Posted On: Saturday - May 9th 2020 4:22PM MST
In Topics:   Websites  Kung Flu Stupidity
... that is, the numerator of the ratio Deaths FROM the Kung Fllu / Cases of the Kung Flu. That ratio is the mortality rate for this virus. As Mr. Hail estimates some rough values for the errors in determining the numerator, the denominator remains even more uncertain. I may have gotten the Kung Flu already, and you may have gotten the Kung Flu already. We are both here, blogging and reading, respectively.
Additionally, besides being the numerator of this very important ratio (to one's perspective on the seriousness of this crap), it's the number of deaths FROM this disease that is the key number touted by parties involved in this Infotainment Panic-Fest. Mr. Hail, in Part X of his series of articles on the Kung Flu "Coup d'etat", discusses some rough numbers to figure the ratio of deaths FROM the Kung Flu to deaths WITH the Kung Flu.
I should note that the estimates in Mr. Hail's article are for the situation in Sweden, not America. This is due to his having concentrated on that country due to its lack of any LOCKDOWNs , the tailing off of the epidemic there, and the death and illness numbers being so far lower than the "experts'" numbers as to be laughable. He has been reading, learning about, and discussing the situation in Sweden in many of his other parts of the series, so this also provides continuity in his discussion.
The article (and associated graphs) include ICU (hospital Intensive Care Unit) admissions and death rates in ICUs in general along with death and recovery data for Swedish purported COVID-19 patients to arrive at the following:
This leaves us with 20% of corona-deaths as absolutely-definite “Deaths From,” against 80% being either “Deaths With” or ambiguous.Now, I'm guessing myself here, but it seems that these last 4 categories involve a good bit of guesswork. I have some questions that Mr. Hail is welcome to answer here, but I should probably ask on his site. I'd say the same for the Peak Stupidity reader. I'm just the "lookie here" guy on this, not the estimator.
Of the ambiguous category, how many might realistically be “Deaths From”? Given that half died at nursing homes, places with short life-expectancies anyway, it’s possible that a fifth of the remainder (80%) are true Deaths From, three-fifths are “Deaths With,” and one-fifth are a coin toss, cause of death at examining doctor’s discretion. This gives us:
* 20% of deaths being those taken into an ICU who died there,
* 15% being genuine-virus-caused deaths outside ICUs,
* 50% are “Deaths With” who definitely died of other causes, and
* 15% Coin Tosses, those with severe health conditions whose cause of death is arguable.
This gives us 35% “Deaths From,” possible 40% or a bit higher. While some might say this may not be a perfect way to estimate “Deaths With the Virus” vs. “Deaths from the Virus,” the one-third figure happens to also be the estimate reported in early April (Fraser Nelson, The Telegraph, April 3):
The pressure is hard on people in the know in the medical field, say Hospital Admins., doctors, and nursing lead, etc, to keep the COVID numbers up - see just one example of ours on the motivations for this. It would be nice to get some numbers from these types on ICU recovery rates for any respiratory diseases, death rates in nursing homes from the same, and, most importantly, their own estimates of how many cases are logged as "FROM Covid-19" when the cause of death could be a myriad of problems. (Mr. Hail may have some videos or statements on this that I have not gotten to yet.)
OK, I was going to avoid the Kung Flu, and discussion thereof, for 2 days, but I blew it with this one. How about something about gold on an asteroid next? Sure, why not?