agit-prop, opinion manipulation and well-poisoning games Geo-strategic issues health and health concerns Medicine

Some CV-19 data (for reference)

Spread the love

I note, from OWID, today August 13. First, case fatality rate vs population’s median age, though this is oldish data now . . . however exceptionally poor management by the US — an obvious implied thesis — should have been obvious even then:

Next, case fatality rate overall — a metric dependent on degree of testing, how deaths are attributed and tracked:

In both of these, the USA — subject of an in thread debate — is unexceptional. In particular, it sits spot on for median age of population. END

PS: Let me add from Worldometers for the USA, noting that deaths also show much the same pattern:

Here, as we went into April, there was a fundamental shift in growth pattern, probably tied to geographic spread beyond initial urban centres. Observe too the subtle kink in June, which ties to a secondary wave.

We may also observe from Worldometers the new cases pattern of a primary wave gradually dying off by April-May then a much bigger secondary one starting early-mid June:

That secondary wave is itself dying off slowly.

PPS: The ten worst cases on deaths per million, per Statistica:

11 Replies to “Some CV-19 data (for reference)

  1. 1
    kairosfocus says:

    Some CV-19 data (for reference). The US does not seem to be particularly exceptional, especially when we look at a proxy for age structure of the population. KF

  2. 2
    BobRyan says:

    No country should have done anything different than Sweden and South Korea. Both took their hits early and their deaths have declined to almost nothing. South Korea did not even reach 1000 dead. Neither country crashed their economies and places like bars were left open.

  3. 3
    Bob O'H says:

    Both took their hits early and their deaths have declined to almost nothing. South Korea did not even reach 1000 dead.

    Neither did Norway, where deaths have also declined to almost nothing. It’s bizarre to see people holding Sweden up as an example of what should be done, when they performed so poorly.

  4. 4
    kairosfocus says:

    BO’H, I am going to make the suggestion that pandemic performance among leading countries has been more or less in a general group and debating marginal vs material differences is pointless, likely simply reflecting polarisation. Where for cause I think a material difference could have been made, polarisation blocked the way, cf https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/hydroxychloroquine-works-in-high-risk-patients-and-saying-otherwise-is-dangerous KF

  5. 5
    Mac McTavish says:

    KF

    Where for cause I think a material difference could have been made, polarisation blocked the way, cf

    If by “polarization” you mean the difference between those who follow the advice of the vast majority of experts in epidemiology, and those who tout unproven treatments and deep state conspiracy theories, then I would agree.

  6. 6
    Bob O'H says:

    kf – you can suggest that, but then you have to explain why Sweden did so much worse than its neighbours. The difference isn’t marginal: for both cases and deaths Sweden is far worse than its Nordic neighbours.

    When epidemiologists have looked in more detail, they have estimated that about 80% of the effect of non-pharmaceutical interventions, that drove R down from about 4 to below 1 (about 0.7 on average), was due to locking down.

    To me the evidence seems clear. But if you have a different explanation of the data, go ahead and explain.

  7. 7
    Marfin says:

    Its really difficult to compare country to country and draw any real conclusions.Mexico and Peru have roughly the same amount of cases but Peru`s death rate is half that of Mexico. Its the same with Belgium and Sweden infections rates similar but Sweden`s death rate is half that of Belgium. Then look at Singapore 55,000 infections 27 deaths .The trouble is there is no consistency in testing , measuring, and recording , as here in Ireland a month ago it was admitted that a third of the deaths recorded were most likely not to have been caused by Covid 19 but on the news every night those figures are still included in the death rate.
    My conclusion is lock down those susceptible to death from this disease keep them safe and let the rest of us get on with generating income to fund the fight for a cure or a vaccine.

  8. 8
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: I have added a tabulation from Statistica on the ten hardest hit countries on a per million basis. KF

  9. 9
    kairosfocus says:

    Marfin, I agree that statistics like this are questionable, as for example OWID, Worldometers etc. also agree. Unfortunately, they are being used for points scoring rhetoric and there is need to balance the narrative. KF

  10. 10
    kairosfocus says:

    BO’H: There are drastically differing circumstances and constraints acting on countries. In addition, we are facing uncertainty, and key models have been in gross error. In that context, I have simply pointed out that the USA — currently being targetted rhetorically as worst managed etc — in fact fits into a band of performance for many countries with first class health systems. At that level, I am not particularly interested in debates as to which is better or worse on statistics that rest on difficulties as Marfin pointed out. KF

  11. 11
    kairosfocus says:

    MMT, I am sorry but your premise that the majority of experts should rule the roost — appeal to consensus of the new magisterium — is massively confuted by history, with Einstein as case study A. As for your underlying claims, enough has been shown to demonstrate why the gold standard fallacy has warped discussion and serious rethinking is in order. I suggest you might want to answer the questions in the open letter to Dr Fauci for starters: https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/open-letter-to-dr-anthony-fauci-regarding-the-use-of-hydroxychloroquine-for-treating-covid-19/article_31d37842-dd8f-11ea-80b5-bf80983bc072.html KF

Leave a Reply