SR,

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/03/report-italian-adviser-suggests-that-coronavirus-death-rates-in-italy-may-be-exaggerated/

"“On re-evaluation by the National Institute of Health, only 12 per cent of death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus, while 88 per cent of patients who have died have at least one pre-morbidity – many had two or three,” he says."

And many other articles I've seen along the same lines if you cared to look.

There is a significant debate about the difference between dying OF the KungFlu and dying WITH it.

Its all very well to be sceptical of data. Its the correct attitude.

But to be sceptical due to ignorance and remain sceptical without bothering to rectify the ignorance? Well that's very SR.

mhaze,

Going to the original document re the 0.37% figure, and using a translator, you are right, mhaze, it was a statistically large, approx 1000 person sample:
http://www.land.nrw/sites/default/files/asset/document/zwischenergebnis_covid19_case_study_gangelt.pdf (Coincidently, on the same day this was published Singapore with its strong testing regime had an official CFR also of 0.37%, 6 out of 1,623 cases).

I have faith in statistics involving large samples or entire populations. The 70 or so deaths in Australia does not represent a sample size appropriate to base conclusions upon, yet you have done so in coming to an approach to dealing with the virus through HI. I agree with the approach but not your stats suggesting no probability of deaths.

Here's something interesting that suggests revising down the HI target, but I won't revise my calculation, based on 80%, yet http://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/04/10/opinion/its-possible-flatten-curve-too-long/

Luciferase,

Again I'm not arguing with you over the 0.37% figure. I just don't think we can be too definitive at this point. We might have large numbers available and all else being equal we could rely on those large numbers. But we can't be sure that the testing regime is indeed random. There's every chance that its biased toward finding people with severe CV19 and missing those who are already recovered from a mild dose.

Again, I agree that the Australian data is small and definitive conclusions can't be drawn from it. But the age at death data is repeated in many places eg NYC http://www.statista.com/statistics/1109867/coronavirus-death-rates-by-age-new-york-city/

Even in Italy only 2 people under 20 have died and they both had pre-existing conditions.

I remain very confident in saying that this is an old person's disease and our response would have been both different and better had we known that from the outset. Now that we do know it, our responses ought to change.

Mhaze,

Are you suggesting that primarily, it is older people who need to self-isolate, wear masks, etc. ? That children should be going to school, shops, cafes and restaurants should re-open, sporting events (minus the oldies) should re-commence ? Sounds reasonable.

It may not be as simple as that. Children may go to school and then go to see their grandparents on the weekend, etc., and may be carrying the virus, and of course with no sign of it. Yes, in those circumstances, isolate older people even from their grandkids, that makes sense, until there are no more new cases and tracers have identified every potential carrier as they appear.

And there are regions across Australia where there are no cases, or no new cases, where restrictions can be relaxed. As long as anybody coming to Australia can be isolated for at least the fourteen days, it may even be safe enough to allow in-bound travel. And of course, depending on the state of their work-forces, many businesses can re-open soon.

But give it perhaps another week or so, to ensure that the virus is under control.

Of course, sh!thole countries like the US are many, many weeks away from doing any of that, perhaps months, perhaps never, with their curves still rising or stabilising at very high levels. God help America, and certainly their wonderful health professionals.

Joe

mhaze,

I fully agree with your last paragraph but one last time on the 0.37%:

You say, "But we can't be sure that the testing regime is indeed random." A translation from German with DeepL states a 'representative sample' was used. That would suggest an eye to what 'representative' means. These are real scientists seeking real answers, no hidden agenda.

You say, "There's every chance that its biased toward finding people with severe CV19 and missing those who are already recovered from a mild dose." No, this was an antibody test of everyone in the sample from a region CV19 had passed through. It picked up everyone who had been infected. Testing was not targeted.

I calculated 3 deaths per 1000 population. What 3 lives are worth in comparison to the quality of life of the remaining 997 seems the moral question in pursuing HI. However, ''elimination, which will only be suppression as Singapore is finding, will be lived out in waves for several years with probably the same number dying, or more I've argued, as HI is reached, assuming no vaccine.

Dear mhaze,

What knots you are tying yourself into just to stop having to acknowledge your stuff up old chap.

So a 70 year old who has at least a couple of decades of enjoying and mentoring to grandkids left to him is fair game for your willful spread of the plague because he happens to suffer from a dose of high blood pressure?

What are you bloody well thinking?

This All-Cause Mortality Surveillance 16 April 2020 – Week 16 report (up to week 15 data) from Public Health England has an incredibly sobering graph with a nearly doubling of observed compared to expected number of all-cause deaths in all ages.
http://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/879714/Weekly_all_cause_mortality_surveillance_week_16_2020_report.pdf

This little pissy rant you are on is both disrespectful to those thousands of excess deaths and exceeds the utterly spectacular disregard of the facts of the climate deniers.

Again I extort you, give it away, leave it to the real fringe dwellers like Lucifrase. Your credibility may be in tatters but it is not yet obliterated. Give it that slim chance of recovery it deserves.