Covid death rate 0.5-0.8% NYC data

According to the testing results, it is estimated that 25% of the over 8 million people in New York City have already had the virus. The death rate is 0.5-0.8%, with the higher rate including presumed, but unconfirmed, cases.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/antibody-tests-support-whats-been-obvious-covid-19-is-much-more-lethal-than-flu/2020/04/28/2fc215d8-87f7-11ea-ac8a-fe9b8088e101_story.html?_gl=1*1j45xhm*_ga*YUswRUNrc0toRGgxVGFlb3pNNVhhMF9VMWNJVUR4RzM5UVhBLUdYU1NHaVhVSlRCQzNMVTRLZTYtT1dIVlc4VQ..

[A Hit With The Ladies, BSN, RN]

Just as I figured. Let's not forget that the lion's share of Coronavirus deaths are in elderly people (aged 70+), many of whom would have died from the flu or cardiac arrest or diabetes this year anyway. I fully expect flu, heart attack, diabetes mortality rates to be far lower this year.

[Emergent, RN]

That is an interesting thought. I'd like to see some honest studies about that. Of course, some will come here and accuse you of not caring about the vulnerable, even though what you say is probably true.

[Wuzzie]

Did anyone notice in the article where it mentioned that the 0.1% figure for flu mortality was the "case fatality rate" rather than the actual mortality rate. We all know the CFR is going to be artificially high (for example, in my state the CFR is hovering around 4.6%) because we don't have accurate data on the number of people who are actually positive but not tested.

Are there any epidemiology nurses or for that matter anyone who geeks out on statistics on this forum who can speak to that?

ETA: The reason I ask is if the 0.1% is really the CFR for the flu then the actual mortality rate will obviously be significantly lower. So if we're seeing CFRs for COVID in the 2-4% range...well, do the math.

Edited Apr 29, 2020 by Wuzzie

[toomuchbaloney]

https://www.CDC.gov/csels/dsepd/ss1978/lesson3/section3.html

Maybe this page will help. It's set up to walk people through the definitions and mathematical models for the different terminology of epidemiology.

[Wuzzie]

Just now, toomuchbaloney said:

Maybe this page will help. It's set up to walk people through the definitions and mathematical models for the different terminology of epidemiology.

No, I understand the math. I'm trying to find out definitively if the 0.1% is the CFR or the IMR for the flu.

[toomuchbaloney]

1 minute ago, Wuzzie said:

No, I understand the math. I'm trying to find out definitively if the 0.1% is the CFR or the IMR for the flu.

Maybe it will help others. There seems to be wide misunderstanding of the science, the language, the math and the recommendations which stem from them.

[Wuzzie]

1 minute ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Maybe it will help others.

True. I see a lot of misuse of statistics.

[CommunityRNBSN, BSN, RN]

My husband and I have been talking a lot about “lies, damn lies, and statistics” recently. I think with COVID there is still so much unknown that it is easy to find numbers that show you want you want to see. Or maybe that’s not related to Covid, and it’s just related to the intricacies of epidemiology.

Yesterday two major news outlets (legitimate ones) covered the fact that Sweden did not lock down. One outlet had stats to show that it was a terrible idea, because they had far more cases and far more deaths than neighboring nations. The other outlet said it was a great idea, and we all should have done it, because their stats showed each similar nation’s death and illness rates were about the same, whether they locked down or not. *shrug* I don’t have the interest, or time really, to sort through the raw data and try to make sense of all these arguments.

[InTheLongRun]

On 4/30/2020 at 7:22 AM, CommunityRNBSN said:

My husband and I have been talking a lot about “lies, damn lies, and statistics” recently. I think with COVID there is still so much unknown that it is easy to find numbers that show you want you want to see. Or maybe that’s not related to Covid, and it’s just related to the intricacies of epidemiology.

Yesterday two major news outlets (legitimate ones) covered the fact that Sweden did not lock down. One outlet had stats to show that it was a terrible idea, because they had far more cases and far more deaths than neighboring nations. The other outlet said it was a great idea, and we all should have done it, because their stats showed each similar nation’s death and illness rates were about the same, whether they locked down or not. *shrug* I don’t have the interest, or time really, to sort through the raw data and try to make sense of all these arguments.

I don't either but one headline I did see today that makes me inclined to think the politicized Sweden supposed success story isn't, is that apparently their economy isn't faring any better than their neighbors who did lock down.

[InTheLongRun]

On 4/29/2020 at 12:12 PM, toomuchbaloney said:

https://www.CDC.gov/csels/dsepd/ss1978/lesson3/section3.html

Maybe this page will help. It's set up to walk people through the definitions and mathematical models for the different terminology of epidemiology.

Generally speaking, people who most need this aren't going to watch it. Even if we thought with the right medium and pictures we could explain sum of least squares regression models for example.