3 ms·

21% of people who have been confirmed to have the virus and don't anymore are dead. If the semantic argument hinges on the use of the CFR term, we don't need th

21% of people who have been confirmed to have the virus and don't anymore are dead. If the semantic argument hinges on the use of the CFR term, we don't need that term (though everything I've seen indicates CFR measures resolved cases, not total). People are using your small number to justify their belief that the virus is no worse than the flu. That does not reflect reality, and that belief is harmful.

rootusrootus 6y ago
I don't see anyone here arguing that. An IFR of 0.35, let's say, would be great news at the same time as it would be significantly worse than the flu. Using bad numbers to come up with a 21% CFR is not responsible, and is arguably fearmongering.
- imustbeevil 6y ago
  Bad numbers? Those are the numbers. How are you getting an IFR of 0.35? Where is the source for that? Does that source represent a projection or data coming from the results of tests being conducted? My source for the CFR represents the totality of real information the world has presented us to date. "A CFR can only be considered final when all the cases have been resolved (either died or recovered). The preliminary CFR, for example, during the course of an outbreak with a high daily increase and long resolution time would be substantially lower than the final CFR." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_fatality_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_fatality_rate
  - rootusrootus 6y ago
    The epidemiologists are the ones projecting IFR at ~0.35. It's not responsible to use a crudely calculated CFR when you have ample evidence that the case rate is vastly underestimating the infection rate. It's also terrible to try and use 'recovered' numbers when a lot of localities do not track and report recovered cases.
shadowprofile77 6y ago
Nobody here is arguing that it's no worse than the flu, least of all me. We still don't know the IFR of this virus and i'd be delighted if it was only half an order of magnitude worse than that of the flu but i'm certainly not claiming it is, and my "small number" of 6% is still huge, and in no way whatsoever an attempt to compare this to the flu. How could I with a massive 6% mortality rate? that would be than two orders of magnitude worse than the flu. No, what im very clearly and simply stating is the factual inaccuracy of claiming that the 21% from the worldmeters site is the CFR of Covid-19. As is made very obvious right on the site itself, this is not the case. Its CFR as a result of total cases to-date and total deaths to-date is sitting at around 6%. This is not semantics, interpreting clearly stated numbers and definitions of basic terms badly to get a mortality rate that's almost four times larger than the case is simply wrong, and much more harmful than stating lower but more accurate numbers. I have no idea where you got your definition of CFR from or how you interpreted it like that, but CFR does not measure deaths as a percentage of resolved cases, it measures deaths as a percentage of all cases so far during a given period of time (in this case since the pandemic started). This is how it has been widely understood in discussions of CFR per country among all affected countries and you can find these figures on many different serious websites, with the percentages of fatalities clearly stated as CFR numbers that are based off all cases so far in any given country (Italy or Spain, for example). If this is mistaken, someone please do correct me and show me where it's claimed otherwise. If im wrong then, for example, nobody would be talking about Italy's CFR of 10%, they'd be discussing a different and considerably higher percentage derived only from resolved cases in that country vs its total deaths to-date.

rootusrootus 6y ago

I don't see anyone here arguing that. An IFR of 0.35, let's say, would be great news at the same time as it would be significantly worse than the flu. Using bad numbers to come up with a 21% CFR is not responsible, and is arguably fearmongering.

imustbeevil 6y ago
Bad numbers? Those are the numbers. How are you getting an IFR of 0.35? Where is the source for that? Does that source represent a projection or data coming from the results of tests being conducted? My source for the CFR represents the totality of real information the world has presented us to date. "A CFR can only be considered final when all the cases have been resolved (either died or recovered). The preliminary CFR, for example, during the course of an outbreak with a high daily increase and long resolution time would be substantially lower than the final CFR." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_fatality_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_fatality_rate
- rootusrootus 6y ago
  The epidemiologists are the ones projecting IFR at ~0.35. It's not responsible to use a crudely calculated CFR when you have ample evidence that the case rate is vastly underestimating the infection rate. It's also terrible to try and use 'recovered' numbers when a lot of localities do not track and report recovered cases.

shadowprofile77 6y ago

Nobody here is arguing that it's no worse than the flu, least of all me. We still don't know the IFR of this virus and i'd be delighted if it was only half an order of magnitude worse than that of the flu but i'm certainly not claiming it is, and my "small number" of 6% is still huge, and in no way whatsoever an attempt to compare this to the flu. How could I with a massive 6% mortality rate? that would be than two orders of magnitude worse than the flu. No, what im very clearly and simply stating is the factual inaccuracy of claiming that the 21% from the worldmeters site is the CFR of Covid-19. As is made very obvious right on the site itself, this is not the case. Its CFR as a result of total cases to-date and total deaths to-date is sitting at around 6%. This is not semantics, interpreting clearly stated numbers and definitions of basic terms badly to get a mortality rate that's almost four times larger than the case is simply wrong, and much more harmful than stating lower but more accurate numbers. I have no idea where you got your definition of CFR from or how you interpreted it like that, but CFR does not measure deaths as a percentage of resolved cases, it measures deaths as a percentage of all cases so far during a given period of time (in this case since the pandemic started). This is how it has been widely understood in discussions of CFR per country among all affected countries and you can find these figures on many different serious websites, with the percentages of fatalities clearly stated as CFR numbers that are based off all cases so far in any given country (Italy or Spain, for example). If this is mistaken, someone please do correct me and show me where it's claimed otherwise. If im wrong then, for example, nobody would be talking about Italy's CFR of 10%, they'd be discussing a different and considerably higher percentage derived only from resolved cases in that country vs its total deaths to-date.