3 ms·

ok the current cdc best estimate of ifr 0.65%. Which is low. yes the number are changing but it quickly converging as times goes. Lockdown is not free, its not

by matz1 6y ago

ok the current cdc best estimate of ifr 0.65%. Which is low. yes the number are changing but it quickly converging as times goes. Lockdown is not free, its not without harm.

DanBC 6y ago
> the current cdc best estimate of ifr 0.65% Do you have a CDC page giving that number please?
- matz1 6y ago
  https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scena...
  - DanBC 6y ago
    You probably need to include information about how uncertain that number is. > New data on COVID-19 are available daily, yet information about the biological and epidemiological characteristics of COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 remain limited, and uncertainty remains around nearly all parameter values. [...] > Many uncertainties remain. [...] Observed parameter values may also change over time (e.g., the percentage of transmission occurring prior to symptom onset will be influenced by how quickly and effectively both symptomatic people and the contacts of known cases are quarantined). > The parameters in the scenarios: > Are estimates intended to support public health preparedness and planning. > Are NOT predictions of the expected effects of COVID-19. > Do not reflect the impact of any behavioral changes, social distancing, or other interventions.
SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
But the stats are converging upwards, and it's dishonest to throw an unrelated number out there like it's a useful fact. In May they suggested a 0.4% IFR [1] so conditions and fatality estimates have gotten worse. That's an extra million citizens dead if everyone gets it. > Lockdown is not free, its not without harm. Do you believe this gives you lee-way to diminish and share bad facts to bolster your claim? [1] https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/22/health/cdc-coronavirus-estimates-symptoms-deaths/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/22/health/cdc-coronavirus-estima... <- can't find the original source due to the link being updated on the CDC site.
- matz1 6y ago
  so in may it was 0.4 and now its 0.65 is worse but still very low. the number is of course evolving but unlikely to widely different than that. >Do you believe this gives you lee-way to diminish and share bad facts to bolster your claim? What bad facts ?
  - SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
    > so in may it was 0.4 and now its 0.65 is worse but still very low. the number is of course evolving but unlikely to widely different than that. As I said before, that's a difference in a million potential deaths in the United States. > What bad facts ? You presented the death rate of the whole of the united states as being somehow indicative of the situation, when you were aware that that's an order of magnitude decrease from the projections for the United States. In addition you presented that 0.04% as somehow in agreement with the estimates " Inline with what has been estimated by most research publication."
    - matz1 6y ago
      >As I said before, that's a difference in a million potential deaths in the United States. So? In the larger scale is not a big number and doesn't justify the lockdown https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30208-X/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5... "full lockdowns and widespread testing were not associated with reduced COVID-19 mortality" >. In addition you presented that 0.04% as somehow in agreement with the estimates Yes the estimates 0.65, the number right now is 0.04, its a lot better, its good news.
      - SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
        You're celebrating a number that means nothing. It's saying "we only had 50 casualties!" the first day of world war 2 and assuming that's a victory and indicative of how the rest will go.
        6y ago

by matz1 6y ago

ok the current cdc best estimate of ifr 0.65%. Which is low. yes the number are changing but it quickly converging as times goes. Lockdown is not free, its not without harm.

DanBC 6y ago

> the current cdc best estimate of ifr 0.65% Do you have a CDC page giving that number please?

matz1 6y ago
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scena...
- DanBC 6y ago
  You probably need to include information about how uncertain that number is. > New data on COVID-19 are available daily, yet information about the biological and epidemiological characteristics of COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 remain limited, and uncertainty remains around nearly all parameter values. [...] > Many uncertainties remain. [...] Observed parameter values may also change over time (e.g., the percentage of transmission occurring prior to symptom onset will be influenced by how quickly and effectively both symptomatic people and the contacts of known cases are quarantined). > The parameters in the scenarios: > Are estimates intended to support public health preparedness and planning. > Are NOT predictions of the expected effects of COVID-19. > Do not reflect the impact of any behavioral changes, social distancing, or other interventions.

SketchySeaBeast 6y ago

But the stats are converging upwards, and it's dishonest to throw an unrelated number out there like it's a useful fact. In May they suggested a 0.4% IFR [1] so conditions and fatality estimates have gotten worse. That's an extra million citizens dead if everyone gets it. > Lockdown is not free, its not without harm. Do you believe this gives you lee-way to diminish and share bad facts to bolster your claim? [1] https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/22/health/cdc-coronavirus-estimates-symptoms-deaths/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/22/health/cdc-coronavirus-estima... <- can't find the original source due to the link being updated on the CDC site.

matz1 6y ago
so in may it was 0.4 and now its 0.65 is worse but still very low. the number is of course evolving but unlikely to widely different than that. >Do you believe this gives you lee-way to diminish and share bad facts to bolster your claim? What bad facts ?
- SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
  > so in may it was 0.4 and now its 0.65 is worse but still very low. the number is of course evolving but unlikely to widely different than that. As I said before, that's a difference in a million potential deaths in the United States. > What bad facts ? You presented the death rate of the whole of the united states as being somehow indicative of the situation, when you were aware that that's an order of magnitude decrease from the projections for the United States. In addition you presented that 0.04% as somehow in agreement with the estimates " Inline with what has been estimated by most research publication."
  - matz1 6y ago
    >As I said before, that's a difference in a million potential deaths in the United States. So? In the larger scale is not a big number and doesn't justify the lockdown https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30208-X/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5... "full lockdowns and widespread testing were not associated with reduced COVID-19 mortality" >. In addition you presented that 0.04% as somehow in agreement with the estimates Yes the estimates 0.65, the number right now is 0.04, its a lot better, its good news.
    - SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
      You're celebrating a number that means nothing. It's saying "we only had 50 casualties!" the first day of world war 2 and assuming that's a victory and indicative of how the rest will go.
      - 6y ago