Help me with my math?

[rayinpenn]

Help me with my math? Maybe it’s too early in the morning and I’m missing the obvious. The CDC reports there are 140,000 deaths attributable to covid and further 3.7 million reported cases. That is a 3.7% mortality rate. If we assume that some portion of that 3.7 million are sick at some hospital on a ventilator and the poor souls will eventually die the 3.7% number will rise.

I’ve seen some people quote a “less than .1% mortality rate and we shut the country down” I did a little thinking if we took that 140,000 deaths and divided it by 330,000 the us population we get .04% a small number.

My twisted minds scary recap
1. About 1% of the country has been reported to have contracted the disease
2. Roughly 4% of those who’ve gotten the disease have or will die.
3. Roughly 90,000 cases each day and more than 360 of those people will eventually die

I’ve decided to stop my son from going to the gym as we believe that’s the weakest link in our virus defense.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/us-cases-deaths.html

 

[DrRoy]

Your math is OK.

 

[latexman]

It took about 4 months for 1 % of the U.S. to get the virus. For 100% to get it and become immune, will it take 400 months (33 years)? Come on vaccine!

 

[donheff]

Help me with my math? Maybe it’s too early in the morning and I’m missing the obvious. The CDC reports there are 140,000 deaths attributable to covid and further 3.7 million reported cases. That is a 3.7% mortality rate. If we assume that some portion of that 3.7 million are sick at some hospital on a ventilator and the poor souls will eventually die the 3.7% number will rise.

I’ve seen some people quote a “less than .1% mortality rate and we shut the country down” I did a little thinking if we took that 140,000 deaths and divided it by 330,000 the us population we get .04% a small number.

My twisted minds scary recap
1. About 1% of the country has been reported to have contracted the disease
2. Roughly 4% of those who’ve gotten the disease have or will die.
3. Roughly 90,000 cases each day and more than 360 of those people will eventually die

I’ve decided to stop my son from going to the gym as we believe that’s the weakest link in our virus defense.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/us-cases-deaths.html

Guestimates are that there are maybe 10 times the number tested positive that are unsymptomatic and have not been tested. So the CDC and others are saying the mortality rate is about .4% instead of the 3.7-4% you would get from confirmed cases. That is still a lot bigger than .1.

 

[pj.mask]

From what I read the “current best estimate” by the CDC for infection fatality rate is 0.65%


https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html

 

[TechLead]

From what I read the “current best estimate” by the CDC for infection fatality rate is 0.65%


https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html

+1

Yup this is what you hear from lot of countries/sources. About 0.6%-0.7% mortality.

But don't forget few percent of people with permanent damage to lungs, organs etc. They are not dead
but very effected by Covid 19.

 

[Aerides]

I’ve decided to stop my son from going to the gym as we believe that’s the weakest link in our virus defense.

If you're concerned about risk-mitigation then anyone in your home, or with whom you spend close contact for any period of time, needs to adhere to the same behaviors. Otherwise, the "highest-risk-taker" in the home sets the bar for the household.

For many of us in the not-high-risk-brackets, the binary between dying/not dying, after infection, is not the only worry. The longer term effects are a concern for me. And I'd rather avoid being sick for weeks on end, even if I do get better, it's a long recovery for many.

 

[Rianne]

+1
But don't forget few percent of people with permanent damage to lungs, organs etc. They are not dead
but very effected by Covid 19.

There is another thread regarding long haulers but this article sums it up. I'm more concerned about long term debilitating illness than death. Will the long haulers ever be normal? No one knows.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/...-coronavirus-longterm-symptoms-months/612679/

 

[CRLLS]

A minor point: I'm not sure the statement of "3.7% number will rise" is a given. It may rise and it may drop . Based on current methods of reporting, it will depend on how many new cases are found by the time those 360 die.

Further the guestimate of 10x asymptomatic infected people should not reduce the mortality rate by 1/10th IMO. It would however, reduce the "guesstimated mortality rate" Another fine point I might add. We won't know the real numbers until it is all over and we look back on hard, not guessed numbers.

The CDC article link posted above gives 5 very different scenarios (guestimates) of what "might" be the future and we should plan for.

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.

Of the 5 scenarios, the estimates of percent of asymptomatic cases vary widely from 10% to 70 %. That means 11% to 233% the number of confirmed cases, not 1000%. 233% is the highest in any of their scenarios. far lower than the 10x some

Math is hard! The answers vary based on what data is included, what data is discarded and what assumptions are made at the beginning.

 

[ILikeStarTrek]

One thing that gets reported sometimes but probably not enough is the disparity of deaths by age:
https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Death-Counts-by-Sex-Age-and-S/9bhg-hcku

The chart listing deaths by age will probably get updated over time, but at the time I'm writing this, it shows 121,374 total deaths from COVID-19. Of those, only 3,201 of those are ages 0-44. The other ~118,000 deaths are all ages 45 & over. So, families where the husband & wife are both age 44 or under shouldn't be afraid of them or their kids dying of this disease (at least, no more afraid than they would be of dying in a car accident, which is about as likely statistically).

This is much of the basis for questioning the shutdown of the country. Some people suggest that if older people self-isolate, then younger people could/should be more free to live their lives - not necessarily eliminating masks, social distancing, etc., but at least allowing schools, colleges, and more businesses to remain open. In that scenario, the challenge becomes preventing the disease from spreading to the older / high-risk group - hence asking older people to self-isolate (instead of asking everyone to self-isolate like some states are still doing).

 

[Chuckanut]

Help me with my math? Maybe it’s too early in the morning and I’m missing the obvious. The CDC reports there are 140,000 deaths attributable to covid and further 3.7 million reported cases. That is a 3.7% mortality rate. l

Don't look just at the mortality rate. The media treats this thing like either your get it and recover back to normal, or you die. There is a group called 'longhaulers' who got the disease, fought it off and are now suffering long term consequences to their health because of CV. Some of it is minor, others find themselves severely limited. Why they don't count in the CV counts is beyond me.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...virus-long-haulers-infectious-disease-testing

Most report having been previously healthy, and show relatively mild symptoms in the initial phase of illness. But they continue to experience symptoms such as fatigue, headache, cough, shortness of breath, chest pain, increased heart rates and gastrointestinal and neurological symptoms for weeks or even months following the initial symptoms; often these symptoms might come and go repeatedly.

 

[REWahoo]

One thing that gets reported sometimes but probably not enough is the disparity of deaths by age:
https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Death-Counts-by-Sex-Age-and-S/9bhg-hcku

What isn't reported enough is the unknown long-term effect of the disease on those who, regardless of age, contract Covid-19 but don't fully recover from it and continue to have symptoms. And where are the reports of those who suffer permanent lung, heart or other yet-to-be determined damage?

It isn't only about fatalities.

 

[rayinpenn]

It took about 4 months for 1 % of the U.S. to get the virus. For 100% to get it and become immune, will it take 400 months (33 years)? Come on vaccine!

Do virus infections grow at a flat rate? No.. bad math.

 

[rayinpenn]

Guestimates are that there are maybe 10 times the number tested positive that are unsymptomatic and have not been tested. So the CDC and others are saying the mortality rate is about .4% instead of the 3.7-4% you would get from confirmed cases. That is still a lot bigger than .1.

Makes sense so they are factoring in undiagnosed cases..

 

[ivinsfan]

You want number here are some numbers ..rural county west of MSP. Two biggest risk factors 2 turkey processing plants and large multi-building nursing home complex.

Early May. 4 cases in county. turkey plants have outbreak and a gentleman in the NH is unknowingly admitted with COVID. This gentleman ends up dying.. around 10 workers from the home test positive.

Today this country has had low 600s of COVID cases, probably about 550 are past the so called 3 week needing isolation period. 70% of the cases were in early to mid May.

The poor gentleman from the NH was the first and only fatality in the county, He was seriously ill when admitted to the NH. Using your number of 4 it should be around 2 dozen people.

 

[ivinsfan]

Do virus infections grow at a flat rate? No.. bad math.

All he did was use numbers much the same as you did.

 

[Rustic23]

I look at the statistics to try to understand my and DW’s risk. I suspect most on this board do the same. Therefore, most of the data reported IMHO is of little value. I want to know the death rate for those hospitalized in the last two weeks to a month. I want the early data removed. I want to know age, medical condition, and life style. I don’t want data included of a person hit by a car, dies in the hospital’s and test positive for Covid. If Covid is not a contributing cause, exclude it. Data that includes early cases when no drug or adequate treatment exist is of little interest.

 

[TechLead]

Don't forget discussed mortality rates are *if* hospitals are not overwhelmed beyond capacity. That is *if* they can actually treat people and send them to ICU if needed.

In some places it is no longer a case. (We saw such scenarios in Northern Italy as well and I think mortality there was much larger at the time)

 

[RetireBy90]

In VA we experienced quite a run of infections early on. Looks like we peaked in cases late May with deaths peaking mid May. VA was in sad shape, but then we found that most of the deaths were in the retirement communities. I have heard that as a nation, somewhere like 60% of deaths were or are for those over 60 (includes DW and I). Other reports show different cutoff ages like 50 and 80, and I don't have convenient links to the reports I have read over past months. Also Dr Scott Gottleib who I listen to as my trusted expert has suggested that we only diagnose about 7-10% of the cases. He has suggested that with current trends by early next year we will approach heard immunity where the R number will be less than 1, that is for every person infected they will infect less than one other person. If we get a vaccine before then it could be sooner.

However, my take is that the vulnerable are older and health conditions. I'm very careful to follow mask, hand washing, distancing guidelines because there is little reason not to. Since DW and I are FIRE no downside to being careful and could be a upside of no hospital or worse. Not scared but being prudent ?

 

[Sojourner]

Guestimates are that there are maybe 10 times the number tested positive that are unsymptomatic and have not been tested.

A minor correction to this: Not all those who aren't getting tested are "nonsymptomatic". A large percentage of people actually do get sick but never get tested because their symptoms are not severe. So if you combine those (nonsymptomatic who don't get tested, and mildly/moderately ill who don't get tested), you almost certainly would be talking about 10x the number who are sick enough to go get tested.

 

[ivinsfan]

A minor correction to this: Not all those who aren't getting tested are "nonsymptomatic". A large percentage of people actually do get sick but never get tested because their symptoms are not severe. So if you combine those (nonsymptomatic who don't get tested, and mildly/moderately ill who don't get tested), you almost certainly would be talking about 10x the number who are sick enough to go get tested.

These testing numbers are really getting off kilter. A local nursing home tests all employees including office staff and patients once a week. It's got to be over a thousand people. I'm sure it's not the only NH that does this. So they were tested because of their jobs not because they felt ill or had been exposed...

 

[Sojourner]

For many of us in the not-high-risk-brackets, the binary between dying/not dying, after infection, is not the only worry. The longer term effects are a concern for me. And I'd rather avoid being sick for weeks on end, even if I do get better, it's a long recovery for many.

+1000

As a healthy guy in my early 50s, I feel fairly confident that COVID-19 won't kill me. But I really want to avoid getting very sick for 2-3 weeks, and I definitely want to avoid the real possibility of developing long-term complications from this capricious, dangerous viral infection. Thinking of this illness only in binary terms (i.e., "It almost certainly won't kill me, so why worry?") gives a very false sense of security, IMHO.

 

[RetireBy90]

+1000

As a healthy guy in my early 50s, I feel fairly confident that COVID-19 won't kill me. But I really want to avoid getting very sick for 2-3 weeks, and I definitely want to avoid the real possibility of developing long-term complications from this capricious, dangerous viral infection. Thinking of this illness only in binary terms (i.e., "It almost certainly won't kill me, so why worry?") gives a very false sense of security, IMHO.

I agree with this, nobody wants to get sick. However, first we need to deal with the vulnerable that have a chance of not surviving an infection. I think to me of more concern is if a healthy 30 (or 50) year old gets infected and is not sick enough to see a doctor, how do we as a society keep that person from infecting those that are vulnerable ? Unless we lockdown the vulnerable and isolate them it will spread to them at some point. Only way I can see to protect the vulnerable is to protect all.

 

[latexman]

Do virus infections grow at a flat rate?

They kind of do if the economy is throttled just under the capacity of local hospitals.

But, my main point is, we are not going to get back to "normal" anytime soon.

Come on, AstraZeneca and Moderna!

 

[BigNick]

I look at the statistics to try to understand my and DW’s risk. I suspect most on this board do the same. Therefore, most of the data reported IMHO is of little value. I want to know the death rate for those hospitalized in the last two weeks to a month. I want the early data removed. I want to know age, medical condition, and life style. I don’t want data included of a person hit by a car, dies in the hospital’s and test positive for Covid. If Covid is not a contributing cause, exclude it. Data that includes early cases when no drug or adequate treatment exist is of little interest.

Are you going to behave differently if you establish, after including all the parameters that you want to, that your chance of dying if you get the virus appears to be, say, 1 in 250 versus a previous 1 in 140? I would want to see two orders of magnitude of improvement in survival rates before I started being ready to dine out indoors in a full restaurant, and I don't see any evidence of that.

Right now deaths are lagging cases by quite a few more days than in April, but that's more to do with how early we test people. Kind of like how you can improve cancer survival statistics --- which are defined as "still alive 5 years after diagnosis --- by screening early, even if the cancer is incurable.