Stanford Epidemiologist On COVID Death Rate: 0.15%

Discussion in 'Coronavirus Pandemic Discussions' started by Ethereal, Apr 14, 2021.

PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening. We urge you to seek reliable alternate sources to verify information you read in this forum.

  1. Ethereal

    Ethereal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    40,617
    Likes Received:
    5,790
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We've allowed civilization to be upended for over a year based on a virus with a 99.85% survival rate, and which overwhelmingly targets people who were going to die within months no matter what we did. The sheer lunacy of COVID "mitigation" efforts is hard to overstate.
     
    Robert, AKS, sec and 6 others like this.
  2. Kranes56

    Kranes56 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2011
    Messages:
    29,311
    Likes Received:
    4,187
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    .15* 2 billion is 300,000,000 or approximately the entire population of the US.

    Even then you have to factor in those who won't die immediately but die from long term health problems from the disease, or from social issues brought about by the disease. Think dead family members in that case. The death rate is really high.
     
  3. Ethereal

    Ethereal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    40,617
    Likes Received:
    5,790
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your math skills could use some work.

    The death rate is about 0.15%. That is the opposite of really high.
     
    gfm7175 likes this.
  4. Kranes56

    Kranes56 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2011
    Messages:
    29,311
    Likes Received:
    4,187
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
     
  5. Ethereal

    Ethereal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    40,617
    Likes Received:
    5,790
    Trophy Points:
    113
    People on your side of the debate experience this problem with regularity.

    Tens of millions of people will die every year no matter what we do. Welcome to reality.

    Nothing you wrote can make 0.15% into a "really high" death rate.
     
    sec, TedintheShed and gfm7175 like this.
  6. Kranes56

    Kranes56 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2011
    Messages:
    29,311
    Likes Received:
    4,187
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Yeah basically. I was expecting a student to come and didn't double check my work. My bad.

    Except of course for the billions we have saved through preventative measures like improving nutrition, medical access, etc. Many of the deaths in the US for example could have been saved had they had better safety conditions, better food, health insurance, etc.

    Because it takes into account how people are going to be disabled and die long term deaths?
     
  7. Darth Gravus

    Darth Gravus Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2021
    Messages:
    10,715
    Likes Received:
    8,017
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    upload_2021-4-14_12-44-51.png

    Deaths divided by cases comes out to 2.15%. Where the hell did this guy get 0.15%
     
    Quantum Nerd and cristiansoldier like this.
  8. cristiansoldier

    cristiansoldier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2014
    Messages:
    4,999
    Likes Received:
    3,428
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In your opinion, what would the survival rate have to fall to before you believe any mitigation efforts such as mask or social distancing should take place? A ball park will do? Are you thinking somewhere in the 99%+ range or something lower like 95% or 90% or even lower like 75% or 50%?
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2021
  9. Ethereal

    Ethereal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    40,617
    Likes Received:
    5,790
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No need to apologize. I've come to expect massive inaccuracies from people on your side of the debate.

    The majority of COVID decedents were already on the verge of death due to extreme old age and underlying conditions. They were going to die within a year no matter what we did.

    Because it is empty conjecture based on speculation.
     
    gfm7175 likes this.
  10. Ethereal

    Ethereal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    40,617
    Likes Received:
    5,790
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He used total cases, not just the ones that have been recorded.
     
  11. Darth Gravus

    Darth Gravus Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2021
    Messages:
    10,715
    Likes Received:
    8,017
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There is simply no evidence to support this claim
     
    Quantum Nerd and Kranes56 like this.
  12. Kranes56

    Kranes56 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2011
    Messages:
    29,311
    Likes Received:
    4,187
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Now that's just being mean.


    Not really. They were old sure, but the disease kills everyone. More importantly than that it doesn't explain the discrepancies between death rates in different countries. If the old were going to die no matter what we did, then shouldn't the death rates be more uniformed, ie no difference between different countries?



    A disease that attacks lung tissue, wouldn't cause long term problems in survivors?
     
  13. Darth Gravus

    Darth Gravus Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2021
    Messages:
    10,715
    Likes Received:
    8,017
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    He has no idea how many total cases there are.

    And we do not do that with any other condition/virus/disease, it is a bit dishonest to do it with COVID
     
    Quantum Nerd likes this.
  14. Ethereal

    Ethereal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    40,617
    Likes Received:
    5,790
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I never said I was opposed to "any" mitigation efforts.
     
  15. Ethereal

    Ethereal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    40,617
    Likes Received:
    5,790
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You should probably go read a statistics textbook.

    Using statistics to produce an estimate is dishonest? What a notion.
     
  16. cristiansoldier

    cristiansoldier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2014
    Messages:
    4,999
    Likes Received:
    3,428
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good point. I thought maybe he was only looking at the US population but that is around 1.7%. My guess he is looking at the deaths over the total population, not just the people who tested positive.
     
  17. cristiansoldier

    cristiansoldier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2014
    Messages:
    4,999
    Likes Received:
    3,428
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't think many people are. What you are arguing is the the survival rate is too high compared to the effort given. Let's change the question to make it easier. What would the survival rate number have to be before the type of mitigation effort we took is justified in your opinion?
     
  18. Darth Gravus

    Darth Gravus Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2021
    Messages:
    10,715
    Likes Received:
    8,017
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Been there done that, in fact I did a whole masters program on in Data Analytics now work as Statistician.

    Which is why I know we do not have a good enough idea of how many total cases to use that number for the death rate.

    What is dishonest is doing it COVID but not other conditions/virus/diseases. If we did that with the flu the flu numbers would be cut by 75%. The death rate for everything is calculated by deaths/known cases.
     
  19. Ethereal

    Ethereal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    40,617
    Likes Received:
    5,790
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course there is.

    From the BBC:

    These estimates are line with what we already know about the average life expectancy of people inside nursing homes.

    From University of California San Francisco:

    Just because you're ignorant of the evidence does not mean it doesn't exist. My advice would be to stop watching so much CNN. They are lying to you.
     
  20. Darth Gravus

    Darth Gravus Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2021
    Messages:
    10,715
    Likes Received:
    8,017
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    You go from "majority of COVID decedents" to "Many people who died of COVID". That is some fancy goal post moving.

    In the US only 1/3 of COVID deaths were in nursing homes...hardly "Most"
     
  21. Ethereal

    Ethereal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    40,617
    Likes Received:
    5,790
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your side is using alarmist misinformation to hold the world hostage indefinitely. If I need to be mean to combat that, then so be it.

    The disease overwhelmingly kills people who were already on the verge of death. The data proves this beyond any reasonable doubt.

    The vast majority of "cases" are asymptomatic or mild. Only a tiny percentage of cases result in death or long term complications.
     
    gfm7175 likes this.
  22. Darth Gravus

    Darth Gravus Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2021
    Messages:
    10,715
    Likes Received:
    8,017
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I do not watch any TV news, biggest waste of time out there. I get the vast majority of my information on COIVD from my wife, the Critical Care nurse that has spent the past year treating COVID patients.
     
  23. Ethereal

    Ethereal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    40,617
    Likes Received:
    5,790
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you're a statistician who doesn't believe in the validity of statistical inference?

    Except they do do it with other viruses. The CDC has estimates on the total number of influenza cases going back at least a decade.

    The distinction between case fatality rate (CFR) and infection fatality rate (IFR) is well established within the scientific literature.

    The problem is that you do not seem to understand even the basic facts surrounding this debate. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with them before proceeding.
     
  24. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Is this Liberal Math by any chance?? Because in Mathematics, .15 would be equivalent to 15%, not .15%... The decimal conversion that you are looking for is 0.0015, which would be equivalent to 0.15%.

    Using CORRECT math, 0.0015 * 2 billion = 3,000,000 people, or roughly the population of Chicago, Illinois. So, out of the whole entire world, the City of Chicago has been wiped out over the course of a year and a half (or so). Whoopity doo. Statistically insignificant.

    How do you propose that we "factor in" such things, precisely? Sounds to me like you're just making up a bunch of horse manure that corresponds with your feelings on the issue.

    And btw, in a statistical analysis, only RAW data is allowed; that means no cooked data (data including things which were "factored in" after the data was collected).
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2021
    Robert and Ethereal like this.
  25. Darth Gravus

    Darth Gravus Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2021
    Messages:
    10,715
    Likes Received:
    8,017
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I do when there is enough data to support it. That is not the case with this guy.

    But they do not use the estimated number for the official death rate.
     

Share This Page