) its still a huge gap.