OtherGround Forums Covid-19 Mortality Rate In USA Now At 0.015%!

6 days ago
9/14/19
Posts: 731
Chomas -

OP you are just not that sharp , no surprise you don’t understand what the current numbers mean.  It takes awhile for most people to die from this , many are dying in hospitals as we speak, sadly and the current numbers mean nothing as it’s the beginning.

Yah but not a very big number of people are dying compared to the infected rate

6 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 2010
Chomas -

OP you are just not that sharp , no surprise you don’t understand what the current numbers mean.  It takes awhile for most people to die from this , many are dying in hospitals as we speak, sadly and the current numbers mean nothing as it’s the beginning.

Yes, it's too early to calculate mortality rates - they're only estimates so far. 

It's only when cases are closed with a recovery or death that an outcome can be determined.   Newly diagnosed cases have yet to progress towards hospitalization, so will underestimate mortality.

6 days ago
9/8/02
Posts: 24923
The Infection Rate Fatality (IFR) differs from the CFR in that aims to estimate the fatality rate in all those with infection: the detected disease (cases) and those with an undetected disease (asymptomatic and not tested group). if tested, this group would be counted as infected and at least temporarily be immune.

Our current best assumption, as of the 22nd March, is the IFR is approximate 0.20% (95% CI, 0.17 to 0.25).*

In the elderly, co-morbidities have a significant impact on the CFR: those with ? 3 comorbidities are at much higher risk, particularly those with cardiovascular conditions. Modelling the data on the prevalence of comorbidities is essential to understand the CFR and IFR by age. In those without pre-existing health conditions, and over 70, the data is reassuring that the IFR will likely not be above 1%. The prevalence of comorbidities is highly age-dependent and is higher in socially deprived.


https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global-covid-19-case-fatality-rates/?fbclid=IwAR1ZlHz8G3tSwRDkDM6wwTvhi4JVB89KbyE93lAUyiwvt6VZdhG9On49NLQ
6 days ago
3/28/02
Posts: 7730

Yet another  EPIC THREAD FAILURE 

by OP

6 days ago
12/13/15
Posts: 3398
saglv -

That isn't how you calculate the mortality rate IMO.

The problem with this measure of mortality:  (dead_amount / (infected_amount))  is that you're speculating that the infected won't die.  

With a situation like this, a disease that is aggressively expanding, I think that a better method of evaluating it might be to look at the death to recovery rate:  (dead_amount / (recovered_amount + dead_amount)).

But we don't know the recovery rate either. Thousands might have already had it and recovered without knowing

6 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 2011
VHStapefan -
saglv -

That isn't how you calculate the mortality rate IMO.

The problem with this measure of mortality:  (dead_amount / (infected_amount))  is that you're speculating that the infected won't die.  

With a situation like this, a disease that is aggressively expanding, I think that a better method of evaluating it might be to look at the death to recovery rate:  (dead_amount / (recovered_amount + dead_amount)).

But we don't know the recovery rate either. Thousands might have already had it and recovered without knowing

Most estimates place the rate of asymtomatic Covid-19 cases at between 20 and 30% (may vary with age). https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00822-x

Even with that factored in, if you look at confirmed cases with defined outcomes, the mortality rates will likely be in the 1-3% range in the general population, with worse outcomes in older people or those with comorbidities.

6 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 9478
YaoMingia -

You should just stop posting you fucking moron 

Yeah! We are trying to cause mass panic and you are undermining it!

6 days ago
11/20/12
Posts: 13997

6 days ago
6/21/13
Posts: 1483

OP is the OG Pendejo. 

6 days ago
8/17/14
Posts: 967

What a hilarious thread, this forum has never been as full to the brim with morons than it is now. Thanks cami :)

6 days ago
8/27/08
Posts: 6023
saglv -

That isn't how you calculate the mortality rate IMO.

The problem with this measure of mortality:  (dead_amount / (infected_amount))  is that you're speculating that the infected won't die.  

With a situation like this, a disease that is aggressively expanding, I think that a better method of evaluating it might be to look at the death to recovery rate:  (dead_amount / (recovered_amount + dead_amount)).

Shush,op and his fuhrer don’t like math and science!

6 days ago
5/29/18
Posts: 3815
Pugilist82 -

Either you’re trolling on a very fucked up topic to do so, or you’re so fucking stupid, you can’t do basic math. Either way, should be banned for spreading misinformation on an important topic.

Lol then he whines that he gets frozen.

A grown man ladies and gents...

6 days ago
1/11/06
Posts: 7065
YaoMingia -


this is just the beginning

Dude’s never been to LA General on a busy night - or to Chicago’s hospitals on a muggy, hot day. Lots of people die from various causes on a daily basis.

6 days ago
11/1/03
Posts: 21514
jbc -
VHStapefan -
saglv -

That isn't how you calculate the mortality rate IMO.

The problem with this measure of mortality:  (dead_amount / (infected_amount))  is that you're speculating that the infected won't die.  

With a situation like this, a disease that is aggressively expanding, I think that a better method of evaluating it might be to look at the death to recovery rate:  (dead_amount / (recovered_amount + dead_amount)).

But we don't know the recovery rate either. Thousands might have already had it and recovered without knowing

Most estimates place the rate of asymtomatic Covid-19 cases at between 20 and 30% (may vary with age). https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00822-x

Even with that factored in, if you look at confirmed cases with defined outcomes, the mortality rates will likely be in the 1-3% range in the general population, with worse outcomes in older people or those with comorbidities.

I would think the areas that test the most would have the most accurate numbers. That would be S. Korea and NY state. I thought both had estimated the death rate below 1%. Correct me if i'm wrong.

6 days ago
10/23/05
Posts: 3101
jpm995 - 
jbc -
VHStapefan -
saglv -

That isn't how you calculate the mortality rate IMO.

The problem with this measure of mortality:  (dead_amount / (infected_amount))  is that you're speculating that the infected won't die.  

With a situation like this, a disease that is aggressively expanding, I think that a better method of evaluating it might be to look at the death to recovery rate:  (dead_amount / (recovered_amount + dead_amount)).

But we don't know the recovery rate either. Thousands might have already had it and recovered without knowing

Most estimates place the rate of asymtomatic Covid-19 cases at between 20 and 30% (may vary with age). https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00822-x

Even with that factored in, if you look at confirmed cases with defined outcomes, the mortality rates will likely be in the 1-3% range in the general population, with worse outcomes in older people or those with comorbidities.

I would think the areas that test the most would have the most accurate numbers. That would be S. Korea and NY state. I thought both had estimated the death rate below 1%. Correct me if i'm wrong.


NY has a rate (deaths/cases) = 1.03%

6 days ago
10/25/05
Posts: 10380
camicom -

https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2020/mar/26/coronavirus-map-of-the-us-latest-cases-state-by-state

 

69133 cases

1045 deaths

 

Mortality rate will continue to decline to the point it will soon be under the .01% influenza death rate.

 

Not for you, you would die you fucking idiot. 

6 days ago
2/28/13
Posts: 2637
emu67 -
YaoMingia -


this is just the beginning

Dude’s never been to LA General on a busy night - or to Chicago’s hospitals on a muggy, hot day. Lots of people die from various causes on a daily basis.

They also die from from various cases at this hospital but we’re talking about covid-19 here you fucking idiot 

6 days ago
11/1/03
Posts: 21516
mataleo1 -
jpm995 - 
jbc -
VHStapefan -
saglv -

That isn't how you calculate the mortality rate IMO.

The problem with this measure of mortality:  (dead_amount / (infected_amount))  is that you're speculating that the infected won't die.  

With a situation like this, a disease that is aggressively expanding, I think that a better method of evaluating it might be to look at the death to recovery rate:  (dead_amount / (recovered_amount + dead_amount)).

But we don't know the recovery rate either. Thousands might have already had it and recovered without knowing

Most estimates place the rate of asymtomatic Covid-19 cases at between 20 and 30% (may vary with age). https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00822-x

Even with that factored in, if you look at confirmed cases with defined outcomes, the mortality rates will likely be in the 1-3% range in the general population, with worse outcomes in older people or those with comorbidities.

I would think the areas that test the most would have the most accurate numbers. That would be S. Korea and NY state. I thought both had estimated the death rate below 1%. Correct me if i'm wrong.


NY has a rate (deaths/cases) = 1.03%

Thank you any update on S Korea?

6 days ago
10/23/05
Posts: 3102
jpm995 - 
mataleo1 -
jpm995 - 
jbc -
VHStapefan -
saglv -

That isn't how you calculate the mortality rate IMO.

The problem with this measure of mortality:  (dead_amount / (infected_amount))  is that you're speculating that the infected won't die.  

With a situation like this, a disease that is aggressively expanding, I think that a better method of evaluating it might be to look at the death to recovery rate:  (dead_amount / (recovered_amount + dead_amount)).

But we don't know the recovery rate either. Thousands might have already had it and recovered without knowing

Most estimates place the rate of asymtomatic Covid-19 cases at between 20 and 30% (may vary with age). https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00822-x

Even with that factored in, if you look at confirmed cases with defined outcomes, the mortality rates will likely be in the 1-3% range in the general population, with worse outcomes in older people or those with comorbidities.

I would think the areas that test the most would have the most accurate numbers. That would be S. Korea and NY state. I thought both had estimated the death rate below 1%. Correct me if i'm wrong.


NY has a rate (deaths/cases) = 1.03%

Thank you any update on S Korea?


South Korea:
1.4% if you do deaths/total cases
3.1% if you do deaths/(recovered + death)

And that's from a place where they've been pretty good at testing (not only sick patients like Italy)

6 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 48880
camicom - 

Sorry my bad on the calculation. Calculators arent what they used to be..

Rate is actually around 1.5%

MODS HALP!

 

 


BWAAHAHAHAHAH!!! Legit lol.

6 days ago
11/21/14
Posts: 598

OP is a faggot and I hope he makes it into that 0.15% 

6 days ago
12/28/12
Posts: 7480
YaoMingia -

You should just stop posting you fucking moron 

if only... unfortunately he is even more active during the quarantine. an endless stream of his mental diarrhea

6 days ago
11/1/03
Posts: 21520
mataleo1 -
jpm995 - 
mataleo1 -
jpm995 - 
jbc -
VHStapefan -
saglv -

That isn't how you calculate the mortality rate IMO.

The problem with this measure of mortality:  (dead_amount / (infected_amount))  is that you're speculating that the infected won't die.  

With a situation like this, a disease that is aggressively expanding, I think that a better method of evaluating it might be to look at the death to recovery rate:  (dead_amount / (recovered_amount + dead_amount)).

But we don't know the recovery rate either. Thousands might have already had it and recovered without knowing

Most estimates place the rate of asymtomatic Covid-19 cases at between 20 and 30% (may vary with age). https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00822-x

Even with that factored in, if you look at confirmed cases with defined outcomes, the mortality rates will likely be in the 1-3% range in the general population, with worse outcomes in older people or those with comorbidities.

I would think the areas that test the most would have the most accurate numbers. That would be S. Korea and NY state. I thought both had estimated the death rate below 1%. Correct me if i'm wrong.


NY has a rate (deaths/cases) = 1.03%

Thank you any update on S Korea?


South Korea:
1.4% if you do deaths/total cases
3.1% if you do deaths/(recovered + death)

And that's from a place where they've been pretty good at testing (not only sick patients like Italy)

So would you say 1-1.5% is PROBABLY pretty accurate? This can be a misleading as people think a low deth rate is good [it is but if everyone has it the death tolls go way up].

6 days ago
1/20/11
Posts: 4147

Everyone just stop responding to this idiots threads

6 days ago
10/23/05
Posts: 3103

Indeed, cami made a fool of himself here. But he did recognize his error, he apologized and he's being a good sport about it. Fair game to laugh at his antics.

I'm more amazed at the guys trying to defend his math error. That's some spectacular cognitive dissonance right there.