Peter Hotez (Baylor Univ) was a guy I have been paying attention to since the beginning and he kept repeating that the disease is going to have far, far, far greater impact in the US than people believed because of the obesity problem. I don’t think that I’ve heard a lot of discussion about this.
1 Like
Going with my numbers, the 0.3% death rate, and my assumptions, it seems we are less than halfway there with the number of fatalities.
We’re at 200,000 deaths in the US. With a 0.3% fatality rate, that means the real infection rate is about 66.6 million. In six months. So 160 million for herd immunity. We won’t be far off in another three months. So maybe over a course of 15 months we’re at 480,000 deaths. Lots of assumptions again. But I don’t like how this math works out. Not at all.
2 Likes
No. That’s not what I’m arguing. Covid-19 is likely the cause. But if someone has terminal cancer, will die within a few weeks and contracts Covid-19, cancer isn’t going on the death certificate.
In that example Covid is the cause of death.
I think sticking to overall death figures is best. Heart failure is technically the cause of all deaths.
Even if they died of septicemia or something related to the cancer instead?
As I said, it’s best to look at overall mortality figures for just this reason. Pretty much any cause of death can used.
It’s similar to actual suicide figures being much higher than those reported. Because of the stigma, and sometimes for insurance reasons, coroners list other causes of death.
That would be a good thing as various viral infection including covid may be reduced. Yes there will be some folks who were at the edge who died a year earlier but, many would have had years left in them.
It’s fairly reasonable maths I think. But the error margin is very large there’s still a very big difference between twenty million or forty million infected.
1 Like
If you are still in quarantine or have time, watch the documentary The Weight of the Nation. Especially episode 4.
You were completely wrong on this prediction aswell.
Because well…It’s complete BS.
For instance 45k people died from covid in the UK this year already. 80k last year.
Also see numbers for Brazil and other countries .
This
0.3% was complete BS?
Where COVID-19 is concerned, it’s possible to be completely wrong even when you’re right.
The numbers to date are pretty clear: the vast majority of COVID-19 victims already had a high probability of death under normal circumstances, either because of their advanced age, or chronic disease, or both. It’s now fashionable to deny outright (among both policymakers and the general public) that this natural risk exists.
These are the UK numbers for 2020.
| Age | Deaths | % of Total |
|---|---|---|
| <1 | 2399 | 0.39% |
| 1-4 | 330 | 0.05% |
| 5-9 | 220 | 0.04% |
| 10-14 | 282 | 0.05% |
| 15-19 | 674 | 0.11% |
| 20-24 | 1194 | 0.19% |
| 25-29 | 1713 | 0.28% |
| 30-34 | 2581 | 0.42% |
| 35-39 | 3950 | 0.64% |
| 40-44 | 5511 | 0.90% |
| 45-49 | 9134 | 1.49% |
| 50-54 | 14551 | 2.37% |
| 55-59 | 21063 | 3.43% |
| 60-64 | 28317 | 4.61% |
| 65-69 | 38566 | 6.28% |
| 70-74 | 61454 | 10.01% |
| 75-79 | 77173 | 12.57% |
| 80-84 | 100342 | 16.34% |
| 85-89 | 111733 | 18.19% |
| 90+ | 132918 | 21.64% |
90% of deaths aged over 60.
63,000 deaths under 60. That’s a lot in absolute terms, obviously, but just 0.1% of the total population of the UK, and it’s almost exactly the same as the number of under-60s who died of heart disease in 2017. In fact the way those two things have tracked each other is quite remarkable:
| Age | CVD | COVID-19 |
|---|---|---|
| 0-35 | 11153 | 6162 |
| 35-44 | 10045 | 9461 |
| 45-54 | 24786 | 23685 |
| 55-64 | 48047 | 49380 |
| 65-74 | 101730 | 100020 |
| 75-84 | 171974 | 177515 |
| 85-90 | 239437 | 244651 |
1 Like
0.3% overall isn’t complete BS, though?
What’s new here ?
How many of those 60+ folks were going to die next week or next month ? You’ve repeated this assertion again and again.
If this is your point you need to put some bones on the argument.
But the problem of covid is not just it’s death rate but how quickly it can spread through a population overwhelming health systems (hello France and Brazil )…And the newer variants definitely made that worse.
You are looking at stats of a pandemic in a country that is actually being massively dampened down and managed . So I don’t really understand your argument ?
Does this have some bearing on your question, do you think?
“I don’t understand” is a pretty weak refutation, IMO.
Your argument seems to be
A) they were going to die that week or month anyway…But you’ve never put any data to.that…And I think a year in with deaths actually increasing in Spring in the UK and Brazil etc really puts a hole in that…
The above chart DOES NOT mean they are going to die next week or next month or next year .
B) You take stats of a country that actively managed the pandemic and you argue what exactly, that it shouldn’t have been managed or what ? You argue it should be Brazil ?
What ?
As per the title of the thread, I’m arguing that the numbers aren’t what they appear. The reported COVID-19 numbers overlap to a large (if debatable) extent with the number of natural deaths that would have occurred anyway. I think the chart of CVD deaths illustrates that pretty clearly.
Or do you think that correlation (0.99973) is a complete coincidence?
So you are trying to shoehorn random stats to your argument ?
You know that’s not science.
It’s a coincidence then; nothing there to explain.
OK. Carry on.