Select to expand quoteParadox said..FormulaNova said..
Infection rate (50%) times death rate (3%) equals your chance of dying from the Covid19 flu (1.5%).
You have good points, but your data is flawed. High death rates are coming from countries with very low levels of testing. ie they are mainly only testing people who present at hospitals and there are large numbers with mild or no symptoms in the population.
If you look at Australia's morbity rate it is currently sitting at 0.5%, and most of those were elderly people who had pre exisitng conditions, and the majority were on cruise ships and contracted it before isolation measures were implemented. I expect it to fall further as the elderly isolate themselves.
Currently the death rate in reported cases for those under 50y of age is 0.3%. And thats on the skewed total case numbers so is probably half that again.
So if you take steps to isolate and remove the elderly population, then the morbidity rate of COVID-19 may well be similar to influenza.
Australia's death toll from flu last season was expected to hit 4000, even with vaccinations.
but the results we are seeing at the moment are when we are actively trying to track cases, and can we make assumptions about that? what if we assume that we are tracking and tracing at least half of the infected? does that then make the death rates as 1.5%? Does this then relate back to Covid19 being 15 times as deadly as the regular influenza strains?
I agree about removing the elderly from harms way though, and I would applaud steps to do that.
The morbidity rate cannot be the same as influenza, otherwise you would never have seen it rise from outbreak that it did. People were not immune there, so it spread rapidly, and they are not immune here, so it will do the same.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
but the results we are seeing at the moment are when we are actively trying to track cases, and can we make assumptions about that? what if we assume that we are tracking and tracing at least half of the infected? does that then make the death rates as 1.5%? Does this then relate back to Covid19 being 15 times as deadly as the regular influenza strains?
I agree about removing the elderly from harms way though, and I would applaud steps to do that.
The morbidity rate cannot be the same as influenza, otherwise you would never have seen it rise from outbreak that it did. People were not immune there, so it spread rapidly, and they are not immune here, so it will do the same.
If we (Australia) is actively tracking the cases well then our morbity rates are close to actual real numbers (0.5% across the board). If you want to assume we are only tracking and tracing half, then that makes the death rate half what the figures show rather than more. Sick people get tested, people with minor or no symptoms dont. It also means that COVID-19, in the population under 50, is on par with normal influenza wrt "death rates". ie around 0.1% or less of cases result in death. If these drugs being trialled turn out to be effective then that rate will come down even further.
It is of course much higher in the 70+ demographic. But this is my point. Unlike the influenza, COVID-19 is hitting the 70+ demographic hard (5%+ morbidity rate). But if you remove/isolate that demographic and look at those up to 50 or so, it is a very mild virus. On par with or less dangerous than influenza, especially for young people and kids.
I would agree that it spreads quickly, but as you point out that may be because few have immunity.
This virus attacks 70+ age group, especially those with underlying conditions. We should be using that data for our strategy:
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..holy guacamole said..FormulaNova said..japie said..FormulaNova said..japie said..
No watch the lot!
As I suspected, conned!
Hook line and sinker!
Mission achieved! Well done chaps!
You were conned? No problem. Its okay to fall for a lot of these conspiracies as they do appeal with a certain something. Like a good mystery novel.
You would think that if its 'just the flu' that there wouldn't be a huge outbreak of this in the first place. Why is that? Well, the first minutes of that video even explain that 'no one has immunity' whereas lots of people have immunity to the seasonal flu. That alone means it can spread far easily than the flu.
Hmmm....
This whole thing is based on figures provide by the WHO.
The media have used selected figures and misinterpreted the situation.
Ben Swan makes that argument very clearly.
, its good that someone has alternate articles, but its also good to understand what they mean.
I will admit upfront that I watched a very small amount of it because I am biased and think sometimes these videos try and make things very theatric and it bores me.
What I think he is saying is:
The normal influenza has a higher death rate of those confirmed infected. Let's assume 5% just for interests sake as its higher than 3%
The Covid19 influenza has a lower death rate because its only expressed as a percentage of deaths amongst those confirmed to be infected, and we can use 3% for that.
One point the host makes is that a majority of people have some immunity from the common flu strains because they have had them before or in some cases they have had the flu vaccine. Therefore your chance of catching the flu while surrounded by people like that is greatly reduced because of the herd effect. If there is effectively a barrier around you of previous infected people, you are going to be safe from catching it.
So, if we use the popular 0.1% mortality rate of the common flu and the assumption that it has a 5% death rate (if infected), we can get the infection rate or what the chances are you are going to be infected. This comes out at 2% or 0.02 .
Infection rate (2%) times death rate (5%) equals your chances of dying from the flu (0.1%)
Then we look at Covid19:
How many people do you know that have had Covid19 and are immune? A conservative figure would be 0.00% No one has had it right, so its not as if anyone will be immune.
Therfore, the infection rate can be 100%.
Infection rate (100%) times death rate (3%) equals your chance of dying from the Covid19 flu (3%).
Which we have just evaluated above for the regular flu as 0.1%, so you as a human are 30 times more likely to die from Covid19 than the regular flu.
This should make you happier if you are very young and not highly represented in the death stats. If you are above 50, then maybe you want to consider it a little more carefully?
If you want to be more critical and assume that some people are naturally immune to Covid19, which has not been suggested at all, then we can even assume that the infection rate is 50%.
Infection rate (50%) times death rate (3%) equals your chance of dying from the Covid19 flu (1.5%).
Its still fifteen times the regular flu.
Going off further on a tangent, what about the poor doctors and nurses that have to fight this virus and face a potential 100% chance of getting it? Would you want to do a job if 3 out of a hundred of you were going to die, and a significant percentage were still going to suffer a painful flu or lung damage? To say they are heroes is an understatement.
FN, FN....a little advice.....breath.....breathe.....a million lengthy rambling boring posts in a day.
You should have your own topic called "Someone Put FN On A Ventilator!"
Take this as friendly advice, pro-bono you might say.
Your editing posts a lot seems to remind me of someone... hmmm.... now who was it..... there was someone that had some decent logic and would often tie himself up in knots getting wound up about things... who was it?
It's you, isn't it Ptrain! You've come back.
Breathe, breathe.......breath breath....it's OK....no one cares....rant about it in Heavy Weather with the other small minds.
Cheers, HG
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..FormulaNova said..holy guacamole said..FormulaNova said..japie said..FormulaNova said..japie said..
No watch the lot!
As I suspected, conned!
Hook line and sinker!
Mission achieved! Well done chaps!
You were conned? No problem. Its okay to fall for a lot of these conspiracies as they do appeal with a certain something. Like a good mystery novel.
You would think that if its 'just the flu' that there wouldn't be a huge outbreak of this in the first place. Why is that? Well, the first minutes of that video even explain that 'no one has immunity' whereas lots of people have immunity to the seasonal flu. That alone means it can spread far easily than the flu.
Hmmm....
This whole thing is based on figures provide by the WHO.
The media have used selected figures and misinterpreted the situation.
Ben Swan makes that argument very clearly.
, its good that someone has alternate articles, but its also good to understand what they mean.
I will admit upfront that I watched a very small amount of it because I am biased and think sometimes these videos try and make things very theatric and it bores me.
What I think he is saying is:
The normal influenza has a higher death rate of those confirmed infected. Let's assume 5% just for interests sake as its higher than 3%
The Covid19 influenza has a lower death rate because its only expressed as a percentage of deaths amongst those confirmed to be infected, and we can use 3% for that.
One point the host makes is that a majority of people have some immunity from the common flu strains because they have had them before or in some cases they have had the flu vaccine. Therefore your chance of catching the flu while surrounded by people like that is greatly reduced because of the herd effect. If there is effectively a barrier around you of previous infected people, you are going to be safe from catching it.
So, if we use the popular 0.1% mortality rate of the common flu and the assumption that it has a 5% death rate (if infected), we can get the infection rate or what the chances are you are going to be infected. This comes out at 2% or 0.02 .
Infection rate (2%) times death rate (5%) equals your chances of dying from the flu (0.1%)
Then we look at Covid19:
How many people do you know that have had Covid19 and are immune? A conservative figure would be 0.00% No one has had it right, so its not as if anyone will be immune.
Therfore, the infection rate can be 100%.
Infection rate (100%) times death rate (3%) equals your chance of dying from the Covid19 flu (3%).
Which we have just evaluated above for the regular flu as 0.1%, so you as a human are 30 times more likely to die from Covid19 than the regular flu.
This should make you happier if you are very young and not highly represented in the death stats. If you are above 50, then maybe you want to consider it a little more carefully?
If you want to be more critical and assume that some people are naturally immune to Covid19, which has not been suggested at all, then we can even assume that the infection rate is 50%.
Infection rate (50%) times death rate (3%) equals your chance of dying from the Covid19 flu (1.5%).
Its still fifteen times the regular flu.
Going off further on a tangent, what about the poor doctors and nurses that have to fight this virus and face a potential 100% chance of getting it? Would you want to do a job if 3 out of a hundred of you were going to die, and a significant percentage were still going to suffer a painful flu or lung damage? To say they are heroes is an understatement.
FN, FN....a little advice.....breath.....breathe.....a million lengthy rambling boring posts in a day.
You should have your own topic called "Someone Put FN On A Ventilator!"
Take this as friendly advice, pro-bono you might say.
Your editing posts a lot seems to remind me of someone... hmmm.... now who was it..... there was someone that had some decent logic and would often tie himself up in knots getting wound up about things... who was it?
It's you, isn't it Ptrain! You've come back.
Breathe, breathe.......breath breath....it's OK....no one cares....rant about it in Heavy Weather with the other small minds.
Cheers, HG
Hey, HG, its almost like you know what HW is all of a sudden... but you only just signed up late last year, and new members can't see heavy weather at all... Curious! Maybe someone mentioned it to you?
Did you see my new thread 'Someone put FN on a ventilator'?
Select to expand quoteParadox said..FormulaNova said..
but the results we are seeing at the moment are when we are actively trying to track cases, and can we make assumptions about that? what if we assume that we are tracking and tracing at least half of the infected? does that then make the death rates as 1.5%? Does this then relate back to Covid19 being 15 times as deadly as the regular influenza strains?
I agree about removing the elderly from harms way though, and I would applaud steps to do that.
The morbidity rate cannot be the same as influenza, otherwise you would never have seen it rise from outbreak that it did. People were not immune there, so it spread rapidly, and they are not immune here, so it will do the same.
If we (Australia) is actively tracking the cases well then our morbity rates are close to actual real numbers (0.5% across the board). If you want to assume we are only tracking and tracing half, then that makes the death rate half what the figures show rather than more. Sick people get tested, people with minor or no symptoms dont. It also means that COVID-19, in the population under 50, is on par with normal influenza wrt "death rates". ie around 0.1% or less of cases result in death. If these drugs being trialled turn out to be effective then that rate will come down even further.
It is of course much higher in the 70+ demographic. But this is my point. Unlike the influenza, COVID-19 is hitting the 70+ demographic hard (5%+ morbidity rate). But if you remove/isolate that demographic and look at those up to 50 or so, it is a very mild virus. On par with or less dangerous than influenza, especially for young people and kids.
I would agree that it spreads quickly, but as you point out that may be because few have immunity.
This virus attacks 70+ age group, especially those with underlying conditions. We should be using that data for our strategy:
I agree with you, if its mainly such a high risk to those over 70, but that's a huge number of people, and is it practical to isolate those people from the population? Short term maybe, but not in the long term.
If what you are saying is correct, we could round them all up, put them on an island somewhere for a few months, and then return them to the community when Covid19 has passed through everyone that has remained...
..but there are people that are saying that young people are affected. Young people have died. Granted that the stats are not as high, but would you be okay with that risk if it was your child? What if you yourself were 45 and decided that you should be okay, but then ended up with life-long lung problems because of it?
Then we have to consider the high risk people. Should a cancer patient be effectively killed off if they are just 30, just because someone deems their risk factor statistically insignificant? If I were 71, I would be pretty pissed off if someone decided my life was not worth anything. I have friends in that age range and they are quite eager to keep living. My own parents seem to want to keep living for as long as they can.
I also tend to agree with you that the real rates here for morbidity could be lower than the figures reported elsewhere. Are we finding more infected people because of better tracking? We can only tell the real morbidity rates if we are getting everyone. They may be lower if we are not finding everyone. If our tracking is so good, where are the increases in infection coming from?
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
I agree with you, if its mainly such a high risk to those over 70, but that's a huge number of people, and is it practical to isolate those people from the population? Short term maybe, but not in the long term.
If what you are saying is correct, we could round them all up, put them on an island somewhere for a few months, and then return them to the community when Covid19 has passed through everyone that has remained...
..but there are people that are saying that young people are affected. Young people have died. Granted that the stats are not as high, but would you be okay with that risk if it was your child? What if you yourself were 45 and decided that you should be okay, but then ended up with life-long lung problems because of it?
Then we have to consider the high risk people. Should a cancer patient be effectively killed off if they are just 30, just because someone deems their risk factor statistically insignificant? If I were 71, I would be pretty pissed off if someone decided my life was not worth anything. I have friends in that age range and they are quite eager to keep living. My own parents seem to want to keep living for as long as they can.
I also tend to agree with you that the real rates here for morbidity could be lower than the figures reported elsewhere. Are we finding more infected people because of better tracking? We can only tell the real morbidity rates if we are getting everyone. They may be lower if we are not finding everyone. If our tracking is so good, where are the increases in infection coming from?
You misunderstand me. I am not saying this virus is not serious, I am only saying that it really is only serious (as a virus compared to others floating around) to those over 70, and mostly those with underlying conditions. The stats back that up. I am also not stating that those at risk should not be protected, I also have a significant amount of close loved ones in that age bracket. I am telling all of them to bunker down and ride it out for as long as it takes.
OK yes young people have died (none under 10, very few under 20). Its a virus and outliers happen. It's the relative risk that needs to be looked at. You ask me if the risk would be OK if it was my child. I have a 13yo son who has a neuromuscular disease that gives him severly limited lung function, he is permanantly in a power wheelchair. When he goes it will be from pneumonia (unless some horrible XBox related death pops up).
I had a long chat with the head of his speciality at QLD biggest childrens hospital on Thursday (routine) and her view was that as far as my son is concerned (and any other kid by default) she is more worried about the normal influenza than COVID-19 and the drain on hospitial resources from older people. She spent more time reassuring me that the childrens hospital was safeguarding ventilators for kids like him getting the normal flu than COVID-19. Dont underestimate the message that sends on the risk to kids from COVID-19, it is very low, way lower than normal influenza.
Regarding tracking, yes we are streets ahead of most countries, www.statista.com/statistics/1104645/covid19-testing-rate-select-countries-worldwide/ but im still not sure we are getting all of them becuase so many people are having few or no symptoms. Many who were tested becuase of recent contact with another confirmed case are reporting symptoms they took a panadol for and felt OK. They would not have been tested if it wasn't for the contact with a confirmed case. This is why we can't get rid of this virus. You can slow it, but because so many have practically no symptoms, tracking it is almost impossible.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
I agree with you, if its mainly such a high risk to those over 70, but that's a huge number of people, and is it practical to isolate those people from the population? Short term maybe, but not in the long term.
If what you are saying is correct, we could round them all up, put them on an island somewhere for a few months, and then return them to the community when Covid19 has passed through everyone that has remained...
..but there are people that are saying that young people are affected. Young people have died. Granted that the stats are not as high, but would you be okay with that risk if it was your child? What if you yourself were 45 and decided that you should be okay, but then ended up with life-long lung problems because of it?
Then we have to consider the high risk people. Should a cancer patient be effectively killed off if they are just 30, just because someone deems their risk factor statistically insignificant? If I were 71, I would be pretty pissed off if someone decided my life was not worth anything. I have friends in that age range and they are quite eager to keep living. My own parents seem to want to keep living for as long as they can.
I also tend to agree with you that the real rates here for morbidity could be lower than the figures reported elsewhere. Are we finding more infected people because of better tracking? We can only tell the real morbidity rates if we are getting everyone. They may be lower if we are not finding everyone. If our tracking is so good, where are the increases in infection coming from?
I will also make a comment on the cost of life. Many poiticians make comments about "even one life is worth the cost" and I get that. As far as my family or friends go I agree...ill give whatever I have. If I cross someone on the street in trouble I will do everything to help.
But as a country, politicians and public servant make that call all the time. There is a cost on a human life. It's made daily. Roads are designed to reduce fatilities. But no road is perfect, it;s too expensive. So we have 2 lane, bendy highways still, knowing it's less safe than seperated striaght carriageways. We have coal power plants because it cheaper than nuclear, even though coal kills more people (cue HG). We accept 50% vaccination rates for the influenza each year even though we know its going to kill 3-4 thousand of us each year....
life is number to governments. And that number generally balances out with the money available to stop other things killing us. Think about that and the cost of what the response to this virus is globally. We need to act smart here.
