Join Early Retirement Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
COVID-19 fatality rate may be much lower than previous estimates
Old 04-18-2020, 07:31 AM   #1
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
RAE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: northern Michigan
Posts: 2,215
COVID-19 fatality rate may be much lower than previous estimates

Interesting short article in the Wall Street Journal yesterday that basically confirms what I have thought since the start of this. New data from northern California shows that a MUCH higher percentage of the population may have already been infected with the virus than anyone knew (like up to 85 times more people infected than reported, based on the little testing that was done). If confirmed, that means that the fatality rate is actually something like 0.1 - 0.2 percent, not the 1.0 - 3.0 percent that some epidemiologists estimated. A fatality rate of 0.1 - 0.2 percent would be similar to regular influenza.

This really should not be all that surprising, when you consider the extremely small percentage of the US (and world) population that has been tested for COVID-19 so far. In most areas, the test was not available (and is still not readily available) unless you were both very ill, and met a bunch of other criteria that most people did not meet. So, if you are only testing a subset of very sick people, you are probably vastly underestimating the true rate of infection, and thus your fatality rate estimate could be off by orders of magnitude.

Of course, COVID-19 is much more contagious than the flu, which has allowed it to spread rapidly around the globe. And when that happens, you can strain hospital capacity in many places, since so many people are sick at one time, some very sick.

At any rate, I thought this was interesting. And if it's true, it's actually good news, because it would mean that something like 99.8% of people that become infected with COVID-19 do not experience life-threatening complications.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-dat...le_email_share
RAE is offline  
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 04-18-2020, 07:52 AM   #2
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,639
Couldn't the fatality rate of the flu also be overestimated? I know a lot of people that think they had the flu, but didn't get tested. The last time I had the flu the doctor didn't even do a test - just said you probably have the flu.

I tend to agree with the thought that the fatality rate of Covid19 is much less than what they think it is now, but as you said it appears to be a LOT more contagious.
PatrickA5 is online now  
Old 04-18-2020, 07:54 AM   #3
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Midpack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NC
Posts: 21,303
I can’t read the article behind a paywall, but lots of stats are being mixed up. Most of the 0.1-0.2% fatality rates use total population as the denominator whereas the 1-3% fatality rates use total (confirmed infected) cases as the denominator. Both can be true. Add stats of cases versus deaths and it gets even harder to follow.

It does appear the US may have less than the 100,000 to 240,000 deaths the White House reported. But then I think bracing us for worst case and scaring us into staying home was part of their calculus, one of the leading experts has since projected 60,000 deaths.
__________________
No one agrees with other people's opinions; they merely agree with their own opinions -- expressed by somebody else. Sydney Tremayne
Retired Jun 2011 at age 57

Target AA: 50% equity funds / 45% bonds / 5% cash
Target WR: Approx 1.5% Approx 20% SI (secure income, SS only)
Midpack is offline  
Old 04-18-2020, 08:00 AM   #4
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
audreyh1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Rio Grande Valley
Posts: 38,145
Well sure, if we are only testing the sickest, the disease is far more widespread in the US than we can measure at the moment. But still based on what has been sampled so far in some areas a very small % of the population has been exposed, and I’m not sure it reduces the near term projections of deaths which are based on current conditions.

I really do think we need to test widely for various reasons, including having a decent measure of population wide exposure.
__________________
Retired since summer 1999.
audreyh1 is offline  
Old 04-18-2020, 08:00 AM   #5
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Rianne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Champaign
Posts: 4,726
It's important to consider the long term effects of CV19 and the way it attacks the body. From Medscape article. IMHO, the fatality rate is secondary to long term serious effects of this virus. I think I'd rather pass than live with what is discussed here.



"In particular, Yale New Haven (Conn.) Hospital is dealing with unexpected complications up close. Almost half of the beds there are occupied by COVID-19 patients. Over 100 people are in the ICU, and almost 70 intubated. Of the more than 750 COVID admissions so far, only about 350 have been discharged. "Even in a bad flu season, you never see something like this; it's just unheard of," said Harlan Krumholz, MD, a Yale cardiologist and professor of medicine helping lead the efforts there."


"When they get to the ICU, we are seeing lots of people with acute kidney injuries; lots of people developing endocrine problems; people having blood sugar control issues, coagulation issues, blood clots. We are just waking up to the wide range of ways this virus can affect people. Our ignorance is profound," Dr. Krumholz said, but physicians "recognize that this thing has the capability of attacking almost every single organ system, and it may or may not present with respiratory symptoms."
__________________
"Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail."

Ralph Waldo Emerson
Rianne is offline  
Old 04-18-2020, 08:02 AM   #6
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
RAE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: northern Michigan
Posts: 2,215
Here's a link to the abstract of the actual N. California study, for those who could not read the WSJ article. I think you can access the entire study in .pdf format also, for those that want all the specifics:


https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1...article_inline
RAE is offline  
Old 04-18-2020, 08:08 AM   #7
Moderator
Aerides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 13,920
I'll quote Nate Silver here:

"...it's usually going to be better to do a meta-analysis of all studies, including thinking about biases that could systematically affect all of them, than to spend a huge amount of energy picking apart any one study.

There are at least ~a dozen studies already that attempt to measure seroprevalence (how many people were infected) for COVID-19 in various parts of the world. Will likely be dozens more in a few weeks. I'm seeing analysis of e.g. the Santa Clara Co study that take it in a vacuum.

Taken as a whole, those studies seem to suggest it's possible—but hardly certain—that the ratio of total infections to detected cases is higher than the ~10x ratio commonly cited. But the thing is there's not just going to be one universal ratio; it will vary from place to place."
Aerides is offline  
Old 04-18-2020, 09:53 AM   #8
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Sunset's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Spending the Kids Inheritance and living in Chicago
Posts: 17,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midpack View Post
....
It does appear the US may have less than the 100,000 to 240,000 deaths the White House reported. But then I think bracing us for worst case and scaring us into staying home was part of their calculus, one of the leading experts has since projected 60,000 deaths.
Since we are already over 37,000 deaths, and this thing will continue for many more months, I think the low death count number is wishful thinking at best.

At the end of March we had less than 4,000 dead, and in just over 2 weeks we added over 33,000 deaths. That is with severe social distancing by the majority of people.
__________________
Fortune favors the prepared mind. ... Louis Pasteur
Sunset is offline  
Old 04-18-2020, 10:01 AM   #9
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Washington State
Posts: 2,359
I'm sure there are plenty of people who are infected with COVID and never realize it. Unless you experience significant symptoms you might just think you have allergies or something. That's one of the reasons it spreads so easily, you can be contagious without any symptoms.

On the flip side, I'm sure a lot of people are dying from COVID but aren't counted as a fatality since they were never tested for the virus.
mountainsoft is offline  
Old 04-18-2020, 01:27 PM   #10
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: Denver
Posts: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midpack View Post
It does appear the US may have less than the 100,000 to 240,000 deaths the White House reported. But then I think bracing us for worst case and scaring us into staying home was part of their calculus, one of the leading experts has since projected 60,000 deaths.
I don't think we'll ever know honestly. I think the reported numbers are low.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/06/healt...nvs/index.html

people that do not make it to the hospital (the poor, the elderly, people that die outside of a hospital) are in general not getting tested to see if they had the virus due to the inability to test on a massive scale.

So, there are people out there that have passed in the last few weeks that died of coronavirus, but we'll never know how many because coroners are not among the group of health care workers with access to the tests.
DenverGuy42 is offline  
Old 04-18-2020, 01:47 PM   #11
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Midpack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NC
Posts: 21,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunset View Post
Since we are already over 37,000 deaths, and this thing will continue for many more months, I think the low death count number is wishful thinking at best.

At the end of March we had less than 4,000 dead, and in just over 2 weeks we added over 33,000 deaths. That is with severe social distancing by the majority of people.
You may be right, though it's not clear what you're estimating. We're being told we're peaking/peaked so I wouldn't expect May will look anything like Apr as compared to Mar. I am sure the curve won't be symmetrical, but if we've peaked and the other side was similar that would put us around 74,000 deaths ROM (37,000 x 2). That assumes there's no appreciable second wave, though I wouldn't bet on that yet by any means.

And Fauci has said we could be closer to 60,000 total IF we continue mitigation until told otherwise. I hope he's right, and it's not worse.
__________________
No one agrees with other people's opinions; they merely agree with their own opinions -- expressed by somebody else. Sydney Tremayne
Retired Jun 2011 at age 57

Target AA: 50% equity funds / 45% bonds / 5% cash
Target WR: Approx 1.5% Approx 20% SI (secure income, SS only)
Midpack is offline  
Old 04-18-2020, 01:54 PM   #12
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,089
Using the same multiples (85X) on Spain (47M with 190,000 cases), that means 1/3 of her population is infected right now. Using Italy's data (60M, 175,000 cases), 1/4 of her population is infected.

That sounds too high.
fh2000 is offline  
Old 04-18-2020, 02:08 PM   #13
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: The Great Wide Open
Posts: 3,804
Join the tin foil hat club with me.
Winemaker is offline  
Old 04-18-2020, 02:15 PM   #14
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 97



Check out the wisdom of Dr. Bhattacharya...
aiken is offline  
Old 04-18-2020, 02:22 PM   #15
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 133
Well sure, if we are only testing the sickest, the disease is far more widespread in the US than we can measure at the moment. But still based on what has been sampled so far in some areas a very small % of the population has been exposed, and I’m not sure it reduces the near term projections of deaths which are based on current conditions.

I really do think we need to test widely for various reasons, including having a decent measure of population wide exposure.

-TOTALLY AGREE 1000%
-We will never know the extent of the virus or how to smother it without good data and testing.
molly312 is offline  
Old 04-18-2020, 02:36 PM   #16
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7,968
Numbers is numbers. I am also prone to take percents with a grain of salt.

Even though a retired engineer I have a Katrina prejudice.

heh heh heh - the post Katrina environment disrupted all kinds of - routines, mental and physical. I won't begin to list the people I knew personally who passed away (50's and 60's) for 'other' causes 1 to 3 years after the big event.
Hindsight showing average death rates per year by country ten years from now might prove interesting. For those viewing the data.
unclemick is offline  
Old 04-18-2020, 02:56 PM   #17
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,083
We also have reports of numerous people who pass away at home, or in nursing homes without ever being tested.
The numbers could go either way, higher or lower.

As others have said, we need much more testing for many reasons, this being one.
__________________
"We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.
(Ancient Indian Proverb)"
Zathras is offline  
Old 04-18-2020, 03:01 PM   #18
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
ivinsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 9,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainsoft View Post
I'm sure there are plenty of people who are infected with COVID and never realize it. Unless you experience significant symptoms you might just think you have allergies or something. That's one of the reasons it spreads so easily, you can be contagious without any symptoms.

On the flip side, I'm sure a lot of people are dying from COVID but aren't counted as a fatality since they were never tested for the virus.
I don't know, death is pretty noticeable, a spike up in unexplained or unexpected deaths is going to be noticed in the present situation.
ivinsfan is offline  
Old 04-18-2020, 03:03 PM   #19
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
ivinsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 9,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zathras View Post
We also have reports of numerous people who pass away at home, or in nursing homes without ever being tested.
The numbers could go either way, higher or lower.

As others have said, we need much more testing for many reasons, this being one.
I think this happened in NY and they have revised their number upwards to adjust for some of this. The English have acknowledged that deaths in nursing homes and homes were not included in their deaths numbers..
ivinsfan is offline  
Old 04-18-2020, 03:05 PM   #20
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: Denver
Posts: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivinsfan View Post
I don't know, death is pretty noticeable, a spike up in unexplained or unexpected deaths is going to be noticed in the present situation.
not necessarily, coroners do not have access to testing for covid-19 will not be able to put a cause of death that includes that right now:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/06/healt...nvs/index.html

due to testing being limited to people in the hospital and front line workers - people that don't make it in will not be counted in current tallies, the tallies we are supposedly making decisions from.

Maybe in a few months or longer, a statistician can come along after all of the numbers have been reported and say "there is this probability that this percentage of deaths unattributed to covid-19 should have been". But you need more than a few weeks of numbers to do that sort of analysis.
DenverGuy42 is offline  
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why is my withholding so much lower than my expected tax? bUU FIRE and Money 15 10-29-2013 04:56 PM
New retirees better off financially than previous generations? REWahoo FIRE and Money 14 12-06-2012 08:58 PM
Is a car a necessity? Gen Y has a different outlook than previous generations. Frugalityisthenewblack Other topics 45 08-16-2012 10:34 PM
Every Road Fatality in the US 2001-2009 mapped and classified haha Health and Early Retirement 12 12-04-2011 05:01 PM
Diversifying Doesn't Lower Risk, But It Does Lower Potential Gain justin FIRE and Money 44 11-05-2005 04:16 PM

» Quick Links

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:58 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.