Emotions running wild.
Perhaps we should wait for studies that donât include selection bias.
1 Like
And how many had died with the flu that wasnât recorded as the flu death?
Nah- Facebook posters are a representative sample, dontcha know?
2 Likes
Are you going around acting like itâs the flu? Have you changed your lifestyle?
stanford showed 50 to 85X higher rate than reported.
chelsea mass data (not formal and not an actual study) showed 30% infection rate.
another cali study showed 30-55X higher than reported.
a study in LA county shows up to 1/2 million infections.
1 Like
You realize all of the figures of flu deaths are the estimated values that take this into account, no (this is rhetorical, I know you donât until I just informed you)? You know the worst flu year weâve had in the past 10 years where we had 61,000 deaths? The number of confirmed flu deaths was 15,630. Want to use that as a general standard for extrapolation? Fine, then weâve had over 200,000 COVID deathsâŠ
And btw there have been 10,344 deaths in New York City so far, with a population of 10 million.
That puts the current COVID death rate/population at just around 0.1%- the same as seasonal flu.
And we know that every single person in NYC has not been infectedâŠmeaning the lower bound of the eventual death rate from COVID is likely >>0.1%.
Thatâs not a model- thatâs actual data.
1 Like
Yes, even if it is 3 or 4 times deadly then flu thatâs still a be relief from 4 or 5 percent that weâre getting now.
Also as OP stated/correct? It give lot more hopeful outcome in long run.
Itâs only libs (including you right from your first reply in this thread) insinuating that people donât care about the death toll. I know you know thatâs false.
Thatâs what this thread was created for, after all. But youâre polluting that message with your libberism.
Isnât there something like 650 thousand a year from heart diseases?
How many died from heart diseases that had COVID-19?
ButâŠwhat difference does it make?
Iâm aware. Iâm also aware the deaths are somewhat inflated. may end up around .3-.4%, which is what the study showing 50-85X reported rate showed. That seems a reasonable estimate this year. going forward it should be much lower.
Libs will believe anythingâŠ
What part of ânone of these had representative samples of the populationâ did you miss?
What part ofâŠthis still only translates to 4% or so of the population being infected and not the 20% the flu infects every yearâŠdid you miss?
The Stanford study recruited on Facebook and undersampled several demographics. Even the 50-85x more infections led to an infection rate of 2-6%, not the 20% that get infected by the flu. AND Santa Clara was a hot spot.
The Chelsea study was of people who happened to pass through Bellingham SquareâŠnot a representative sample of the population. Numbers are HUGELY skewed.
The USC study again sufferd from the same flawsâŠagain, however, it shows an infection rate in that county ofâŠwait for it, 4%âŠnot the 20% that get the flu every year.
I know you like to keep doing 30x-50x or 50x-85x because it sounds like âOh my GOD, this disease is EVERYWHEREâ.
But in every case this number comes out, it adds up to about 4% or so of the population, even taking these studies at face value. Nowhere CLOSE to the 20% that gets the flu every year.
3x-4x more deadly than the flue is still pretty damn deadlyâŠso it is NOT like the flu.
Oh and on top of thatâŠaverage hospital stay for a COVID patient is 1.5-2.0x the average hospital stay for the fluâŠleading to many many more hospital bed days.
So to call COVID the âlesser fluâ is most definitely ânot correctâ.
You donât know if theyâve all been exposed.
1 Like
Sure we do.
It is just like the flu.