PonyFans.com

ponyboy wrote:.1 is a good IFR number for the seasonal flu in developed nations.

I think when all is said and done that we’ll have an effective IFR for COVID-19 that is materially lower than the flu. But a much larger percentage of the population will get corona. The end result will be that mortalities will be like a particularly bad flu year. It does have to be acknowledged that there do seem to be some nasty permanent side effects from corona.

malonish wrote:Deaths are already beyond 2x what 2018 or 19 had though? Seems worse than a "bad flu year"

ponyboy wrote:.1 is a good IFR number for the seasonal flu in developed nations.

I think when all is said and done that we’ll have an effective IFR for COVID-19 that is materially lower than the flu. But a much larger percentage of the population will get corona. The end result will be that mortalities will be like a particularly bad flu year. It does have to be acknowledged that there do seem to be some nasty permanent side effects from corona.

Insane_Pony_Posse wrote:

malonish wrote:Deaths are already beyond 2x what 2018 or 19 had though? Seems worse than a "bad flu year"

In Texas?

Texas Flu Deaths in 2017-2018 Flu Season = Nearly 10,000
https://www.chron.com/local/prognosis/a ... 025291.php

Texas Covid Deaths = Less than 4500 thus far

malonish wrote:

Insane_Pony_Posse wrote:

malonish wrote:Deaths are already beyond 2x what 2018 or 19 had though? Seems worse than a "bad flu year"

In Texas?

Texas Flu Deaths in 2017-2018 Flu Season = Nearly 10,000
https://www.chron.com/local/prognosis/a ... 025291.php

Texas Covid Deaths = Less than 4500 thus far

Nationwide deaths Flu Vs Covid are multiple times more for Covid. The TX version of "Eff you we're fine so we're not gonna change our ways" is not acceptable and not saying you're doing anything on purpose but cherry picking only the TX data is not the whole picture.

JasonB wrote:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... arios.html

That is where I get the IFR for Covid. It is the right source to use for calculating IFR if you care going to compare it with the 0.1 number, because they use similar mechanisms for calculating the people who don't get tested for Flu. It is apples to apples.

gostangs wrote:Speaking of data, according to Stanford dashboard Texas confirmed cases are down by 50% over the last 4 days. Guess we wont get blazing headlines on that information, will we?

ponyboy wrote:

JasonB wrote:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... arios.html

That is where I get the IFR for Covid. It is the right source to use for calculating IFR if you care going to compare it with the 0.1 number, because they use similar mechanisms for calculating the people who don't get tested for Flu. It is apples to apples.

Jason, as I called out in the Around the Hilltop thread, the .5 to .65 IFR for COVID-19 is not an accurate number of what's happening in Texas. International data is highly suspect and these figures should not be thrown around as if they mean anything.

Look, I can understand your tendency to want to rely on "official CDC figures" rather than some schmo with Excel. But do the math yourself -- it's not rocket science.

ponyboy wrote:I could expand to include more states, for sure. But Texas data is solid and the set is sufficiently large. And if I start doing more of this COVID-19 data analysis, my wife is going to slit my throat as I sleep.

Topper wrote:

gostangs wrote:Speaking of data, according to Stanford dashboard Texas confirmed cases are down by 50% over the last 4 days. Guess we wont get blazing headlines on that information, will we?

If you are talking about daily new reported cases hat information is not even close the same as the information on the Texas Health and Human Services Commission daily graph which shows no such decline. Are you talking about fatalities rather than new infections? Daily fatality numbers have risen over the past 4 days. Also,according HHSC the number of cumulative total cases has risen rather than fallen over the past 4 days

mrydel wrote:

ponyboy wrote:I could expand to include more states, for sure. But Texas data is solid and the set is sufficiently large. And if I start doing more of this COVID-19 data analysis, my wife is going to slit my throat as I sleep.

And that will qualify it as a Covid death.

ponyboy wrote:I could expand to include more states, for sure. But Texas data is solid and the set is sufficiently large. And if I start doing more of this COVID-19 data analysis, my wife is going to slit my throat as I sleep.