Hi AFC East. How is it meaningless to use the current data, not what existed a month ago, to become more knowledgeable as how this particular virus works? What I've been looking at is current analysis and studies like the one Stanford did in Santa Clara county. There have been other anecdotal occurrences where a whole population was tested, like the Boston homeless testing, not just who took themselves to a hospital or testing site. It reveals many who acquired the virus and didn't know it. It also uncludes those who felt sick for a time but did not get tested and then got better. Those are not included in the CFR ratio that is widely quoted and is being used to determine societal restrictions and behavior. Simply, the numerator (deaths) is known. The denominator, number of people who acquired it, is UNKNOWN and is many many times higher. the Santa Clara study indicates the denominator could be 55 times higher.Originally Posted by AFC East
Second, who is dying? Look at the data, AFC East. About 80% of the deaths are in this subset: Over 70 and/or those with co-morbidities. Nobody knows the true CFR, granted, but using this data we have now (again, not a month ago or longer) it looks like around 0.5%. I think it's actually lower but let's use that. that means 5 out of 1000 that acquire it die. 4 out of those 5 are in the HIGH RISK subset described. the high risk subset population should be restricted. They should be wearing masks, avoiding crowds, etc. That is the way a quarantine used to work.
Please explain to me and other readers why this is meaningless. I do not want to be wrong. We already did the lockdown and there will be many analyses done as to whether that was appropriate. I'm concerned about the present and what we advise from here.
This article is helpful and with many embedded links showing the appropriate data.
https://off-guardian.org/2020/04/29/...alth-concerns/
This was sent to me after I posted Friday, in case anyone was wondering.
Reply With Quote