Death rate is 26 % amongst cases with outcomes.

[drray23]

looking at worldometers I see that amongst the 1,263 092 cases, 287780 cases had an outcome. It falls into three categories. These people either recovered ( at home) , were discharged from the hospital after having recovered or died.
Those who died are 26 % of the outcome 74,799 . The first two categories ( recovered,discharged) together add up to 74 %.


Eventually all the active cases remaining (975,312) will end up falling in one of these three categories.

If the trend holds up this means 26x975,312/100.00 =253,382 more will die.

Either that or those numbers don't mean what i think.

[BigmanPigman]

1. I noticed that too last week and I check that site daily.

I figured there must be a reason that I am not aware of at this point or the liberal media would have reported on this by now, especially Maddow. I heard on CNN today that the fatality rate is still 6% or less.

[Blue_true]

11. 6% of all known positives. All known positives include a very large contingent of asymptomatics. nt

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. It looks like not all of the countries are reporting outcomes,

just reported cases and deaths, so we don't know how many people recovered at home. 26% can't be anywhere near correct. Not even the 1918 flu had outcomes even close to that - case-fatality rates were >2.5%, compared to <0.1% in other influenza pandemics.

[drray23]

3. If they normalized relative to the whole population

that number would be of course way smaller. I'm not sure what they call outcomes then. I did check that if you add up active cases and outcomes you do get the total number.
If this was only relative to people who had to be hospitalized then maybe it would make sense.

[Takket]

4. the number of people who ever test positive vs number who have it...

is exceedingly small, and the follow up to cross people who are "recovered" off the list is likely spotty at best. the death rate is in the reported range of less than 1%.

[drray23]

5. yes but that's not how they reported it on their website.

Their number of outcomes added to active cases gives the total number of positives so that must be only be reports from hospitals. I can see how many who had a mild case recovered and not counted in there. If that's the reason thdn they should clarify their definition on their website.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. Just picking a country that shows very few recoveries:

Norway, a country that seems to have managed the situation better than many, has 7,996 reported cases and 216 deaths, but only 32 recoveries. If 216 people died, that means 7,780 didn't die - but they've reported only 32 recoveries. What happened to the other 7,748? Obviously they aren't dead. According to the graph they are listed as "active cases," whatever that means, but they also show only 27 cases as serious or critical. Looks like the death rate there is about .03%.

[BGBD]

6. You can't calculate that way

As was posted above, not all recoveries are being tracked. The UK, for example, has no reported recoveries and we know that isn't true. Beyond that, even if you are tracking recoveries what are you calling that? Two consecutive negative tests? We have seen people test positive for a long time after recovery. Given the number of patients and lack of resources, I doubt everyone who gets it and recovers ever meets the two test requirement, instead they just recover and after some period go back to their lives.

We don't have a good way to calculate CFR right now given that we have no idea how many infections we have had, not even a ballpark idea. It could be a much, much larger number than what is reported. There is evidence this thing have been circulating for months longer than we thought; We have some contained populations like cruise ships and prisons where we have been able to test entire groups and know those outcomes, but none of those are true microcosms and don't necessarily translate to the general population.

[Blue_true]

13. If you noticed, the person only used the USA numbers.

I have seen a couple people refer to other country's and world statistics. The OP only used USA statistics.

[BGBD]

14. Given that

there doesn't seem to be any centralized effort to count cases and recoveries, we are essentially relying on each state to do so and there are massive differences in the way the counts are being taken. I don't think the USA data is very reliable from that standpoint.

[Blue_true]

16. Good points.

But if "unresolved" cases are people that had symptom, from mild to severe, then for your premise to be accurate, that group is being undercounted. My sense is if there is an undercount, it would be for the severely ill and dead, since people like Florida's DeSantis don't want to count a lot of covid19 dead.

[BGBD]

17. Maybe,

but look at Florida for example. They have 38k reported cases and only ~600 recorded recoveries. I don't see any way that is correct. They had 10k reported cases a month ago, so there are plenty of people who should be recovered by now not showing up. PA is bad too, with close to 60k cases and only 1k recoveries. Ohio has 21k cases and 400 recoveries. New Jersey has 130k cases and only about 1400 recoveries.

Compare those to Louisiana, for instance, with 30k cases and 20k recoveries.

I with worldmeters had the individual breakdowns for all states, but they don't yet. I do think that recoveries are probably the worst reported statistic out there right now.

[Blue_true]

18. Ok, I see your point.

Somehow, people disappeared, they weren't dead, they weren't recovered, where were (or are) they?

[BGBD]

19. .

[Mariana]

20. Not all recoveries are being tracked in the USA. nt.

[RhodeIslandOne]

7. Theoretically, only sick people are seeking treatment

And therefore that's the only way to document outcomes.

[drray23]

8. True its a subset of the whole population

that is already sick enough to go get tested and to the hospital.

So maybe it's more sensical. That 26 % is for people who ended up in the hospital. If this group of people is just a few percent of the whole population then the actual death rate is much lower.

[Blue_true]

15. If you looked at how the OP framed the data, the 26% has some meaning.

From what I read, tested people fall into several groups, asymptomatic, showing minor signs, showing enough signs to seek medical care, chronically ill from the virus. The yet unresolved cases cover all except asymptomatic. The OP pointed out that among the unresolved cases, current trends indicate that 26% could die.

[onecaliberal]

10. We have no clue about the real number of people who have had it.

We have no clue where the virus is. Until we test en mass we won’t know.

If this is a war, we can’t even identify where the enemy is to kill it. We’re losing badly.

[Blue_true]

12. If your numbers are right, this thing is deadlier than the 1918 virus.

If your calculation is correct, we are set to lose around 330,000 Americans, with the country in lockdown for weeks. In 1918-1921, the country did not lock down until well into the second wave of that virus. In 1918-1921, around 660,000 people were lost in the USA total.

[Celerity]

21. 330,000 deaths is very easy number to map out

Last edited Thu May 7, 2020, 07:33 PM - Edit history (1)

Given that we will never now the actual amount of people who had the virus, we can still look at the death rate per total population.

330,000 is basically 1 death per 1,000 people in terms of total population.

Or 0.1% The vast, vast, vast majority of those deaths are older people and people with pre-existing comorbidity.

You would need to know the total exposed to know the true lethality rate from actually getting the virus.

If you are under 40, not a healthcare worker (increased viral saturation levels), and have no pre-existing comorbidity, your odds of dying from COVID-19 are staggeringly low.

This is being proven right here in Sweden, where we have kept all the under high school level schools opened, have never went into total lockdown, and yet have a total of 18 deaths from COVID-19 under 40 years of age, zero under 20. Even in the 40 to 49yo cohort, there have only been a total of 29 deaths.

Almost 99% of the deaths are OVER 50 years of age, yet that under 50yo cohort is roughly TWO THIRDS of our entire population. In other words, amongst a group of 6.7 million people here (out of 10.1 million total pops) we have had a total of 47 deaths, and most of those had comorbidity. The youngest half of the population has had a grand total of 18 deaths, and that is with almost all the middle schools (and under) wide open the whole time, and no lockdowns anywhere.

96% of the COVID-19 deaths here are over 60yo, 88% over 70 years of age. 65% have been over 80 years old.


https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/09f821667ce64bf7be6f9f87457ed9aa

[Blue_true]

22. The 1918 virus did most of it's damage after mutating

to become capable of harming a broader cross-section of people. The world today seem to be following the same pattern, a virus spreads around the world from it's point of origin, people get sick and some die, there appears to be a definable limit to how dangerous the virus is, so public officials are limited in their response, there is a lull in the infections that gives a false sense of security, the virus mutates among young troops in war trenches and among clustered populations in war torn Europe, the mutant virus became capable of killing large numbers of people in all age groups and health statuses even as it remained hardest on the sickest, it then set upon the world in a killing spree that was exceeded only by the Black Plague is severity.

There is recent information coming out about how children are presenting with a strange all body inflammation illness that Doctors believe is related to SARS-COV-2. Can you say with any certainty that isn't the start of a more deadly variant? What happens if children pass the illness back to adults? There is just so much unknowns with SARS-COV-2 that assuming an all-clear is somewhat presumptuous at this point. I do believe countries can open back up, but wearing of masks must be mandatory, with fines and ultimately jail for people that refuse to wear masks (that was eventually done with the 1918 virus and it mysteriously disappeared for good).

Just my $0.02 worth, I don't know what that is worth in Swedish currency, and frankly I don't care, what I do know is how I will handle this virus.

[Celerity]

23. 2 US cents is equal to

20 öre, but the öre (1 one hundredth of a krona) was phased out long ago. so it would be worth a fifth of a krona. The current FOREX rate is around 10 krona to the US dollar.

I will watch for mutations, but as of several days ago, (my wife and I already have been exposed to COVID-19 and are (per multiple tests, including the new 100% accurate for positives Roche one) antibody positive) and we are no longer self-isolating, and we both are returning to our on-site jobs on this coming Monday. No one we know here is self-isolating anymore (most never did), save for some indirect knowledge of people's parents or grandparents. My parents are in London, but my MIL and FIL here are not. Almost no one here wears any PPE, other than some of the Asians (mostly Chinese), some who always did anyway. social distancing is more frequently practised, but that was always kind of the case anyway with native Swedes.

[democrattotheend]

25. This is why part of me would rather get it over with now

Rather than wait for it to become something worse. I also think it makes sense to have some younger people get it over the summer before flu season starts again, to avoid making the second wave even worse by having COVID patients compete with flu patients for care.

[Blue_true]

27. Decent point. nt

[democrattotheend]

24. There's no way this thing kills 26% of people who get it

It probably kills less than 2%. The death rate is inflated because we're mostly only testing people who are symptomatic, and it probably takes a while for those who don't need hospitalization for health care workers to follow up with them, officially "close" their case, and have that data recorded at the state level.

If you look at countries like Iceland that have tested over 10% of their population, the death rate on this thing appears to be between 0.5-1.5%. Which makes it much deadlier than the flu, but not nearly as deadly as the title of this OP suggests.

[Blue_true]

29. The OP didn't say it killed 26% of all positives. nt

[obamanut2012]

26. The death rate is nowhere near 26%

It is doubtful it is even 2%. You really should delete this OP. It is misinformation some folks are taking as gospel, and it will also needly frighten some folks here.

[Blue_true]

28. Did you read the OP right? The OP did not say 26% of all positives.

Context makes all the difference in the world, and you clearly didn't get the context of the OP.