I asked for your sources because what you’re saying doesn’t square with the information I have.
The best early (in January) estimate of the likely death rate was from the number that China was providing about cases outside of Hubei province. Based on those, it looked like the rate per diagnosed case when there was widespread testing would be between 0.5% and 1.0%, and that the rate per infection would be lower still. Current data suggests that the rate per infection will turn out to be around 1%, which is a marked increase, not decrease.
Where there has been thorough testing and good followup – on the Diamond Princess, on the USS Roosevelt, in Iceland – the consistent result has been that about half of all cases are asymptomatic. Antibody test results (assuming you don’t count the invalid conclusions from the Santa Clara study) haven’t changed that. The antibody test results from NYC, along with the known number of deaths and the number of unresolved cases, suggest a fatality rate per infection around 1%. I’ve seen no evidence presented that the death rate has actually fallen.
I think that this lancet article on China and other data coming out suggest a much lower mortality rate. Original data from a Fauci and England estimated 2-5% which was grossly incorrect. You can look up those original estimates. Those numbers were used to justify lockup.
Los Angeles and NY antibody screening estimates are showing this virus much more widespread than thought. Agree that the Santa Clara data was skewed but Stanford professor stands by it.
Have you lookedinto the ventilator issue and the thrombosis? It’s a real problem that our medical community is addressing as the standard protocols need to change and will significantly reduce the death rate.
While there truth in what you say about treatment, pretty much from the beginning it has been treated somewhat but not markedly differently, with steroids not recommended once It was seen from China that their use of steroids was ineffective. It certainly is a multi system disease, but still primarily respiratory. Coagulopathies seem more common, and low dose heparin may help with thrombosis prevention. Ongoing treatment guidelines are continually updated here:
Their point estimate for the infection fatality rate was 0.66%, with a 95% credible interval of 0.39% - 1.33%, which seems quite consistent with the estimates I’m talking about. (As far as I can tell, they censored all deaths occurring more than 28 days after onset; if that’s right, then they surely underestimated the IFR, since death can occur much later than that.)
I’ve tried and I can’t find them – that’s what I’m asking you to substantiate. What do you mean by ‘Fauci and England’? On February 28th, Fauci said that the IFR could be as low as 0.1%. On March 4th he said it was too early to tell what the IFR was and that the CFR was about 2%.
All I’ve seen from the LA study is a press release; since it was by some of the same people as the Santa Clara study, I’m discounting it at least until they release the actual study. According to the last results I’ve seen from the NY study, 25% of the NYC sample showed evidence of infection. Since to date 0.2% of the entire population of the city has died from Covid-19, taking the numbers at face value would imply an IFR of 0.8% – so far, with many cases still unresolved. That’s higher than earlier estimates (like the 0.66% you cite above), not lower.
Thank you Phil. No disrespect to NIH protocols but they are two steps behind what’s happening in the field. The current portico,s for treating ARDS have been established for treating a different kind of ARDS. It’s a total misconception on the medical community to think that this is a typical ARDS. It’s not and a growing body of evidence and respiratory docs are looking to change the protocols as they are realizing he protocols,s are potentially dangerous to some of the patients.i am not a doctor but As you know it’s difficult for doctors to challenge protocols but that’s what’s happening if you look around as they are realizing the protocols are not working. They should never have 88% loss on ventilators if this was just a respiratory disease and the protocol was effective. . It’s not and the pathology reports are showing that with multiple organs showing thrombosis. This is a vascular disease in many of the severe patients and that’s what you would expect based on the Ace 2 receptor prevalence on the endothelium. Please Have a look at some of these videos from Dr. Sehault explaining what he is seeing at the clinical level.
The treatment protocol document is a “living” document updated continuously. I sincerely doubt a lot of what media hounds say without verification. Most have a financial hook. But, go for it if you wish, not that what we think really matters.
The actual number of deaths rate is going to depend on population susceptibility and comorbidity. We see a high risk population as the majority of cases,
I am really not interested in a drawn out discussion of statistics Can we just agree that the original rates given back in early March have been significantly reduced since then to what we know is much lower. We know that the virus is incredibly contagious and is asymptiomatic to a large percentage of the low risk and healthy population.
These doctors and the others that I am following including reports in medical journals are on the front lines treating patients. I encourage anyone interested in the medical science to explore this and look at the medcram videos. These doctors has been spot on from the beginning of the outbreak and are just trying to educate other healthcare providers. The doctors at the clinical level are saying the ventilation protocol is not working and can be making the condition worse. The ARDS is different than what they have seen and presenting with at least two different conditions which require different treatment protocols. Treatment of the thrombosis with anticoagulants has risks as you know including bleeding. It’s not clear that will improve the outcomes. I think that this points to a more RAS pathway intervention to reduce this condition as the virus is disrupting the ACE2 function.
When you want to find out what is going on in the war you don’t ask the generals at headquarters you go down to the battlefront and ask the soldiers. Especially as this debate within the medical community is happening in real time cannot be reflected in the NIH protocols.
In continuation of the Swedish conversation, they’ve now said “they’re going to have to investigate why they’ve had so many deaths”…but that seems pretty obvious to me…!
No, we can’t agree on that – that’s precisely the claim that I’m questioning. I thought back in February (and said so here) that the infection fatality rate was likely to be less than 0.5%, based on readily available data.
As I said not going to get into that statics discussion. The more important aspect is understanding who and why there is such a large number of people asymptiomatic and unaffected (including children that are usually effected by the flu) by the virus and then why a much smaller number are at high risk for dying from the virus. This virus is highly contagious but very selective on who is severely effected. The death rate is highly skewed toward age, gender and cormorbidities and we need to understand this to be able to effectively treat.
True, the knowledge gained at the front is essential, but lacks perspective and is subject to error especially when so little is known about the disease and that it has such a variable course. That was shown in the embracing of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin early on on the basis of a very small patient series. When looked at with a broader lense, it was found to kill people. That sort of thing is common in medicine. Good results may be attributed to a particular cancer drug in early stages, then when the studies progress, it is shown ineffective or have excess negative side effects. The stock market is littered with small companies that flare and fade as a result.
Yes, definitely agree with you Phil. Things will only get better as we learn more about this disease and how to better treat it. Our doctors are very smart and capable with incredible technology at their command.