Study: Covid-19 far less deadly than reported

Bigblue2023

All-American
Jun 22, 2019
2,236
6,984
0
According to this study out of Santa Clara California, there are 50 to 85 unconfirmed infections for every 1 confirmed. This would raise the number of infections nationwide from 710,000 to 35 to 60.3 million. That would dramatically lower the mortality rate from the current 3 to 5% all the way down to .06% to .1 percent, which makes it less deadly than some strains of the flu. This study lines up with other similar studies around the world. Considering they say an extremely high percentage of people are asymptomatic, these numbers should not at all be surprising.


https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10....Hf3jOI8vjUYV2EzjwvssH9QT-Uww1_iHQasL06fM4kmw8
 

justanotherguy505

All-Conference
Jul 16, 2003
13,225
2,217
0
According to this study out of Santa Clara California, there are 50 to 85 unconfirmed infections for every 1 confirmed. This would raise the number of infections nationwide from 710,000 to 35 to 60.3 million. That would dramatically lower the mortality rate from the current 3 to 5% all the way down to .06% to .1 percent, which makes it less deadly than some strains of the flu. This study lines up with other similar studies around the world. Considering they say an extremely high percentage of people are asymptomatic, these numbers should not at all be surprising.


https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10....Hf3jOI8vjUYV2EzjwvssH9QT-Uww1_iHQasL06fM4kmw8


I'll take "Things that were common sense if you used your brain" for $1,200", Alex.
 

CatOfDaVille

All-American
Mar 30, 2007
6,173
8,100
0
While this is nice to have it somewhat confirmed, I don't think this is some big revelation. I believe most people assumed that many more people were infected than the numbers show.

It all points back to testing. We need to test millions of people to see who has had it already so that we can safely start to open things up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrKentucky

Bigblue2023

All-American
Jun 22, 2019
2,236
6,984
0
While this is nice to have it somewhat confirmed, I don't think this is some big revelation. I believe most people assumed that many more people were infected than the numbers show.

It all points back to testing. We need to test millions of people to see who has had it already so that we can safely start to open things up.

It shouldn't be a big revelation, but for most unfortunately, it will be. The panic brought on by this is beyond words unreasonable. Youd be amazed how many believe this virus is a death sentence due to the media reporting.
 

The-Hack

Heisman
Oct 1, 2016
24,463
42,984
0
The most important issue: are those who’ve had it immune from the second phase. If so, we’ve cleared a major hurdle.

Next step: let’s all get tested by June 15, and hopefully most of us had it, and had a sniffle!
 

Saguaro Cat

All-American
Apr 27, 2008
15,600
6,197
113
The state of New York. Not the city but the entire state's population mortality is at .08% already. That's everybody that has gotten the flu and everyone who hasn't. They'll blow past the high end of that study in another week.
 
Jun 11, 2012
15,051
15,721
0
The state of New York. Not the city but the entire state's population mortality is at .08% already. That's everybody that has gotten the flu and everyone who hasn't. They'll blow past the high end of that study in another week.


This is a misconception. The mortality rate only includes positive tests. Once antibody testing is done that number will drop dramatically by including every person that had it but never got tested.
 
Jan 28, 2007
20,397
30,168
0
The state of New York. Not the city but the entire state's population mortality is at .08% already. That's everybody that has gotten the flu and everyone who hasn't. They'll blow past the high end of that study in another week.

Correct - the state of NY has 19.45 million people and 17K have already died. That’s 0.087% fatality rate of their entire state‘s population. Assuming another 13K people die, they’ll be at 0.15% of the entire population dying. So unless every single person in the state had it, this is deadlier than the flu.
 

WildcatofNati

Heisman
Mar 31, 2009
8,183
12,420
0
Correct - the state of NY has 19.45 million people and 17K have already died. That’s 0.087% fatality rate of their entire state‘s population. Assuming another 13K people die, they’ll be at 0.15% of the entire population dying. So unless every single person in the state had it, this is deadlier than the flu.
Considering that now when someone dies at home, and there is no other obvious cause of death, it's counted a coronavirus death; I wouldn't be surprised if the New York death toll from coronavirus is astronomical.
 

Saguaro Cat

All-American
Apr 27, 2008
15,600
6,197
113
This is a misconception. The mortality rate only includes positive tests. Once antibody testing is done that number will drop dramatically by including every person that had it but never got tested.
Nope. The numbers I'm talking about has nothing to do with untested people. I'm being super conservative to find the absolute minimum.

Pretend it was decided everyone in the state of New York tested positive today. All 20,000,000. There are already enough deaths in New York today to make that mortality rate .08% of 20,000,000.

And unfortunately, the number of deaths being divided by that 20,000,000 is only going to grow. There are people who have it today that will pass away in the next couple weeks. That addition alone will drive the total past .1%

And in reality there is still a sizable population of the state that have not contracted it that eventually will and also pass.
 

Punkin Puss

Senior
Nov 6, 2019
685
923
0
" Participants were recruited using Facebook ads targeting a representative sample of the county by demographic and geographic characteristics. We report the prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in a sample of 3,330 people"

Doesn't seem like a true evaluation using volunteers than random sampling analysis of the population. How many have been sitting at home quarantined?
 

GoBigBlue712

All-Conference
Nov 6, 2018
1,002
1,642
0
Here’s the biggest issue with that statement: China lied about their numbers. The US has not tested a large majority of the population. We don’t know exactly when this started or who had it and didn’t know.
 
Mar 13, 2004
14,745
12,925
0
Nope. The numbers I'm talking about has nothing to do with untested people. I'm being super conservative to find the absolute minimum.

Pretend it was decided everyone in the state of New York tested positive today. All 20,000,000. There are already enough deaths in New York today to make that mortality rate .08% of 20,000,000.

And unfortunately, the number of deaths being divided by that 20,000,000 is only going to grow. There are people who have it today that will pass away in the next couple weeks. That addition alone will drive the total past .1%

And in reality there is still a sizable population of the state that have not contracted it that eventually will and also pass.

I've been assuming for quite some time now a true fatality rate of about 0.5%. If that's the true rate, it would imply that ~22% of the state of New York has already had it.
 

Saguaro Cat

All-American
Apr 27, 2008
15,600
6,197
113
One thing to note. All those tested were in Santa Clara, California. OP extrapolated that over the United States. Might be a bit of a jump that every where is as infected as that large metropolitan area is. This article about the study gets a little more specific.

https://paloaltoonline.com/news/202...ents-have-likely-been-infected-by-coronavirus

As of April 10, the study notes, 50 people in Santa Clara County had died of COVID-19 in the county, with an average increase of 6% daily in the number of deaths. Given the trajectory, the study estimates that the county will see about 100 deaths by April 22.

Given the study's estimate of 48,000 to 81,000 infections in early April – and a three-week lag from infection to death – the 100 deaths suggest that the infection fatality rate is between 0.12% and 0.2%.
 

WildcatofNati

Heisman
Mar 31, 2009
8,183
12,420
0
" Participants were recruited using Facebook ads targeting a representative sample of the county by demographic and geographic characteristics. We report the prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in a sample of 3,330 people"

Doesn't seem like a true evaluation using volunteers than random sampling analysis of the population. How many have been sitting at home quarantined?

If this group has been sitting at home, and quarantined, that would suggest that the actual prevalence rate is even higher than the study would indicate. The relevant question is whether the study consisted of a disproportionate amount of people who just happened to have recently recovered from a nasty case of what was thought to be the flu or the sniffles. In any event, there are multiple other antibodies tests conducted elsewhere, with true random sampling, and which are consistent with the Stanford study.

And here's something else. If you look at the CV of Drs. Bhattacharya and Benavides- these are not a couple of idiots. I would submit that these two have a very good idea of what they are doing.
 

LadyCaytIL

Heisman
Oct 28, 2012
31,941
32,694
113
Pretty sure I already had it back in January. Know 2 people confirmed that survived it. Really bad flu for 10 days. 102 temp for 2 days, bad headache and caughed my brains out. Felt weak for a month afterwards.

That was the flu going around........ my family got it and it almost killed me..... The flu this time around was one of the worst in a long time.

also got the coronavirus ..... and it was a puss compared to how hard the flu hit me... of course every person is different ...... for a lot of people the Coronavirus is much worse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The-Hack

thornie1

Junior
Dec 5, 2005
511
376
63
The most important issue: are those who’ve had it immune from the second phase. If so, we’ve cleared a major hurdle.

Next step: let’s all get tested by June 15, and hopefully most of us had it, and had a sniffle!

Well someone better get started cause if you want all tested in 60 days need to do about 5.5 mil tests per day!
 

WildcatofNati

Heisman
Mar 31, 2009
8,183
12,420
0
That was the flu going around........ my family got it and it almost killed me..... The flu this time around was one of the worst in a long time.

also got the coronavirus ..... and it was a puss compared to how hard the flu hit me... of course every person is different ...... for a lot of people the Coronavirus is much worse.
I normally don't ask personal questions even on a message board, but since you brought it up....are you sure that you had the coronavirus, through testing. Seriously, I thought I had in December but it might have just been an aggravated case of indoor allergy flaring up. I never got a test so I have no idea.
 

LadyCaytIL

Heisman
Oct 28, 2012
31,941
32,694
113
I normally don't ask personal questions even on a message board, but since you brought it up....are you sure that you had the coronavirus, through testing. Seriously, I thought I had in December but it might have just been an aggravated case of indoor allergy flaring up. I never got a test so I have no idea.

I couldnt get tested in march because they only tested people hospitalized but my doc was completely sure it was coronavirus .. I was tested for the flu in january..... and you dont get the flu twice that quickly unless you are immuno compromised.... and my immune system is ok.

I had headaches bad and a bad sore throat at first....... then my lymph nodes in my neck and chest enlarged and caused pain.... I got really sick at my stomach and chest pressure and pain, it was hurting to breathe for a few days. I dont run temps anymore.. not in 5 years... docs dont know why but I didnt run temp during pneumonia or any of the flu's I've had in 5 years..... but I had many of the other symptoms
 

WildcatofNati

Heisman
Mar 31, 2009
8,183
12,420
0
I couldnt get tested in march because they only tested people hospitalized but my doc was completely sure it was coronavirus .. I was tested for the flu in january..... and you dont get the flu twice that quickly unless you are immuno compromised.... and my immune system is ok.

I had headaches bad and a bad sore throat at first....... then my lymph nodes in my neck and chest enlarged and caused pain.... I got really sick at my stomach and chest pressure and pain, it was hurting to breathe for a few days. I dont run temps anymore.. not in 5 years... docs dont know why but I didnt run temp during pneumonia or any of the flu's I've had in 5 years..... but I had many of the other symptoms
Glad you made it through. It's not good that you couldn't get tested when every celebrity on the planet gets a test as soon as he or she has a runny nose.
 

LadyCaytIL

Heisman
Oct 28, 2012
31,941
32,694
113
Glad you made it through. It's not good that you couldn't get tested when every celebrity on the planet gets a test as soon as he or she has a runny nose.

thanks! and lack of testing in the country is a definite problem but thankfully my doc is a good one and kept up with me.... sent me a pulse ox ..... let me know to get to the hospital if it got down to 90% oxygen..or if I was gasping for air..... luckily it only got down to 93% for 2 days then went back up to 97% and improved.
 

bigsmoothie

All-American
Sep 7, 2004
11,161
8,850
0
I couldnt get tested in march because they only tested people hospitalized but my doc was completely sure it was coronavirus .. I was tested for the flu in january..... and you dont get the flu twice that quickly unless you are immuno compromised.... and my immune system is ok.

I had headaches bad and a bad sore throat at first....... then my lymph nodes in my neck and chest enlarged and caused pain.... I got really sick at my stomach and chest pressure and pain, it was hurting to breathe for a few days. I dont run temps anymore.. not in 5 years... docs dont know why but I didnt run temp during pneumonia or any of the flu's I've had in 5 years..... but I had many of the other symptoms
Sounds horrible.
 

The-Hack

Heisman
Oct 1, 2016
24,463
42,984
0
Well someone better get started cause if you want all tested in 60 days need to do about 5.5 mil tests per day!

Dat true! But we need wide-range testing, to see where this really went, and we’ve been talking about it for two months!
 

WildcatofNati

Heisman
Mar 31, 2009
8,183
12,420
0
Dat true! But we need wide-range testing, to see where this really went, and we’ve been talking about it for two months!
Unfortunately the kind of testing that we need to determine active cases is probably not viable in the foreseeable future. By the time it is viable, I venture to guess that this would largely be over, anyway. However, antibodies tests can tell us a lot. The early indications are that this virus is far more widespread and infectious than originally thought, and far less deadly and also far less dangerous in terms of "being laid up in bed for two weeks" than originally thought.
 

The-Hack

Heisman
Oct 1, 2016
24,463
42,984
0
The early indications are that this virus is far more widespread and infectious than originally thought,

Did you read about the sewage researchers in Massachusetts? They studied sewage and it appeared heavily hit with Covid, far heavier than testing has suggested. The sooner we find out most of us have been exposed, the better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WildcatofNati

sluggercatfan

Heisman
Aug 17, 2004
35,953
29,630
0
CHINESE Caronavirus Virus ! They mean business folks. Wanna see how the billionaires and spineless Washington elites handle this.
 

The-Hack

Heisman
Oct 1, 2016
24,463
42,984
0
CHINESE Caronavirus Virus ! They mean business folks. Wanna see how the billionaires and spineless Washington elites handle this.

So far with about 4 trillion . . . and a trillion, here, and a trillion there, . . . , before long you’re talking serious money!