It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# What are the average survival rates for Covid ?

page: 2
16
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2021 @ 07:12 PM

originally posted by: themessengernevermatters

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: trollz

originally posted by: chr0naut

Take the number who have died, divide that by the number of confirmed cases and that tells you the case-mortality ratio. Multiply that by 100 to give it as a percentage. Subtract that number from 100 to give the survival ratio as a percentage.

Currently, for the world, the survival ratio is 97.885%, which means that about two people die out of every hundred cases.

You do realize many people either don't get tested, don't seek medical attention, or in some cases don't even have symptoms? The case mortality ratio is completely inaccurate because it's only accounting for known cases, and the only way cases can be known and counted is by people being tested for the virus. Do you honestly think the majority of people who get SARS-Cov-2 get tested, especially the ones who don't even know they have it?

I can see how your guess is better than the actual measurement. What were they thinking?

Their data is incomplete and so is their assessment. Most of the time I have heard them admit they believe their are many unreported cases, but because they are not reported it's an unknown quantity.

We have census data. When they test a certain number of the population in an area, they can define the number of untested people that area quite accurately. They can then use the ratio of positive tests to negative tests to estimate the numbers of infected people in any particular area. It's not that hard to do.

However for case-mortality, it isn't about winning some sort of 'political beauty contest', the numbers are critical in defining treatment effectiveness and medical resource distribution. It is about known cases and how that relates to deaths. A guess isn't good enough, and someone who isn't sick, doesn't need any treatment.

edit on 10/8/2021 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 10 2021 @ 07:15 PM

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: themessengernevermatters

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: trollz

originally posted by: chr0naut

Take the number who have died, divide that by the number of confirmed cases and that tells you the case-mortality ratio. Multiply that by 100 to give it as a percentage. Subtract that number from 100 to give the survival ratio as a percentage.

Currently, for the world, the survival ratio is 97.885%, which means that about two people die out of every hundred cases.

You do realize many people either don't get tested, don't seek medical attention, or in some cases don't even have symptoms? The case mortality ratio is completely inaccurate because it's only accounting for known cases, and the only way cases can be known and counted is by people being tested for the virus. Do you honestly think the majority of people who get SARS-Cov-2 get tested, especially the ones who don't even know they have it?

I can see how your guess is better than the actual measurement. What were they thinking?

Their data is incomplete and so is their assessment. Most of the time I have heard them admit they believe their are many unreported cases, but because they are not reported it's an unknown quantity.

We have census data. When they test a certain number of the population in an area, they can define the number of untested people that area quite accurately.

However for case-mortality, it isn't about winning some sort of 'political beauty contest', the numbers are critical in defining treatment effectiveness and medical resource distribution. It is about known cases and how that relates to deaths. A guess isn't good enough.

Census data will tell you how many people, not how many actually had covid. You would have to do some kind of antibody census taking blood from everyone to know who was infected or not.

posted on Aug, 10 2021 @ 07:15 PM
Useless data is useless. Garbage in garbage out.

posted on Aug, 10 2021 @ 07:17 PM
And case fatality rates aren't accurate if you don't know how many were actually infected.

posted on Aug, 10 2021 @ 07:37 PM

originally posted by: themessengernevermatters
And case fatality rates aren't accurate if you don't know how many were actually infected.

So, since someone can throw doubt on any numbers, at any time (measurement errors and quantum indeterminacy and all that), we should all do nothing, stuck in a paradox of perfectionist immobility?

posted on Aug, 10 2021 @ 08:20 PM

originally posted by: chr0naut

So, since someone can throw doubt on any numbers, at any time (measurement errors and quantum indeterminacy and all that), we should all do nothing, stuck in a paradox of perfectionist immobility?

Very well stated Chr0naut.

Here's my cornpone country analysis....after seeing all kinds of numbers, from all kinds of sources, I feel there is a strong preponderance of evidence showing this to be a disease of importance that has a concerning degree of morbidity and mortality for the elderly and those with constellation of concurrent chronic illnesses.

Numbers for the sake of numbers are just slides in a PowerPoint deck. The numbers develop meaning through analysis that should drive action. Fun thought exercise to debate what the mortality rate is, and to what decimal point it is correct. It's what you dooooo with the numbers.

My "do" is not taking the EUA vaccine while it is, by law, but not so much reality, voluntary. Why? The morbidity and mortality numbers don't add up for me. I don't see the potential benefit as outweighing my perceived risk.

But 0.3% mortality means 3 in 1000 die! You could be one of the 3 if you don't vax! My view, I'm much more likely to be one of the 997.

As the Naut eloquently stated, don't be paralyzed by the numbers to the point of inaction (on whatever action is being considered based on the numbers being examined). This is kinda "hand grenade" data. Close enough does the job.

posted on Aug, 10 2021 @ 09:26 PM

Hmm... I would Say ..........99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% .

posted on Aug, 10 2021 @ 09:40 PM

You chances for getting over covid is as good as anybody else if you are healthy regardless of age, if you get sick never, ever wait after your fever to go see the doctor, fever for must part means infection, if you get fever, do not feel well, get tested and get treated, you will be fine, do not wait that is the biggest mistake of many wait until the virus infects the lungs.

posted on Aug, 11 2021 @ 12:28 AM
Do you guys count the rate from total deaths? That's BS. Use the excess death if anything. Then it's a little glitch. And didnt they count some deaths twice? You also need to subtract overdoses, suicides from losing a job, lack of other healthcare and food. Murders. Secret vaccine deaths.

In China it looks like they use "a new variant" as a pretext when people protest the government. They've released the dams and now they'll disappear some with the new lockdowns. It looks like a slo-mo financial meltdown. Food shortages. A slo-mo great leap forward with million dead in the end. There's probably no covid at all

posted on Aug, 11 2021 @ 12:39 AM

Every cold virus I ever catched spread through the whole body in no time.
A little sensation in the nose, couple of sneezes and whole body fatigue hours later.
It's in the blood. There's no not getting it in the lungs. It may just stay there a bit longer than elsewhere when you breathe cold air and when you suppress fever with drugs.

posted on Aug, 11 2021 @ 10:23 AM
Except this projection is grossly exaggerated. Like most projections.

Bernoulli's Fallacy: Statistical Illogic and the Crisis of Modern Science

edit on 11-8-2021 by Athetos because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 13 2021 @ 03:39 AM
Thanks guys that's given some very useful information and shown how much confusion there is over this issue.

I find it interesting that the survival rate is never discussed by most people, instead preferring to focus on "with covid" as opposed to "died because of".

posted on Aug, 13 2021 @ 03:47 AM

originally posted by: davegazi2

originally posted by: chr0naut

So, since someone can throw doubt on any numbers, at any time (measurement errors and quantum indeterminacy and all that), we should all do nothing, stuck in a paradox of perfectionist immobility?

But 0.3% mortality means 3 in 1000 die! You could be one of the 3 if you don't vax! My view, I'm much more likely to be one of the 997.

As the Naut eloquently stated, don't be paralyzed by the numbers to the point of inaction (on whatever action is being considered based on the numbers being examined). This is kinda "hand grenade" data. Close enough does the job.

"If you don't vax and are not one of the 37 million Americans who have recovered from Covid-19", is what everyone should say.

But because the media doesn't use that phrase to show who is most at risk of being hospitalized from Covid-19, almost nobody out here in Social Media Land does either. That's a shame.

posted on Aug, 13 2021 @ 03:54 AM

originally posted by: chr0naut

Currently, for the world, the survival ratio is 97.885%, which means that about two people die out of every hundred cases.

You have to factor in what the U.S. CDC Director told Congress in July 2020...that a percentage of Covid-19 deaths are fabricated, due to Federal Dollars being paid to medical providers, for every death labeled as Covid-19.

posted on Aug, 13 2021 @ 05:36 AM

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: chr0naut

Currently, for the world, the survival ratio is 97.885%, which means that about two people die out of every hundred cases.

You have to factor in what the U.S. CDC Director told Congress in July 2020...that a percentage of Covid-19 deaths are fabricated, due to Federal Dollars being paid to medical providers, for every death labeled as Covid-19.

The quoted numbers were for the world. Not for the USA. The CFR for the US is less.

Many countries, and especially those poorer countries with a higher CFR, don't have any sort of financial incentive to pad the numbers. As it is, they don't usually have the funding to even deal with the problems medically. And it is usually to the political advantage of those countries to underreport deaths to make them look less culpable for their poor responses.

The world death toll is more than eight times times the deaths in the USA alone. None of them get any sort of US government funding, or get any kick-back from faking death numbers, which makes any such allegation of faking of numbers a bit moot.

posted on Aug, 14 2021 @ 05:34 PM
so why not count deaths within 30 days of the vaccine ?
They did that with the test,. Just saying... don't you think that could have inflated the numbers a bit ? reply to: chr0naut

posted on Aug, 15 2021 @ 02:05 PM

originally posted by: OwenTrousers
so why not count deaths within 30 days of the vaccine ?
They did that with the test,. Just saying... don't you think that could have inflated the numbers a bit ? reply to: chr0naut

Did you think they aren't counting deaths within 30 days of the vaccine being administered?

With modern medical records, it is easy to track medical procedures and events. Every vaccination will be recorded in a health database and if there were to be any statistical correlation, it would be known and under investigation very rapidly. Yet here we are, a year down the track and 4.5 billion doses delivered and, except for a couple of cautious pauses, the roll out of the vaccines is proceeding and the vaccines appear safer than saline injections.

posted on Aug, 15 2021 @ 05:22 PM
Sorry my post was missing clarity. I meant why are they not counting deaths within a set time frame after the vaccine as being caused the vaccine, in the same way they did with people who had tested positive for Covid, yet diddnt actually die from it.

posted on Aug, 15 2021 @ 05:34 PM
Maybe not what you're looking for, but maybe helpful?πhere

Sorry about that, I meant this one.π

edit on (8/15/2121 by loveguy because:

posted on Aug, 15 2021 @ 08:23 PM

originally posted by: OwenTrousers
Sorry my post was missing clarity. I meant why are they not counting deaths within a set time frame after the vaccine as being caused the vaccine, in the same way they did with people who had tested positive for Covid, yet diddnt actually die from it.

Most databases of averse vaccine reactions don't make any predetermination as to the equivalence between potential symptoms and vaccine. In essence, until a statistical correlation is found, in most cases it cannot be known if the vaccine caused the averse reaction, or something else did.

If people died immediately, within minutes of the administration of the vaccine, then it would be highly suspected that the vaccine was cause, if, however, someone dies of chemical toxicity causing massive organ failure, days later, that is most unlikely to be from an adverse reaction to a vaccine.

In the case of COVID-19 deaths, in first world countries, these have occurred predominantly in hospital situations, of pneumonic complications seen in similar COVID-19 cases, and in people who also test positive for COVID-19. These are easily, therefore, attributable to COVID-19.

edit on 15/8/2021 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)

top topics

16