May 14, 2020
from ConservativeReview Website
This is a simple question for which the CDC should have a clear answer by now, accompanied by a readable chart - a chart showing everyone's demographic risk assessment so that we can better target our infection mitigation efforts.
Yet it's the one thing our government hasn't done.
Study this chart for a few minutes and take in all the data - from the asymptomatic/mildly symptomatic rates to the hospital and fatality rates divided by age.
You have to get to the 50-59 age group just to reach a 0.1% fatality rate, the level often cited as the overall death rate for the seasonal flu.
Those are all
odds than an individual has of dying in a giving year of any cause
and in the case of an average 50-year-old, five times lower.
So the numbers are likely not any higher here for those under 70, especially because the macro serology tests showing a 0.2% fatality rate (but grossly distorted by the death rate of those over 80), as well as what we are seeing in prisons and ships in younger populations, seems to harmonize with this data.
A brand-new study
from France (Estimating
the burden of SARS-CoV-2 in France) also shows very similar estimates of fatality rates, at
least for those under 60.
However, it's important to remember that even those death rates might need to be cut in half for those outside nursing homes, given that half the deaths in most countries are in senior care facilities.
Even those between 60 and 69 are at much lower risk than anything the government has suggested and that the level of panic indicates.
The World Health Organization (WHO) wrongly pegged the overall death rate for all ages at 3.4% on average.
But even this chart doesn't tell the full story.
The virus lopsidedly targets people with particular underlying conditions, such as heart disease and diabetes.
It is simply criminal that, with the tens of billions of dollars in "emergency" funding, the CDC has not conducted or published the results of a survey of 20,000 or so Americans to determine the exact number of infections and the fatality rate broken down by each health and age status.
To most Americans, based on what the government and media have been putting out, it's all the same and even babies will all die, as if there is a 50% fatality rate.
Most people I know think their infants are in
danger from COVID-19, even though
the threat of flu and SIDS is much
more pervasive in infants than that of coronavirus.
But the numerator is lopsided, because almost all the actual deaths are among those with three or four very specific health problems.
What is the fatality rate for a 70-year-old without those conditions, much less someone much younger?
In most states, well over 90% of those who died of COVID-19 had serious underlying conditions. But it's even more than that.
We now know that geography played a large role.
Moreover, roughly half of all deaths outside New York were in nursing homes.
So, if you actually took the numerator of COVID-19 deaths, which are calculated very liberally, and limited them to the risk of those outside the NYC area and outside nursing homes, what would the fatality rate be?
Likely much lower, even for those with
underlying conditions, much less those without them.
Yet two months into this mistake, our government won't even put out the simple math demonstrating this obvious point.
As one commentator so aptly observed,