Coronavirus math
Quote: MichaelBluejayI'm not, I'm just not making myself clear. My point is that there are two different questions, and they're answering only one of them, the first one:
(1) What are the chances of getting COVID and then becoming hospitalized or dying, for a vaccinated vs. unvaccinated person?
(2) For someone who HAS COVID, what are the chances of becoming hospitalized or dying, for a vaccinated vs. unvaccinated person?
If I get COVID, I'm gonna wonder, "Does the vaccine still afford me some protection, and if so, how much?" The answer is yes, it affords some protection, but not nearly as much as the protection it gave me for not developing COVID in the first place.
It's like the Gambler's Fallacy, where the odds are different whether something has already happened or not. The odds of getting four heads in a row on a coin toss are 1/16. But once you've tossed and *already* got three heads, the odds of getting a fourth head are only 1/2,
Garbage In Garbage Out. The data on non hospitalized Covid cases among the vaccinated is not being properly collected.
Quote: gordonm888My wife took Pfizer, I got Moderna.
I don't know any Americans that got the Pfizer shots, so I really have not paid any attention to it.
I wish Moderna and Johnson and Johnson effectiveness numbers would be updated. If there has been no decline in effectiveness, then just say so.
The US has only 49% of population vaccinated. And if the effectiveness of the vaccinations are declining, then we are headed back to the covid swamp.
sure you do.Quote: billryanI don't know any Americans that got the Pfizer shots, so I really have not paid any attention to it.
Quote: gordonm888
I wish Moderna and Johnson and Johnson effectiveness numbers would be updated. If there has been no decline in effectiveness, then just say so.
.
I saw on CNBC today that Moderna has a 94 % efficacy after 6 months. They said it only dropped 1% from initial efficacy.
Quote: DRichI saw on CNBC today that Moderna has a 94 % efficacy after 6 months. They said it only dropped 1% from initial efficacy.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/05/moderna-covid-vaccine-booster-produces-robust-response-against-delta.html
I was passing the HS just now and was surprised to see a line of cars at the testing site. For the last few weeks, the place was a ghost town but suddenly people want to get tested again.
New cases in Arizona are now topping 2,000 a day where for a few weeks in June they were under 200.
A niece (this one by a recent marriage to one of my nephews) who works as an airline stewardess got her first vaccination shot (Pfizer) about two weeks ago. She almost immediately got a fever which rose to 104 degrees and stayed that high for most of three days. We were all extremely concerned. After three days the fever subsided and she reportedly is okay. But that seems to be part of the reason why people resist the vaccine - it is not literally 100% safe. IMO, when public officials say otherwise it erodes confidence and fuels conspiracy theories.
I am pro-vaccine! These are just recent personal experiences that help to illuminate human behavior.
Quote: gordonm888
A niece (this one by a recent marriage to one of my nephews) who works as an airline stewardess got her first vaccination shot (Pfizer) about two weeks ago. She almost immediately got a fever which rose to 104 degrees and stayed that high for most of three days. We were all extremely concerned. After three days the fever subsided and she reportedly is okay. But that seems to be part of the reason why people resist the vaccine - it is not literally 100% safe. IMO, when public officials say otherwise it erodes confidence and fuels conspiracy theories.
I hope “public official” wasn’t a medical official. Using “100%” is quite specific, and quite wrong. People quite rightly state flying is safe, for instance. I know that is not 100% though I know it is considered statistically quite safe. Also when we get the shot here you sign a form where side effects or risks are mentioned.
https://app.powerbigov.us/view?r=eyJrIjoiMjA2ZThiOWUtM2FlNS00MGY5LWFmYjUtNmQwNTQ3Nzg5N2I2IiwidCI6ImU0YTM0MGU2LWI4OWUtNGU2OC04ZWFhLTE1NDRkMjcwMzk4MCJ9
https://www.8newsnow.com/news/health/coronavirus-health/new-nevada-reports-40-covid-19-deaths-remains-high-transmission-state-on-white-house-report/
It is depressing to see these numbers in the current spike.
https://www.immunizenevada.org/county-specific-covid-19-vaccine-sites
In an earlier post, I reported what I thought were the percentage of asymptomatic infections (~40%), but in fact I now realize that most to all of those sources seem to be showing the percentage of positive tests which came from asymptomatic people, which is not the same thing as the percentage of infections (tested + not tested) which are asymptomatic people.
Either this is a "not enough information" problem, or I'm missing something obvious.
Quote: gordonm888Last Tuesday, two acquaintances of mine here in town both died - and both from Covid. One was about 65, the other was about 50. Tragically, the 65-year old and his family decided not to get vaccinations nor to wear masks and instead to put themselves 'in God's hands.' (remember, no religion comments which are against forum rules.)
A niece (this one by a recent marriage to one of my nephews) who works as an airline stewardess got her first vaccination shot (Pfizer) about two weeks ago. She almost immediately got a fever which rose to 104 degrees and stayed that high for most of three days. We were all extremely concerned. After three days the fever subsided and she reportedly is okay. But that seems to be part of the reason why people resist the vaccine - it is not literally 100% safe. IMO, when public officials say otherwise it erodes confidence and fuels conspiracy theories.
I am pro-vaccine! These are just recent personal experiences that help to illuminate human behavior.
It is very likely that she got the virus before she got the shot, the symptoms only showed up after the shot.
Quote:
The study involved more than 300 veterans over the age of 65 who were given either a flu shot followed two weeks later by a placebo injection of salt water, or a placebo shot followed two weeks later by the real vaccine.
When the researchers unblinded the study to see who received the vaccine versus the placebo, the side effects were split equally between the two groups, says Robert Jacobson, medical director for the population health science program at the Mayo Clinic. “About five percent said they got sicker than they ever had been in their entire life,” says Jacobson. Half of these people had received the placebo and yet they complained of the worst headaches, or worst fever, of their lives. The take-home message here, says Jacobson: “It’s easy to confuse an allergic reaction with nervousness or emotions or even stomach upsets from anxiety.”
Recent studies show some side effects, even ones from the COVID-19 vaccines, aren’t due to the shots at all, but to our own fears. “We’ve seen this in the military, when young recruits, who think they can tolerate anything, faint when they get the injections, because their body overreacts,” says Jacobson.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/why-vaccine-side-effects-really-happen-and-when-you-should-worry
Quote: rsactuaryIt is very likely that she got the virus before she got the shot, the symptoms only showed up after the shot.
Actually, you are correct. It turns out that she tested positive about a week later -after she took the vaccination shot and her 104 degree fever spiked up. Very astute of you.
So then I think, well my career has me spending 25-30 hours a week in a casino and most of that at a blackjack table. One of the riskier types of places. So in the last couple weeks I have flip flopped several times. Do I want to take another break from casino play, enjoy the football season, spend some time outdoors doing some things during the upcoming cooler fall season and see how things play out?
Problems with that is someone else in my household does exactly what I do for a living, spending that time in casinos and at tables. Is he supposed to shutdown as well? A third member of our household works a retail job. How does that play into it? I have already shutdown, not just when casinos were closed but several other times in the last year and a half, when I felt the risk was high. You get to the point that you get tired of letting this virus control things.
I don't know. I am staying the course for now. I want to beleive in the science and that the vacine is at least protecting me from getting seriously sick.
Quote: MichaelBluejayReturning the discussion to the original topic (Coronavirus Math), when looking at a figure for total cases or active cases, we should adjust that figure upward to account for the people who are infected but asymptomatic and will never get tested (because they're asymptomatic and are unaware that they were in contact with someone who tested positive). The question is, how much do we adjust upward?
In an earlier post, I reported what I thought were the percentage of asymptomatic infections (~40%), but in fact I now realize that most to all of those sources seem to be showing the percentage of positive tests which came from asymptomatic people, which is not the same thing as the percentage of infections (tested + not tested) which are asymptomatic people.
Either this is a "not enough information" problem, or I'm missing something obvious.
What methods were used in other pandemics?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic
491,382 lab confirmed cases, 0.7 - 1.4 billion estimated cases. Where did estimate come from?
I am fine with only using positive tests, instead of total cases. Whatever that data loses in some way, it makes up for it in other ways.
Interesting, thank you. But the swine flu had 1/100th the mortality of COVID, so it's not really an apples to apples comparison.Quote: TomGWhat methods were used in other pandemics?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic
491,382 lab confirmed cases, 0.7 - 1.4 billion estimated cases.
There have been 566,435,673 tests in the U.S. That's 1.7 tests per person, meaning lots of people have been tested more than once. And lots of people haven't been tested at all (in January, a survey showed that 64% of the sample hadn't been tested*), so the number of tests per person, among people who have been tested, is *greater* than 1.7 tests per person.
If 64% hadn't been tested by January, then 36% had been tested. From March 2020 to January 2021 is 10 months, so that's 3.6 percentage points per month. From March 2020 to August 2021 is 17 months, so times 3.6 percentage points per month, that's 61.2% who have been tested at least once, and 38.8% who have never been tested. If 20% of those never tested had asymptomatic COVID, then that's 38.8% x 20% = 7.76% of the population, or 330M x 7.8% = 25.6M cases.
There have been 38,545,144 confirmed cases in the U.S., so an extra 25.6M cases is an extra 66%. So we could add 66% to the total reported, as a very rough estimate. We can't have a lot of confidence in that figure, but does it seem plausible?
Quote: MichaelBluejayOkay, here's an extremely rough back-of-the-envelope calculation.
There have been 566,435,673 tests in the U.S. That's 1.7 tests per person, meaning lots of people have been tested more than once. And lots of people haven't been tested at all (in January, a survey showed that 64% of the sample hadn't been tested*), so the number of tests per person, among people who have been tested, is *greater* than 1.7 tests per person.
If 64% hadn't been tested by January, then 36% had been tested. From March 2020 to January 2021 is 10 months, so that's 3.6 percentage points per month. From March 2020 to August 2021 is 17 months, so times 3.6 percentage points per month, that's 61.2% who have been tested at least once, and 38.8% who have never been tested. If 20% of those never tested had asymptomatic COVID, then that's 38.8% x 20% = 7.76% of the population, or 330M x 7.8% = 25.6M cases.
There have been 38,545,144 confirmed cases in the U.S., so an extra 25.6M cases is an extra 66%. So we could add 66% to the total reported, as a very rough estimate. We can't have a lot of confidence in that figure, but does it seem plausible?
It seems like a lot of playing around with numbers to reverse-engineer a solution.
Since this thing started people have fallen on one side or the other. On the first side you have the people who just do everything they have been told to do, convinced their lives will end if they are not wearing a mask even alone in their car. On the other side are people who just take a commonsense approach but live their lives.
When testing started, the first group ran out to be tested. The second group did not bother. Just looking at how so many people have been about masks we can easily see they would go back at least once to be tested again just to "be sure."
While some people should be tested regular, say medical workers and maybe pilots, what difference does it really make? You got testes last week and are fine, then you caught it from someone yesterday?
This is just another case of people who think man can control nature at will then those people get angry when we see man cannot. Things must run their course. It is what it is.
Quote: MichaelBluejayReturning the discussion to the original topic (Coronavirus Math), when looking at a figure for total cases or active cases, we should adjust that figure upward to account for the people who are infected but asymptomatic and will never get tested (because they're asymptomatic and are unaware that they were in contact with someone who tested positive). The question is, how much do we adjust upward?
In an earlier post, I reported what I thought were the percentage of asymptomatic infections (~40%), but in fact I now realize that most to all of those sources seem to be showing the percentage of positive tests which came from asymptomatic people, which is not the same thing as the percentage of infections (tested + not tested) which are asymptomatic people.
Either this is a "not enough information" problem, or I'm missing something obvious.
There will be a huge spike in positive tests soon. Colleges require multiple tests at the drop of a hat. All these asymptomatic kids who are positive and never would have known it will be added to the rolls of the ‘tested positive’. There will be an added bunch along the US-Canadian border because all crossers will be tested as well. There are many places now testing anyone for free…. Free increases the number of tests as well….
I agree. A coworker who had tested positive had 12 or so total tests before he returned to work. Heck, I had 3 tests (all negative, thankfully) over the course of 2 weeks just because I had been exposed to him.Quote: billryanWouldn't anyone who tested positive have to have several more tests before they were determined to be covid free? A friend on the NYPD has tested positive for it several times. Each time he tests positive, he is told to isolate for several days and can't return to work until he tests clear. I don't know how many times he's been tested, but it is a bunch.
Quote: AZDuffmanThis is just another case of people who think man can control nature at will then those people get angry when we see man cannot. Things must run their course. It is what it is.
I totally agree. Somehow there is a push from the "decision makers" that the population has to show 0 infections in order to achieve "normalcy." If Mr. BlueJay's calculations are correct, the actual death rate is hovering around 1% with the vast majority of decedents over the age of 65, I believe. The public is constantly being bombarded with headlines and hysterical rhetoric which are creating, IMO, unreasonable fears and a paranoia crippling our way of life. The coronavirus math produced in this thread is important. Our greatest enemy is the uneducated and uninformed.
tuttigym
Quote: tuttigymIf Mr. BlueJay's calculations are correct, the actual death rate is hovering around 1% with the vast majority of decedents over the age of 65,
650,000 dead Americans.so far.
1% = Only 2 1/2 million deaths to go.
Quote: rxwine650,000 dead Americans.so far.
1% = Only 2 1/2 million deaths to go.
Numbers are complete crap.
Two recent deaths of close friends- one died of bone cancer, the other died due to pneumonia.
Of course, both listed COVID as the cause of death.
Quote: GundyNumbers are complete crap.
Two recent deaths of close friends- one died of bone cancer, the other died due to pneumonia.
Of course, both listed COVID as the cause of death.
People say that like COVID is the only stat that ever has to deal with mixed comorbidities.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm
One can also look at individual states by using the drop down.
Quote: tuttigymI totally agree. Somehow there is a push from the "decision makers" that the population has to show 0 infections in order to achieve "normalcy." If Mr. BlueJay's calculations are correct, the actual death rate is hovering around 1% with the vast majority of decedents over the age of 65, I believe. The public is constantly being bombarded with headlines and hysterical rhetoric which are creating, IMO, unreasonable fears and a paranoia crippling our way of life. The coronavirus math produced in this thread is important. Our greatest enemy is the uneducated and uninformed.
tuttigym
With not even 1% of the population dead it is kind of a piker as a pandemic. Not to mention any sane person sees they are inflating the number to begin with. But it is not just the "decision makers" as you state, it is a part of the population. So much of America has a kind of "any death needs to be avoided" mentality. These are the ones that actually demanded those 5 gallon buckets you buy at Home Depot be made so they leaked lest any kid might drown in one! They are the ones that want a warning label on those car sunshades that says "do not drive while installed." Yes, I know we have a flawed legal system that drives this, but remember it does so because this group sits on juries.
Meanwhile, a second group has taken covid with a Zen peaceful "it is what it is, if I die I die" mentality. They are usually not taking crazy risks, but they are not about to let some virus dictate their lives. They do not care about the vax, they do not wear masks, they go to the ball games, to the park, to Sturgis, to wherever they went before. Their peace with it all drives the first group insane.
There was an episode of "The Sopranos" that shows the divide. Tony is talking about all the things that can destroy the world and a Bing bouncer says, "that is why you have to live for today." Disgusted, Tony gives him a beating. And that is what the first group above wants. I honestly do not think they want covid solved so much as they want the second group to start worrying like they are worrying about it.
Initial severity and mortality rate depended on the initial exposure volume - Delta is much more infectious, exposing the potential contact to much more of the virus. This is Fox11 Los Angeles:
https://www.foxla.com/news/delta-variant-viral-load-1000-times-higher-than-original-coronavirus-strain
CNN explanation:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/21/health/delta-variant-covid-19-explainer/index.html
Finally a medical journal:
https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/93717
All links are now over 30 days old; which in the lifespan of the pandemic is quite outdated.
Originally according to webmd: However, early estimates predict that the overall COVID-19 recovery rate is between 97% and 99.75%. This is survivability and not accounting for long covid. Therefore .25%-3% of the general population would not survive a covid infection skewed toward comorbidities. A lot has changed to alter this math; we have learned to treat the infection, provided vaccinations, and those who have previously been exposed have antibodies. With no assistance, assuming Delta was 10* more virulent and therefore deadly than the initial strain; 2.5% - 30% would perish.
Lets assume (and logically seems likely) 30% of all recorded cases were asymptomatic and never tested (recorded): Cutting the mortality rate originally by 1/3rd gives us an original rate of 0.08%- 1.0% with Delta that range moves to 0.8% to 10.0% of all cases.
Finally (for me - not for the math): we need to move those numbers based on population sample size. Say most original cases came from nursing homes with a group representing massive comorbidities and advanced age; that specific mortality rate may have been pushing 40% and a healthy 2 year old exposed may have been .00005%. We can still use non specific generalizations to realize initial exposure volume has a significant impact (links for another day), and vaccination/natural antibodies move the odds somewhat to significantly in our favor (for survival).
Additionally; once we solve for all the above- we must account for quality health care over the course of the disease which directly leads to survivability. A patient with one nurse for every 2 patients has much more dedicated care than one nurse for every 10 patients.
Did you think that's been happening every year and you just didn't notice? Maybe they just forgot to report they were down to just a few a beds in other years. Maybe the area had 10x the normal motorcycle accidents. Who knows. I guess anything is possible.
Quote: rxwine650,000 dead Americans.so far.
1% = Only 2 1/2 million deaths to go.
Seems acceptable to me.
I doubt it. In 94.5% of COVID-related death cases, COVID is not listed as "the" cause of death, but rather as *one* of the causes of death.Quote: GundyTwo recent deaths of close friends- one died of bone cancer, the other died due to pneumonia.
Of course, both listed COVID as the cause of death.
When your body is already taxed by a serious illness (say, bone cancer or pneumonia), COVID can easily push you over the edge to mortality. COVID hastens death in sick people. That's why COVID is (accurately) frequently listed as a contributing cause of death.
| Untested infections | U.S. | Austin metro | Japan |
|---|---|---|---|
| +10% | 1 in 43 | 1 in 431 | 1 in 526 |
| +38% | 1 in 31 | 1 in 344 | 1 in 419 |
| +66% | 1 in 26 | 1 in 286 | 1 in 348 |
Prevalence of all infections (have or *had* COVID), including an adjustment for number of infections that aren't tested
| Untested infections | U.S. | Austin metro | Japan |
|---|---|---|---|
| +10% | 1 in 8 | 1 in 13 | 1 in 88 |
| +38% | 1 in 6 | 1 in 9 | 1 in 70 |
| +66% | 1 in 5 | 1 in 8 | 1 in 59 |
Quote: MichaelBluejayI doubt it. In 94.5% of COVID-related death cases, COVID is not listed as "the" cause of death, but rather as *one* of the causes of death.
When your body is already taxed by a serious illness (say, bone cancer or pneumonia), COVID can easily push you over the edge to mortality. COVID hastens death in sick people. That's why COVID is (accurately) frequently listed as a contributing cause of death.
Wouldn't that make AIDS the cause of zero deaths?
The whole mechanism of HIV is that it destroys the immune system so cause of death is cancer and pneumonia and what not.
Should AIDS have been labeled a disease that didn't kill anyone?
Quote: rxwine650,000 dead Americans.so far.
1% = Only 2 1/2 million deaths to go.
The 1% is derived from total of known and estimated infections not from the total population.
The other post talking about comorbidity is also very relevant which seems to never be discussed by the CDC or other data gathering entities. Why not??
One covid case, not death, infection in New Zealand, and the country is "locked down." Hysteria on steroids.
tuttigym
Quote: tuttigym
One covid case, not death, infection in New Zealand, and the country is "locked down." Hysteria on steroids.
tuttigym
I'm always curious what people would have done had they been in charge if they discovered those first few cases that started this whole thing.
But that's off the current aim of the thread.
Quote: rxwine650,000 dead Americans.so far.
1% = Only 2 1/2 million deaths to go.
I quote
Quote:“Sooner or later, over the period of years,” says New York City's First Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Health, Dr. Pascal J. Imperato, “everybody gets flu in some form, unless he's been immunized with a vaccine that happens to work.”
So... sooner or later, my numbers are right?
That quote was from 1974, btw. : )
tuttigym, just because, tuttigym, you're not paying attention, tuttigym, doesn't mean, tuttigym, that the CDC, tuttigym, is not discussing it, tuttigym.Quote: tuttigymThe other post talking about comorbidity is also very relevant which seems to never be discussed by the CDC or other data gathering entities. Why not??
CDC comorbidity statitistics
CDC discussion of comorbidities
CDC advice for medical practitioners on comorbidities
Quote: MichaelBluejaytuttigym, just because, tuttigym, you're not paying attention, tuttigym, doesn't mean, tuttigym, that the CDC, tuttigym, is not discussing it, tuttigym.
I love it when you continuously write my name. Your personal fixation and attention to my posts border on groupiedom. Quite flattering, thank you sooo much.
tuttigym
Of course you do, that's the point. You love seeing your name to the point that you're one of only two people who signs each and every post, even though your screenname is already attached to your post prominently.Quote: tuttigymI love it when you continuously write my name.
Quote: MichaelBluejayOf course you do, that's the point. You love seeing your name to the point that you're one of only two people who signs each and every post, even though your screenname is already attached to your post prominently.
Your attempts to taunt me using almost identical statements are childish and sophomoric. You need to up your game lest you become more irrelevant.
tuttigym
That's a big turn from your earlier statement:Quote: tuttigymYour attempts to taunt me using almost identical statements are childish and sophomoric. You need to up your game lest you become more irrelevant.
So which time were you lying, the first or the second?Quote: tuttigymI love it when you continuously write my name.
Quote:By examining over 40,000 Covid cases reported in Los Angeles County between May 1 and July 25, researchers found that by the time the delta variant had become dominant on July 25, "infection and hospitalization rates among unvaccinated persons were 4.9 and 29.2 times, respectively, those in fully vaccinated persons."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/unvaccinated-people-over-29-times-more-likely-to-be-hospitalized-with-covid-cdc-report-finds/ar-AANJJvx?ocid=msedgntp
Tuttigym: Please stop fighting and baiting. Statements like "lest you become more irrelevant." are verging close to a personal insult.
