Dear mhaze,

You wrote; “The upshot is that this is an old persons disease. The young get it, and recover, having developed anti-bodies. Indications from research overseas is that the number who have such anti-bodies is being massively under-estimated.”

Well let's go back to your original link and look at the 15-64 years and see what the figures show. Well look there, hardly a zero impact by anyone's imagination.

Anyway have the figures given you any pause for reflection? Any reason to stop this line of argument? If not why not?

http://www.euromomo.eu/index.html

Luciferase

"Paul's 0.3% figure you refer to is actually mine".

The actual quantum of the Infection Fatality Rate isn't really my point. I just used that number as an example. My point was that the number can't and shouldn't be applied across the whole population.

Say the IFR is 'x':

IFR for 0 - 30 yr olds is effectively zero.
IFR for 30-40 yr olds is so close to zero as to be considered zero.
IFR for 40-50 yr olds is maybe x/10.
IFR for 50-60 yr is maybe x/5
IFR for 60- 70 yr old is around x
IFR for 70 - 100 yr is 10x

Again these are indicative numbers. The data is so bad and so skewed that definitive figures won't be known for 2years at best.

So my point was that there is no value in lockdowns for those under 50 and little value for those under 60. Its the 60 and up that need to be protected while the rest develop immunity. Then they can be reintegrated into the wider community.

Paul's notion of applying the IFR to the whole population misses the point because it simply doesn't apply to most of the community.

As to a vaccine, it seems that the lockdown strategy is heavily reliant on the notion that a vaccine will appear in the next 12 months. But it should be pointed out that after 35 yrs an AIDS vaccine is still unavailable. What happens if a vaccine doesn't materialise? We can't lockdown forever.

mhaze,

There are two figures:

1. Deaths per hundred infections (percent) as determined in the Germany study where the denominator (the number infected) is known through testing for antibodies in the whole population. That's 0.37% and naturally comprised from the demographic distribution in the town studied. You are correct that the components are lower and higher death risk groups, it's a weighted average arising from the population pyramid and the risk of each demographic e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Australiapop.svg

2. Deaths per 1000, this is calculable from the deaths per hundred infections (above) and presumption of a percentage antibody positive needed for herd immunity. I used 80% to give 0.3%, or 3 deaths per 1000. This is the same for populations of similar demographic distribution to the German town, with deaths being almost entirely the old and vulnerable, as you observe. The figure would be higher in Japan, say, which has the worlds oldest average age.

You provided a graphical distribution that Steelie now refers to, I see. That doesn't support your effective zero risk assertion for the young older than ~9 y.o.

There is death involved in taking a HI approach, which can be minimized by the Swedish method. The percentage for HI will not be met, but it will be close* and considerably safer for the vulnerable to re-emerge into. *(If 20% of the population is sequestered then the remainder will reach HI at 80% of its population, i.e. 80% of 80% gives 64% HI overall. This is waaay better than zero HI).

'Elimination' by test, track, quarantine (TTQ) pathway, might appear to be getting there while we're under quarantine, except for where it's not. It will ebb and flow greately with each change to the lockdown situation. In the end, it reap's more death than under the Swedish approach because the vulnerable cannot be safely cosseted through years of ebb and flow, while the economy goes to blazes.

Brainwave! A good business would be a pop-up bar, as the ability to pop-down will suit this environment (should anyone have the money for a beer, that is).

'Where's Fauci?' America panics as doctor absent again from White House briefing
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/23/dr-fauci-press-conference-white-house-coronavirus

- Apparently Trump found out that the coronavirus bat studies, part of the PREDICT program which are a 96% genetic match to COVID-19 (which itself looks engineered and thus part of a bioweapon program) were funded by National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (i.e. - Anthony Fauci himself signed off on them)

Fauci's antics during press briefings have been undermining Trump anyway.

Coronavirus and discussion with George Webb 4-19-20 by Dr. Paul Cottrell
http://youtu.be/kXrmzo3tOH8

Luciferase

"You provided a graphical distribution that Steelie now refers to, I see. That doesn't support your effective zero risk assertion for the young older than ~9 y.o."

I don't think so.

This is really rather simple. In Australia, no one under 40 has died. So the numerator in the calculation (deaths/infections*100) is zero. Therefore the answer is zero. Therefore the infection fatality rate for that cohort is zero.

There is just no way we can act as though we know with any precision what these ratios are. We don't know how many infections there really are. Even in the German study you quote, the entire village wasn't tested. There is evidence in LA that the actual numbers of infections have been underestimated by orders of magnitude.

Equally, we can't speak with certainty about the numbers of actual deaths. Although it seems rather clear in Australia what the number is, that not true world-wide. There's plenty of evidence in NY that they are counting deaths WITH CV19 not deaths OF CV19. Some in Italy say that the deaths rate due to CV19 was overstated by 80%.

Upshot is that we don't know either of the critical numbers in the ratio with any degree of certainty. We can make guesses but that's all they are.

Meanwhile, we have closed down the entire country when, it seems, the vast majority of people were never in danger and those who were could have been easily, and more effectively, isolated without such closure

Dear mhaze,

You write;

“Some in Italy say that the deaths rate due to CV19 was overstated by 80%.”

Struth mate. Really?

Go look at your own link. Scroll down and check out the line graph for Italy. What other explanation are you going to put up for the horrendous spike in mortality? Errant Bocce balls? Give it a break.