Corona Virus Death Rate will be about .6% to .7%

jem said:
For those who wonder if GWB is brain damaged....
Here is proof.

Look at the columns in the CDC chart posted above GWBs post.

Look at the right most column.
Its the current data...
The other 4 scenarios are projections.

The row Symptomatic Case Fatality Ratio and its .4%.

Yet moron GWB somehow confuses things by trying to act like others confuse the
confusing IFR and CFR.

He is the fucking moron...
Here the CDC says the Symptomatic Case Fatality Ration is .4%
and he is still trying to pretend the CFR is above 5%.

The CFR per the CDC is SCFR of .4 plus then you add in approximately 35% who are non symptomatic and you have a Case Fatality Rate of .26.

.26 is never going to be 5%.
GWB and FAUCI and all those moron's models were shit from day 1 and we said so.
More...

First let's go to the original thread about the CDC study which includes a link to the study with the five planning scenarios. Note the key words "Infection Fatality Rate"

The CDC's New 'Best Estimate' Implies a COVID-19 Infection Fatality Rate Below 0.3%
https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...-19-infection-fatality-rate-below-0-3.345316/

Let's go to the post that provides more details about the CDC study and the Infection Fatality Rate from the study.
https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...-from-scientists-in-iran.345346/#post-5111227

As a final note let's calculate today's Case Fatality Rate for COVID-19 in the U.S.
118,339 deaths divided by 2,183,598 confirmed cases = 5.42% Case Fatality Rate for COVID-19 in the U.S.

Those deliberately confusing the Case Fatality Rate of COVID-19 to the Infection Fatality Rate of COVID-19 to drive a narrative it is little worse than a seasonal flu are clearly off their rockers. It is sad to see this type of misinformation which is detrimental to public health continually pushed by trolling clowns.
 
Look jack ass....
You are the one who keeps claiming expert after expert gets the nomenclature wrong.
You are doing that to cover up your bullshit statements and assumptions.

The CDC knows the naming conventions.
They pretty can make them.
They are the elephant in the room. not you.

now.. from their report...

Symptomatic Case Fatality Ratio of .4%
(notice the words CASE FATALITY RATIO)

when you add that group with the (estimated) asymptomatic group
you arrive at what many are calling the IFR. (Infection Fatality Ratio)

This estimated IFR is therefore .4 plus 35% more people

estimated Infection Fatality Ratio of .26%




If you can't accept that from me... and the CDC

try

CNN
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/22/health/cdc-coronavirus-estimates-symptoms-deaths/index.html

"The CDC also says its "best estimate" is that 0.4% of people who show symptoms and have Covid-19 will die, and the agency estimates that 40% of coronavirus transmission is occurring before people feel sick."

and

https://reason.com/2020/05/24/the-c...a-covid-19-infection-fatality-rate-below-0-3/

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the current "best estimate" for the fatality rate among Americans with COVID-19 symptoms is 0.4 percent. The CDC also estimates that 35 percent of people infected by the COVID-19 virus never develop symptoms. Those numbers imply that the virus kills less than 0.3 percent of people infected by it—far lower than the infection fatality rates (IFRs) assumed by the alarming projections that drove the initial government response to the epidemic, including broad business closure and stay-at-home orders.

...

The CDC's five scenarios include one based on "a current best estimate about viral transmission and disease severity in the United States." That scenario assumes a "basic reproduction number" of 2.5, meaning the average carrier can be expected to infect that number of people in a population with no immunity. It assumes an overall symptomatic case fatality rate (CFR) of 0.4 percent, roughly four times the estimated CFR for the seasonal flu. The CDC estimates that the CFR for COVID-19 falls to 0.05 percent among people younger than 50 and rises to 1.3 percent among people 65 and older. For people in the middle (ages 50–64), the estimated CFR is 0.2 percent.


there are myraid other articles on this.

But...all you have to do is read the chart on the previous page.




gwb-trading said:
First let's go to the original thread about the CDC study which includes a link to the study with the five planning scenarios. Note the key words "Infection Fatality Rate"

The CDC's New 'Best Estimate' Implies a COVID-19 Infection Fatality Rate Below 0.3%
https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...-19-infection-fatality-rate-below-0-3.345316/

Let's go to the post that provides more details about the CDC study and the Infection Fatality Rate from the study.
https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...-from-scientists-in-iran.345346/#post-5111227

As a final note let's calculate today's Case Fatality Rate for COVID-19 in the U.S.
118,339 deaths divided by 2,183,598 confirmed cases = 5.42% Case Fatality Rate for COVID-19 in the U.S.

Those deliberately confusing the Case Fatality Rate of COVID-19 to the Infection Fatality Rate of COVID-19 to drive a narrative it is little worse than a seasonal flu are clearly off their rockers. It is sad to see this type of misinformation which is detrimental to public health continually pushed by trolling clowns.
More...
 
Last edited:
jem said:
Look jack ass....
You are the one who keeps claiming expert after expert gets the nomenclature wrong.
You are doing that to cover up your bullshit statements and assumptions.

The CDC knows the naming conventions.
They pretty can make them.
They are the elephant in the room. not you.

now.. from their report...

Symptomatic Case Fatality Ratio of .4%
(notice the words CASE FATALITY RATIO)

when you add that group with the (estimated) asymptomatic group
you arrive at what many are calling the IFR. (Infection Fatality Ratio)

This estimated IFR is therefore .4 plus 35% more people

estimated Infection Fatality Ratio of .26%




If you can't accept that from me... and the CDC

try

CNN
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/22/health/cdc-coronavirus-estimates-symptoms-deaths/index.html

"The CDC also says its "best estimate" is that 0.4% of people who show symptoms and have Covid-19 will die, and the agency estimates that 40% of coronavirus transmission is occurring before people feel sick."

and

https://reason.com/2020/05/24/the-c...a-covid-19-infection-fatality-rate-below-0-3/

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the current "best estimate" for the fatality rate among Americans with COVID-19 symptoms is 0.4 percent. The CDC also estimates that 35 percent of people infected by the COVID-19 virus never develop symptoms. Those numbers imply that the virus kills less than 0.3 percent of people infected by it—far lower than the infection fatality rates (IFRs) assumed by the alarming projections that drove the initial government response to the epidemic, including broad business closure and stay-at-home orders.

...

The CDC's five scenarios include one based on "a current best estimate about viral transmission and disease severity in the United States." That scenario assumes a "basic reproduction number" of 2.5, meaning the average carrier can be expected to infect that number of people in a population with no immunity. It assumes an overall symptomatic case fatality rate (CFR) of 0.4 percent, roughly four times the estimated CFR for the seasonal flu. The CDC estimates that the CFR for COVID-19 falls to 0.05 percent among people younger than 50 and rises to 1.3 percent among people 65 and older. For people in the middle (ages 50–64), the estimated CFR is 0.2 percent.


there are myraid other articles on this.

But...all you have to do is read the chart on the previous page.
More...

I have the nomenclature and definitions completely correct.

Say the words after me - INFECTION FATALITY RATE (IFR) and CASE FATALITY RATE (CFR).
Now go look up the definitions and educate yourself.

Even the articles you re-posted clearly say "infection fatality rates (IFRs)".
 
I know what they are... I have to teach them to you ever time you claim the experts are wrong about the naming conventions.

you really are a moron...

how did they arrive at an IFR of less than .3?
They started with the Symptomatic Case Fatality Ratio of .4


do the math moron it will teach you the nomenclature.



gwb-trading said:
I have the nomenclature and definitions completely correct.

Say the words after me - INFECTION FATALITY RATE (IFR) and CASE FATALITY RATE (CFR).
Now go look up the definitions and educate yourself.

Even the articles you re-posted clearly say "infection fatality rates (IFRs)".
More...
 
Last edited:
I have a minute to go over this before I take my kids to sports practice.

If you start with a symptomatic case fatality rate of .4
then add the asymptomatic... you get to .26.
But that is still just an estimated IFR


guess what... a pre print...

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.13.20101253v2

Abstract
OObjective To estimate the infection fatality rate of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) from data of seroprevalence studies. Methods Population studies with sample size of at least 500 and published as peer-reviewed papers or preprints as of June 7, 2020 were retrieved from PubMed, preprint servers, and communications with experts. Studies on blood donors were included, but studies on healthcare workers were excluded. The studies were assessed for design features and seroprevalence estimates. Infection fatality rate was estimated from each study dividing the number of COVID-19 deaths at a relevant time point by the number of estimated people infected in each relevant region. Correction was also attempted accounting for the types of antibodies assessed. Results 23 studies were identified with usable data to enter into calculations. Seroprevalence estimates ranged from 0.1% to 47%. Infection fatality rates ranged from 0.02% to 0.86% (median 0.26%) and corrected values ranged from 0.02% to 0.78% (median 0.25%). Among people <70 years old, infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 0.26% with median of 0.05% (corrected, 0.00-0.23% with median of 0.04%). Most studies were done in pandemic epicenters and the few studies done in locations with more modest death burden also suggested lower infection fatality rates. Conclusions The infection fatality rate of COVID-19 can vary substantially across different locations and this may reflect differences in population age structure and case-mix of infected and deceased patients as well as multiple other factors. Estimates of infection fatality rates inferred from seroprevalence studies tend to be much lower than original speculations made in the early days of the pandemic.
 
jem said:
I have a minute to go over this before I take my kids to sports practice.

If you start with a symptomatic case fatality rate of .4
then add the asymptomatic... you get to .26.
But that is still just an estimated IFR


guess what... a pre print...

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.13.20101253v2

Abstract
OObjective To estimate the infection fatality rate of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) from data of seroprevalence studies. Methods Population studies with sample size of at least 500 and published as peer-reviewed papers or preprints as of June 7, 2020 were retrieved from PubMed, preprint servers, and communications with experts. Studies on blood donors were included, but studies on healthcare workers were excluded. The studies were assessed for design features and seroprevalence estimates. Infection fatality rate was estimated from each study dividing the number of COVID-19 deaths at a relevant time point by the number of estimated people infected in each relevant region. Correction was also attempted accounting for the types of antibodies assessed. Results 23 studies were identified with usable data to enter into calculations. Seroprevalence estimates ranged from 0.1% to 47%. Infection fatality rates ranged from 0.02% to 0.86% (median 0.26%) and corrected values ranged from 0.02% to 0.78% (median 0.25%). Among people <70 years old, infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 0.26% with median of 0.05% (corrected, 0.00-0.23% with median of 0.04%). Most studies were done in pandemic epicenters and the few studies done in locations with more modest death burden also suggested lower infection fatality rates. Conclusions The infection fatality rate of COVID-19 can vary substantially across different locations and this may reflect differences in population age structure and case-mix of infected and deceased patients as well as multiple other factors. Estimates of infection fatality rates inferred from seroprevalence studies tend to be much lower than original speculations made in the early days of the pandemic.
More...

This is another "study" from John Ioannidis who has been pushing loads of fake nonsense regarding COVID-19. Let's see what the media and other medical specialists have to say about this latest bullshiat paper from May 13th. As noted by others -- John Ioannidis has become brazen in pushing his falsehoods.

For his Covid-19 work, the Stanford scientist John Ioannidis is being accused of the same bad science he has criticized.
https://undark.org/2020/04/24/john-ioannidis-covid-19-death-rate-critics/

Let's take a look at other right-wing anti-science propaganda pushed by John Ionnidas including his "reproducibility crisis" nonsense.

He continues to actively push fake statistics from other Stanford staff members that have been totally debunked. He refuses to testify for Democratic House but only for the Republican Senate.

Let's take a look at all of Professor John Ioannidis' support for the conservative National Association of Scholars NAS and a few of his positions in papers and media that liberals are ruining academia and science using a fake narrative of "reproducibility crisis".

As starting point review this paper by the National Association of Scholars NAS pushing the "reproducibility crisis" fallacy using many quotes and references from their star, Professor John Ioannidis.

Let's take a look at a Wired article showing that Professor John Ioannidis political clowns are pushing a false narrative....
Science's "Reproducibility Crisis" Is Being Used as Political Ammunition
A report from the National Association of Scholars takes on the reproducibility crisis in science. Not everyone views the group’s motives as pure.
https://www.wired.com/story/sciences-reproducibility-crisis-is-being-used-as-political-ammunition/

Let's take a look at Professor John Ioannidis starting and supporting the conservative war on science.
Donald Trump’s war on science and its long-lasting consequences
https://theconversation.com/debate-...ience-and-its-long-lasting-consequences-99534

----------- Extract ------
Since science’s crisis made it to the headlines thanks to a cover of The Economist in October 2013 and based on previous works John P.A. Ioannidis, it was only a matter of time before the crisis become enrolled in this long-standing fight between regulators and the regulated.

Thus, few were surprised when recently the EPA proposed new rules this April for transparency meant to fight “secret science” and simultaneously the NAS – not the National Academy of Science but the National Association of Scholars [sic] – published a report on science’s “irreproducibility”, urging remedial action including: Congress should pass an expanded Secret Science Reform Act to prevent government agencies from making regulations based on irreproducible research.
  • Congress should require government agencies to adopt strict reproducibility standards by measures that include strengthening the Information Quality Act.
The report blames the crisis on the “progressive left” and its attack on higher education with “neo-Marxism, radical feminism, historicism, post-colonialism, deconstructionism, post-modernism, liberation theology, and a host of other ideologies”.
---------------------------

And of course there is the JetBlue funding of his work to state that COVID-19 is harmless...
https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...avirus-wasnt-that-deadly.344869/#post-5101816
 
Last edited:
gwb-trading said:
This is another "study" from John Ioannidis who has been pushing loads of fake nonsense regarding COVID-19. Let's see what the media and other medical specialists have to say about this latest bullshiat paper from May 13th. As noted by others -- John Ioannidis has become brazen in pushing his falsehoods.

For his Covid-19 work, the Stanford scientist John Ioannidis is being accused of the same bad science he has criticized.
https://undark.org/2020/04/24/john-ioannidis-covid-19-death-rate-critics/

Let's take a look at other right-wing anti-science propaganda pushed by John Ionnidas including his "reproducibility crisis" nonsense.

He continues to actively push fake statistics from other Stanford staff members that have been totally debunked. He refuses to testify for Democratic House but only for the Republican Senate.

Let's take a look at all of Professor John Ioannidis' support for the conservative National Association of Scholars NAS and a few of his positions in papers and media that liberals are ruining academia and science using a fake narrative of "reproducibility crisis".

As starting point review this paper by the National Association of Scholars NAS pushing the "reproducibility crisis" fallacy using many quotes and references from their star, Professor John Ioannidis.

Let's take a look at a Wired article showing that Professor John Ioannidis political clowns are pushing a false narrative....
Science's "Reproducibility Crisis" Is Being Used as Political Ammunition
A report from the National Association of Scholars takes on the reproducibility crisis in science. Not everyone views the group’s motives as pure.
https://www.wired.com/story/sciences-reproducibility-crisis-is-being-used-as-political-ammunition/

Let's take a look at Professor John Ioannidis starting and supporting the conservative war on science.
Donald Trump’s war on science and its long-lasting consequences
https://theconversation.com/debate-...ience-and-its-long-lasting-consequences-99534

----------- Extract ------
Since science’s crisis made it to the headlines thanks to a cover of The Economist in October 2013 and based on previous works John P.A. Ioannidis, it was only a matter of time before the crisis become enrolled in this long-standing fight between regulators and the regulated.

Thus, few were surprised when recently the EPA proposed new rules this April for transparency meant to fight “secret science” and simultaneously the NAS – not the National Academy of Science but the National Association of Scholars [sic] – published a report on science’s “irreproducibility”, urging remedial action including: Congress should pass an expanded Secret Science Reform Act to prevent government agencies from making regulations based on irreproducible research.
  • Congress should require government agencies to adopt strict reproducibility standards by measures that include strengthening the Information Quality Act.
The report blames the crisis on the “progressive left” and its attack on higher education with “neo-Marxism, radical feminism, historicism, post-colonialism, deconstructionism, post-modernism, liberation theology, and a host of other ideologies”.
---------------------------

And of course there is the JetBlue funding of his work to state that COVID-19 is harmless...
https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...avirus-wasnt-that-deadly.344869/#post-5101816
More...

Just admit that you were wrong.
 
smallfil said:
And Dr. Fauci lied about wearing masks and one only has to look at Japan and South Korea where everyone practically wears a mask and their death rates are very small compared to the US even now.

https://news.yahoo.com/fauci-confirms-public-health-experts-200322837.html
More...

In mid-Feb. I made this observation about a picture someone posted of Hong Kong.

vanzandt said:
They tore down the buildings and planted trees?
Lots of folks are wearing masks in that 1st picture too. Of course that may just be the culture I guess.
More...

https://elitetrader.com/et/threads/...use-of-coronavirus.339755/page-6#post-5014615

To date Hong Kong, one of the worlds most densely populated cities by any metric, has a grand total of four Covid deaths. Four.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top