# Maybe some good news from the CDC



## squatting dog (Sep 25, 2020)

Might finally be seeing the flattening everyone's been hoping for. 

CDC’s new IFR estimates broken down by age are part of the agency’s September 10 update to its “COVID-19 Pandemic Planning Scenarios.”
Based on the “Scenario 5: Current Best Estimate” for the IFR, updated age-specific survival rates: 
0-19 years old, 99.997 percent; 
20-49 years old, 99.98 percent; 
50-69 years, 99.5 percent; 
70 years old or older, 94.6 percent.

That means that for people 69 years old or younger, the survival rate is between 99.5 percent and 99.997 percent, while for those 70 or older, it is an estimated 94.6 percent.


----------



## Don M. (Sep 25, 2020)

It appears that this virus is most deadly to those who already have some health issues.  However, the long term, lasting effects of contracting this illness are still a big unknown.  For the foreseeable future, "caution" should be the rule.


----------



## PopsnTuff (Sep 25, 2020)

Isn't the CDC totally under the potus control now? If so we'll never know the true anything.....


----------



## squatting dog (Sep 25, 2020)

PopsnTuff said:


> Isn't the CDC totally under the potus control now?



No, it's not.


----------



## Irwin (Sep 25, 2020)

I don't trust anything coming out of the CDC. Johns Hopkins is a pretty reliable source, but no the CDC. It's been politicized.


----------



## CarolfromTX (Sep 26, 2020)

So we don't "trust the science" anymore? Or do we just trust the science that fits our political agenda? I'm so confused.


----------



## Sunny (Sep 26, 2020)

Squatting Dog, so, over 200,000 deaths, plus over 7 million cases which were survived but often with serious complications, are to be written off as "good news?" Even if your statistics were true and the CDC was completely reliable, I wouldn't be dancing in the streets. 

To me, the only good news on this would be a scientifically provable, dramatic decrease in the number of new cases. I haven't seen that happen yet.

Carol, which version of the "science" do you trust?  And why? (Maybe if you tried reading real scientific findings instead of those that fit _your _political agenda, you'd be less confused.)


----------



## gennie (Sep 26, 2020)

I still think the only numbers that count in the big picture and need constant publicity is how many deaths ( with ages ) and how many recover but are left with health complications, also with ages.

The number of new cases who have it and recover completely grows less important everyday.


----------



## Irwin (Sep 26, 2020)

squatting dog said:


> Might finally be seeing the flattening everyone's been hoping for.
> 
> CDC’s new IFR estimates broken down by age are part of the agency’s September 10 update to its “COVID-19 Pandemic Planning Scenarios.”
> Based on the “Scenario 5: Current Best Estimate” for the IFR, updated age-specific survival rates:
> ...



A lot of people survive covid-19 but have damage to their hearts and lungs, which could cut their lives short.

As far as "flattening the curve," we were trending downward since late July, but now we're trending upwards again -- probably due to infections from schools being back in session.


----------



## Sunny (Sep 26, 2020)

gennie said:


> I still think the only numbers that count in the big picture and need constant publicity is how many deaths ( with ages ) and how many recover but are left with health complications, also with ages.
> 
> The number of new cases who have it and recover completely grows less important everyday.



I don't agree, Gennie. The number of new cases is very important, and shows the trend of this disease. It's probably a better indicator of which way things are going than just analyzing how many people die of it or are left with health complications. Those unfortunate results are probably more a function of the victims' ages and pre-existing conditions.

But if a large social gathering, minus masks, results in a tremendous surge of cases, doesn't that tell us something about how the disease spreads? 
If a school reopens and a large number of the kids get it, plus most of the teachers, isn't that significant, even if very few of them die?

We can do something about preventing the spread of the disease to begin with. There's probably not too much we can do after people have gotten it, as there's no drug for curing it. We can't make old people younger, or make people with chronic, pre-existing conditions not have those conditions any more.

Also, think about this scenario: Most of the kids in a particular school get the disease, having caught it from each other. They all recover, fortunately. But how many have brought it home to parents, grandparents, and in general, have spread it to the world they are living in?  So you might have 500 kids having recovered from the disease, with 0% mortality. But they've spread it to 100 older people, 50 of whom died.

So it seems to me that the number of new cases is _very _important.


----------



## Tommy (Sep 27, 2020)

squatting dog said:


> Might finally be seeing the flattening everyone's been hoping for.
> 
> CDC’s new IFR estimates broken down by age are part of the agency’s September 10 update to its “COVID-19 Pandemic Planning Scenarios.”
> Based on the “Scenario 5: Current Best Estimate” for the IFR, updated age-specific survival rates:
> ...



With all due respect SD, if you knew that a particular type of aircraft "only" crashed killing all aboard during one out of 20 flights, how excited would you be about boarding that type of plane?

Like all statistical models, these numbers are only meaningful in the context of their intended purpose and the manner in which they were developed.  That information is largely available on the CDC's website.  The CDC specifically states:

The parameters in the scenarios:

Are estimates intended to support public health preparedness and planning*. *
Are *not* predictions of the expected effects of COVID-19.
Do not reflect the impact of any behavioral changes, social distancing, or other interventions.
I do confess to being skeptical when I see the unequal age brackets being used.  This would not be the typical scientific approach.


----------

