You're right. Those numbers come from this CDC document updated 9/10. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html That Fox news screen grab erroneously added the percentage sign which makes it off by 100x.
The CDC just called them infection fatality ratio which can have an implied % sign. So do you have a known source for those numbers with the actual figures to make this claim? I don't think the phycological impact is any different, I just want to know the real number. Infection Fatality Ratio† 0-19 years: 0.00003 20-49 years: 0.0002 50-69 years: 0.005 70+ years: 0.054
The numbers in that fox news screen grab is in column 5, CDC's best estimate of IFR so far. So it should be 0-19 years: 0.00003 or 0.003% 20-49 years: 0.0002 or 0.02% 50-69 years: 0.005 or 0.5% 70+ years: 0.054 or 5.4%
Well. The fact that it doesn't have a % behind the number shows that it's not a %. IFR can be both % or just a ratio, but it needs to be explicitly stated to be % if it's a percentage. Let me think about how to prove that using some ball park figured. hold on.
So looking at the CDC C19 deaths by age, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#AgeAndSex, there have been 57,000 deaths by people age 75 and older. Assuming the IFR is 0.054% rather than just a ratio, that would imply that 105 million 75+ yo have been infected. That's obviously nonsense since there are only about 23 million 75+ yo in the US in total according to this site.
You don't think there's a different psychological impact from 1 out of 18 elderly people dying of this instead of 1 out of 1800? On an unrelated note, from the link jchu posted, I thought this was interesting: 2020 deaths involving Covid: 188,470 2020 deaths involving the flu: 6,699 For the people who say "this is just like the flu".
Cautionary tale on schools and the virus. My wife's cousin and her cousin's husband are both ICU nurses and have been in the thick of the pandemic since it started. Neither got sick. School starts, and they both get it from her husband's school age kids. Turns out the mother is a Trumper and very blase about masks. This is all also in Florida. More proof that PPE works. And not using PPE doesn't work.
No I don't think there is a psychological difference in what was posted with or without the % that isn't their source for these numbers though. The foot note says this. These estimates are based on age-specific estimates of infection fatality ratios from Hauser, A., Counotte, M.J., Margossian, C.C., Konstantinoudis, G., Low, N., Althaus, C.L. and Riou, J., 2020. Estimation of SARS-CoV-2 mortality during the early stages of an epidemic: a modeling study in Hubei, China, and six regions in Europe. PLoS medicine, 17(7), p.e1003189. Hauser et al. produced estimates of IFR for 10-year age bands from 0 to 80+ year old for 6 regions in Europe. Estimates exclude infection fatality ratios from Hubei, China, because we assumed infection and case ascertainment from the 6 European regions are more likely to reflect ascertainment in the U.S. To obtain the best estimate values, the point estimates of IFR by age were averaged to broader age groups for each of the 6 European regions using weights based on the age distribution of reported cases from COVID-19 Case Surveillance Public Use Data
Here's a link to the paper cited in footnote. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003189 Here's the relevant chart from that paper. Notice the estimated IFR ranges from 0.5% to 1.4%. So it doesn't make sense to assume that there's an implied % in the CDC site which would make the IFR range 0.00003% to 0.054%, way lower than the estimated IFR in the paper. A spread of 0.003% to 5.4% by age group is much more plausible and reasonable number given the estimated IFR from the paper.
I agree with what you are saying but there is a bigger difference between 0.5% and 0.00003 than there is between 0.00003 and 0.00003% The numbers are way off across the board so just choosing the higher interpretation isn't very satisfying. For your previous extrapolation of "Assuming the IFR is 0.054% rather than just a ratio, that would imply that 105 million 75+ yo have been infected." I personally believe complete incompetence at every level gave us a much higher death toll of those in nursing home than we should have ever had from a disease of this nature. I think the CDC did a poor job here rather than some FAUX NEWS misinterpretation. That CDC webpage is supposed to be for people like us to easily understand and be able to source. We are both just basically thinking "that number seems very very low with one interpretation, so it must just be very low and this interpretation"
How did those numbers make sense to you when officially .06% of the US population has already died due to covid-19? When will you start to question the lies being fed to you?
Then you're batshit crazy. Go ask a 75 yr old if he or she thinks there's a difference between him having a 5% chance of dying vs a 0.05% chance. The graphic was designed for one thing: to falsely convince Fox News viewers that the virus is far less dangerous than it is. One interpretation (the incorrect one) means hundreds of millions of nonexistent people would have to have been infected. This isn't hard stuff to know which data is correct. We have 190,000 known Covid-deaths and about 7 million known Covid cases in the US. That puts the top-range of IFR (ignoring age) at 2.7%. If we assume ALL 330,000,000 Americans have been infected in reality, that puts the bottom-range of IFR at 0.057%. The real number has to be somewhere between those numbers. Each day that more people die, the bottom end of the range goes up.
Thanks for calling me crazy. Do you have a source that shows the numbers were not a percentage? Just making **** up or?
The only issue I have with that premise is if you’re going only off confirmed cases then the virus isn’t as contagious as they claim it to be. Can’t be both ways. Using confirmed cases to get IFR is fine if you want that number to be higher. But the R factor or contagion rate is lower than the flu if that’s the case. 7 million cases in 9 months is far lower than a normal Flu season. Edit* and that doesn’t include the mitigating factors that the flu has nation wide.
It's not though. Normally annual "flu deaths" are measures as statistical estimates based on models. The numbers I mentioned above are confirmed deaths related to the flu - those numbers are always substantially lower than the model estimates. That's fair - but I'm not using confirmed cases to get an IFR - I'm using that and total population to give minimum and maximum boundaries. The actual # is somewhere in between. But regardless, the Covid case #'s are in a society where we completely shut down for a few months, have completely changed our day-to-day behavior, and hasn't gone through a winter season yet. What would normal flu cases be like if we didn't count the winter, everyone wore masks to school, half the kids stayed at home and learned virtually, people mostly ate outdoors at restaurants, tens of millions of people worked remotely, bars were closed, etc? In the Southern Hemisphere, it meant a massive decrease in the flu: https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2020/07/24/coronavirus-restrictions
I read @Commodore's graphic to mean we ruined lives because 1/3 of the country obtains information from one cable news outlet and is (coincidentally) really, really bad at math. I don't necessarily agree, but it's an interesting proposal.
What would case totals be if there was a vaccine for Covid? I’d say vaccines are a far greater mitigating factor than cloth masks and “distancing” people are doing. Confirmed Flu deaths are far lower than normal years for this year, I find that extremely fishy. I get that Covid and Flu are completely different, but if we’re to believe the CDC, the numbers they posted for IFR do not warrant the reaction imo. Flu mortality rates follow similar increases that Covid does by age (Covid being higher) But not reaching totals that are deserving of complete shutdowns.
