1180
posted ago by RandoMando2A +1180 / -0

It’s actually less when you factor in co-morbidities. Then back it explaining 99.71% survival rate WITH morbidities. Straight up would’ve pulled my calculator out and put Biden’s stupidity front and center. He wants to shutdown over .029% Come on man!

It’s actually less when you factor in co-morbidities. Then back it explaining 99.71% survival rate WITH morbidities. Straight up would’ve pulled my calculator out and put Biden’s stupidity front and center. He wants to shutdown over .029% Come on man!
Comments (41)
sorted by:
42
boreal_storm 42 points ago +42 / -0

Your math is off. Using the given numbers:

200,000 / 7,000,000 = .029 = 2.9%

4
RandoMando2A [S] 4 points ago +6 / -2

Well I would’ve used a calculator on stage. Still a number that illustrates my point though. Thank you for the correction. Not claiming to be a math whiz by any means.

8
congruent 8 points ago +9 / -1
  1. 7.4 million cases out of 107 million tested as of worldometer today 09/30/2020 8:00pm EDT. Thus, 7% of the country is infected.

(except there are false positives and false negatives, so, who knows?)

  1. 7% of 330 million total population is 22.8 million actually infected (including those who have not been tested).

  2. 200k deaths over 22.8 million infected = 0.00876 = 0.876% (assuming no testing bias)

Or roughly 1%.

  1. However...

50k of those deaths were NJ/NJ/CT/PA nursing home deaths. Preventable. Perhaps even intentionally artificially inflated. so,

150k / 22.8 million = 0.00658 = 0.658%

  1. And these 150k are died "with" covid, not died "of" covid. Meaning, if the person had a positive test, or had symptoms consistent with covid or otherwise the presiding physician suspects covid as a partial cause, it is listed as a covid death.

I would say, knock another 50k (maybe more) off for this over-reporting, so

100k / 22.8 million = 0.00438 = 0.438% so about 1/2 of 1 percent. Ie it's 99.5% survivable. If you're older, over 70, or over 80, your odds are worse. If you're younger, a child, teen, or in your 20s or 30s your odds are even better than this.

7
deleted 7 points ago +7 / -0
4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
1
Gold-Eyed-Cat 1 point ago +1 / -0

He can't because the second Trump says "Rona deaths (without other deadly illnesses) is only 9000 people" the media and Mister Dementia will spend 72 hours straight screaming, "DRUMP MURDERED 9000 PEOPLE AND DOESN'T CARE! REEEEEEE!"

 

So he has to be super careful to not appear flippant or calloused. It sucks.

21
Colonel_Dax 21 points ago +21 / -0 (edited)

Let's not forget that, of those "200,000", only 9,200 can be directly blamed on C-19, with no mention, in those cases, of morbid obesity, or undetected diabetes.

That's .0013%.
In passing, how many here even KNOW someone who has even GOTTEN C-19?

It's a Socialist scam.

8
RandoMando2A [S] 8 points ago +8 / -0

My point exactly. However, Going too far with the “conspiracy” numbers risks you looking like a non sympathetic “denier” in front the normies that are IV’d to mainstream media. Even quoting CDC numbers that don’t get reported may not help with normies.

7
MaxineWaters4Prez 7 points ago +7 / -0

I know of people who got positive tests. And I know od a 97 year old who died and they attributed her death to covid, even though she's been mostly bedridden and unable to recognize family for over a year.

But that's how these numbers are made. The people dying of this were likely to have died anyway. It's sad, but it's a fact of life. And those "cases" are only still on the rise because schools and workplaces are now mandating testing.

As long as we keep testing people who aren't sick, we will always see a continuous number of "new cases".

But cases are irrelevant. Here's the CDCs death toll in graphical format...

https://i.maga.host/CAWao6U.png

It's been gone for 3 months.

3
TrumpBringsLight 3 points ago +3 / -0

How come that’s so different from the death graph at the Johns Hopkins map for the US, where it says there’s between 500 and 1000 deaths a day, currently, which is what Biden was referring to when he was trying to pin black deaths on Trump.

1
congruent 1 point ago +1 / -0

We are in danger of over-stating the comorbidity.

Just because someone has, say, high blood pressure, and is on medication, does not mean anything when it comes to covid.

Literally any diagnosis, no matter how minor, counts as a comorbidity.

And these comorbidities, most of them, do not make you more likely to die of covid.

Some, of course, do.

9
YUUGEJAYNA 9 points ago +9 / -0

Divide the population by the # of deaths. Conclude that this virus is statistically insignificant.

11
jgardner 11 points ago +11 / -0

We may see a few more deaths before the end of this, but it's clear that the death rate has significantly declined and that newly "infected" people aren't even getting sick.

It turns out that if you don't stick tubes down people's throats when they are sick, they are less likely to die. It also turns out that when you use treatments that we have known for YEARS that are effective in dealing with coronaviruses and the body's reaction to it, that people stop dying too.

Who knew?!?

8
bread_baby 8 points ago +8 / -0

It should be 200k deaths / 330 million people = 0.06% deathrate for this years flu.

6
RandoMando2A [S] 6 points ago +6 / -0

Yes! Thank you for refining my thought.

7
bread_baby 7 points ago +7 / -0

what about age groups?

200k deaths / 328 million people = 99,94% survival rating all ages.

97% of deaths were among 45+ olds.

survival rating for a 30 year old: 3k deaths / 328 million people = 99.99908%

5
somethingnew 5 points ago +5 / -0

That's just bad math. You're not counting actual flu deaths, you're counting covid deaths only. If you count flu deaths as well, it'll be much higher.

2
bread_baby 2 points ago +2 / -0 (edited)

sorry for the confusion. What I meant was that covid can be seen as this years flu season, and the chance to die this year from the flu season.

If you add the other diseases the total deaths will rise. However, look at this graph: flu like symptoms, covid in red follows the same curve as previous years flu seasons.

Furthermore if you look at excess deaths, whenever there is a flu season the excess deaths rise above normal. If we would want to calculate the added risk of covid we would have to subtract the deaths of a normal flu season to get a 'increased death rate / risk'. In june I did just that for the Dutch statistics, was about 30% higher excess deaths than a normal flu season.

7
jgardner 7 points ago +7 / -0
  • CASE fatality rate is the number of people we have tested positive that die. That's the number, and when doing pandemics, it's a USELESS and MEANINGLESS number.
  • INFECTED fatality rate is the number of people who got the disease and that die. Early on, we were finding tons and tons of people had the disease, far more than we expected. This number is the important number, but even then...
  • TOTAL fatality rate is the number of people who live in the county and died. THIS, and only this number, is meaningful. It's how we measure the flu death rates. A certain percentage of the population will get the flu and die from it each year.

The TOTAL fatality rate of COVID-19 is ridiculously low. They have to expand the number of deaths to include anyone who may have possibly tested positive. It's utterly silly. It's like counting people who die from auto accidents as a flu death.

5
jgardner 5 points ago +5 / -0

I should add, you can calculate the TOTAL fatality rate based on 2 things:

  1. How many people you expect to get the disease, based on how many people are already immune and how infectious the disease is.
  2. How many people who get the disease die from it.

The CASE fatality rate DOESN'T EVEN ENTER into it at all!

NO ONE CARES what the CASE fatality rate except reporters!

7
deleted 7 points ago +7 / -0
6
America_No_1 6 points ago +6 / -0

Wait until you find out most of these peoples were going to die anyways COVID or not.

2
TrumpBringsLight 2 points ago +2 / -0

There is something called ‘excess deaths’ which we will found out about later. I recall seeing a preliminary estimate about a month ago, and it was very low.

5
Deplora 5 points ago +5 / -0

And then you have to factor in that a lot of the deaths counted as being "from COVID-19" were actually from other causes with COVID-19 either one of several contributing factors, or in some cases simply present but not contributing to the cause of death.

Another statistic that hasn't been factored in is that with such a high percentage of the deaths being among the very elderly, including many in nursing homes, people who were already on hospice status due to other terminal conditions would have been counted as COVID-19 deaths even when there was no attempt to treat the illness, due to the hospice status.

This hit my radar screen when one of the early deaths in my area was reported to have been a 96-year-old nursing home patient who was already on hospice status when diagnosed with COVID-19. Many patients like this may have had originally mild cases, but due to lack of treatment, proceeded to get sicker and die, just as they would have if they'd come down with a common cold (which, with no treatment other than "comfort care", can easily progress to pneumonia and death in a very elderly bed-bound person whose overall condition warrants hospice status).

5
Bongos 5 points ago +5 / -0

I'm curious if there will even be an actual uptick in deaths in America as a % from February 2020 to February 2021.

5
RandoMando2A [S] 5 points ago +5 / -0

Good point. If anything the accelerated testing is helping the numbers.

4
MassTexodous 4 points ago +4 / -0

Sadly, there may be just from the increase in suicides and those that were denied life-saving surgeries in favor of treating the virus.

5
BrazilianManPDX 5 points ago +5 / -0

and Cuomo can get away with saying "Those people were going to die anyway." Come on man!

5
Gwoz8881 5 points ago +5 / -0

It gets even worse when you put in people under the age of 65

4
JimmyJ 4 points ago +4 / -0

Orange man killed over 200 million Biden said, No?

3
thewordwolf 3 points ago +3 / -0

200k is overblown.

Approx. 60k directly attributable to lockdown.

Another 100k +/- for largley unknown reasons.

Follow this guy -

https://twitter.com/EthicalSkeptic

2
TennesseePride 2 points ago +2 / -0

Glad someone else knows about ES. I concur, ES is a great read.

2
Trumpaholic831 2 points ago +2 / -0

Exactly this. My county can’t open to the next phase yet because of a limit of 7 people per 1000,000 can test positive. Right now now we have 9.9 per 100,000. DOES ANYONE KNOW HOW TO DO MATH ... and how the hell are these ridiculous numbers established??? We couldn’t meet those requirements even if it were for orange eyed, deaf dwarfs born on a leap year Tuesday morning during a tropical storm in the back of a taxi cab.

2
MaxineWaters4Prez 2 points ago +2 / -0

There weren't 200k deaths from covid. The CDC itself reports that the number is actually 6% of that, or roughly 12k.

Averaging over the total time the CDC has been collecting data on this, it's 60something people per day in the US. Or roughly one person per state per day.

2
BasedRedPillZeus 2 points ago +2 / -0

7 million “infected”

There’s a strong argument 90% of those were false positives

2
JoeSnifDaKidz 2 points ago +2 / -0

Rule of thumb. If you have strong results you can use ratios 2:1. If you have moderately strong results you use percentages, 25%. If you don’t have strong results you use absolutes. 200K.

2
RoosterRaiser 2 points ago +2 / -0

If Trump takes this direction, they will claim he is down playing the deaths. It is information that needs to be known, but not on the debate stage.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0 (edited)
1
Tallsie 1 point ago +1 / -0

To steal a phrase, You don’t walk into a methadone clinic and explain the laffer curve.