SARS-CoV-2 Mortality is Distorted - - - SouthFront

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

This is a follow up from my earlier thread Charts of COVID-19 Fatality Rate by Age and Sex

In my next comment is an extensive article from SouthFront, full of facts and statistics.  

For the impatient tl;dr crowd here is my short summary conclusion of the article:

-  Around 100 scientists around the world generally agree the media's Covid-19 statistics are incorrect.

-  Actual numbers of people already infected but who have no symptoms are several dozen times higher than public numbers indicate.

-  Much of this incorrect testing numbers are media or politically motivated data.

-  The real mortality rate is 25 - 60 times less than that presented by media and many governments.

-  Current actions of politicians in many countries are difficult to explain with anything other than incompetence or deliberate actions to gain power and / or promote control by external actors.

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

First up, for those unaware of SouthFront, here is info from their About page:

SouthFront: Analysis & Intelligence is a public analytical umbrella organization created and maintained by a team of experts and volunteers from the four corners of the Earth. SouthFront focuses on issues of international relations, armed conflicts and crises. The organization provides military operations analysis, military posture of major world powers, and other important data influencing the growth of tensions between countries and nations.

We try to dig out the truth on issues which are barely covered by the states concerned and the mainstream media.

The SouthFront Team believes that not only well-paid “professional journalists”, but common people with inquisitive minds are able to produce balanced content in a modern information-oriented society.

Our goals:

• Highlighting alternative points of view;
• Providing independent analysis and intelligence of international events;
• Promoting human justice and peaceful dialogue between warring nations;
• Preventing the escalation of conflicts that can lead to wars with the threat of the use of nuclear weapons;
• Reducing the flow of media disinformation;
• Building a community of constructive and progressive authors freely sharing their views and analysis with people all over the world.

==============================================================

On to their Editor's Choice article:

SARS-COV-2 Mortality is Distorted

SouthFront offers a scientific-based survey providing an in-depth look at the real death toll statistics and the spread of SARS-COV-2.

1. The research issued by the Bonn University Hospital

The research issued by the Bonn University Hospital and made by the group of scientists including Prof. Dr. Hendrik Streeck (Institute of Virology), Prof. Dr. Gunther Hartmann (Institute for Clinical Chemistry and Clinical Pharmacology, Spokesman for the Cluster of Excellence ImmunoSensation2), Prof. Dr. Martin Exner (Institute for Hygiene and Public Health), Prof. Dr. Matthias Schmid (Institute for Medical Biometry, Computer Science and Epidemiology).

In the framework of the research, all residents of Germany’s Gangelt were tested on the existence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and antibodies to SARS-CoV-2.

Gangelt is one of the most COVID-19-affected German municipalities. It is believed that the outbreak was caused by the carnival held on February 15, 2020. After the event, several people tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.

Preliminary result: the existing immunity was determined at about 14% (IgG against SARS-CoV2, method specificity>, 99%). About 2% of people had current SARS-CoV-2 infection detected by the method of polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The overall infection rate (the presence of a current infection or antibody in the body) was about 15%. The mortality (mortality rate), based on the total number of infected people in the Gangelt community, is approximately 0.37% based on the preliminary data of this study. The mortality rate based on the total population in the Gangelt is currently 0.06%.

 

2. A new Epidemiological bulletin from German Robert Koch Institute

A new Epidemiological bulletin from German Robert Koch Institute – “Estimation of the current development of the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in Germany” issued on April 15 confirms that:

“in general, it is true that not all infected people have symptoms, not all who has symptoms go to a doctor’s office, not all who go to the doctor are tested and not all who test positive are recorded in a survey system. In addition, a certain amount of time passes between all these individual steps, so that no data collection system, however good, can make a statement about the current infection process without additional assumptions and calculations.”

Meanwhile, April 18 Daily Situation Report of the Robert Koch Institute shows that 86% of deaths, but only 18% of all cases, occurred in persons aged 70 years or older. The median age was 82 years. Pneumonia was reported in 2,764 cases (3%). COVID-19 related outbreaks continue to be reported in nursing homes and hospitals. In some of these outbreaks, the number of deaths is relatively high. The current estimate is R= 0.8 (95% confidence interval: 0.7-1.0).

 

3. On 13 April, the German National Academy of Sciences, Leopoldina, published its third ad hoc statement on the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany (the group of 26 Prof. Doctors)

The statement, which supplements its two predecessors, describes strategies for a stepwise lifting or modification of measures against the pandemic, taking into account psychological, social, legal, pedagogic and economic aspects. The document recommends in particular the re-opening of classroom primary and lower-level secondary education as soon as feasible, giving priority to the former, with observation of hygiene and physical distancing measures.

 

 

The National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina takes a stand with psychological, social, the legal, educational and economic aspects of the pandemic, following key recommendations:

• Optimizing the basis for decision-making: The data collection, which has so far been largely symptom-based, leads to a distorted perception of the infection process. It is therefore important to collect the infection and substantially improve the immunity status of the population, in particular through representative and regional survey of infection and immunity status.
• Enable a differentiated assessment of the risks both for social and individual dealings with the corona pandemic, contextual classification of the available data is important. Data to serious illnesses and deaths must be compared to those of other illnesses and related to the expected risk of death in individual age groups. A realistic one. Presentation of the individual risk must be clearly illustrated. This also applies to systemic risks such as overloading the health system and negative consequences for the economy and society.
• To cushion psychological and social impacts: measures taken for implementation intrinsic motivation based on self-protection and solidarity is more important than the threats of sanctions. Providing a realistic schedule and a clear package of measures for gradual normalization increases the controllability and predictability for everyone. This helps to minimize negative psychological the physical and effects of the current stress. Firs of all, aid and support should be provided for high-risk groups, such as children, who are particularly affected by the consequences of current restrictions in difficult family situations or people who are exposed to domestic violence must be provided become.

There are more another recommendations in the third ad hoc statement of the German National Academy of Sciences that now are being implemented by German leadership.

 

4. New research from the United States

Group of authors from Stanford University, Stanford University School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Health Education is Power, Inc., The Compliance Resource Group, Inc., Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Bogan Associates, 8 ARL BioPharma, Inc., Sports Medicine Research and Testing Laboratory, Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford University School of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine measured the seroprevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in Santa Clara County and made some conclusions.

The data received and conclusions of the US team are well corresponding with the research of German Bonn University Hospital taking into account that the German research came out on April 9, and the American one on April 14, with the reasonable assumption that the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in the German city of Gangelt began at least two week earlier (February 15, 2020) than in the American Santa Clara.

The US researchers estimated that under the three scenarios for test performance characteristics, the population prevalence of COVID-19 in Santa Clara ranged from 2.49% (95CI 1.80-3.17%) to 4.16% (2.58-5.70%). These prevalence estimates represent a range between 48,000 and 81,000 people infected in Santa Clara County by early April, 50-85-fold more than the number of confirmed cases. Conclusions. The population prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Santa Clara County implies that the infection is much more widespread than indicated by the number of confirmed cases. Population prevalence estimates can now be used to calibrate epidemic and mortality projections.

 

5. More data from the United States

Between March 22 and April 4, 2020, a total of 215 pregnant women delivered infants at the New York–Presbyterian Allen Hospital and Columbia University Irving Medical Center. All the women were screened on admission for symptoms of Covid-19. Four women (1.9%) had fever or other symptoms of Covid-19 on admission, and all 4 women tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (Figure 1). Of the 211 women without symptoms, all were afebrile on admission. Nasopharyngeal swabs were obtained from 210 of the 211 women (99.5%) who did not have symptoms of Covid-19; of these women, 29 (13.7%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2. Thus, 29 of the 33 patients who were positive for SARS-CoV-2 at admission (87.9%) had no symptoms of Covid-19 at presentation.

Our use of universal SARS-CoV-2 testing in all pregnant patients presenting for delivery revealed that at this point in the pandemic in New York City, most of the patients who were positive for SARS-CoV-2 at delivery were asymptomatic, and more than one of eight asymptomatic patients who were admitted to the labor and delivery unit were positive for SARS-CoV-2. Although this prevalence has limited generalizability to geographic regions with lower rates of infection, it underscores the risk of Covid-19 among asymptomatic obstetrical patients. Moreover, the true prevalence of infection may be underreported because of false negative results of tests to detect SARS-CoV-2.

 

6. Hypothesis and justification from a Professor of Medical Statistics and Epidemiology at the Milan State University, Italy

The real number of COVID-19 cases in the country could be 5,000,0000 (compared to the 119,827 confirmed ones) according to a study which polled people with symptoms who have not been tested, and up to 10,000,000 or even 20,0000,000 after taking into account asymptomatic cases, according to Carlo La Vecchia, a Professor of Medical Statistics and Epidemiology at the Milan State University.

This number would still be insufficient to reach herd immunity, which would require 2/3 of the population (about 40,000,000 people in Italy) having contracted the virus.

The number of deaths could also be underestimated by 3/4 (in Italy as well as in other countries) [source], meaning that the real number of deaths in Italy could be around 60,000.

If these estimates were true, the mortality rate from COVID-19  would be much lower (around 25 times less) than the case fatality rate based solely on laboratory-confirmed cases and deaths, since it would be underestimating cases (the denominator) by a factor of about 1/100 and deaths by a factor of 1/4.

 

7. SARS-CoV-2 mortality in Italy

As for now, it is a well-known publicly recognized fact that Italy labels anyone who died with a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, regardless of the real causes of death, as the victim of the pandemic. At the same time, the objective fact is the increase of the overall mortality in Italy. According to Istat (Istituto nazionale di statistica), there is a general increase in mortality from all causes ⩾20% from March 1 to April 4, 2020 compared with the average for the same period in 2015-2019. Bergamo is at the top in the growth of mortality among municipalities, + 382.8% of deaths.

However, the mortality grew not only and not so much from the causes associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

A few examples:

• Albino town: from February 23 to March 27, 2019 – 24 people died; from February 23 to March 27, 2020 – 145 people (SARS-CoV-2 causes – 30 dead).
• Skandzoroshyate town: from January to March 2019 – 45 deaths; from January to March 2020 – 135 (SARS-CoV-2 – 20 dead).
• San Pellegrino Terme town: March 2019 – 2 deaths, March 2020 – 45 (SARS-CoV-2 – 11 dead).
• These numbers could be explained by the lack of SARS-CoV-2 tests in the specified period.

At the same time, the mortality from other diseases increased significantly in the comparative period of April 1-4, 2020 compared to April 1-4, 2019. The lack of transparence of the Italian system also should be noted. For example, on April 17, Istat said that at that moment it was impossible to draw any conclusions about the increase of the mortality in Italy in general (as well as in regions and provinces) from the data obtained by Istat for the first four months of 2020 and compare it with the same period in 2019. These graphs and tables show statistics:

 

8. SARS-CoV-2 mortality in Spain

Spanish Minister of Health Salvador Illa stated that every dead person, that tested positively to SARS-CoV-2, is considered as a SARS-CoV-2 death.

The mathematical model employed by the University of Carlos III in Madrid (Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, UC3M) demonstrates that in the last decade in Spain, an average of 1,150 people die from all causes every day in March. According to the records of acts of civil status, from March 16 (the day quarantine began), the number of daily deaths from all causes began to increase, sometimes reaching 1,400 per day. From March 17 to March 30, 21,243 deaths were recorded in Spain. This is 5,398 more than the prediction based on the extrapolation of data from previous years. The forecasted number for the same period is 15,844 – 34.1% less. At the same time, the total number of deaths from whom SARS-CoV-2 during the period from March 17 to March 30, 2020 was 7,591 people. This is a consequence of the general recognition of SARS-CoV-2 as the cause of deaths regardless of the actual situation. In any case, there is no exponential growth of the overall mortality in Spain or Italy.

• https://www.ine.es
• http://www.elespiadigital.com/index.php/noticias/historico-de-noticias/29014-2020-03-31-14-54-50
• https://www.hoy.es/sociedad/salud/marzo-registra-muertes-20200402124928-ntrc.html

 

Conclusions

In this survey, we demonstrated the researches and approaches of about 100 eminent scientists from around the world. In general, they agree that the current statistical data does not reflect the actual state of affairs, and the publicly distributed media estimates of the mortality rate are at least incorrect, and do not correspond to the actual picture.

The actual number of people with SARS-CoV-2 infection or people that already passed through COVID-19 early-stage or without symptoms is several dozen times higher than the public numbers show.

This is primarily due to the approaches and scope of testing. The public numbers have little to do with science. This is, to a greater extent, either media or politically motivated data. You should also consider the factor of a special picture of the course of the disease, which affects medical statistics (RKI Epidemiological bulletins).

Accordingly, the real mortality rate from SARS-CoV-2 is 25-60 times less than the figures presented to us by MSM and a number of governments.

The number of people with SARS-CoV-2 virus, but without the COVID-19 disease or with a mild form of the disease, according to various estimates, ranges from 85% to 95%. This group, as a rule, does not fall into official statistics, as it is not tested, not hospitalized, and does not seek medical help.

The negative consequences for life and health of people from ill-conceived social measures can at times surpass the threat posed by SARS-CoV-2. There has been a significant increase in the mortality from diseases unrelated to SARS-CoV-2 already.

Countries, whose leadership works closely with scientists, consistently and quickly responds to changes in the situation and the emergence of new data, will receive a huge advantage in the post-COVID-19 world.

The current actions of politicians in a number of countries are difficult to explain with anything other than incompetence or deliberate actions to achieve their personal / clan political ambitions or promote interests of external actors.

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

22 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

The current actions of politicians in a number of countries are difficult to explain with anything other than incompetence or deliberate actions to achieve their personal / clan political ambitions or promote interests of external actors.

 

So about those interests of external actors ...

 

Bill Gates and Ellen Discuss Vaccinating ‘7 Billion Healthy People’ in Order to ‘Return to Normal’

Bill Gates sat down with Ellen DeGeneres over the internet last week to discuss the coronavirus pandemic and to tell the world that life will not get back to normal until ‘7 billion healthy people’ have taken his soon-to-be-invented vaccine.

Of course, their tacitly agreed upon position is that a vaccine is the solution and that there are no other alternatives worth discussing, even though many are reporting that the virus is already mutating and a vaccine may not ever be possible.

Bill: “…what policies do we have, because until we get almost everybody vaccinated, uh, globally, we still won’t be fully back to normal.”

Ellen: “…I mean, I can’t even imagine going out to a crowded restaurant or anything in June or July if we don’t have vaccines, how, how do you see us acclimating back into a normal life when we don’t have the cure for this?”

Bill: “…we need to start getting things back to normal. They won’t be back to normal until we either have that phenomenal vaccine or a therapeutic that’s over 95% effective and so we have to assume that’s going to be almost 18 months from now.” – Bill Gates

Eighteen months of lockdown would desolate our civil liberties and destroy the economy for years to come, all while substantial money is made from the eventual vaccine, whether or not it works as intended or causes harm to the patient.

“[The economy] won’t go back to normal in some very rapid fashion because not only do we have these factories shut down and all these activities have ceased, even as we start them back up people will still be a bit leery about going out and they will have seen their investments and their job security greatly reduced.” – Bill Gates

Bill Gates, Anthony Fauci and others have for weeks been alluding to a coronavirus vaccine and immunity certificate for everyone, which would ostensibly be required to engage in essential activities such as school, work, and worship.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has been funding the development of vaccines by supporting leading pharmaceutical companies, and also supporting the development of new technologies such as ‘microneedle technology,‘ which would implant a record of immunization under the skin that can be read by smartphone technology or via infrared light. Numerous multimillion-dollar grants have been awarded to these projects.

“We want to get into this semi-normal phase whenever we can and then the vaccine is the thing that will change things and that’s why [we need to] figure out how to make sure it’s safe because when you give it to 7 billion healthy people that’s super important.” – Bill Gates

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

2020 Study Shows Common Flu Shots Make Recipients More Susceptible To Coronavirus Lung Infections

A 2020 study conducted by the U.S. Department of Defense entitled, Influenza vaccination and respiratory virus interference among Department of Defense personnel during the 2017–2018 influenza season by Greg G. Wolff, published in Vaccine, Volume 38, Issue 2, 10 January 2020, Pages 350-354, found that military personnel who had received seasonal flu shots were significantly more susceptible to coronavirus-associated respiratory infections  ...

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

5 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

For the impatient tl;dr crowd here is my short summary conclusion of the article:

R U callin me slow?  🥴🤡🤕

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

10 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

R U callin me slow?  🥴🤡🤕

            i     m     p     a     t     i     e     n     t

/ =

ssssssslllllllllloooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwww

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

14 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

R U callin me slow?  🥴🤡🤕

....glacial...😂

[Ron Ron + 18]

15 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

This is a follow up from my earlier thread Charts of COVID-19 Fatality Rate by Age and Sex

In my next comment is an extensive article from SouthFront, full of facts and statistics.  

For the impatient tl;dr crowd here is my short summary conclusion of the article:

-  Around 100 scientists around the world generally agree the media's Covid-19 statistics are incorrect.

-  Actual numbers of people already infected but who have no symptoms are several dozen times higher than public numbers indicate.

-  Much of this incorrect testing numbers are media or politically motivated data.

-  The real mortality rate is 25 - 60 times less than that presented by media and many governments.

-  Current actions of politicians in many countries are difficult to explain with anything other than incompetence or deliberate actions to gain power and / or promote control by external actors.

 

Once again when it comes to a novel infectious virus the challenge is not the mortality rate but the rate of hospitalization. What we have learned in WUhan, Italy, Spain, New Orleans and metro NYC, the fatality rate jumps when the healthcare system is overwhelmed. The goal in the short term is to flatten the curve with the goal of avoiding over whelming the health care system. Hopefully, in a few weeks we will be in a position were we can relax the social Isolation rules without the risk of overwhelming our healthcare system. So you are correct, the fatality rate is low. However, in areas with high rates of hospitalization and ICU admissions the fatality rate jumps.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

17 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

 

So about those interests of external actors ...

 

Bill Gates and Ellen Discuss Vaccinating ‘7 Billion Healthy People’ in Order to ‘Return to Normal’

Bill Gates sat down with Ellen DeGeneres over the internet last week to discuss the coronavirus pandemic and to tell the world that life will not get back to normal until ‘7 billion healthy people’ have taken his soon-to-be-invented vaccine.

Of course, their tacitly agreed upon position is that a vaccine is the solution and that there are no other alternatives worth discussing, even though many are reporting that the virus is already mutating and a vaccine may not ever be possible.

Bill: “…what policies do we have, because until we get almost everybody vaccinated, uh, globally, we still won’t be fully back to normal.”

Ellen: “…I mean, I can’t even imagine going out to a crowded restaurant or anything in June or July if we don’t have vaccines, how, how do you see us acclimating back into a normal life when we don’t have the cure for this?”

Bill: “…we need to start getting things back to normal. They won’t be back to normal until we either have that phenomenal vaccine or a therapeutic that’s over 95% effective and so we have to assume that’s going to be almost 18 months from now.” – Bill Gates

Eighteen months of lockdown would desolate our civil liberties and destroy the economy for years to come, all while substantial money is made from the eventual vaccine, whether or not it works as intended or causes harm to the patient.

“[The economy] won’t go back to normal in some very rapid fashion because not only do we have these factories shut down and all these activities have ceased, even as we start them back up people will still be a bit leery about going out and they will have seen their investments and their job security greatly reduced.” – Bill Gates

Bill Gates, Anthony Fauci and others have for weeks been alluding to a coronavirus vaccine and immunity certificate for everyone, which would ostensibly be required to engage in essential activities such as school, work, and worship.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has been funding the development of vaccines by supporting leading pharmaceutical companies, and also supporting the development of new technologies such as ‘microneedle technology,‘ which would implant a record of immunization under the skin that can be read by smartphone technology or via infrared light. Numerous multimillion-dollar grants have been awarded to these projects.

“We want to get into this semi-normal phase whenever we can and then the vaccine is the thing that will change things and that’s why [we need to] figure out how to make sure it’s safe because when you give it to 7 billion healthy people that’s super important.” – Bill Gates

 

https://www.geekwire.com/2016/bill-gates-voter-opposition-globalization-huge-concern-wake-call/ Bill and Melinda are very big among the globalist would be overlords of all deplorables.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Anybody else out there have a problem with the micro needle technology and getting implanted with a chip?

[ronwagn + 6,290]

2 hours ago, Ron Ron said:

Once again when it comes to a novel infectious virus the challenge is not the mortality rate but the rate of hospitalization. What we have learned in WUhan, Italy, Spain, New Orleans and metro NYC, the fatality rate jumps when the healthcare system is overwhelmed. The goal in the short term is to flatten the curve with the goal of avoiding over whelming the health care system. Hopefully, in a few weeks we will be in a position were we can relax the social Isolation rules without the risk of overwhelming our healthcare system. So you are correct, the fatality rate is low. However, in areas with high rates of hospitalization and ICU admissions the fatality rate jumps.

That means that if you are not in the greater NYC megalopolis, Detroit, Chicago, or some small hotspot you should use all precautions but proceed with your life and get back to work while protecting the old and infirm. Peoples jobs and the overall economy is equally important. 

My topic on the CCP Virus https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MXY8T0j7k0oUBsHW4BfjJM__DRIyzqrDf_FSlV4hHpw/edit#

[Ernst Reim + 33]

Guys, Ron, sorry, bear with me: I do not get your point! I took the easy way and read Ron's summary. I do not doubt them. I just do not understand why you think they support your argument. Here the numbers, directly quoted:

1. The research issued by the Bonn University Hospital: "The mortality (mortality rate), [...] is approximately 0.37% based on the preliminary data of this study."

5. More data from the United States: "13.7% were positive for SARS-CoV-2." Throw in the 4 with symptoms and make it 16%. If 16% of NYC is infected, that's 1.4 million people. They have 11 000 deaths, that's an IFR of 0.81%.

6. Hypothesis and justification from a Professor of Medical Statistics and Epidemiology at the Milan State University, Italy : " the real number of COVID-19 cases in the country could be 5,000,0000 (compared to the 119,827 confirmed ones) [...] meaning that the real number of deaths in Italy could be around 60,000." : 60,000 / 5,000,000 = 1.2%

All those numbers Ron cited boil down to around 1% plus minus change. The very, very earliest numbers from China said 3-4% in Wuhan, 0.6% outside, and everybody concluded that the 3-4% in Wuhan is overestimated since no mild cases were recorded when nobody knew about the epidemic. The Diamond Princess had a fatality rate of 1.7%, what the experts said should be considered 1% for the total population due to the age factor. All the experts and any information I checked started very, very soon to give 1% as the most likely number. 1% and 60% total infection rate in the US would mean 2 million deaths for the whole US population, which was the worst-case scenario in the beginning.

Where is the distortion? I am flat out surprised that the experts came this close in early estimates to what we now see emerging. (Or would you consider a factor of two in something as unpredictable as an IFR as a distortion? )

I do not want to be obstinate, but where do these reports of Ron contradict the early doom-and-gloom predictions?

Whether the lock-down was the best approach and what we should do now... completely different story. But Ron just confirmed that it is as deadly as the experts estimated... not much more, but not much less.

Edited April 25, 2020 by Ernst Reim

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

4 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Anybody else out there have a problem with the micro needle technology and getting implanted with a chip?

Big time.    Do. Not. Want.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

39 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Big time.    Do. Not. Want.

I think this would be the ‘straw that broke the camel’s back’ in the States. Mass protests and civil unrest.

[0R0 + 6,251]

5 hours ago, Ron Ron said:

Once again when it comes to a novel infectious virus the challenge is not the mortality rate but the rate of hospitalization. What we have learned in WUhan, Italy, Spain, New Orleans and metro NYC, the fatality rate jumps when the healthcare system is overwhelmed. The goal in the short term is to flatten the curve with the goal of avoiding over whelming the health care system. Hopefully, in a few weeks we will be in a position were we can relax the social Isolation rules without the risk of overwhelming our healthcare system. So you are correct, the fatality rate is low. However, in areas with high rates of hospitalization and ICU admissions the fatality rate jumps.

In non dense urban conditions we can do that already with the caveat that people wear effective masks and gloves on in higher density spaces like public transport and congregations. Retailers and workplaces must do frequent sanitation on all public contact surfaces. The degree of immunity in rural and suburban areas is low because the virus had not made inroads so prevalence is in the single % points. 

Low density cities relying on driving are not having as bad a time as the NYC metro or NE seaboard as a whole. The R0 in NYC metro is very high, in the >10 range because of public transport and crowded bars where people are in close proximity and there is an enormous number of public contact surfaces everyone touches going in and out of the office and home and elevator use is constant. R0 falls well below 2 in rural and suburban non commuter populations. 

High density areas will remain actively infected for a while longer because of the echo wave of infections as community infection turned to household infection because of limited ability to maintain spacing in crowded apartments. Which both creates more infections and larger initial doses of virus. 

The surprisingly high infection rates in Detroit and New Orleans are not well correlated to pop. density. These are not such high density populations. 2k/sqm for New Orleans and 5k for Detroit, Cleveland none of which rely heavily on public transport. Philadelphia is only  4k/sqm but relies on public transport What they are correlated to is high activity young population with median ages of 31 in Detroit, 34 in Philladelphia (and NYC), 36 and 37 in  Cleveland and New Orleans. Which leaves New Orleans in question. LA of general median age of 35 has low and high median age areas, where there are intensely young neighborhoods with median ages for 70 of the neighborhoods each grouped  Under 30, 30-34, 35-39, but only 38 neighborhoods of median ages over 40. 

Classroom and school conditions are primary transmission hubs along with public transport (including elevators). This young population of public transport users and schools must be the target for obtaining herd immunity. They would serve as the buffer for further outbreaks. We are well on our way to having this in high density urban centers and their public transport commuter communities.  

[0R0 + 6,251]

15 hours ago, Ernst Reim said:

Guys, Ron, sorry, bear with me: I do not get your point! I took the easy way and read Ron's summary. I do not doubt them. I just do not understand why you think they support your argument. Here the numbers, directly quoted:

1. The research issued by the Bonn University Hospital: "The mortality (mortality rate), [...] is approximately 0.37% based on the preliminary data of this study."

5. More data from the United States: "13.7% were positive for SARS-CoV-2." Throw in the 4 with symptoms and make it 16%. If 16% of NYC is infected, that's 1.4 million people. They have 11 000 deaths, that's an IFR of 0.81%.

6. Hypothesis and justification from a Professor of Medical Statistics and Epidemiology at the Milan State University, Italy : " the real number of COVID-19 cases in the country could be 5,000,0000 (compared to the 119,827 confirmed ones) [...] meaning that the real number of deaths in Italy could be around 60,000." : 60,000 / 5,000,000 = 1.2%

All those numbers Ron cited boil down to around 1% plus minus change. The very, very earliest numbers from China said 3-4% in Wuhan, 0.6% outside, and everybody concluded that the 3-4% in Wuhan is overestimated since no mild cases were recorded when nobody knew about the epidemic. The Diamond Princess had a fatality rate of 1.7%, what the experts said should be considered 1% for the total population due to the age factor. All the experts and any information I checked started very, very soon to give 1% as the most likely number. 1% and 60% total infection rate in the US would mean 2 million deaths for the whole US population, which was the worst-case scenario in the beginning.

Where is the distortion? I am flat out surprised that the experts came this close in early estimates to what we now see emerging. (Or would you consider a factor of two in something as unpredictable as an IFR as a distortion? )

I do not want to be obstinate, but where do these reports of Ron contradict the early doom-and-gloom predictions?

Whether the lock-down was the best approach and what we should do now... completely different story. But Ron just confirmed that it is as deadly as the experts estimated... not much more, but not much less.

The point is that those are the upper boundaries for the numbers. The statistics are selective for being dead and having CV19+ results. Thus the cause of death and the published numbers are not directly related. The extra deaths are not CV19 deaths alone but deaths caused by lack of access to overwhelmed hospitals. The actual CV19 as cause of death cases is unknown but substantially lower than the statistical count. Considering the nearly universal comorbidity stats, it could be that most of the CV19 deaths were incidental to the infection and its disease process. Surely a large portion  of them were. 

This is not all of it. There is a large difference between virulence of infections depending on the viral load at initial exposure, and maintenance of environmental viral concentrations in confined wards where patients continuously pass the virus among themselves. This was observed early on in Wuhan, where with the initial surge the isolation wards were packed with people such that there was no chance for any to overcome the virus because of constant exposure to virus laden air. Thus geographies where initial exposures tend to be high produce higher mortality rates. These are the same high transmission densely packed elevators, subway cars 

Overwhelmed hospitals double the mortality rate.  

Flu vaccines raise the susceptibility to coronaviruses such as those of the common cold, which precede pneumonias, and cause C19. They raise susceptibility and rate of occurrence by a factor of 2. Their prevalent use among seniors would be expected to raise the mortality from  CV19. 

Since prevalence testing has so far been haphazard and sampling unrelated to epidemiological considerations (testing populations based on their exposure to high transmission rate environments). We are missing still the actual data for the IFR. 

It is very likely to be in the 0.1% once exacerbating factors and overcounting are considered. 

Bottom line is that only the high risk group should be isolated in quarantine and using PPE until the young obtain herd immunity. Which can be done in a matter of a few weeks. 

The economic shutdown and universal quarantine never was necessary and is a reflection of political preference and hysterical panic. 

You are infected with the panic, as is the epidemiological community, which causes you to read all the facts from the glass half full of virus perspective rather than treat both probabilities the same way. 

[Ernst Reim + 33]

6 hours ago, 0R0 said:

You are infected with the panic, as is the epidemiological community, which causes you to read all the facts from the glass half full of virus perspective rather than treat both probabilities the same way. 

0R0, I like the way you present arguments. Please **do not ruin this** by accusing a disagreeing opinion to be "infected with panic". I could call you "blind to the facts" too. I would not have any justification doing so and I do not think that this furthers a reasonable argument.

Regarding your arguments above, I have not seen anywhere any data that supports a severe overestimation of COVID19 deaths. I exclude Spain, on which Ron reported above, which I had never looked into. But the UK, Italy (see Ron's 6 above) and NYC all report drastically higher than expected mortality and that the excess is **bigger** not smaller than the assigned COVID19 deaths. E. g. below:

That's from the NY Times (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/10/upshot/coronavirus-deaths-new-york-city.html), but somewhere in another thread there is CDC data showing the same.  There is just no evidence at all that we are seriously overcounting deaths.

For the rest, infection rate, virulence, effect of flu shots, you are making assumptions. There is nothing wrong with this and there is some supporting evidence for your opinion, but they are still assumptions, not facts. Take the flu shots: that some vaccinations can actually  increase vulnerability against another virus is known to happen. And there is some data that indicate that this **might** be the case with with flu shots. But currently is is just a correlation, there is not enough data to establish causality. For example, flu shots are typically given to people who have either a higher risk for complications from the flu or a higher risk getting the flu. The same reasons would make them also more vulnerable to getting infected with the Coronavirus, without the flu shot being responsible. As an example, prevalence of COVID19 cases in the US correlate roughly with the distance to the ocean. The reason for this is clearly population density, but I can claim a correlation with distance to the ocean. My example is obviously non-sense and your flu-shot correlation is not... but both are similar that they true correlations, but not necessarily causality-related.

In sum, you might very well be right that it turns out to be 0.1%. But you also very well might not be. And please do not forget that IFR does not equal death numbers! The flu never gets to more than 20% of the population. All assumptions assume that an uncontrolled spread of the Coronavirus would get more. Look again at NYC: 20% already or less IMO, 80% or more in your opinion. Thus depsite quarantine, that's more than a normal flu would ever manage.

 

 

 

Edited April 26, 2020 by Ernst Reim

[0R0 + 6,251]

Spread patterns. Study of S Korea call center. The blue seats are CV19 cases. 

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/8/20-1274_article

 

[0R0 + 6,251]

5 hours ago, Ernst Reim said:

0R0, I like the way you present arguments. Please **do not ruin this** by accusing a disagreeing opinion to be "infected with panic". I could call you "blind to the facts" too. I would not have any justification doing so and I do not think that this furthers a reasonable argument.

Regarding your arguments above, I have not seen anywhere any data that supports a severe overestimation of COVID19 deaths. I exclude Spain, on which Ron reported above, which I had never looked into. But the UK, Italy (see Ron's 6 above) and NYC all report drastically higher than expected mortality and that the excess is **bigger** not smaller than the assigned COVID19 deaths. E. g. below:

That's from the NY Times (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/10/upshot/coronavirus-deaths-new-york-city.html), but somewhere in another thread there is CDC data showing the same.  There is just no evidence at all that we are seriously overcounting deaths.

For the rest, infection rate, virulence, effect of flu shots, you are making assumptions. There is nothing wrong with this and there is some supporting evidence for your opinion, but they are still assumptions, not facts. Take the flu shots: that some vaccinations can actually  increase vulnerability against another virus is known to happen. And there is some data that indicate that this **might** be the case with with flu shots. But currently is is just a correlation, there is not enough data to establish causality. For example, flu shots are typically given to people who have either a higher risk for complications from the flu or a higher risk getting the flu. The same reasons would make them also more vulnerable to getting infected with the Coronavirus, without the flu shot being responsible. As an example, prevalence of COVID19 cases in the US correlate roughly with the distance to the ocean. The reason for this is clearly population density, but I can claim a correlation with distance to the ocean. My example is obviously non-sense and your flu-shot correlation is not... but both are similar that they true correlations, but not necessarily causality-related.

In sum, you might very well be right that it turns out to be 0.1%. But you also very well might not be. And please do not forget that IFR does not equal death numbers! The flu never gets to more than 20% of the population. All assumptions assume that an uncontrolled spread of the Coronavirus would get more. Look again at NYC: 20% already or less IMO, 80% or more in your opinion. Thus depsite quarantine, that's more than a normal flu would ever manage.

The extremely high rate of comorbidities is an indication of the deaths being less likely to be a direct result of the virus, but of it contributing to the stress that ultimately resulted in death. In any case, the rest of the country without the comorbidity factors faces a 0.01% mortality. So the overall quarantine is silly at best and a malicious attempt at economic sabotage and a massive government power grab among other possibilities. What it could never have been is a rational policy. Note that the risk factors were known well before the outbreak picked up in the first week of March. This specific copy of China's policy was unnecessary, it is as if we learned nothing from the one set of data they didn't doctor up, the distribution of comorbidities among patients by age. So you quarantine the high risk people and continue as normal for everyone else. A few well chosen precautionary measures were fine. But someone had this burning hat on with the need to prevent herd immunity from forming. A vaccine company? Gilead? Democrats? Globalists? Point is, the reaction and the information coming in were not proportional or rationally related. It is only one step behind from North Korean reaction, where they had one case come in from China so they shot him.

It is as if you jump off the building when the viral contagion comes to your town, telling yourself "it will never get me" as you join the pile of bodies on the pavement. 

As in Italy, New York is showing the results of not having emergency services capability available. People at the height of the outbreak in late March were not getting to hospitals. Many have not had "elective procedures" and doctor's visits because of the outbreak pushing them aside. As a result, many died of non-treatment, not necessarily from untested CV19 deaths. The probabilities will show up once the forensic review of CV19 cases is done. Right now we are at 10% of patient files reviewed for the deceased. Cause of death for untested cases will also be collated. But not yet. We will find out. But the assumption that people with CV19 did not get to the hospital in NYC as had happened in Wuhan is much less likely. Nursing home deaths were generally tested. 

We will find out by rationally targeted antibody tests where the high prevalence populations are. NY births were registering a 14 or 16% infection rate in the pre-delivery blood tests. Preganant women would be among the most likely groups to self quarantine upon the news of the pandemic, so it is likely the low bar for the prevalence rate among those who are not normally segregated from society. 

This is not the flu. We apparently have no preliminary antibody resistance to this SARS virus, which we do have for the flu. So everybody exposed gets the infection. Prison and other close proximity situations like that call center above, show you how horribly contagious it is. In bay type prisons practically ALL the staff and prisoners get infected within 2 3 weeks of initial infection. 

My expectations are true for the active public transport commuter and child and parent populations in NYC. The others would be expected to have lower prevalence rates.