Flu considers estimated infections while COVID data seems to only consider positive tests. What is the estimated infections of COVID and if those numbers are tallied, does the ifr change?
You dumb? Per your own in' data there has been 19,911 Covid deaths under age 65.
Per the CDC's flu mortality data I linked, there were 10,197 flu deaths under age 65.
Now let's calculate a rough IFR from these numbers.
10,197/38,856,875 cases under 65 = .00026 IFR
19,911/~20 million estimated infected under 65 (and I'm being very generous with that 20 million estimate) = .001 IFR
Covid is just a shade under 4x more lethal for the under 65 age group in total.
Quit lying. Quit gossiping. Wear a in' mask and write Abbott to shutdown non-essential businesses.
Flu considers estimated infections while COVID data seems to only consider positive tests. What is the estimated infections of COVID and if those numbers are tallied, does the ifr change?
Yeah I didn't think you were anything. I'll take their word over a verified confirmed lying piece of .
So you are taking a lower percentage of the probable deaths of the flu calculating ifr and then using data, not mine by the way, that includes an over estimate of every probable covid death?
LololoIolololol
You're the only one thats gossipimg trying to generate ifr from low avg of estimates. Lololol
Get software
Man you thought you were on to something. You blake jr?
Not for IFR estimates, only for CFR estimates. The best current estimate we have for the actual number of Covid cases is 27 million of the population has been infected. This is about 7x higher than the official 3.8 million count.
https://covid19-projections.com/
I was being generous with my 20 million infected under age 65 because in New York about 40 percent of the infected were over 65. If we prorate that nationally, around 16 million infected under 65 so far, which would increase the IFR.
You're a lying schmuck tho
Nice try idiot. I'm taking the mean of both cases and deaths. If I were to take the upper bound of estimated deaths I would also divide that by the upper bound of infections, so the IFR doesn't change all that much.
And covid deaths are being under counted. All those "mysterious" pneumonia deaths happening in Texas, FL, and Georgia at time when pneumonia deaths are practically gone.
Its not the best, its simply 1. Fatalities way too high
No lol. You dont even understand you just added up a lowball account of flu estimates. BwahHahahaaahahahahahaha
Lollll at your understanding covid death count.
Keep using your calculator bwahahahaha
you know what will help your math?
That's the mean, idiot. Not the lower bound. When you calculate in this regard, you use the in' mean.
Lolololololololololol you are so wrong with how you are going about it. And you have no clue so you use profanity. Bwahahhahahahahahauuss
esults 36 studies (43 estimates) were identified with usable data to enter into calculations and another 7 preliminary national estimates were also considered for a total of 50 estimates. Seroprevalence estimates ranged from 0.222% to 47%. Infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 1.63% and corrected values ranged from 0.00% to 1.31%. Across 32 different locations, the median infection fatality rate was 0.27% (corrected 0.24%). Most studies were done in pandemic epicenters with high death tolls. Median corrected IFR was 0.10% in locations with COVID-19 population mortality rate less than the global average (<73 deaths per million as of July 12, 2020), 0.27% in locations with 73-500 COVID-19 deaths per million, and 0.90% in locations exceeding 500 COVID-19 deaths per million. Among people <70 years old, infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 0.57% with median of 0.05% across the different locations (corrected median of 0.04%). Conclusions The infection fatality rate of COVID-19 can vary substantially across different locations and this may reflect differences in population age structure and case-mix of infected and deceased patients as well as multiple other factors. Estimates of infection fatality rates inferred from seroprevalence studies tend to be much lower than original speculations made in the early days of the pandemic.
By staying away from yours
No source link. Nobody cares about your text wall
blake trying to go 0 for 3 today
Infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 1.63% and
You even read what you post?
Dumbing it down so you can understand, your own in' info estimated IFR for <70 at .05%. That is even higher (5x higher) than my estimate for that age group:
19,911/~20 million estimated infected under 65 (and I'm being very generous with that 20 million estimate) = .001 IFR or .01%
Doesn't know how to read studies. Constantly self-owns. Loves Trumplololololooololol
Tholderp trying to go perfect on lying in every post
He's linking a pre-print by a known professor turned Covid truther. No one believes the coming out of Ioannidis's mouth.
John Ioannidis
This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.
Oh, and tholdren linking papers from May
That study has already been shredded.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...872280577.html
llolololol tholdren doesn't show his math, doesnt know how to read studies, links studies by truthers from may lololololol so desperate for Covid to be benign so it wont hurt lolololoTrumplololollo
Remember that time he predicted 10k deaths, and then took a 2 month sabbatical to go talk to the good ol' ball coach after deeeet one.. good times.
can't wait for the I wes jeeez trolling...
figured.
He's probably a boomer, tbh, so no surprises there.
There are currently 8 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 8 guests)