Covid 10/14/20 | COVID 19 Information Page

Covid19mathblog.com

Fatality rate and the fallacy of that math: As noted in the VERY beginning of this pandemic fatality rate is hard to understand in the midst of the pandemic as the denominator is ever changing (those confirmed). The population measure crude mortality is easier to grasp given the denominator is at least understood (population). We do know that covid-19 is virulent (easily spread) – with many asymptomatic which therefore likely would skew the denominator of the fatality rate. What we cannot deny is those that die. We can see and know the age distribution of deaths. As noted https://covid19mathblog.com/2020/10/covid-10-9-20/ the age distribution of covid-19 deaths are eerily similar to the common flu in the US – “covid 65+(79%) 50-64 (15.6%) https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#demographicsvs flu 65+(78%) 50-64 (16.6%) https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html – amazingly close I was really not expecting it to be this close!” So we have 95% of the death in the 50+ category. Just for those who are concern it represents the population profile this is not the case – 50+ in US = 34% – so this is not the reason.

Then you will get journals and discussion talking about fatality rate like they really understand the denominator to deduce the infection fatality rate (IFR). They use this calculation to let the world know that covid-19 is “worse” than the flu https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-5352

“Because many cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are asymptomatic, generalizable data on the true number of persons infected are lacking. Mortality rates therefore are calculated from confirmed cases, which overestimates the infection fatality ratio (IFR). To calculate a true IFR, population prevalence data are needed from large geographic areas where reliable death data also exist.”

“To account for all infections, we added the number of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 during the testing period and noninstitutionalized COVID-19 deaths into the denominator.”

“In comparison, the ratio is approximately 2.5 times greater than the estimated IFR for seasonal influenza, 0.8% (1 in 125), among those aged 65 years and older (5).”

Even the above study noted the asymptomatic issue but seems to ignore it in their math. 2.5X IFR for seasonal influenza for those 65+ IF true IF IFR is supposed to measure lethality of disease – why would the disease be such age discriminatory? Why would there not be a flattening in the distribution of deaths by age? How can it be the exact same as the regular flu but one can still conclude its 2.5X IFR more than flu? I don’t understand the math – but maybe because I am no expert.

This article tries to extrapolate the CDC analysis of antibodies – for which we already discuss many can nullify covid using standard t-cell response – https://reason.com/2020/09/29/the-latest-cdc-estimates-of-covid-19s-infection-fatality-rate-vary-dramatically-with-age/?amp

“overall COVID-19 infection fatality rate (IFR)—the share of Americans infected by the virus who will die as a result—is about 0.65 percent.”

“According to those "best estimates," which were published this month as an update to the CDC’s COVID-19 Planning Scenarios, the IFR is 0.02 percent for 20-to-49-year-olds and 0.5 percent for 50-to-69-year-olds. The CDC did not include an IFR estimate for people 80 or older. But judging from crude case fatality rates (deaths divided by confirmed cases), the IFR for people in that age group would be substantially higher than 5.4 percent.

The CDC’s latest death counts indicate that the crude case fatality rate is around 28 percent for patients 85 or older and 18 percent for 75-to-84-year-olds. That rate falls to about 8 percent for 65-to-74-year-olds, 2 percent for 50-to-64-year-olds, 0.6 percent for patients in their 40s, 0.2 percent for patients in their 30s, 0.06 percent for patients in their late teens and early 20s, 0.02 percent for 5-to-17-year-olds, and 0.04 percent for children 4 and younger.

The CDC’s overall IFR estimate implies that COVID-19, while not nearly as lethal as many people initially feared, is about six times as deadly as the seasonal flu.”

This analysis shows 6X – once again IFR is supposed to measure if infected whats the odd of dying – question what is infected? IF a PCR test shows positive is that infected? PCR test can show people have covid but not be infectious as noted before. How many asymptomatic carriers are “infected” – being a carrier default = infected? Lets assume they all fall under infected once again WHY would the age distribution at least be more distributed IF fatality is 6X. Why will no one talk about how the death distribution of covid and flu are very eerily the same? I am not reducing the seriousness as clearly 215K death and rising vs highest seasonal flu death (2017-2018 46-95K) is a real concern. But IF you assume the IFR is the same or near seasonal flu then the root cause of more death is the virulent nature – therefore to attack the problem to get back to the level of seasonal flu is not necessarily just a drug or vaccine – but mechanical solutions to reduce viral load to stop the spread. Also in terms of fatality concern it is the elderly just like the flu – no need to lockdown the rest of society. More focused needed on nursing homes as they contain the largess of deaths – even noted in the first study “nursing home residents were not tested, they represented 54.9% of Indiana’s deaths.” THE ENTIRE STATE 55%! This is almost criminal mismanagement – same story in the East coast states – even Sweden where they are investigating criminal charges.

A history lesson of mass vaccine was also done during a previous election year – https://www.history.com/.amp/news/swine-flu-rush-vaccine-election-year-1976

“When the US Government Tried to Fast-Track a Flu Vaccine

More than a quarter of the nation was inoculated in 1976 for a pandemic that never materialized.”

“U.S. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare F. David Mathews projected 1 million Americans would die in the 1976 flu season unless action was taken. Citing the “strong possibility” of a swine flu pandemic, CDC Director David Sencer recommended an unprecedented plan: a mass vaccination of U.S. citizens.”

“Ford lost his re-election bid in the midst of the immunization program that, with the benefit of hindsight, turned out to be unnecessary when a repeat of 1918—or even 1957 or 1968—never materialized. “When lives are at stake, it is better to err on the side of overreaction than underreaction,” wrote Millar and Sencer, who lost his job months later. “In 1976, the federal government wisely opted to put protection of the public first.””

Financial and people’s health destruction in our health system due to covid – https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/healthcare-systems-and-services/our-insights/cutting-through-the-covid-19-surgical-backlog#

“The financial impact of this reduction in elective procedure volume, which typically drives a disproportionate share of revenue and margin for hospitals, caused an estimated $200 billion in financial losses for hospitals and health systems between March and June 2020, before accounting for relief funds”

“The findings revealed that US providers surveyed saw a roughly 35 percent decrease in surgical volumes from March 2020 to July 2020 compared to the year prior, and on average expect to remain below historical volumes for the remainder of 2020 (Exhibit 1).11 12 Based on respondents’ projections for the remainder of 2020, hospitals could end the year with operating room volumes at around 20 percent below the previous year, equivalent to around 2.5 months of historical volume.”

“The root cause of the elective procedure backlog is likely due to a temporal mismatch between supply and demand. This mismatch could result in excess hospital capacity (and worsening financial performance) as patients defer care, and excess demand in the future as patients return to facilities. As patients continue to report an increasing comfort in returning to in-person care, respondents report a variety of strategies (Exhibit 4) to address or prepare for a potential increase in demand.24”

US back on top but at least under 1K