hilliard-city-schools-suspends-all-extracurricular-activities/

Percidae

Member
From July 16


Still, since estimates of the actual infection and death numbers are far more accurate today than at the beginning of the pandemic, the current estimates of between 0.2 to 1% are better as well. The CDC suggests that an IFR of 0.65% is the current best estimate.
It is important to remember that these estimates of infection fatality rates reflect the risk for the average person. Many people will face higher risk and many will face lower risk.
Older patients or those with preexisting conditions like diabetes, high blood pressure or heart disease are likely at higher risk than the average person. Younger people without significant prior health conditions are at substantially lower risk than the average person. Additionally, access to health care is an important factor in mortality from COVID-19.
Finally, the infection fatality rate is not set in stone—it is an estimate of what happened in the past, not a predictor of what will happen in the future.



The IFR is the global rate, meaning across the population how many fatalities, accounting for all ages & sex, using an estimate for total infections.

using that as the .2% to 1% range, deaths range from 21 (10% infected,0.2% IFR) to 1060 (100% infected, 1% IFR)


View attachment 8792
pheesh,

Why are you ignoring the age group factor? All you are doing is multiplying the IFR by the number infected without accounting for the age group bias. Again, I used a 100% teacher infection rate to keep it simple and look at worse case. But the biggest factor for teachers is the fact that most of them are not in the high risk category (over 70 years old). Based on Ohio stats, 77% of deaths are in the over 70 group. The IFR includes all age groups so you can't just use one IFR rate un-adjusted for all age groups. What are the age group percentages? Here they are from the Ohio covid site:
1596167843308.png
 

Percidae

Member
You are already saying that 100% of teachers are going to get it, so anything above that doesn't matter.

I think we are both wrong, but because we are missing a key percentage. You are probably closer to correct than I am. We need the % of hospitalizations per the age groups. 12% or 1.2% is for 1-109 years old. We would need to know the % of those under 30 that are hospitalized and then the same thing for each of the age groups we are looking at.
Yes, that is what I computed by multiplying the known age group percentages from the Ohio Covid site by the gross hospitalization (1.2%) and death (0.35%) rates.

Here are those percentages:
1596168461502.png

1596168538992.png

So again in summary, I compute 19 total teacher deaths across the entire state. Folding in private schools I suspect would add 30% to this number pushing it to a total of 25ish. Another factor reducing deaths is the amount of herd immunity already built up. By the time school starts, it should be at least 10%.
 

BASESWIMPARENT

Well-known member
Not true, I care about all people. If teachers feel they are at risk or have a compromised immune system allow them to stay home and teach remotely. I strongly agree with the argument giving all teachers hazard pay till we have a vaccine and the virus is under control. just as all law enforcement and first responders should receive the same. This virus is not going away anytime soon, it's simply something we will learn to manage. The kids should not suffer the consequences in the mean time. Young people need to be around and interact with people of their own age. Really upsets me, I had a graduating Senior for the class of 2020, he worked very hard during his high school years, in fact he was valedictorian, completed Basic Combat Training between his Junior and Senior year, played varsity soccer, varsity wrestling, and took many AP classes. He was unable to attend his Prom, unable to walk the stage, unable to have a graduation party. he will rebound, however it will haunt him forever not being able to experience the things he looked so forward to. Now his younger brother is a Senior, has played football for 13 years, looking very forward to his Senior season, might even be a chance for a college scholarship, now his season is in jeopardy. This age group is not in danger of death, or at least very - very low chance. We are taking so much from them, experiences and opportunities they can never get back. So yes, I care about teachers and schools, but I also care about the harm we are doing to our youth. I guess you can go back to the old saying, Your High School Years Are The Best Years Of Your Life, well, I can promise you this, my 17 and 18 year old probably won't be saying that to their kids.
Stop it, you are looking at the numbers and nobody else is. Even statistically speaking, the death rate is really, really low. As a country, we were tracking at a death rate lower than 2018, right now we are tracking at a death rate 6% greater than last year. What an epidemic where nobody dies above the average? We are writing checks right now that we will never ever cash. The risk aversion that we as a country are getting into is going to have negative consequences moving forward.
 

pheesh

Active member
pheesh,

Why are you ignoring the age group factor? All you are doing is multiplying the IFR by the number infected without accounting for the age group bias. Again, I used a 100% teacher infection rate to keep it simple and look at worse case. But the biggest factor for teachers is the fact that most of them are not in the high risk category (over 70 years old). Based on Ohio stats, 77% of deaths are in the over 70 group. The IFR includes all age groups so you can't just use one IFR rate un-adjusted for all age groups. What are the age group percentages? Here they are from the Ohio covid site:
View attachment 8795
EDIT: You are correct, I should not have applied .65% by age group. It makes no sense that in 100K population of under 10 there would be 650 deaths, in the same way, there would obviously be more than 650 in 70-80

https://www.stats.indiana.edu/vitals/CalculatingARate.pdf.


I am trusting the CDC has dealt with all the age groups in their calculations. It is listed as an overall rate.

Also, I cant remember the exact percentage, but in a normal year, ~80% of all deaths are from the above 65+ group.

I also think less than 10% (and Ohio is even less than that) of the USA has been infected so far, so we have a bit to go.

 
Last edited:

Percidae

Member
I was not 100% convinced my calculations were correct so I decided to come at this in a different way. In so doing, I believe I found a mistake in my previous estimates. Hopefully the new way I am looking at it is more intuitive and easier to understand. My goal here is to come up with an age based mortality factor. I then used these mortality factors to apply to the public school teacher population given known age distributions.

There are three assumptions needed for these calcluations. The first is that the acutal number of Ohio cases is actually 10 times what has been confirmed. This is probably on the low side and could be as high as 24 times as many.

The second assumtion is that the distribution of covid cases is even across all age groups. If there is data for this I could plug that in but I don't see any on Ohio's web site.

The third is that 100% of teachers will become infected.

1596201374699.png

This shows total deaths for teachers to be 109 which is 5 times higher than my previous 19. I understand what mistake I made but won't bore you with the explanaition.

Calculating the cost of not returning to full time physical school is much harder to do.
 

CC Track Fan

Active member
Nice job taking a stab at putting some estimates in front of people. Something else to consider when using the mortality data is that there is a lot of evidence that degree of exposure when first infected seems to matter. If you get a high viral load when you get infected you are in more danger. That mostly is a factor of the amount of time spent in contact with the person who infects you. So the amount of time is not just a factor in how likely you are to get infected but in how likely you are to have a serious case. It's why this has been particularly deadly for health care workers, they spend a lot of time in contact with infected people. This will also be a factor for teachers.
Again why would a teacher have to have contact with infected people? I know it is not ideal way to teach and different from normal but there is almost no situation where a teacher can't socially distance themselves. If in the rare case they can't a plexiglass wall could be built.

Teaching behind plexiglass would not be good but still a 100x better than teaching through a computer.
 

mathking

Active member
Ok, a couple things. Maintaining a six foot distance is nice, but not really that helpful with an hour or more together in a typical classroom space. The longer you are in the same room with an infected person the more of the virus you will be exposed to. One way to think of it is this, masks and other PPE give you more time before enough exposure to become infected. Distance is the same thing. There is no magical distance that is safe. The six foot initial standard was not meant for exposures over 15 minutes. It was mean to give you less than an x% chance of infection for short periods of time. If both people have on a mask six feet is enough distance for almost all the non aerosolized particles to fall.

As for a plexiglass wall, I have thought of that for my classroom. It would definitely help. But they would have to be opened topped and/or sided or they would completely mess up ventilation. Plus you have to be able to move back and forth. And building those in every classroom would be really expensive, and would drastically cut down on the usable space. Finally, they would not work in all classrooms. My CS classroom, for example, has no place for such a barrier to go.
 

xcandtrack

New member
adding plastic walls everywhere besides messing with the air handling system this is not be something the fire marshal would be in favor of.
 

Running Man 101

Active member
Of course since this situationi started our kids have essentially been isolated. Going back to school is an experiment where we will begin to collect real data on the impact COVID-19 really has on this age group. I am ready to go back to school, but hold no pretense that our current data provides real insight on the impact among school age children. Looking at what's happening in other countries where the level of infection in the community is a small fraction of what it is here in many communities doesn't really help.
There is real data from other countries that shows no issues for kids and teachers. But most of you aren't interested in real data. You continue to let your emotions rule you. If you are afraid for your life, how is hazard duty pay change that?

psycho_dad would rather just complain and moan about things. Of course it would be different if the teleprompter reader was there, he is so smart and only hired the smartest people (that's a common theme for leftists, we are sooo smart). Funny how they alternatively blame trump for everything and then when something goes well, teleprompter reader gets credit for it.

The Swedes and Dutch are really stupid people, no mask wearing there. No hard proof they do anything.

Personally I don't think there was a rebound in cases. I think we just increased testing so much that caught the tail end of the curve. I have always said it is up to the localities on when and how to start schools.
 

CC Track Fan

Active member
Ok, a couple things. Maintaining a six foot distance is nice, but not really that helpful with an hour or more together in a typical classroom space. The longer you are in the same room with an infected person the more of the virus you will be exposed to. One way to think of it is this, masks and other PPE give you more time before enough exposure to become infected. Distance is the same thing. There is no magical distance that is safe. The six foot initial standard was not meant for exposures over 15 minutes. It was mean to give you less than an x% chance of infection for short periods of time. If both people have on a mask six feet is enough distance for almost all the non aerosolized particles to fall.

As for a plexiglass wall, I have thought of that for my classroom. It would definitely help. But they would have to be opened topped and/or sided or they would completely mess up ventilation. Plus you have to be able to move back and forth. And building those in every classroom would be really expensive, and would drastically cut down on the usable space. Finally, they would not work in all classrooms. My CS classroom, for example, has no place for such a barrier to go.
Damn I had not heard that before that 6 feet is not enough. You would think the CDC and health departments would share that kind of important information. Well I guess there are no solutions.
 

mathking

Active member
Six feet is the standard the CDC is using because no other standards have really been tested. Roughly, it reduces mask-less exposure by 50% over three feet, which isn't nothing. Masked + six feet exposure is reduced a lot more. Less than 25%. The further the better. But time is the real devil. Given enough time aerosolized particles will spread indoors. IF we are really good about masking up (teachers and students), work to keep as much space as possible, don't have in person school in localities with a lot of community spread AND everyone is good about reporting if they are exposed or test positive and not coming to school sick we MIGHT be able to get through in person school in the U.S. with maybe dozens of dead teachers. We lost the chance to actually get this under control but not really shutting down this spring because so many people were convinced this was a hoax or just the flu.

Running Man 101, sorry but your house has way, way too much glass to lob the "But most of you aren't interested in real data." stone.



In any event, in an evolving pandemic, keep looking at studies. "What we know" will change. This isn't bad, it's just the way things are. If you don't really understand the disease you will make lots of mistakes with what data you look at and how you look at it. Also note that if study A says "This can't happen" and study B says "this can happen" remember it is a lot easier to show something can happen than that something can't happen. That DOES NOT always mean study A is wrong and study B is right. It is possible that study B was not as well constructed as A.

Some Counters to the "There is no danger" argument. (Actually a bunch of stuff has come out just this week.)
 

madman

Well-known member
There is real data from other countries that shows no issues for kids and teachers. But most of you aren't interested in real data. You continue to let your emotions rule you. If you are afraid for your life, how is hazard duty pay change that?

psycho_dad would rather just complain and moan about things. Of course it would be different if the teleprompter reader was there, he is so smart and only hired the smartest people (that's a common theme for leftists, we are sooo smart). Funny how they alternatively blame trump for everything and then when something goes well, teleprompter reader gets credit for it.

The Swedes and Dutch are really stupid people, no mask wearing there. No hard proof they do anything.

Personally I don't think there was a rebound in cases. I think we just increased testing so much that caught the tail end of the curve. I have always said it is up to the localities on when and how to start schools.
Do you believe that what happens in schools is dependent on the level of virus present in the community? If not, why not. If so, then is it your contention that these countries where students have returned to school with minor issues have the same level of virus that we have in many of our communities that have decided to start school online this fall? Do you have data to back this up? I think there are clear studies and recent reports that children are susceptible to COVID-19 and may be super spreaders even when they are asymptomatic.

With regard to the Dutch, the recent news article has been misquoted so many times most don't realize what their minister actually said. They are required to wear masks on trains and in airports. They decided to not require masks elsewhere because they felt people were unlikely to wear them properly without proper training. Did you not know this or are you consciously choosing to mislead?

With regard to your last item, let's assume for the sake of argument that the level of COVID-19 in the U.S. has been constant over the last couple months. Early on only the sickest people were the ones being tested. Would you not agree that this early sample would be expected to have a relatively high rate of positives? As more people are tested, we reach further into the population - more people who don't have symptoms, but are simply concerned. Wouldn't you expect the the rate of positive tests should be lower for this sample than the first? If not, please explain why you believe that more tests result in a higher rate of postives among those who have tests done.

I like discussions with people who genuinely hold different viewpoints than mine. We all have blindspots, and I find such discussions are the best way to uncover my own. I find it simply frustrating to have such discussions with people who are purposely being obtuse or misleading. Rather than seeking to persuade/convert, let's seek something that resembles truth knowing that how we respond to it can differ based on our own personal values.

I think we all need to engage in these discussions with some sense of humility, knowing that none of us are experts nor have access to, or are aware of, all relevant information. Otherwise this becomes little more than an argument over whose religion is better.
 

mathking

Active member
Do you believe that what happens in schools is dependent on the level of virus present in the community? If not, why not. If so, then is it your contention that these countries where students have returned to school with minor issues have the same level of virus that we have in many of our communities that have decided to start school online this fall? Do you have data to back this up? I think there are clear studies and recent reports that children are susceptible to COVID-19 and may be super spreaders even when they are asymptomatic.

With regard to the Dutch, the recent news article has been misquoted so many times most don't realize what their minister actually said. They are required to wear masks on trains and in airports. They decided to not require masks elsewhere because they felt people were unlikely to wear them properly without proper training. Did you not know this or are you consciously choosing to mislead?

With regard to your last item, let's assume for the sake of argument that the level of COVID-19 in the U.S. has been constant over the last couple months. Early on only the sickest people were the ones being tested. Would you not agree that this early sample would be expected to have a relatively high rate of positives? As more people are tested, we reach further into the population - more people who don't have symptoms, but are simply concerned. Wouldn't you expect the the rate of positive tests should be lower for this sample than the first? If not, please explain why you believe that more tests result in a higher rate of postives among those who have tests done.

I like discussions with people who genuinely hold different viewpoints than mine. We all have blindspots, and I find such discussions are the best way to uncover my own. I find it simply frustrating to have such discussions with people who are purposely being obtuse or misleading. Rather than seeking to persuade/convert, let's seek something that resembles truth knowing that how we respond to it can differ based on our own personal values.

I think we all need to engage in these discussions with some sense of humility, knowing that none of us are experts nor have access to, or are aware of, all relevant information. Otherwise this becomes little more than an argument over whose religion is better.
Thank you madman!
 

Percidae

Member
Six feet is the standard the CDC is using because no other standards have really been tested. Roughly, it reduces mask-less exposure by 50% over three feet, which isn't nothing. Masked + six feet exposure is reduced a lot more. Less than 25%. The further the better. But time is the real devil. Given enough time aerosolized particles will spread indoors. IF we are really good about masking up (teachers and students), work to keep as much space as possible, don't have in person school in localities with a lot of community spread AND everyone is good about reporting if they are exposed or test positive and not coming to school sick we MIGHT be able to get through in person school in the U.S. with maybe dozens of dead teachers. We lost the chance to actually get this under control but not really shutting down this spring because so many people were convinced this was a hoax or just the flu.

Running Man 101, sorry but your house has way, way too much glass to lob the "But most of you aren't interested in real data." stone.



In any event, in an evolving pandemic, keep looking at studies. "What we know" will change. This isn't bad, it's just the way things are. If you don't really understand the disease you will make lots of mistakes with what data you look at and how you look at it. Also note that if study A says "This can't happen" and study B says "this can happen" remember it is a lot easier to show something can happen than that something can't happen. That DOES NOT always mean study A is wrong and study B is right. It is possible that study B was not as well constructed as A.

Some Counters to the "There is no danger" argument. (Actually a bunch of stuff has come out just this week.)
Got to comment on these news articles after having read them with my critical thinking cap on.

The NYT article first... Very interesting article. What popped out to me but was not mentioned or speculated about was this study seems to add to the argument that kids, for the most part, don't get sick from this virus. They obvious do harbor the virus but it seems to take a lot bigger viral load to cause them to have symptoms. What this article does speculate about but shows no evidence for is how kids could be effective spreaders. I don't know if that has been shown to be the case. In Ohio, daycare centers have been open for a while now and they are not being identified as problems. In fact, quite the opposite. Dewine has relaxed the 50% occupation rule for daycare centers starting August 9th even though we have slightly more spread in Ohio.

The Science Daily article...
Again, this article just speculates children could spread the virus but offer no data that shows that is the case. It also shows it takes high viral loads before young kids show symptoms. It is very natural to speculate that since some kids have high loads they could spread it but until this is shown, this type of headline is misleading.

The nbcnews article...
This is another attempt to mislead. The scenario in this story has three teachers working closely together whereby they all caught the disease and one of them that had complicating health factors died. If you don't read the article carefully, you might get the impression that these three teachers got sick from kids. But there were no kids in the classroom. Just the three adults working together. We already know adults can spread it easily from one to another. This is why bars are such a problem. This article provides no information about an actual school scenario. But since it mentions a teacher and classroom in the article title it is clearly meant to evoke fear about going back to school.

This pandemic is real, no doubt about it. But the media driven agenda to use this pandemic to push a political narrative is also real. We all need to keep emotions in check, be data driven, and always keep our critical thinking caps on.
 

mathking

Active member
OK, my critical thinking hat is pretty firmly on, but my point was apparently not well made. So let's be explicit. We learn more about this illness almost every day, and there are a lot of uncertainties, and some certainties, that undercut the assertions that opening schools is safe.

There are a lot of people, here and elsewhere, arguing that schools are safe because kids don't get or don't spread COVID-19, so we should have in person school and sports are fine and everything is safe. OK, let's be fair, that's what they were saying a month or two ago. Now they are saying "Well of course the pandemic is real, but kids don't get or don't spread COVID-19, so we should have in person school and sports are fine and everything is safe." And in a couple of months they will be saying "Of course some teachers will probably die, and maybe a few kids, but it's only people with pre-existing conditions, and kids don't get or don't spread COVID-19, so we should have in person school and sports are fine and everything is safe." The truth is we absolutely do not know that this is the case.

If you read the study cited in the NYT article you would have seen the concern of the researchers that there is not actually much evidence that kids do not spread the virus. The reason that people have made that leap of logic (which was reasonable to pursue) is twofold. One reason is that kids are less likely to have serious symptoms and so relatively few students get tested, which means they are less likely to end up in the contact tracing pattern. That is a really important thing to understand. The other reason is that we closed schools just as this pandemic started to take off and kids have not been back to school since. So we closed off the focal point for the typical spread of infection among kids. Yet somehow lots and lots of people are willing to assert that it is intrinsically obvious that it is safe for kids to go back to school.

The article about the teachers was posted because asserting that kids won't get sick and won't spread the disease (leaving aside that we don't know that) somehow means that there are no dangers to consider.

I am all for being data driven. Being data driven actually requires understanding how data analysis works and accepting the fact that in a situation like this the things we do not know or do not understand greatly affect what information we do and do not consider. It is one of the first and most repeated lesson when you study statistics that you need to understand the system being studied and how it works before you can really make use of math to make assertions. Central to our problem has been the stubborn refusal to do everything possible to make testing faster and more widely available.
 

psycho_dad

Well-known member
Here is something absurd that epitomizes our response to the virus. When asked what closing the the testing locations because of storm Isaias will do in Florida? The Hospital rep answering the question said hopefully it will allow the labs to get caught up so that we start having meaningful test turn around times when they resume.
 

Running Man 101

Active member
Here is something absurd that epitomizes our response to the virus. When asked what closing the the testing locations because of storm Isaias will do in Florida? The Hospital rep answering the question said hopefully it will allow the labs to get caught up so that we start having meaningful test turn around times when they resume.
So what you are saying is that getting the old data reported and so they can speed up the new tests doesn't matter. Brilliant! That's like saying there is no point in testing old rape kits to see if something matches.

The most novice and amateur comment and argument you can make is “this latest piece of data changes everything”. This has been going on for months around the globe. There are global trends and data, you just refuse to believe it. Is it all correct? No way.

Again what is known:
  • The US is doing better than the EU at large. Easily supported with data from the EU.
  • Children going back to school, in person, is low risk. Has already happened in Europe and other places. Teachers can choose to go back to work or not. I have to work and will.
  • HCQ + zinc is being used around the world and it helps if given early.
Could speculate more, but these are facts. Stay at home if you are scared. Don’t work, stay home, but don’t expect everybody else to do it. I’m 100% behind washing your hands and distancing whenever possible. Masks are helpful when sick, sneezing and coughing on people (you should be at home if this is happening).

Each community should make its own choice. One size fits all for everyone, everywhere is just naïve beyond words.
 

psycho_dad

Well-known member
Do you think I stay at home? NOPE. Do you think I'm scared? NOPE. Do you think I care about other people? YEP!

Your reading comprehension is poor. The point is that testing is so pathetic in the greatest country in the world that we have to see a hurricane stopping testing as a positive thing so that labs can get caught up. Brilliant! Let's always be two weeks behind!

Psycho_dad expects competency at a minimum. Let's start there.

Chaos does not equal competency.

WHO CARES HOW THE US IS DOING COMPARED TO ANYONE ELSE!!!!!!!!

Are our schools opening? Will I see you at the State Cross Country meet November 7th? Are people dying? If this is what you want, that's fine. Not what I want.
 

Running Man 101

Active member
Do you think I stay at home? NOPE. Do you think I'm scared? NOPE. Do you think I care about other people? YEP!

Your reading comprehension is poor. The point is that testing is so pathetic in the greatest country in the world that we have to see a hurricane stopping testing as a positive thing so that labs can get caught up. Brilliant! Let's always be two weeks behind!

Psycho_dad expects competency at a minimum. Let's start there.

Chaos does not equal competency.

WHO CARES HOW THE US IS DOING COMPARED TO ANYONE ELSE!!!!!!!!

Are our schools opening? Will I see you at the State Cross Country meet November 7th? Are people dying? If this is what you want, that's fine. Not what I want.
Work on your own logical competency, first. Always more, more, more. Like a child.
 

madman

Well-known member
So what you are saying is that getting the old data reported and so they can speed up the new tests doesn't matter. Brilliant! That's like saying there is no point in testing old rape kits to see if something matches.

The most novice and amateur comment and argument you can make is “this latest piece of data changes everything”. This has been going on for months around the globe. There are global trends and data, you just refuse to believe it. Is it all correct? No way.

Again what is known:
  • The US is doing better than the EU at large. Easily supported with data from the EU.
  • Children going back to school, in person, is low risk. Has already happened in Europe and other places. Teachers can choose to go back to work or not. I have to work and will.
  • HCQ + zinc is being used around the world and it helps if given early.
Could speculate more, but these are facts. Stay at home if you are scared. Don’t work, stay home, but don’t expect everybody else to do it. I’m 100% behind washing your hands and distancing whenever possible. Masks are helpful when sick, sneezing and coughing on people (you should be at home if this is happening).

Each community should make its own choice. One size fits all for everyone, everywhere is just naïve beyond words.
Your facts are conjectures.

By what statistic is the US doing better than Europe? Every statistic out there is based on data that has inherent flaws. Some countries only count deaths if they occurred in a hospital or if they are confirmed. Others report COVID deaths if COVID is suspected. Are you talking about a 7day moving average or since the pandemic started? You can state something as a fact, but that doesn't make it so.

We have no idea whether the risk of children going back to school is low risk in all settings. We have anecdotal evidence that it has been low risk in some settings, but that doesn't make it a fact nor does it make it true for all settings.

The utility of HCQ + zinc is still questioned by experts and existing tests in clinical settings have had mixed results. Your statement could be true, but it certainly isn't a fact.

These misrepresentations as facts are not helpful.
 

madman

Well-known member
btw - If I want to compare how the EU+UK is doing compared to the USA, I think a moving 7-day average of deaths would be better than comparing totals.

From: https://covid19-country-overviews.ecdc.europa.eu/#3_eueea_and_the_uk



Note that the population of the EU+UK is about 25% larger than the population of the United States. They had a higher peak than we did even on a per capita basis, but they also came down faster and have continued to fall, whereas the United States is headed back in the other direction. The validity of comparing these graphs is still dependent on the degree to which deaths are counted the same way. There is inconsistency from one country to another in Europe just like there is from state-to-state here in the United States.

I am still curious as to the evidence for your statement that the United States is doing better than the EU at large.
 

Percidae

Member
btw - If I want to compare how the EU+UK is doing compared to the USA, I think a moving 7-day average of deaths would be better than comparing totals.

From: https://covid19-country-overviews.ecdc.europa.eu/#3_eueea_and_the_uk



Note that the population of the EU+UK is about 25% larger than the population of the United States. They had a higher peak than we did even on a per capita basis, but they also came down faster and have continued to fall, whereas the United States is headed back in the other direction. The validity of comparing these graphs is still dependent on the degree to which deaths are counted the same way. There is inconsistency from one country to another in Europe just like there is from state-to-state here in the United States.

I am still curious as to the evidence for your statement that the United States is doing better than the EU at large.
Per capita deaths would be a good metric to use for comparison if, as you mention, you count Covid deaths the same way.

Looking at Ohio, I noticed that we made the cut for WHO re-opening criteria having less than 5% positivity rate.

1596368229751.png

I think Ohio is trending in the right direction now having 10 counties back off of the red alert level this past week with likely more to follow next week. In my area, I have noticed much greater adherence to the mask policy.
 

Letsrace

New member
There have been 87,893 total cases in Ohio. Of that, 10,533 have been hospitalized. (12%) of the 10,533 that were hospitalized, 3,422 have died. (32%) Or, of the 87,893 cases, 3422 have died. (4%) So, if 100 teachers get it, expect about 4% or 4 to die. 12% of 100 = 12 32% of 12 = 3.84 roundup to 4.

So, if there were 533 teachers that caught it, you could expect 21 dead. A lot of other factors would make that more or less. It seems that the break down of men and women getting the virus is about 50/50. There are about 106,000 public school teachers in Ohio. If 10% contract the virus that would be roughly 10,600. That would be 424 dead. If half the teachers get it, it would be 2,120 dead.
 

madman

Well-known member
The death rate is nowhere close to 4%.
Re-read PD's statement "of the 87,893 cases, 3422 have died. (4%)." As he defined the rate, he is correct.

The problem with that definition is that it is strongly dependent on the number of cases, which IS strongly dependent on the number of tests done.

Some people define the death rate as the rate in the entire population, not just of those who have COVID-19, in which case the death rate is much lower.

Unfortunately, you then still have inconsistency in what defines something to be a COVID-19 death. There is no practical way to correct for this inconsistency. Some only define a COVID-19 death if they have a positive test and died in a hospital. That means anyone who died at home isn't counted. Some list pneumonia or organ failure as the cause of death even if it was brought on by COVID-19.

However for the purposes of following trends as long as everyone is consistent, we can correctly identify the direction of the trend even if the listed values have these confounding problems.
 

Letsrace

New member
Re-read PD's statement "of the 87,893 cases, 3422 have died. (4%)." As he defined the rate, he is correct.

The problem with that definition is that it is strongly dependent on the number of cases, which IS strongly dependent on the number of tests done.

Some people define the death rate as the rate in the entire population, not just of those who have COVID-19, in which case the death rate is much lower.

Unfortunately, you then still have inconsistency in what defines something to be a COVID-19 death. There is no practical way to correct for this inconsistency. Some only define a COVID-19 death if they have a positive test and died in a hospital. That means anyone who died at home isn't counted. Some list pneumonia or organ failure as the cause of death even if it was brought on by COVID-19.

However for the purposes of following trends as long as everyone is consistent, we can correctly identify the direction of the trend even if the listed values have these confounding problems.
I understand everything you are saying, but the death rate is not literally 4%. Some studies have been done and though we can't be sure yet, it is probably between .3-.5%.
 

madman

Well-known member
3422/87893 = 0.03893370348

Read what he actually wrote and do the basic math. A proportion of 0.0389 is close to 4%, no?
 

Letsrace

New member
3422/87893 = 0.03893370348

Read what he actually wrote and do the basic math. A proportion of 0.0389 is close to 4%, no?
That is correct and I don't dispute that. However, we all know the actual number of cases is significantly higher which, in turn, lowers the death rate. We don't know how much higher but nobody disputes that fact that far more had it than the official numbers indicate. That's all I'm trying to say.
 

pheesh

Active member
That is correct and I don't dispute that. However, we all know the actual number of cases is significantly higher which, in turn, lowers the death rate. We don't know how much higher but nobody disputes that fact that far more had it than the official numbers indicate. That's all I'm trying to say.
CDC estimates the Infection fatality rate at .2% to 1%, generally sitting at .65% in their estimates.

 

psycho_dad

Well-known member
I personally don't think the number of people that get it matters the most. The over 150,000 that have died seems like the more important number. People are still dying from heart disease and cancer and every other cause of death. On top of the 150,000 that have died, there are another 60,0000 that have died above what would normally die in the USA to this point of the year. This is not the flu we normally deal with. If you are hospitalized because of covid, you have 32% chance of dying in Ohio. Nationally, it's 34%. That number goes up and down depending on the hospitals ability to properly treat the patients. I feel it's our obligation not to over run the hospitals.

We have no idea how many people have the flu each year. We do not test for it like we are doing for covid. Any comparison is meaningless. Number of people dead.

Important numbers to me. % of those tested that test positive. Total number of hospitalizations. Total number of deaths and percent hospitalized that die. Other people might have what they feel are important. It's already the 3rd leading cause of death in the US.
 
.
Top