As of 10 August, all Australia, 331 deaths, 6 months, 25,000,000 population.
Risk: .0000132, or .00132%, or 1/755th of one per cent.
99.999% chance of NOT dying from Covid-19.
Probably should lock down the entire continent just to be safe.
As of 10 August, all Australia, 331 deaths, 6 months, 25,000,000 population.
Risk: .0000132, or .00132%, or 1/755th of one per cent.
99.999% chance of NOT dying from Covid-19.
Probably should lock down the entire continent just to be safe.
Allen53 wrote:
As of 10 August, all Australia, 331 deaths, 6 months, 25,000,000 population.
Risk: .0000132, or .00132%, or 1/755th of one per cent.
99.999% chance of NOT dying from Covid-19.
Probably should lock down the entire continent just to be safe.
No lock downs currently in NSW, Qld, WA, SA, NT, ACT, Tas where it has been suppressed through lock downs
The risk of dying from Covid19 if not suppressed, is the IFR which is average 331/21,713 or 1.5%, but about 19% for those over 80
1.5% of 25M is 381,000
You truly are naive if you believe the IFR is 1.5%. You are off by a decimal point. The IFR for this is closer to 0.15%, especially with all the emerging treatments.
joedirt wrote:
You truly are naive if you believe the IFR is 1.5%. You are off by a decimal point. The IFR for this is closer to 0.15%, especially with all the emerging treatments.
Hogwash. 0.18% of the entire population of New Jersey has died of COVID-19, and nowhere near the entire population of New Jersey has not been exposed. We don't have accurate accounting of how much of the population there has been exposed, but you have to assume that most of the wealthier, older people have been hiding well. If you actually exposed everyone, including those people hiding, the overall IFR gets bumped up. Evidence that older people are hiding is, for one that the usual workers willing elections, usually older people, in many places are down 90%.
What we have learned so far in how to care for and treat patients, including using Remdesivir and dexamethasone as necessary, has improved the outcomes by 2x. That's great, but that's probably reducing the overall IFR from greater than 1% to about 0.7% or so. That result is affected by old/at-risk people hiding - if they weren't hiding, the overall IFR for everyone getting exposed would likely still be greater than 1%.
I'm not saying it's you, but for people advocating that we just pretend it doesn't exist, that would mean that old people would be exposed more than they already are, and the IFR would go up substantially as a consequence.
Allen53 wrote:
As of 10 August, all Australia, 331 deaths, 6 months, 25,000,000 population.
Risk: .0000132, or .00132%, or 1/755th of one per cent.
99.999% chance of NOT dying from Covid-19.
Probably should lock down the entire continent just to be safe.
19 died yesterday. More to come and would you say that if you had some one you loved in a nursing home?
The entire continent isn't locked down but if you chose to come here you will pay $3000 to be quarantined for two weeks. Some states have restricted travel. I can't go to Queensland at the moment.
In my location we haven't had any cases in a while, no mask mandate and people can go out for dinner and to bars. I'm lucky that I can still coach my 50+ athletes but crowds still limited to 100. Schools are as normal just no school assemblies and no interstate excursions. School sports carnivals limited to 100 people in attendance.
Happy here sad for USA and the place i was born and still have family.
trumpedthevirus wrote:
Allen53 wrote:
As of 10 August, all Australia, 331 deaths, 6 months, 25,000,000 population.
Risk: .0000132, or .00132%, or 1/755th of one per cent.
99.999% chance of NOT dying from Covid-19.
Probably should lock down the entire continent just to be safe.
19 died yesterday. More to come and would you say that if you had some one you loved in a nursing home?
The entire continent isn't locked down but if you chose to come here you will pay $3000 to be quarantined for two weeks. Some states have restricted travel. I can't go to Queensland at the moment.
In my location we haven't had any cases in a while, no mask mandate and people can go out for dinner and to bars. I'm lucky that I can still coach my 50+ athletes but crowds still limited to 100. Schools are as normal just no school assemblies and no interstate excursions. School sports carnivals limited to 100 people in attendance.
Happy here sad for USA and the place i was born and still have family.
19 what died- human beings? All of Covid no doubt?
Lunacy has taken hold.
I took care of my grandmother who passed in a nursing home- first hand experience there- you probably not so much but I shouldn't presume as you did. Take your emotional blackmail and hypocritical virtue signalling elsewhere.
joedirt wrote:
You truly are naive if you believe the IFR is 1.5%. You are off by a decimal point. The IFR for this is closer to 0.15%, especially with all the emerging treatments.
Didn't you do maths at school. I actually gave you the figures, 331/21,713 equals 1.5%
Now, I have also used a spreadsheet to get that per age group, then extrapolated to 100% infection in each age group, then that figure drops to 1.08% because of the weighting.
However, the current rate is 1.5% average, and the theoretical minimum is 1.08% or thereabouts.
If you did the same for USA, the current IFR is 3.15%, and theoretical minimum should be higher than 1.08%.
They are testing about the same number per million
Those stats show what a tremendous success their conservative gov't had because they locked down. Better than having 9,000 deaths and rising fast with 5 million fewer people like Florida.
A lot of panick in Norway now, as the number of infected are averaging more than 20 a day (rising from 5) , and the 2 month moving average for deaths are rising from 0.1 day to 0.2 a day, it is all over the news.
I am Sam wrote:
joedirt wrote:
You truly are naive if you believe the IFR is 1.5%. You are off by a decimal point. The IFR for this is closer to 0.15%, especially with all the emerging treatments.
Didn't you do maths at school. I actually gave you the figures, 331/21,713 equals 1.5%
Now, I have also used a spreadsheet to get that per age group, then extrapolated to 100% infection in each age group, then that figure drops to 1.08% because of the weighting.
However, the current rate is 1.5% average, and the theoretical minimum is 1.08% or thereabouts.
If you did the same for USA, the current IFR is 3.15%, and theoretical minimum should be higher than 1.08%.
They are testing about the same number per million
Like I said, you don’t understand the difference between IFR and CFR. You are using confirmed case numbers (cfr), what those do not take into account are all of the asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic individuals that are not tested.
joedirt wrote:
Like I said, you don’t understand the difference between IFR and CFR. You are using confirmed case numbers (cfr), what those do not take into account are all of the asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic individuals that are not tested.
You are assuming that they are not finding asymptomatic people despite only 4 per 1000 being positive and testing at high rates even when cases were single digits
There are spectators at sport venues, yesterday I worked at a hospital, simple temp check and questions and hundreds coming and going through door. If there were so many asymptomatic as you assume (10 x cases) then the virus would be rife
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station wrote:
joedirt wrote:
You truly are naive if you believe the IFR is 1.5%. You are off by a decimal point. The IFR for this is closer to 0.15%, especially with all the emerging treatments.
Hogwash. 0.18% of the entire population of New Jersey has died of COVID-19, and nowhere near the entire population of New Jersey has not been exposed. We don't have accurate accounting of how much of the population there has been exposed, but you have to assume that most of the wealthier, older people have been hiding well. If you actually exposed everyone, including those people hiding, the overall IFR gets bumped up. Evidence that older people are hiding is, for one that the usual workers willing elections, usually older people, in many places are down 90%.
What we have learned so far in how to care for and treat patients, including using Remdesivir and dexamethasone as necessary, has improved the outcomes by 2x. That's great, but that's probably reducing the overall IFR from greater than 1% to about 0.7% or so. That result is affected by old/at-risk people hiding - if they weren't hiding, the overall IFR for everyone getting exposed would likely still be greater than 1%.
I'm not saying it's you, but for people advocating that we just pretend it doesn't exist, that would mean that old people would be exposed more than they already are, and the IFR would go up substantially as a consequence.
0.6 to 0.7% based on evidence so far.
That said I find the right-wing republicans and covid deniers here to be stupid pieces of caca.
Recent sero study out of India found the IFR to be 0.05-0.10%
Of course, they are not as fat as we are, but their air quality is terrible.