2020 overall deaths interesting comparison site.

[cornishcarlos]

3 hours ago, chessman said:

make decisions based on the estimates that the experts make

 

Like Dr Fauci ?? 

[chessman]

14 minutes ago, cornishcarlos said:

Like Dr Fauci ?? 

He has a greater understanding of this than you, me or anyone else posting on this forum, wouldn’t you agree?

[thirdculture]

If we do global percentage dead annually by a specific cause we get:
500,000 annual world deaths due to flu/7.8 billion world population = .0064%
2,680,147 annual world deaths due to coronary artery disease/7.8 billion world population = .034%

To date there have been 115,000 world deaths due to coronavirus/7.8 billion world population = .0000147%

 

We can also do percentage dead to date of coronavirus per nation.  Examples:
17,209 deaths to date in Spain due to coronavirus/Spanish population of 46,754,000 = .0368%
217 deaths to date in South Korea due to coronavirus/South Korean population of 51,000,000 = .000425%

 

Other comparisons could be national percentage dead annually per preventable specific cause such as due to transportation 
accidents and due to various physical and mental illnesses.  If there was more global train transportation or if more people worked
from home likely there would be many fewer annual transportation deaths.  If the environment was cleaner and social conditions were
better likely there would be many fewer annual deaths due to various physical and mental illnesses.

 

What might be the net cost in deaths due to having a policy of locking down the specific nation for 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months and various longer periods of time?

 

After a set period of lock down e.g. 1 month, presumably most everyone in the population is virus free.  

 

What happens now?

 

 

 

[AussieBob18]

Getting back to the deathmeters information - it is very clear that the initial modelling of how many would die from Covid were greatly over-estimated.  That is because they based it upon the death rates of those infected with the previous coronavirus' being SARS and MERS - which were 15-30%, and they estimated that Covid had a contagious rate higher that the seasonal flu.

 

The contagious rate has been shown to be about correct, but the mortality rate is way down on the initial estimates.  Of course those in control will say the mortality rate was reduced because of the lock-downs, but the numbers coming out of places that have not shut everything down are about the same as elsewhere (Sweden and India). But even then the real issue is next time.  The places that didn't lock-down too much and built up the 'herd immunity' will benefit greatly from their built up immunities when the Covid virus comes back again - and it will. 

 

Those that have hidden everyone away to avoid exposure will be going through the same thing again every time it makes a comeback.  And those thinking a vaccine is coming are greatly mistaken - they have been trying to develop vaccines for MERS and SARS for years and are not succeeding - unlike for the various seasonal flus, including the H1N1 (Swine ) flu pandemic of 2009/10. Coronavirus' are proving to be very difficult to develop a vaccine - like many other virus' such as Hep C, HIV/AIDS, Dengue etc.

 

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/seeing-the-invisible/india-has-only-one-choice-anders-tegnells-swedish-approach/

 

 

Edited April 13, 2020 by AussieBob18

[sucit]

3 hours ago, chessman said:

I am just curious. Read what I wrote. To hold up Sweden as an example of a country that is doing things correctly (as a previous poster did) is premature. They have a lot more deaths than comparable countries and am not sure there is any data about the economic benefits about what they are doing. If you have any, please share.

You are not sure there is any data about the economic benefits? Their society is open. Others are locked down. You need me to share info how this is beneficial to the economy. And, you still don't seem to understand the purpose, effects and goal of herd immunity.

[sucit]

4 hours ago, chessman said:

This is the best estimate of the experts. There are lots of different numbers (some less than 10 times it is true) but I’ve not heard a credible expert who has said it is the same or less than Normal flu.

 

Nobody can know now but because more accurate numbers won’t be available until after the pandemic finishes, governments will make decisions based on the estimates that the experts make.
 

What do you think should happen?

Those are not even estimates. They are flawed, over inflated guesses. 

 

What do I think should happen? You will notice the person I quoted said "out of 1000 infected, 10-20 will die", and went on to make a point. What I think should happen is people should not do that. 

Edited April 13, 2020 by sucit

[chessman]

5 minutes ago, sucit said:

You are not sure there is any data about the economic benefits? Their society is open. Others are locked down. You need me to share info how this is beneficial to the economy. And, you still don't seem to understand the purpose, effects and goal of herd immunity.

To say things are binary, that there is ‘open’ and there is ‘locked down’ is not correct. Sweden do have things that are not open! Finland has things that are open! So there is a scale.

sweden obviously has more things open than most countries. It would be interesting to see how that is effecting the economy compared to neighbouring countries. I said in my post It would be less severely hit but asked by how much. If thousands of more people die in Sweden and the economic benefits are small then they will probably regret their approach.

 

I understand herd immunity, would you agree it is a more risky approach? It might turn out that the Swedish approach was correct but nobody could be sure of that now. 

 

[IAMHERE]

If the death rate is 1% and everyone got Covid-19 then we are looking at 70 million dead.  That is twice as many that died during WW2, a bit more than twice what China killed during their famine, again a bit more than double what Stalin killed.  The world has many more people than back in those days so probably could survive 70 million dead; maybe twice that. The end of the world is not Covid-19.

 

[sucit]

2 minutes ago, chessman said:

To say things are binary, that there is ‘open’ and there is ‘locked down’ is not correct. Sweden do have things that are not open! Finland has things that are open! So there is a scale.

sweden obviously has more things open than most countries. It would be interesting to see how that is effecting the economy compared to neighbouring countries. I said in my post It would be less severely hit but asked by how much. If thousands of more people die in Sweden and the economic benefits are small then they will probably regret their approach.

 

I understand herd immunity, would you agree it is a more risky approach? It might turn out that the Swedish approach was correct but nobody could be sure of that now. 

 

So now your (ego massaging) "argument" is that I did not explain in full detail what Sweden is doing in a sad attempt to supposedly correct me? The point there was you did not seem to understand that open economies have benefits over closed economies. People are out doing their thing in Sweden, people are not to as much of an extent in others.

[chessman]

26 minutes ago, AussieBob18 said:

Getting back to the deathmeters information - it is very clear that the initial modelling of how many would die from Covid were greatly over-estimated.  That is because they based it upon the death rates of those infected with the previous coronavirus' being SARS and MERS - which were 15-30%, and they estimated that Covid had a contagious rate higher that the seasonal flu.

 

The contagious rate has been shown to be about correct, but the mortality rate is way down on the initial estimates.  Of course those in control will say the mortality rate was reduced because of the lock-downs, but the numbers coming out of places that have not shut everything down are about the same as elsewhere (Sweden and India). But even then the real issue is next time.  The places that didn't lock-down too much and built up the 'herd immunity' will benefit greatly from their built up immunities when the Covid virus comes back again - and it will. 

 

Those that have hidden everyone away to avoid exposure will be going through the same thing again every time it makes a comeback.  And those thinking a vaccine is coming are greatly mistaken - they have been trying to develop vaccines for MERS and SARS for years and are not succeeding - unlike for the various seasonal flus, including the H1N1 (Swine ) flu pandemic of 2009/10. Coronavirus' are proving to be very difficult to develop a vaccine - like many other virus' such as Hep C, HIV/AIDS, Dengue etc.

India are not following the ‘herd immunity’ approach. They have one of the toughest lockdowns in the world. The article you have linked to is arguing that India should change its approach.

 

The initial models were not based on SARS and Mers, both of which are known to have much higher mortality rates. They were based on data  from places that had the virus such as China and then Italy. 

 

 

[Kinnock]

The simple fact is that very few people fretting over the COVID-19 fatality stats have any real idea what the figures mean. 

 

Are the numbers significant when viewed alongside the other causes of death to give some context?  We are being fed 24/7 scare stories by the media (as it helps drive their sales), and we have no idea what the figures mean.

 

I'm sure the total number of deaths per day in many countries will be lower now than before China gave the world COVID.  Certainly in Thailand, where the usual 65 deaths per day on the roads has fallen to around 12 due the travel restrictions.

[elliss]

On 4/12/2020 at 7:38 AM, Ventenio said:

how many of those are accelerating exponentially, a pandemic, without a vaccine?   oh yea, only one.

 

so, yea, in a few years after we have a vaccine and 20,000 die a year from this, then it's just a number.  

 

but now.....it can go from 2 million to 2 billion.  nothing else can do that.

 

     Less people are being killed on the road's  in Thailand.

       Long may this Virus panic last .

       Self isolate, makes one's life , worth living ..

 

[chessman]

4 minutes ago, sucit said:

The point there was you did not seem to understand that open economies have benefits over closed economies. People are out doing their thing in Sweden, people are not to as much of an extent in others.

Of course, but if your ‘open’ economy is killing 1000s of your citizens then you’d be pretty stupid to not be looking pretty closely at the economic benefits and trying to work out exactly how big they are.

[chessman]

20 minutes ago, sucit said:

Those are not even estimates. They are flawed, over inflated guesses. 

 

What do I think should happen? You will notice the person I quoted said "out of 1000 infected, 10-20 will die", and went on to make a point. What I think should happen is people should not do that. 

They are estimates based on data where the virus has been. 
 

so people shouldn’t have done anything? Let it run it’s course?
 

 

[sucit]

7 minutes ago, chessman said:

India are not following the ‘herd immunity’ approach. They have one of the toughest lockdowns in the world. The article you have linked to is arguing that India should change its approach.

 

The initial models were not based on SARS and Mers, both of which are known to have much higher mortality rates. They were based on data  from places that had the virus such as China and then Italy. 

 

 

Death rates have been largely determined, for some unforgivable reason, on those observed infected through testing.

 

There are people who get this and never know they have it.

 

Quite honestly, it is difficult to know how this possibly even needs to be explained, but these estimates are obviously going to be way too high. We know only highly symptomatic people even come in to get tested. The people on the news know this too, so your guess is as good as mine as to why they are misleading people into this alarmist view. 

[sucit]

2 minutes ago, chessman said:

They are estimates based on data where the virus has been. 
 

so people shouldn’t have done anything? Let it run it’s course?
 

 

If you can possibly imagine it, there are options in between total lockdown, and "letting it run it's course".

 

When you are in a discussion with other humans, they decide their own argument, you do not get to do that. 

[chessman]

4 minutes ago, sucit said:

If you can possibly imagine it, there are options in between total lockdown, and "letting it run it's course".

A point I made about Sweden I believe. 

[chessman]

36 minutes ago, sucit said:

Death rates have been largely determined, for some unforgivable reason, on those observed infected through testing.

 

There are people who get this and never know they have it.

 

Quite honestly, it is difficult to know how this possibly even needs to be explained, but these estimates are obviously going to be way too high. We know only highly symptomatic people even come in to get tested. The people on the news know this too, so your guess is as good as mine as to why they are misleading people into this alarmist view. 

It is clear (for the reasons you give) that the rate is lower than the headline 3.4% found by using total number of cases and total numbers deaths. But the scientists making estimations know this and are adjusting for this. It is certainly not obvious that the rate is below 1% (although it might be). 
 

here for example is a paper in a respected British medical journal estimating the CFR (case fatality rate) is 1.38%.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30243-7/fulltext

serious studies from experts. We shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss their findings.

 

 

Edited April 13, 2020 by chessman

[Swimfan]

Corona virus currently No 1 killer in USA 

deaths a day 

https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/1894638/?fbclid=IwAR2nXFqKmYE_gSd6ziFN41xBrAJvFiwmMM7E-42kOSv7P15CWcCqNcSYiBE

Edited April 13, 2020 by Swimfan
Correct

[Zillod]

in Thailand during January and February 3000 people died.  1 was from Covid the others were road accidents.

 

[richard_smith237]

7 hours ago, thirdculture said:

If we do global percentage dead annually by a specific cause we get:
500,000 annual world deaths due to flu/7.8 billion world population = .0064%
2,680,147 annual world deaths due to coronary artery disease/7.8 billion world population = .034%

To date there have been 115,000 world deaths due to coronavirus/7.8 billion world population = .0000147%

 

We can also do percentage dead to date of coronavirus per nation.  Examples:
17,209 deaths to date in Spain due to coronavirus/Spanish population of 46,754,000 = .0368%
217 deaths to date in South Korea due to coronavirus/South Korean population of 51,000,000 = .000425%

 

Other comparisons could be national percentage dead annually per preventable specific cause such as due to transportation 
accidents and due to various physical and mental illnesses.  If there was more global train transportation or if more people worked
from home likely there would be many fewer annual transportation deaths.  If the environment was cleaner and social conditions were
better likely there would be many fewer annual deaths due to various physical and mental illnesses.

 

What might be the net cost in deaths due to having a policy of locking down the specific nation for 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months and various longer periods of time?

 

After a set period of lock down e.g. 1 month, presumably most everyone in the population is virus free.  

 

What happens now?

 

[What happens now?] - we recognise the spread of this virus is still in its infancy and take intelligent measures to control speed (and peak) at which it hits us so that we are not overwhelmed and worry about the 'what if’s’ of other issues at a later date (they are not, not worth worrying about they are just not relevant to this issue).

 

 

[richard_smith237]

7 hours ago, thirdculture said:

If we do global percentage dead annually by a specific cause we get:
500,000 annual world deaths due to flu/7.8 billion world population = .0064%
2,680,147 annual world deaths due to coronary artery disease/7.8 billion world population = .034%

To date there have been 115,000 world deaths due to coronavirus/7.8 billion world population = .0000147%

 

We can also do percentage dead to date of coronavirus per nation.  Examples:
17,209 deaths to date in Spain due to coronavirus/Spanish population of 46,754,000 = .0368%
217 deaths to date in South Korea due to coronavirus/South Korean population of 51,000,000 = .000425%

 

Other comparisons could be national percentage dead annually per preventable specific cause such as due to transportation 
accidents and due to various physical and mental illnesses.  If there was more global train transportation or if more people worked
from home likely there would be many fewer annual transportation deaths.  If the environment was cleaner and social conditions were
better likely there would be many fewer annual deaths due to various physical and mental illnesses.

 

What might be the net cost in deaths due to having a policy of locking down the specific nation for 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months and various longer periods of time?

 

After a set period of lock down e.g. 1 month, presumably most everyone in the population is virus free.  

 

What happens now?

 

 

 

Using Chessman's quoted figure of 1.38% CFR and the knowledge that this virus is as contagious as influenza. 

11-21% of the world caught 2019 Swine Flu 

 

1.38% of 11% of the worlds population is 11.8 million people

1.38% of 21% of the worlds population is 22.6 million people 

 

 

What I have not yet seen is a true fatality rate - the numbers reported by many nations are people who have died with Covid-19 and not people who have died ‘because’ of Covid-19. 

 

Is Covid-19 killing people who would live another six months or more?

Is Covid-19 killing people who would have survived with the flu or a cold? 

How much ‘life’ is Covid-19 really steeling from people? would they have died in 2 weeks anyway?

 

I suspect the only genuine manner in which to measure this is to record how many people have died compared with the same month in previous years (i.e. past 10). This should also be evaluated by area because population density may play a significant roll.

Additionally, higher deaths now, may mean fewer deaths at the end of the year? (not a nice way of looking at it I know). 

 

But the question begs, what exactly is Covid-19 stealing from us? - can that question even be answered yet?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

10 hours ago, Johnthplumb said:

Correct, in a earlier post, most deaths with the virus had another serious underlying medical condition, without that condition they may have survived, so deaths purely by the virus is unknown.

As Yuyiinthesky said there are more diseases around than this virus that have killed more.

The figures as follows:- normal winter flue deaths so far this year world wide 126,450, compared with 107,450 from Covid-19

since the outbreak started in December 2019,roughly 449,600 have died from TB.  216,370 from HIV/AIDS and 122,235 from Malaria, also it is very noticeable that more men than women die of the virus, in the UK up to April 11th, cumulative cases total 78,991, ( if any one is thinking of returning to good old UK ) % of the population infected in the UK is 2.7% .

Uploaded a photo, I think it is not to bad in Thailand.

Have a safe day.

 

 

The BBC had an article showing a mass grave - hidden in the article was the fact that the mass grave was for regular ‘Jane and jon Doe’s those without relatives and anyone else who can’t afford a funeral’ the picture was from ’normal’ (Pre-covid times) - Picutres can be highly misleading when taken out of context. 

 

As can stats, especially when miscalculated: You quoted that in the UK up to April 11th, cumulative cases total 78,991 

The UK population is: 66.65 million

 

You quoted 2.7% of the UK Population have Covid-19.... The Maths says its 0.11% 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[chessman]

21 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

I suspect the only genuine manner in which to measure this is to record how many people have died compared with the same month in previous years (i.e. past 10). This should also be evaluated by area because population density may play a significant roll.

They have been doing this in Italy. In northern Italy, as high as the Covid 19 death toll is now, the total number of deaths (for any reason) in March 2020 is much higher than deaths in March 2019 + reported deaths attributed to Covid 19. This suggests that the number of deaths caused by Covid 19 in being significantly under reported.

 

[Skeptic7]

On 4/11/2020 at 8:48 PM, Matzzon said:

And what do you want to say with this? What is your point. Are you trying to make the pandemic insignificant? Tell that to the families that lost their loved ones. After that you can take notice of the information in post #3

Here's what I want to say: Condolences to each and every family for suffering a Family Tragedy, which is all it truly is...same as all the other deaths on the scoreboard. None are international news.