Войти в систему

Home
    - Создать дневник
    - Написать в дневник
       - Подробный режим

LJ.Rossia.org
    - Новости сайта
    - Общие настройки
    - Sitemap
    - Оплата
    - ljr-fif

Редактировать...
    - Настройки
    - Список друзей
    - Дневник
    - Картинки
    - Пароль
    - Вид дневника

Сообщества

Настроить S2

Помощь
    - Забыли пароль?
    - FAQ
    - Тех. поддержка



Пишет Misha Verbitsky ([info]tiphareth)
@ 2020-09-02 11:51:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Настроение: sick
Музыка:Enjoykin - Завтрашний День (feat. Виталий Кличко)
Entry tags:covid

компиляция последних данных по смертности от ковида
Кстати,
компиляция последних американских данных по смертности от ковида
https://reason.com/2020/08/31/cdc-data-confirm-that-young-people-face-a-negligible-risk-of-dying-from-covid-19/
смертность для тех, у кого инфекцию уже обнаружили
(то есть не считая бессимптомных и тех, кто перенес
это дело на ногах) - 0.25% для тех, кто младше 50,
и 16% для тех, кто старше 64.

Если прибавить серологические исследования (которые
позволяют учитывать тех, кто переносят ковид без
симптомов или с симптоматикой обычной простуды),
цифры разнообразнее, от 0.1 процента (Юта) до 1.4
процента (Коннектикут); в среднем, около 0.26%,
в два раза опаснее обычного гриппа, и сравнимо
с эпидемией H2N2-гриппа в 1957 (около 0.2%).
При этом людей с антителами против ковида
где-то в 10 раз больше, чем тех, у кого он
диагностирован, то есть все цифры по диагностированным
пациентам, видимо, можно делить на 10; если так,
оно получается еще менее опасно.

Ну и вот это до кучи:
https://masksickness.ca/mirror/2020-08-26-CDC_IFR_Final-Joseph-Audie.pdf
Review of calculated SARS-CoV-2 infection fatality rates:
Good CDC science versus dubious CDC science, the actual
risk that does not justify the "cure", by Prof Joseph Audie.

Привет

P. S. Пресловутый Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, ведущий ниспровергатель
Иоаннидиса, опубликовал новый обзор, цифры которого вообще
не расходятся с полученными Иоаннидисом на основе
серологических исследований
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.23.20160895v4

The estimated IFR is close to zero for children and

younger adults but rises exponentially with age, reaching
0.4% at age 55, 1.3% at age 65, 4.5% at age 75, and 15% at
age 85.

в тексте приводится IFR для других категорий населения,
для младше 35 это 0.01%, для 35-45 0.06%,
для 45-54 это 0.2%, 55-64 - 0.7%, 65-74 - %2.2, 75-85 - 7.3%, 85+ - 27.1%



(Читать комментарии) - (Добавить комментарий)


[info]kaledin
2020-09-02 19:02 (ссылка)
Из твоей же статьи:

The CDC's current "best estimate," based on studies from around the world, is 0.65 percent

Не надоело дохлую лошадь хлестать? пожалей животное!

(Ответить) (Уровень выше) (Ветвь дискуссии)


[info]tiphareth
2020-09-02 19:08 (ссылка)
там же объясняется, откуда взялось это
"best estimate"

Given the above, it came as somewhat of a shock to learn

that the CDC recently presented a second and higher pIFR
estimate of 0.65%. The only justification provided by the
CDC is that the pIFR is replacing the psCFR because it
provides “a more directly measurable parameter for
disease severity for COVID- 19”. This attempted
justification, however, fails because, as demonstrated
above, the pIFR is readily calculated from the CDC’s
original estimates for the psCFR and asymptomatic
infection rate. In addition, the CDC does nothing to
undermine let alone repudiate its original pIFR estimate
of 0.26%. Indeed, the CDC’s latest estimate for an
asymptomatic infection rate of 40% implies an even lower
pIFR estimate of 0.24%. Hence, we are left with as many
as three official CDC estimates for the pIFR of
SARS-CoV-2: 0.24%, 0.26% and 0.65%. The 0.65% estimate is
an outlier, while the first two estimates of 0.24% and
0.26% are in excellent agreement and enjoy solid
scientific support from multiple, independent studies. As
will be shown below, the 0.65% estimate is based on a
single meta-analysis of dubious quality that was recently
published as a pre-print by Drs. Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz
and Lea Merone.

The Meyerowitz-Katz and Merone article reports a point
estimate for the population infection fatality ratio
(pIFR) of 0.68% based on a meta-analysis of 26 studies
that were retrieved from the peer reviewed and non-peer
reviewed literature by 06/16/2020. The 26 studies report
on the use of various methodologies – modeling,
serological and observational – to estimate the infection
fatality rate of SARS-CoV-2. While it represents a
potentially helpful study, the study by Meyerowitz-Katz
and Merone suffers from a number of errors that biases it
in the direction of a high pIFR estimate which calls into
question the CDC’s citing it as the only support for
its’s new pIFR estimate of 0.65%. Indeed, it can be
argued that the meta-analysis is so flawed its pIFR
estimate is useless. What follows is a short overview of
some of the more obvious errors that challenge the
quality of the Meyerowitz-Katz and Merone meta-analysis
and the accuracy of its pIFR estimate.

Meyerowitz-Katz and Merone rejected the studies by Bryan
et al. and Silveira et al. because they claimed “it was
difficult to determine the numerator (i.e. number of
deaths) associated with the seroprevalence estimate, or
the denominator (i.e. population) was not well
defined”. Prof. Ioannidis, however, included both studies
in his review and reported corrected pIFRs of 0.13% and
0.39%, respectively. Meyerowitz-Katz also rejected the
study by Sood et al. because it supposedly “explicitly
warned against using its data to obtain an IFR”. A
reading of the Sood et al. article, however, fails to
reveal such an obvious and explicit warning. Importantly,
Dr. Ioannidis used the Sood et al. study to calculate a
corrected pIFR of 0.18%. Meyerowitz-Katz also excluded
several studies, including blood donor
sero-prevalence/IFR studies analyzed by Dr. Ioannidis,
because “many studies only looked at targeted populations
in their seroprevalence data, and thus could not be used
as population estimators of IFR (pIFR).” Despite this,
Meyerowitz-Katz included the study by Tian et al., which
reports on the characteristics of a relatively small and
targeted sample of hospitalized patients in Beijing,
China and reports what is best characterized as a cCFR =
0.9% (as opposed to a pIFR). Meyerowitz-Katz and Merone
fail to even mention, let alone include in their
analysis, the early pIFR study by Mizumoto et al. which
was available as a pre-print in February and has since
passed peer review and been published. Importantly,
Mizumoto et al. used a modeling methodology to calculate
a low pIFR estimate for Wuhan, China of 0.12%. Similarly,
Meyerowitz-Katz and Merone are totally silent on the
CDC’s implied pIFR estimate of 0.26% (discussed above)
despite the fact that it was publically available prior
to 06/16/2020.

* * *

То есть .65% к CDC прямого отношения не имеет, это
результат довольно грязненькой подтасовки австралийских
деятелей от науки, и он расходится с более новыми данными
самого CDC, о которых в статье и говорится.

Такие дела
Миша

(Ответить) (Уровень выше) (Ветвь дискуссии)


[info]kaledin
2020-09-02 19:09 (ссылка)
Это не там же, это на масксикнесс. Такого я не читаю, прости. Там нет ничего, кроме передергиваний, а жизнь коротка.

(Ответить) (Уровень выше) (Ветвь дискуссии)


[info]tiphareth
2020-09-02 19:10 (ссылка)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343889424_Review_of_calculated_SARS-CoV-2_infection_fatality_rates_Good_CDC_science_versus_dubious_CDC_science_the_actual_risk_that_does_not_justify_the_cure_-_By_Prof_Joseph_Audie

(Ответить) (Уровень выше) (Ветвь дискуссии)


[info]kaledin
2020-09-02 19:34 (ссылка)
Sacred Heart University.

Еще можно эволюцию обсудить. Или запрет абортов.

(Ответить) (Уровень выше) (Ветвь дискуссии)


[info]tiphareth
2020-09-02 19:37 (ссылка)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Heart_University

Sacred Heart is the second-largest Catholic university in New England, behind Boston College,[4] and offers more than 80 degree programs to over 8,500 students at the bachelor's, master's and doctoral levels.

The university consists of five colleges: College of Arts & Sciences, which includes the School of Communication & Media Arts and the School of Computing;[24] Jack Welch College of Business; College of Health Professions; College of Nursing and the Isabelle Farrington College of Education.[25]

Sacred Heart University offers more than 80, bachelor's, master's, and doctorate programs. Sacred Heart also offers qualified undergraduates the opportunity to complete an undergraduate degree and a graduate degree with five to six years depending on the degree program.[26]

(Ответить) (Уровень выше) (Ветвь дискуссии)


[info]kaledin
2020-09-02 19:50 (ссылка)
Behind Boston College.

Нетривиальное достижение, в принципе.

(Ответить) (Уровень выше)


[info]onkel_mitch
2020-09-02 19:53 (ссылка)
Полагаю, после 8 ноября страсти существенно поутихнут.

(Ответить) (Уровень выше)


(Читать комментарии) -