Current Events > Is this post about Corona 1% mortality rate accurate?

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://imgur.com/zzIhmd6

---

I've seen a lot of people try to use the "1% mortality rate" claim as if that's A OK, without realizing that that means 1 out of every 100 people would die if everyone got it.

---

CableZL posted...

I've seen a lot of people try to use the "1% mortality rate" claim as if that's A OK, without realizing that that means 1 out of every 100 people would die if everyone got it.

I think 1% is still too high.

im basically wondering if the bottom numbers are accurate.

---

lww99 posted...

I think 1% is still too high.

im basically wondering if the bottom numbers are accurate.

It's hard to say without knowing where the data he's using to extrapolate comes from.

---

1% is absolutely fucking bonkers as a mortality rate

---

I mean at a glance at the numbers where I live it looks closer to 6%-7%

It definitely doesn't seem like 1%

---

Is there another law of large numbers I'm not aware of?

---

I thought it was 3%?

---

Im not trying to argue the 1%. It could be 3%, could be 6%. Idk.

what Im really asking is. IF its at 1%, do 59 million people really have permanent damage to their heart?

---

Ive seen reports that it is less than 1% with reported cases, and since asymptomatic cases could add 40% to the overall cases, it may be even lower.


---

There's no concrete statistics yet as far as I know, but there is a growing number of people (young and old) reporting life-changing conditions after catching corona, yes

---

I fucking hate people talking about how it's fine because the mortality rate is low. Fuck those people.

---

Another one which isnt as bad as a permanently damaged heart but might manage to convince some people, is that because it messes with your blood vessels it can cause erectile dysfunction and shrinkage.

---

using mortality rate as a metric is overall stupid since we're assuming everybody that doesn't die = fine

i mean who cares if they suffer lifelong complications and can't go ever back to normal work etc.

---

puppy posted...

Ive seen reports that it is less than 1% with reported cases, and since asymptomatic cases could add 40% to the overall cases, it may be even lower.

Bolded part is not true. Just looking at reported cases, it's a little over 4% both in the US and worldwide.


---

Advanced metrics have shown that the mortality rate is at worst around 0.5%, with the overwhelmingly vast majority of those deaths being with elderly people who are already quote ill.

YellowMustard69 posted...

Advanced metrics have shown that the mortality rate is at worst around 0.5%, with the overwhelmingly vast majority of those deaths being with elderly people who are already quote ill.

Even if that's true, it ignores the long term symptoms many people who survive it are experiencing. Not to mention the fact that healthcare infrastructure in some areas is starting to get overwhelmed. Houston has been raising the alarm about their healthcare infrastructure becoming overwhelmed within the next week or so if something doesn't change.

---

lww99 posted...

Im not trying to argue the 1%. It could be 3%, could be 6%. Idk.

what Im really asking is. IF its at 1%, do 59 million people really have permanent damage to their heart?

probably not but we do know long term sufferers are real. 59 million probably isnt truem

CableZL posted...

Even if that's true, it ignores the long term symptoms many people who survive it are experiencing. Not to mention the fact that healthcare infrastructure in some areas is starting to get overwhelmed. Houston has been raising the alarm about their healthcare infrastructure becoming overwhelmed within the next week or so if something doesn't change.

Which will not only end up increasing the mortality rate of COVID, but also for any other serious illness or injury.

---

Hexenherz posted...

I fucking hate people talking about how it's fine because the mortality rate is low. Fuck those people.

Its called context. No one wants deaths, but shutting down the livelihoods of millions for something on par with the flu in terms of deaths, when nothing was shut down for the flu. Context matters. Thats why people bring it up.

Economical, social, and cultural impacts should be considered before shutting things down. Thats why alcohol isnt banned, the deaths related to alcohol dont outweigh all those other factors.

---

Rebel_Patriot posted...

Its called context. No one wants deaths, but shutting down the livelihoods of millions for something on par with the flu in terms of deaths, when nothing was shut down for the flu. Context matters. Thats why people bring it up.

Economical, social, and cultural impacts should be considered before shutting things down. Thats why alcohol isnt banned, the deaths related to alcohol dont outweigh all those other factors.

This is how I see it.

We will know much more about the virus in years to come. Right now we don't have enough data to be certain of anything. The numbers I looked at were just from a study, which theorized a 0.66% death rate. I liked the study, but we are far from being conclusive on anything.

As far as long term damage goes. How much are we talking? Like how much damage to the heart and lungs? The equivalent of smoking 40 cigarettes? 1000? What kind of comparisons do we have?

What do we know

Rebel_Patriot posted...

Its called context. No one wants deaths, but shutting down the livelihoods of millions for something on par with the flu in terms of deaths, when nothing was shut down for the flu. Context matters. Thats why people bring it up.

Economical, social, and cultural impacts should be considered before shutting things down. Thats why alcohol isnt banned, the deaths related to alcohol dont outweigh all those other factors.

Does the seasonal flu have a 1% or higher mortality rate? (Or what did you mean "on par with the flu")

It's closer to 50%. Leaving your house is a coin flip on whether or not you'll survive.

---

RoadsterUFO posted...

Careful now, all the stay home it could save lives, but COVID-19 does not exist if you are protesting and rioting in mass gatherings for social justice folks are going to breathe down your neck with fury lol.

Who says COVID doesn't exist if you are protesting? Did those same people say rioting was ok?

I'd still rather not catch the rona, no matter what the mortality rate is.
---

As someone with a Master of Public Health, here's my take:

When people say "mortality rate" what they actually mean is Case Fatality Rate, which is the number of deaths relative to the total number of cases - or, put simply, the probability of dying from COVID19 if you get it.

This is an inherently biased number because the people most likely to be tested are the people with more severe symptoms (the likelihood of being tested if you're asymptomatic is obviously quite low unless you're being screened for other reasons).

With that said, in the US there have been 3.4 million cases and 138,000 deaths, which yields a case fatality rate of about 4.1%. That's a ridiculously high number when you consider the total population of the US is over 300 million.

With that said, most likely at least half or more of cases have been undiagnosed, so the CFR is probably 2% or less. Nevertheless, that's still an absurdly high CFR for a disease as easily spread as COVID19 (the CFR of influenza is around 0.1%, and influenza has the advantage of seasonality)

The long and short of it is anyone who downplays COVID19 clearly doesn't understand epidemiology.


---

RoadsterUFO posted...

It is different and okay because it is for social justice!

That's quite different from "COVID doesn't exist if you are protesting", which did you mean to say? And who exactly are you citing?
And again, who said rioting was ok with COVID?

That moment when you realize the flu has been around for centuries and we pretty much know the long term effects it can have on you and act like it's the same exact scenario with COVID-19.

---

The post in the OP wasn't necessarily about covid having a 1% case fatality rate, the point was that a seemingly low number like 1% can have devastating consequences for an infectious disease that has become pandemic.

The number could be 0.5% instead and you still get horrific outcomes in terms of deaths, hospitalizations, etc...

People who think that this having a 0.5% or 1% case fatality rate is no big deal and that everything is safe.... those people are gravely misinformed and you should listen to public health experts and doctors instead of those people.


---

Shadow Don posted...

The post in the OP wasn't necessarily about covid having a 1% case fatality rate, the point was that a seemingly low number like 1% can have devastating consequences for an infectious disease that has become pandemic.

The number could be 0.5% instead and you still get horrific outcomes in terms of deaths, hospitalizations, etc...

People who think that this having a 0.5% or 1% case fatality rate is no big deal and that everything is safe.... those people are gravely misinformed and you should listen to public health experts and doctors instead of those people.

Exactly. Thats the point I was trying to make. Thanks!

---

A word about the protests -

Obviously, it's not good for the pandemic that a large number of people got together. However, with that said, the data is quite clear that COVID19 does not spread well outdoors. I think people should've been more responsible and considered the ramifications of perpetuating the spread of COVID19 before holding these gatherings, but it's disingenuous to suggest that the protests were anywhere near as significant as states reopening early. Not to mention southern states have a serious problem with not wearing masks in public.

---

lww99 posted...

Exactly. Thats the point I was trying to make. Thanks!

Measles is the best example of the fallacy of low case fatality rates meaning a disease "isn't dangerous."

Anti-vaxxers love to post charts about how the CFR for measles dropped to 1 in 1,000 cases, and that the overall mortality rate dropped to 0.2 per 100,000 general population in the US.

Then they run for the hills when you ask them what 1-in-1,000 mortality means when the average number of recorded cases prior to the vaccine was 500,000 cases per year in the US, or when you ask them what 0.2 per 100,000 general population mortality is in a population of 330 million.

Because 500 dead children per year kinda makes their candlelight vigils for Timmy who had hives look a little embarrassing.

---

RoadsterUFO posted...

The experts literally turned into a bunch of little bitches when push came to shove lol. Was it that hard for them to say, yes, you should not be mass gathering for social justice? Ooh, but no, they didnt want to be accused of being racist by a bunch of leftists. The point still stands.

Again, which experts? And did they say "COVID doesn't exist if protesting" or "The risks are low"? For the third time, which public health experts said "rioting doesn't spread COVID"?
Also, from this last post-
1) Studies afterwards showed there was minimal spread. Do you believe those were wrong?
2) Why is it so important for you to assign significant spread to protests?

RoadsterUFO posted...

Not being spread as easily outdoors does not equate to mass gatherings suddenly being void of consequences lol.

Again, for the third time, who said they were "void of consequences"? And is that the position you are finding fault with? (You switched to saying "risks are low")

Trying to stop protests from happening doesn't typically result in smaller protests. There is a lot of history on this lol.

Offering free testing for protestors, recommending masks be worn and for people to quarantine if they have symptoms was really the best way to control covid in the midst of global protests.

The protests didn't help but there really isn't a whole lot you can do in that situation without making the protests more intense.

---

Rebel_Patriot posted...

Its called context. No one wants deaths, but shutting down the livelihoods of millions for something on par with the flu in terms of deaths, when nothing was shut down for the flu. Context matters. Thats why people bring it up.

Economical, social, and cultural impacts should be considered before shutting things down. Thats why alcohol isnt banned, the deaths related to alcohol dont outweigh all those other factors.

It's a bad take. We had no idea what the effects of COVID-19 were when it started, and we saw how other countries were dealing with it. We should have followed their lead - things would have legitimately been safely reopening already if we had.

Don't know why people compare this to something like alcohol, either. Alcohol use isn't contagious or uncontrollable.

---

we'll likely know in 2 more weeks what the true mortality rate looks like

Ruvan22 posted...

Again, which experts? And did they say "COVID doesn't exist if protesting" or "The risks are low"? For the third time, which public health experts said "rioting doesn't spread COVID"?
Also, from this last post-
1) Studies afterwards showed there was minimal spread. Do you believe those were wrong?
2) Why is it so important for you to assign significant spread to protests?

As someone who spent the better part of two decades indoctrinated into conservative propaganda, the answers are:

1) They literally believe that experts live in a bubble and don't understand how the "real world works." That somehow people with a decade or more of advanced education in a subject can have their worldview overturned by generalizations and straw man arguments.

2) They believe that the media's coverage of Republicans and Democrats is inherently unequal. This is actually true, however their response to this is to retreat to information echo chambers that, in any other country, would be considered straight-up partisan propaganda. Even with faced with objective proof that Trump or the GOP lied and/or directly spread misinformation and corruption, their first instinct is to find out what Sean Hannity or other rightwing commentator has to say as a retort.

3) They believe that isolated examples of Democrat/Liberal hypocrisy somehow makes them morally equivocal (or worse) than the blatant, disgusting misinformation-spewing corruption of the GOP.

It's brainwashing. Rightwing theology is a cult at this point.

---

RoadsterUFO posted...

Experts: Stay home, it could save lives!

*Mass rioting and protests over George Floyd begins.*

Experts: *crickets*

Meanwhile, Trump holds packed indoor rallies in cities having huge outbreaks, and has staff (who later tested positive for COVID19) literally remove signs and stickers recommending social distancing and mask-wearing.

But sure, keep up that false equivalency.

---

DarkRoast posted...

Meanwhile, Trump holds packed indoor rallies in cities having huge outbreaks, and has staff (who later tested positive for COVID19) literally remove signs and stickers recommending social distancing and mask-wearing.

But sure, keep up that false equivalency.

It's weird how people can't seem to comprehend the difference between the actions of private citizens and the government.

---