NDL Forum

where did you get that quote from anyways? im google searching and I cant find the article.

nick wrote: ↑Fri May 22, 2020 1:33 pm where did you get that quote from anyways? im google searching and I cant find the article.

https://boston.cbslocal.com/2020/05/22/ ... lity-rate/



Also, did Nick really just give up on the ability to do 3rd grade math?

The CDC also says its “best estimate” is that 0.4% of people who show symptoms and have Covid-19 will die, and the agency estimates that 40% of coronavirus transmission is occurring before people feel sick.


the very next line

The agency cautions that those numbers are subject to change as more is learned about Covid-19, and it warns that the information is intended for planning purposes.

Expert pushes back
Under the most severe of the five scenarios outlined — not the agency’s “best estimate” — the CDC lists a symptomatic case fatality ratio of 0.01, meaning that 1% of people overall with Covid-19 and symptoms would die.

In the least severe scenario, the CDC puts that number at 0.2%.

One expert quickly pushed back on the CDC’s estimates.

“While most of these numbers are reasonable, the mortality rates shade far too low,” biologist Carl Bergstrom of the University of Washington told CNN.

nick wrote: ↑Fri May 22, 2020 2:06 pm The CDC also says its “best estimate” is that 0.4% of people who show symptoms and have Covid-19 will die, and the agency estimates that 40% of coronavirus transmission is occurring before people feel sick.


the very next line

The agency cautions that those numbers are subject to change as more is learned about Covid-19, and it warns that the information is intended for planning purposes.

So it could go up or down, got it.

Still gave up on the 3rd grade math?

Bergstrom, an expert in modeling and computer simulations, said the numbers seemed inconsistent with real-world findings.

“Estimates of the numbers infected in places like NYC are way out of line with these estimates. Let us remember that the number of deaths in NYC right now are far more than we would expect if every adult and child in the city had been infected with a flu-like virus. This is not the flu. It is COVID,” Bergstrom said.

“As I see it, the ‘best estimate’ is extremely optimistic, and the ‘worst case’ scenario is fairly optimistic even as a best estimate. One certainly wants to consider worse scenarios,” Bergstrom said of CDC’s numbers.

“By introducing these as the official parameter sets for modeling efforts, CDC is influencing the models produced by federal agencies, but also the broader scientific discourse because there will be some pressure to use the CDC standard parameter sets in modeling papers going forward,” he said.

“Given that these parameter sets underestimate fatality by a substantial margin compared to current scientific consensus, this is deeply problematic.”

the article you sent me refutes the info halfway through. Oh boy.

nick wrote: ↑Fri May 22, 2020 2:07 pm Bergstrom, an expert in modeling and computer simulations, said the numbers seemed inconsistent with real-world findings.

1 expert says it "seems" inconsistent, therefore it's totally irrelevant and meaningless?

Still gave up on the 3rd grade math?

nick wrote: ↑Fri May 22, 2020 2:09 pm the article you sent me refutes the info halfway through. Oh boy.

1 expert says it seems inconsistent, and IT REFUTES ITS OWN INFO!!!!


Nick loves Coronavirus more than any one has ever loved anything in the world.

Nick 1
Shel 0

“The scenarios are intended to advance public health preparedness and planning. They are not predictions or estimates of the expected impact of COVID-19,” the CDC says.

nick wrote: ↑Fri May 22, 2020 2:10 pm Nick 1
Shel 0

Still haven't figured out the 3rd grade math?

nick wrote: ↑Fri May 22, 2020 2:10 pm “The scenarios are intended to advance public health preparedness and planning. They are not predictions or estimates of the expected impact of COVID-19,” the CDC says.

Where did I say it was?


There's those moving goalposts, knew that was coming.

1 expert says it "seems' fishy, but ignore the multiple experts with the CDC, that's nick's way. Pick your narrative, and only choose info that fits within your narrative and reject anything else. That's a horrible way to go about learning things. Seems like you also rejected 3rd grade math.

nick wrote: ↑Fri May 22, 2020 2:10 pm Nick 1
Shel 0

@Shel, I think he definitely failed at that 3rd grade math. Especially with giving the tick to Nick over Shel on this one

btw that article still doesnt have 0.26%... so your made up math i had to work with.

nick wrote: ↑Fri May 22, 2020 2:15 pm btw that article still doesnt have 0.26%... so your made up math i had to work with.

Reading would help.

.4% with symptoms die. 35% of cases have no symptoms.

Given you don't know something as simple as what % of Americans have died of COVID, I wouldn't expect you to be able to extrapolate where 26% would come from, that's probably 4th grade level math.