Coronavirus

A New Prevalence Estimate Suggests the COVID-19 Infection Fatality Rate in Texas Is Roughly 0.4 Percent

That makes the disease much deadlier than the seasonal flu but not nearly as deadly as modelers initially assumed.

|

A new estimate of COVID-19 prevalence in Texas, the second-most populous state, suggests that the true number of infections is more than four times as high as the official tally. While the Houston Chronicle presents that as bad news, it implies a statewide infection fatality rate (IFR) substantially lower than the most recent national estimate from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The implied Texas rate is also much lower than the estimates used in last spring's worst-case scenarios, which projected as many as 2.2 million COVID-19 deaths in the United States.

According to an analysis by the University of Texas at Austin COVID-19 Modeling Consortium, based on cellphone mobility data and hospitalization numbers, one in six Texans has been infected by the virus that causes the disease. That amounts to 4.75 million people, compared to a confirmed case tally of 1.1 million. When you take underreporting into account, a spokesman for the Texas Department of State Health Services told the Chronicle, the model's estimate is likely to be "generally in the ballpark" of the true number.

"If you thought things were bad when Texas topped 1 million COVID-19 cases, guess what?" the Chronicle says. "Researchers estimate at least four times as many people have caught the virus." The modeling consortium's associate director, Spencer Fox, likewise says the infection estimate shows that "the speed at which things can get out of hand is a lot quicker than people expected."

That is one way of looking at it: Other things being equal, the chance of encountering a carrier rises as the number of active infections goes up. But if more than three-quarters of infections have gone undetected in Texas, that suggests they did not cause symptoms serious enough for people to seek testing, which is more reassuring than alarming. It also means the IFR (deaths as a share of all infections) is much lower than the case fatality rate (deaths as a share of confirmed infections), which is currently 1.8 percent in Texas. Based on the current statewide tally of COVID-19 deaths (about 20,300), the IFR would be roughly 0.4 percent, meaning one patient will die for every 250 people who are infected.

That rate suggests that COVID-19 (in Texas, at least) is much more deadly than the seasonal flu but not nearly as deadly as people initially feared. The projections that the CDC made in March, which predicted that as many as 1.7 million Americans could die from COVID-19 without intervention, assumed an IFR of 0.8 percent. Around the same time, researchers at Imperial College produced a highly influential worst-case scenario in which 2.2 million Americans died, based on an IFR of 0.9 percent. The CDC's most recent "best estimate" of the nationwide IFR in the United States, based on data from other countries, is 0.65 percent.

Based on antibody screening of blood drawn for routine diagnostic tests unrelated to COVID-19, the CDC has produced state-by-state infection estimates. While the patients whose blood was used in those studies may not be representative of the general population, the CDC's estimates indicate that the IFR varies widely from one state to another. As of mid-August, for example, the implied IFR was at least 10 times higher in Connecticut than in Idaho, Nebraska, Oregon, Tennessee, or Utah.

Possible explanations for these interstate differences include age demographics, the prevalence of preexisting medical conditions, the quality and capacity of local health care systems (including the extent to which they are strained by the pandemic), and population density, which not only makes it easier for the virus to move from person to person but may result in larger virus doses and more dangerous infections. Another factor could be the timing of each state's epidemic, since the development of more effective treatments may have improved outcomes for people infected more recently.

Based on samples drawn in July, the CDC estimated that 1.6 million people had been infected in Texas by mid-August. Combined with the contemporaneous death count, that implied an IFR of about 0.66 percent—very close to the CDC's nationwide estimate. The gap between that implied IFR and the one suggested by the University of Texas at Austin model may be partly due to differences in methodology: The CDC estimated the number of infections based on the prevalence of antibodies in blood samples, while the new estimate is based on a less direct (although perhaps more representative) approach. But the difference may also reflect factors that have made COVID-19 less deadly over time, including a younger, healthier mix of patients and improved treatment.

In addition to the interstate differences, the lethality of COVID-19 varies dramatically by age group. According to the CDC's most recent national estimates, for example, the IFR for people in their 70s (5.4 percent) is 1,800 times as high as the IFR for people 19 or younger (0.003 percent). The CDC's IFR estimate is 0.02 percent for 20-to-49-year-olds and 0.5 percent for 50-to-69-year-olds.

[This post has been revised to correct the comparison with the seasonal flu.]

NEXT: Unreasonable Rules Fueled a Black Market in Negative COVID-19 Test Results

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. a prevalence estimate makes the disease much deadlier. check.

    1. ●US Dollar Rain Earns upto $550 to $750 per day by google fantastic job oppertunity provide for our community pepoles who,s already using facebook to earn money 85000$ every month and more through facebook and google new project to create money at home withen few hours.Everybody can get this job now and start earning online by just open this link and then go through instructions to get started……….
      COPY HERE====►► <a href="” rel=”nofollow ugc”>WORK24HERE

      1. MAGA 2020!!!
        Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it

        what I do………work92/7 online

          1. [ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regularF office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
            on this page…….CLICK DOLLER 666

    2. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier. Here’s what I do… WORK24HERE

    3. I amm now making more than 350 dollars per day by working online from home without investing any money.Join this link posting job now and start earning without investing or selling anything.

      Follow Instructions Here……. Home Profit System

  2. The death rate is one metric to use when studying the pandemic, but it’s not the only one. Many people who get infected but don’t die nonetheless suffer life-altering consequences from the illness. Brain damage, permanently reduced lung capacity, etc. I wonder if there is a metric out there that measures not just the death rate but the “physical impairment” rate that occurs due to COVID-19.

    1. >>I wonder if there is a metric out there that measures not just the death rate but the “physical impairment” rate that occurs due to COVID-19

      as long as there is money to be made on false numbers you will never know this.

      1. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier…

        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-==► Click here

    2. …and that can be proven to actually be caused by COVID. A nice chunk of the deaths aren’t so I doubt most of the problems are either.

      1. I can only guess he suffered some brain damage himself.

        Yes influenza causes some of these symptoms but that’s a fraction of a fraction of the cases. If it kills 40K people, it mentally retards or destroys the lungs of less than 1,000. If COVID killed 0.4% of everyone infected but rendered even 1% vegetables, we’d be getting case, death, and comatose reports. And that’s before wading into the abject stupidity of mask mandates and economic lockdowns.

        Remember how quickly everyone jumped on Zika and that “only” caused microcephaly in (a narrow range of) pregnant women? The idea that COVID is sucking away hundreds of thousands of quality life years that is being overshadowed by the deaths is stupidity. Might as well go full-retard and start worrying about how many life-years it will steal from kids who contract it today when they’re in their 70s and 80s (like lots of people already do with Lyme Disease).

        1. There’s preliminary evidence that’s breeding chronic fatigue. Which is true of a lot of other viruses as well (I haven’t been the same athlete since I caught mono 20 years ago; apparently this is not uncommon).

          They seem to be dissipating with time, though.

          https://www.wsj.com/articles/doctors-begin-to-crack-covids-mysterious-long-term-effects-11604252961

          Estimates about the percentage of Covid-19 patients who experience long-haul symptoms range widely. A recent survey of more than 4,000 Covid-19 patients found that about 10% of those age 18 to 49 still struggled with symptoms four weeks after becoming sick, that 4.5% of all ages had symptoms for more than eight weeks, and 2.3% had them for more than 12 weeks. The study, which hasn’t yet been peer reviewed, was performed using an app created by the health-science company Zoe in cooperation with King’s College London and Massachusetts General Hospital.

          Another preliminary study looking mostly at nonhospitalized Covid patients found that about 25% still had at least one symptom after 90 days. A European study found about one-third of 1,837 nonhospitalized patients reported being dependent on a caregiver about three months after symptoms started.

          1. I had a viral pneumonia over 30 years ago and it pretty much ended any athletic pretensions I had after that. I was sick for 3-4 weeks, lost 20 pounds (down to 115), and the recovery took months. The first time I tried to go for a run, I got 2 blocks, puked, and stumbled back to the house. I would say it took at least 6 months to get back to ‘normal’

            There is nothing novel about these effects from pneumonia. Continuing cognitive problems are anecdotal, and the reports I have seen have included depression, which is just stupid. Locked up and sick with something you have been scared into believing will kill you or leave you permanently damaged is going to be depressing every time.

            1. Mono hit me the same way. School kept going.

          2. There’s preliminary evidence that’s breeding chronic fatigue. Which is true of a lot of other viruses as well (I haven’t been the same athlete since I caught mono 20 years ago; apparently this is not uncommon).

            They seem to be dissipating with time, though.

            I have yet to see a way to objectively identify (much less successfully treat) chronic fatigue beyond patients complaining about extreme fatigue. That’s not to say that patients aren’t fatigued, but if you can’t definitively identify the disease itself, much less the underlying mechanisms, then the idea that any given disease, especially a novel one, is just extra layers of bullshit. The evidence that smoking leads to heroine addiction is pretty convincing too, that doesn’t mean it’s not bullshit.

            1. then the idea that any given disease,

              *infectious* disease

          3. I think there’s a causation/correlation problem here. My understanding is that these are self-reported lingering symptoms, not things that show up on medical tests. Perhaps they are caused by COVID, but it’s at least as likely to be psychosomatic. You get this illness, you are constantly bombarded with news about how deadly and terrible it is (they really do want us to be living in fear of this thing), and you read other stories about people who have lingering symptoms.

            Add to that the death of normal socialization and the complete restructuring of how you live your daily life. The virus has become a proxy for our political differences, and it’s a constant fight. It would be odd if you didn’t have trouble focusing and felt exhausted.

            I have not had COVID, but I have fatigue, depression, anxiety, difficulty concentrating, gastrointestinal issues, etc. It’s the mirror image of the placebo effect.

        2. This is a strawman. I didn’t say that brain damage caused by COVID is this huge massive gigantic problem. It is nonetheless *a* problem, and it ought to be considered when discussing the relative dangers of COVID.

          1. do you happen to have an authoritative reference to that? Because when reports of “brain damage” came out initially, it ended up just being reports of mental defects such as confusion, disorientation, trouble concentrating, dizziness, etc, which are typical side-effects from any blood oxygen reducing respiratory illness.
            I have heard a constant panic about long-term side effects of covid19, but have yet to see any actual evidence or report other then some whisper-down-the-lane fearmongering.

            1. Try this. It has references to journal articles if you want to go further.

              https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02599-5

      2. No, if a pre-existing condition is exaggerated or made worse by COVID that ought to count as well at least by some measure. For example, consider a person who has asthma. If a person has a relatively mild case of asthma that can be controlled with inhalers gets COVID, which makes the asthma worse, and now this person requires much more aggressive treatment, I think it’s fair to count this person as someone who was negatively impaired by COVID. The coronavirus didn’t cause this person’s asthma but sure did make it a lot worse.

        1. It doesn’t count if it’s the result of any other viral infection, like a bad cold. These people were going to have these consequences regardless.

    3. Critical Care literature basically sucks at retrospective morbidity studies.

    4. Just be glad you survived Jeff.

      1. surviving Jeff is the fucking gauntlet of the commentary section lol.

    5. Life altering consequences are also suffered by those who don’t even catch the virus, such as children forced to wear masks all day at school and small businesses condemned to extinction by decree.

    6. Corona is big threat of the century which effect physically, mentally and financially/ To over come these difficulties and make full use of this hostage period and make online earning for more detail visit the given link…Click here.

    7. I wonder if there is a metric out there that measures not just the death rate but the “physical impairment” rate that occurs due to COVID-19.

      This is a fair ask. But you have to compare like to like. Flu Deaths vs COVID Deaths + COVID long term effects is statistical nonsense. So if you’re going to start with that you have to also ask how many people suffer long term disabilities from the flu.

      1. So if you’re going to start with that you have to also ask how many people suffer long term disabilities from the flu.

        I think this is the unspoken assumption that bugs me about his ‘raising the issue’ he doesn’t, and arguably rightfully (Do police officers collecting disability because of the flue count as long-term sufferers?), care about the long term effects of cold and flu every year. The idea that we should pay exceptional attention to COVID like it’s significantly (or disproportionately) more crippling than the average flu just sounds like more scaremongering.

    8. Why do leftists want this disease to be worse than it actually is? As the mortality rate drops, people like you and Tony turn more and more to these other “permanent” effects, even though the oldest cases in this country are still only 8 months in.

      1. “Why do leftists want this disease to be worse than it actually is?…”

        The government(s) love “crisis”; it’s a growth opportunity. Hence, the left loves “crisis”, real or manufactured.

        1. Of course I know that. I just want to hear them defend the whole “but the non-lethal permanent effects” for a disease no one has lived with for more than eight months and has such a low mortality rate.

    9. Awesome. Now do the life altering consequences of drug use.

      Or the life altering consequences of firearms.

      Or automobiles.

      Or obesity.

      Better yet, just fuck off.

      1. Sure! Let’s look at all of these things. Let’s compile statistics and let’s discuss all of these effects in frank terms. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the government ought to coercively get involved, but it could – and ought to – mean that individuals, voluntarily, persuade and try to convince other individuals, freely, about the dangers and risks of all of these activities, and recommend that they engage in safety measures to try to mitigate some of the harmful effects.

        Such as:

        “Hey, don’t shoot up heroin, it’s overall a bad idea. But if you do, use a clean needle.”

        “Hey, don’t drive really fast in your car. But if you do, wear a seat belt.”

        “Hey, if you have guns and kids at the house, make sure your gun is locked up safe.”

        “Hey, when there’s a worldwide pandemic of an easily transmissible disease on, maybe it’s a good idea to go to lots of crowded events, but if you do choose to go, wear a mask and try to practice at least some social distancing.”

        What is wrong with doing any of that? Some of you make it seem like just discussing the risks of activities is somehow “giving in to the left” and justifying coercive government mandates. In reality, it is the opposite: if free people choose to hide problems under the rug, it will only make those problems worse and will only make it more likely that the Karens out there will turn to government to solve problems that individuals are unwilling to solve themselves via cooperation.

        1. “Hey, when there’s a worldwide pandemic of an easily transmissible disease on, maybe it’s a good idea to go to lots of crowded events, but if you do choose to go, wear a mask and try to practice at least some social distancing.”

          Or – I want to be exposed to the virus, get sick, gain immunity, and get on with my fucking life. I’ve weighed the risks and I’m in.

          1. You gonna make that choice for everyone else around you?

            You idiots can’t even get selfishness right.

            1. “You gonna make that choice for everyone else around you?”

              Your health is your concern, not mine. Scared? Crawl in a hole and stay there.

              1. Wow. I actually agree with Sevo. First time for everything.

              2. Absolutely.

                Yeah, I feel the same way about stop signs and traffic lights. The safety of other drivers is not my concern.

        2. “Don’t smoke that plant” is great advice

          “You can’t smoke that plant” leads to the drug war

          1. “Don’t smoke that plant” is TERRIBLE advice. Especially right now. (Unless you are referring to, I don’t know, the Hydrangea bush in front of your house. For sure don’t smoke that.)

        3. This

          Really like the examples you cited too.

          I *don’t* want safe storage mandates for guns, but people should consider depending on their family situations how they handle their firearms. Just part of being a responsible gun owner, or responsible citizen if we apply this line of thought more generally.

    10. This is a new disease – how can you say that any lingering symptom is “permanent?” That’s absurd. I haven’t seen reports of medically diagnosable brain damage either.

  3. “But if more than three-quarters of infections have gone undetected in Texas, that suggests they did not cause symptoms serious enough for people to seek testing, which is more reassuring than alarming. ”

    My Texas county didn’t include the antigen rapid test in the official reporting or contact tracing until September.

    So let’s not assume that a failure to be counted is a failure to seek medical treatment.

  4. Should we shut down for rhinoviruses, too?

    From 2017: Rhinovirus infection in the adults was associated with significantly higher mortality and longer hospitalization when compared with influenza virus infection. Institutionalized older adults were particularly at risk.

    https://reference.medscape.com/medline/abstract/28134768

    1. don’t give them any ideas

      1. Clearly we need government to save us from everything.

  5. If the covid infection rate is FOUR times greater than the case rate
    (i.e. positive tests) throughout the nation, some counties, states and/or regions of the US may naturally achieve herd immunity by the time any vaccines will be made available in limited quantities (around 20 million units per vaccine).

    Several previous studies (including one by CDC) estimated the covid infection rate was TEN times greater than the case rate.

    Below is the percent of residents who have tested positive for covid to date (note that rates have doubled in the past month in many states) for the highest states.
    North Dakota – 8.6%
    South Dakota – 7.6%
    Iowa – 6.1%
    Wisconsin – 5.8%
    Nebraska – 5.3%
    Utah – 4.9%
    Idaho – 4.7%
    Illinois – 4.7%
    Tennessee – 4.6%
    Montana – 4.6%
    Mississippi – 4.5%
    Alabama – 4.5%
    Arkansas – 4.5%
    Louisiana – 4.4%
    Kansas – 4.3%
    Rhode Island – 4.2%
    Florida – 4.1%
    Missouri – 4.1%
    Georgia – 4.0%
    Nevada – 4.0%
    Oklahoma – 4.0%

    1. Many experts agree that 70% infection rate is the typical threshold for achieving herd immunity.

      So if 6% of people in a workplace/city/county/city/state have already tested positive for covid, if another 6% test positive during the next two months, and if the infection rate is 4 times greater than the case rate, 48% of that population will have contracted the virus by mid January.

      And if 25% of people are given the vaccine that is 90%-95% effective, herd immunity will have been attained (48% + 25% = 73%).

      1. Correction above on the math (48% + 22.5% = 70.5%).

      2. You ignore the overlap between those who got the virus and do not know it, and those who get the vaccine.

        1. You ignore the overlap between those who got the virus and do not know it, and those who get the vaccine.

          speaking of ignoring stuff, people never bother to answer a very basic question I’ve had from the start…’why, for the MOST DEADLY DISEASE IN MORE THAN A CENTURY, do millions of people need to get tested to find out they have it…?’

      3. And if 25% of people are given the vaccine that is 90%-95% effective, herd immunity will have been attained (48% + 25% = 73%).

        If 75% of the COVID-infected are unknown then there’s going to be a huge overlap between these figures.

        Serology testing is going to winnow some of it away, but I expect that most who have antibodies but never had symptoms are going to demand a shot anyway. And their doctors will be happy to oblige.

      4. Except we’ve seen through testing that herd immunity seems to be setting in at 20-25%

        1. How is that possible. Infections are rising at an insane rate, but deaths not so much. So the number of immune joining the ranks also has to be rising at an insane rate.

          1. Cases are up because the tests are so sensitive they are picking up dead virus from people who got over the bug already.

            1. Yup Ct counts are very high over 40 in some states, which is an absurd number.

          2. Because around 50% of people have an acquired T-cell cross-immunity. So 50% + 20% = 75%, et voila! Herd immunity.

            Sad thing is, we’ve known about that infection ceiling since March. Didn’t understand the mechanism, but we knew that it was highly unlikely that we’d see populations exceed that 20-25% rate.

      5. as Nardz also mentions, the herd immunity threshhold may be much lower. There is a strong working theory that there is a genetic resistance to coronaviruses of around ~40% in the western population, where the innate immune system stamps it out before antibodies are developed. It may be much higher in Asia where the coronaviruses have been common, which could explain the enormous differences in regional outcomes.
        If so, this puts the herd immunity of around 60-70% – 40% or around 20-30% of the populace in western countries. This may also explain why the virus appears to be very contagious, but yet seems to ‘pass over’ many exposed people. And also why it seems to really rip through some families and ignore others.

        1. There is a strong working theory

          Where is this “strong working theory”?

          1. SIR and SEIR models are in the literature…

      6. This is all assuming that one is immune indefinitely. My co-worker recovered from COVID and was told she could expect immunity for 2-3 months….if this is true that herd immunity would be impossible to achieve unless everybody got sick around the same time. The only fix to this would be if the vaccine provides a more long term immunity…but at this point they dont have that data.

        1. Is the immunity limited due to covid mutations or is it more political BS to get people to get a vaccine which would then only be limited to 3 months due to mutations. Starting to sound like a real scam that kills the weak and is being used to promote vaccines forever.

        2. This is BS and another known bit of immune system science that is seemingly forgotten. You don’t have antibodies floating around in your blood for every bug you to which you are “immune” but instead have memory of how to detect the presence of a virus and then respond to it.

  6. Who really cares what the CDC says anymore?

    1. The CDC was respected world wide as a center of excellence. Then Trump came around and trashed it, and now a laughing stock. It is very sad that such a great organization was destroyed.

      1. wow. that is the single most delusional statement I’ve seen today. And I was reading another comment section where Tony was posting.

        The CDC has been beclowning itself for the last decade.

      2. Lol . Trump.

        1. For a clueless loser he sure had the power to change the CDC.

          1. Hey, he brewed up the Wu flu in the WH kitchen!

      3. CDC trashed itself. In part because it became obsessed with the notion that it must be respected as a worldwide center of excellence. Same problem the Brits have had. At core – arrogance.

        The reason the CDC did not roll out the testing for covid is because they wanted to roll out the dessert topping and floor wax of a test that would test for 1000 things PLUS covid. That was entirely for both corrupt (that sort of test creates a cronyist hurdle for those who would produce such a test worldwide) and arrogant (they wanted to one-up the WHO in the Third World) reasons.

        That failure of rolling out the first tests meant that they did not even test international visitors who came to the US. The states can’t do that. That is solely a fed responsibility. Same as customs at airports. And the failure to test also meant they couldn’t use the results to show that the virus was not just coming from Wuhan but from Europe by mid-Feb.

  7. There was never a need to lockdown, and the data shows it clearly. Many of us were saying this for 6+ months. This was always a liberal leftie pile of bullshit for an election. What is clear now is the left and democrats cannot be trusted to run government and need to be run off.

    1. Did democrats cause lockdowns internationally?

      1. Backwards. They saw lockdowns happen internationally and decided that it must be the only path forward. Groupthink is a common human failing.

        1. It was a reasonable precaution given the knowledge at the time.

          1. Arguable; certainly true where I live, not so much in other parts of the country.

            But the people who operate government, from Governors down to supply clerks, have Europe envy and have had it for hundreds of years. Once the lockdown train left the station in Italy it was guaranteed to stop here and all over the country, no matter how impractical.

            Hell, may are still talking about doing it again, just harder this time. It’s as if they learned nothing.

            1. S. Korea lockdown hard and is having resurgence. lockdowns only work for things like ebola where it kills quick and requires close contact.

              1. Is easy to identify.
                Attacks rather indisicriminately.
                Kills quickly.
                Requires close contact.

                Even then, more sensible to quarantine the sick than lockdown the uninfected.

              2. No correlation of Covid mortality to lock down severity. Go to pandata.org or other data sites, they all show the same thing. Plot mortality (deaths/million) vs lock down severity, it will look vaguely like a circle…r2 value very close to zero.

            2. People were dying in the street and in hospital waiting rooms in Italy. Then they got it under control. The dying in the street part is just now getting to middle America. Good luck.

              1. That may be the stupidest thing you’ve said yet. Your “dying in the streets in middle America”, will be trivially falsified in the future.

                You just want death, so bad! Lots and lots of death! Just so you you don’t feel like an idiot because of all your false alarmism.

              2. Yep. I walk around in my city and there are just dead people everywhere. The worst is when they die while driving. COVID hits them and they’re out. Traffic has been terrible.

              3. LOL!

                I live in South Dakota, the newest “hot spot”. We’re suffering so badly that our current hospital occupancy is about 66% and is just slightly below the average for 2016-2018. Not sure were going to make it…

          2. “It was a reasonable precaution given the knowledge at the time.”

            Lefty assertions =/= ‘evidence’ nor ‘argument’.

          3. Yeah, it was a reasonable precaution the same way getting under school desks was a reasonable precaution against being killed in a nuclear strike.

          4. I need to start a ‘reasonable precaution rock’ business (totally unrelated to the tiger-repelling rock you may’ve heard of). Every time someone expresses concern that they might catch COVID from you, you throw a rock at them as a reasonable precaution. If they don’t catch COVID, it’s because of the prudent practice of throwing rocks at people. As long as the practice saves more people than it kills, we know we’re doing the right thing.

        2. That’s what happens when you have no ability to actually lead.

          Inslee just does whatever Newsom does, like a week later.

      2. No, but leftists did. He said the left and democrats. Read better.

    2. Yes, in retrospect, knowing what we know now, a lock down was not needed. If we had all the knowledge back in March, everyone wore a mask, social distanced, and closed down the most risky activities, we would have been ok.
      But back in March/April we did not know that, we thought the death rate was about 2%, and did not know exactly how it spread.

      1. Except no one serious thought the death rate was 2% back in march/april, only fearmonger politicians. Diamond Princess already had decent data on what infection and mortality rates were, and that was among a pretty old population (people on a cruise ship in feb/mar) – it was nowhere near a case fatality rate of 2%.

        And regardless, even granting that maybe lockdowns were reasonable in march/april for the sake of argument… why are we locking down again now? Because many states are doing that right now.

        1. As I said, lockdowns are not needed at all if people wear a mask and social distance. But they are not, so a lockdown becomes one of the few tools that could work. Personally I oppose lockdowns, but I do understand the logic.

          1. But they are not, so a lockdown becomes one of the few tools that could work

            yeah, everywhere I go all I see are covid deniers disguised as mask wearers…

      2. Science!

      3. “Yes, in retrospect, knowing what we know now, a lock down was not needed…”

        The consequences were predictable and not ONE lefty shit governor so much as took a look at those.
        Nope: LOCKDOWN!!!!!!

  8. Follow the science:
    https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/18/major-study-finds-masks-dont-reduce-covid-19-infection-rates/

    Note to non link followers; this study was real medical masks, not the pussy “cloth face coverings” USA tyrants mandate.

    1. Well, the cloth coverings are probably more effective because they’re made with good intentions

      1. Science!

      2. Our masks are blessed by a Rabbi, a Priest and an Irishman!

        Certified to stop Covid-19 in its tracks 99.99% 9% of the time!

      3. And with love. By your grandma.

      4. Homemade “Reasonable Precaution Rocks™” (see details above), $5 ea. Reasonable Precaution Rocks™ infused with good intentions, $67.50!

    2. Study concluded wearing a surgical mask either reduced the chance of getting covid by up to 46% or increased it by up to 23%.

      So not very conclusive numbers, but tilted towards reducing it.

      It didn’t look at source control (ie. Wearing a mask makes you spread it to less people)

      And it didnt examine the evidence supporting the idea that covid disease severity could be related to initial dose. Which masks would help with. (which is why you see younger doctors nurses dying from at higher rates)

      1. You’re nit picking I’m afraid. The overall conclusion is it makes no measurable difference for the population at large. And it certainly confirms mandates are NOT justified.

      2. And it didnt examine the evidence supporting the idea that covid disease severity could be related to initial dose.

        This is retarded, galaxy brain psychobabble. Exactly what “dose” are people being exposed to? 100 infectious units per liter per minute? Are constant doses of subclinical amounts killing people or building asymptomatic immunity (or both)? How would you measure that? If you can’t measure the dose and can’t defintively measure the effect, you’re pretty much talking straight out of your ass aren’t you?

        Moreover, there’s plenty of evidence that the younger (school age) are less infectious, both susceptibility and communicability, than older people. Which is the axiomatic opposite of conventional pharmacological dose-dependency.

        Firsthand, I’ve been without a mask in a closed, recirculating space for a protracted period (1 hour car ride) with 2 separate people who subsequently developed symptoms and tested positive (and contact traced back to the 1-2 weeks before riding with me) and developed no symptoms. By pretty much any metric, that’s like a non-drinker downing a fifth of vodka and not getting the least bit drunk.

    3. Yeah that headline is not really what it says.

      What you children don’t realize is that if masks are ineffective, that means the problem is even bigger than we thought. Masks are for preventing lockdowns, dude.

      You can try to shoehorn certain genocidal fantasies into the solution, but doctors are not gonna go with the “maximum death” strategy.

      1. You swallow propaganda like you swallow cum.

        1. It’s still possible to have a tether to empirical reality. Not for Trump supporters. But for normal people.

          1. Your normal and my normal are two different things.

            My normal is someone who doesn’t wear a mask thinking they’re virtuous.

            You normal is someone wearing a mask cowering in fear.

            1. Your normal is Canadian correct? Do people wear those in Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, Saskatoon?

              Just wondering.

              Perhaps you could enlighten us ignorant savages to the south.

          2. “It’s still possible to have a tether to empirical reality…”

            Couldn’t tell from reading your bullshit.

      2. Aw man!! I thought maybe I could get the docs to go in on my genocidal vision for COVID.

    4. Yeah you read the study right. Not just the article in the federalist.

      So give me your take.

      Here is the study design.

      “Encouragement to follow social distancing measures for coronavirus disease 2019, plus either no mask recommendation or a recommendation to wear a mask when outside the home among other persons together with a supply of 50 surgical masks and instructions for proper use”

      In a population previously not using masks at all. Encourage them.

      Then have them self report.

      “The primary outcome was SARS-CoV-2 infection in the mask wearer at 1 month by antibody testing, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), or hospital diagnosis. The secondary outcome was PCR positivity for other respiratory viruses.”

      One month. The samples were self collected. I just had a test. There is no way I would have stuck that stick as far back up my nose as she did.

      “Recruitment involved media advertisements and contacting private companies and public organizations”

      Sounds like a random sample to me.

      “If symptomatic, participants were strongly encouraged to seek medical care. “

      Strongly encouraged.

      “A total of 17 258 Danish citizens responded to recruitment, and 6024 completed the baseline survey and fulfilled eligibility criteria.”

      What happened to the other 11,000?

      “The findings, however, should not be used to conclude that a recommendation for everyone to wear masks in the community would not be effective in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections, because the trial did not test the role of masks in source control of SARS-CoV-2 infection. During the study period, authorities did not recommend face mask use outside hospital settings and mask use was rare in community settings (22). This means that study participants’ exposure was overwhelmingly to persons not wearing masks.”

      Fair enough.

      I could go on.

      Annals of Internal Medicine is a good place to report findings. That is what they do.

      1. They excluded anyone reporting non-compliance. The participants had no incentive whatsoever to lie.

  9. In addition to the interstate differences, the lethality of COVID-19 varies dramatically by age group. According to the CDC’s most recent national estimates, for example, the IFR for people in their 70s (5.4 percent) is 1,800 times as high as the IFR for people 19 or younger (0.003 percent). The CDC’s IFR estimate is 0.02 percent for 20-to-49-year-olds and 0.5 percent for 50-to-69-year-olds.for absolutely no reason
    This cannot be overstated and should’ve been the leading paragraph so I didn’t have to read the rest.

  10. It’s more deadly than the usual seasonal flu and it’s much more contagious. With both factors combined, it’s a dangerous disease. I have two close friends in their 50s who had Covid back in February and March. They both had a really bad time and still have lingering symptoms of fatigue and shortness of breath, although the rest of their families do not. Neither of them are particularly fat or sick, although one fellow did have high blood pressure.

    I will do my best to avoid this and not take any risks. There’s very little chance of my dyning from it, being middle aged not old, but the long-term damaged I’ve seen documented (heart damage, neurological damage, lasting fatigue) is lousy.

    1. Is it much more contagious? Really? Because the flu is wicked contagious. It’s less deadly, and vaccinations offer some protection, but this is a coronavirus – in the same class as the common cold – so I don’t think the fact that it is more contagious that the flu is necessarily true (although it depends on the strain).

      1. Maybe they are considering it to be more contagious because of asymptomatic spread?

        1. Asymptomatic contagion happens with flu, too. In fact I think it’s true of most viruses. You’re contagious for a day or two before symptoms show up.

      2. Is it much more contagious?

        No. Or at least, if the claims made are consistent with past prognostications, no. The flu can spread by surface contact, which is at least part of the reason why masks are ineffective against the spread of the flu. Supposedly, COVID doesn’t spread as readily through surface contact.

        Moreover, the time scale/logistical comparisons are just stupid. When was the last time a 9 month flu season happened? In 9 months we can generate a vaccine, supposedly 95% effective, ab innitio but in any given flu season we can’t mix the correct cocktail *from pre-existing strains/stockpiles* to get to 60% efficacy, before the end of the season.

  11. These people don’t want details, reason, they want an excuse to glaze their eyes over and ignore the problem.

    Throw out all the percentages you want. A quarter million are dead, hospitals are breaking down, and it’s not even winter.

    1. Were you wearing a mask when you wrote that?

      STOP PUTTING MY LIFE IN DANGER!

      1. You could have led with “I don’t understand basic intuitive physics.”

        1. Lol. BIP sounds like it suggests masks are useless.

          1. But it doesn’t. You’re lying. You keep lying every day because you have some sort of masculinity complex about a hygiene precaution. I don’t know who you’re trying to convince of what.

            1. “…But it doesn’t. You’re lying…”

              You’re full of shit.

    2. “…A quarter million are dead,..”
      Compared to the predicted MILLIONS!!!!

      “…hospitals are breaking down,..”
      Your stupid ate your cite.

      “…and it’s not even winter…”
      One out of three is far better than you normally do; did you have to do research to figure that out?

      1. Millions predicted…. without all the precautions we’ve been living with all year. Yes dear, they worked to the extent that they were in place.

        1. “…without all the precautions we’ve been living with all year…”

          Your stupid ate your cite and we’ll never see it, since that’s one more of your lies, shitstain.

        2. Reasonable Precaution Rocks™ FOR SALE!

          GET YOUR Reasonable Precaution Rocks™!

          THROW THEM AT YOUR FRIENDS TO HELP PREVENT COVID!

          EVERYBODY WHO DIED HASN’T HAD A Reasonable Precaution Rock™ THROWN AT THEM!

          DO THE RIGHT THING BY SAVING MORE LIVES THAN YOU TAKE!

          Reasonable Precaution Rocks™ FOR SALE!

          1. I’ll take one case, please.

  12. There was an interesting study in The Lancet Rheumatology journal on Nov 5. It was interesting not for its hypothesis, research, and conclusions, but for something that was incidental to their investigation. The researchers used the British electronic medical record system to pull nearly 200,000 patient records of people who had both covid and either Lupus or Rheumatoid Arthritis. They then looked at whether patients on HCQ for those diseases had better mortality than those not on HCQ. Result: they didn’t. HCQ made no difference.

    What I noticed, however, was their IFRs for the entire group. Those on HCQ had an IFR of 0.23% and those not on HCQ had an IFR of 0.22%. So, the overall IFR for 200k British patients was somewhere in that range.

    Even lower than the 0.4 stated above.

  13. The Annal of Internal Medicine published the anticipated RCT Danish study on masks. Results?

    Do we really need to ask?

    Let’s just say it confirms 100 years of mask studies concluding they’re ineffective. Ie USELESS.

    Masks are for useful idiots who follow orders.

    A big FUCK YOU to all governors and premiers on the continent for deceiving people.

    1. Not what it said.

      It confirmed what was already known. Masks are quite useful for preventing spread to other people, and offer some protection from contracting.

      You don’t seem to realize that mask wearing is about preventing lockdowns. If masks don’t work, that means it’s even more contagious. Are you following here?

      Explain what you want out of covid policy, and if it’s any different from “let millions die and hope I survive with immunity.”

      1. They did not study AT ALL whether masks were useful in preventing spread from the wearer to someone else, and they said that quite plainly. Their research was only focused on the mask wearers, and they could draw no conclusions about anyone else.

        When they talked about it, it was nothing more than a literature search on their part, and they added absolutely nothing to the original research on the topic.

      2. You dumbass. How can you possibly believe stupid amulets prevent lockdowns? Did you not notice places with high mask compliance like Italy, UK, Spain, France, Germany, and Belgium ALL saw infections shoot up and still went ahead and locked down a second time despite wearing masks for months?

        Meanwhile, once again, Sweden shows the OPPOSITE.

        The study is showing they don’t make a difference in community settings. This was RANDOMIZED in actual community. None of this garbage in a room observational crap you see being peddled by media. There was no statistical difference in infection rates between groups. Which comes back to the point we’ve been hammering for months: THERE’S NO JUSTIFICATION for mandates.

        And Tony. Stop being a cunt. Go READ the study because you’re sprouting excuses mask morons are already babbling about regarding the study. The study was well constructed and sound. Clearly, they were told to ‘tone it down’ because I think it’s even worse than what they disclosed. It probably even leads to actual harmful effects.

        These are crimes against our health in my view being forced to wear these stupid things. You can defend it all you want using all the justifications you choose, what you DO NOT have on your side are the facts and science. Masks do jack shit except to flush out who the pant shitting cultists are.

        I’ve no more tolerance for this nonsense.

        I don’t want anything out of Covid policy because the ones being pummelled into lame asses like you don’t work. It’s already out there. It’s over. Unless you’re willing to tolerate obscene collateral damage (which you’re incapable of grasping) there’s little we can do. Social distancing became emotional distancing and masks now come with shields.

        What’s next you idiot? Trapped inside your house for a virus with a 99.8% survival rate? Are you this retarded?

        It’s all shadow boxing.

        1. Europe opened! That’s why cases went up. It’s all very predictable. And they probably aren’t whiny little bitches about something as simple as a mask. Sweden said its experiment was wrong. And that’s what the data show.

          For god’s sake you aren’t here bitching like a little twat about having to wear pants in public. Think of the tyranny you’ve suffered under this whole time!

          Once again, if masks aren’t effective that means this disease, which has killed a quarter million Americans and is still exploding all over the country at record rates, is even more contagious than already thought. But you’re not offering to lock yourself away are you?

          Your big logical idea is to let it kill a maximum number of people. That’s your entire plan.

          1. “…Sweden said its experiment was wrong. And that’s what the data show…”
            Your stupid ate your cite, and I’m sure you won’t find if, since that’s several lies and not one bit of truth, shitstain.

          2. I was merely making a factual correction about what the article said. If you read what I wrote, I took no position pro- or anti-mask. We need more focus on facts and less focus on invective.

            They simply didn’t study whether masks protect others. It was beyond the scope of their research. Period. That’s the fact of the article.

          3. They did NOT say that.

            Even with recent spikes they say what any sane, logical person would conclude: Cases up, but death and hospitalizations low. Please follow these guidelines.

            THAT’S IT.

            NO MASKS NO LOCKDOWNS you spectacular fool.

            Are people this idiotic that they demand to be shutdown in fear?

            I can’t even compute this.

          4. Tony, people like you shouldn’t be saying others are bitching and whining when you’re the biggest gutless, tyrannical, babies begging government protect you by pummelling and fraying the social and economic order with specious measures not rooted in a single fact of empirical scientific evidence.

            It’s people like you that whine, ‘Why doesn’t the government mandate masks, shut down schools and come tie me down in my bd to protect me!’ because you still haven’t figured this isn’t the damn plague threatening our existence.

            1. I want you to say that your covid policy plan is to let it kill the maximum number of people and then hope it goes away after we clear away the bodies.

              1. In the Zombie movie you get whacked first. People who are this fearful and corroded with false virtue have to be or else they pt the rest of the people trying to survive in danger.

        2. You did not read the study did you Rufus?

          Dumbass

          Stupid amulets

          Garbage

          Retarted

          Pant shitting cultists

          Lame asses

          Jack shit

          Obscene collateral damage

          Peddled by media

          Cunt

          Idiot

          Do you have anything else to add to the discussion? Or is that it.

          1. Oh, look!

            Arrogant.

            Piece .

            Of.

            Lefty.

            Shit.

            Proves.

            To.

            Be.

            Arrogant.

            Piece.

            Of.

            Lefty.

            Shit.

            Do you have anything else to add to the discussion? Or is that it, arrogant piece of lefty shit?

          2. I did you idiot. Along with almost 100 others.

            Are these people actually coming here and saying the study is in their favour?

            I know we live in a time of absolute ignorance and fear where up is down and dark is light but this is getting scary.

            1. Studies are not in “favor” of a side.

              Ask a question. Design a way to try and answer it. Look at results in an unbiased way so much as possible.

              I have already posted what I think about the publication in Annals of Internal Medicine. I do not think it is in any way conclusive. Neither do the authors since you read it. It is a data point.

              So fear is something it is an emotion and physical response which is not to be dismissed. This is getting scary. Well yup it is.

              1. Lol.

                The conclusion is that they’re ineffective you moron.

                And people who wear the masks are by definition FEARFUL so I wouldn’t be playing that game pal.

                The body of evidence about masks going back to 1920 show CLEARLY – when you consider it on the aggregate – THEY DO JACK SHIT.

                Now go back into your little corner.

                Pretty amazing how all of a sudden in 2020 Magic Masks work. What’s even more hilarious AND SCARY is the fact those studies were usually with influenza and were shown to be ineffective. Coronaviruses are SMALLER in size so the masks are even less effective.

                Masks keep people in fear. That’s all they’re good for and the ONUS REMAINS ON THE MASKERS to prove they work.

                I’m still waiting.

                1. “Reduction in release of virus from infected persons into the environment may be the mechanism for mitigation of transmission in communities where mask use is common or mandated, as noted in observational studies. Thus, these findings do not provide data on the effectiveness of widespread mask wearing in the community in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections.”

                  From the study you read.

                  Let us add “moron” to the list you have provided.

      3. Reasonable Precaution Rocks™ FOR SALE!

        GET YOUR Reasonable Precaution Rocks™!

        THROW THEM AT YOUR FRIENDS TO HELP PREVENT COVID!

        EVERYBODY WHO DIED OF COVID HASN’T HAD A Reasonable Precaution Rock™ THROWN AT THEM!

        FLATTEN THE CURVE BY THROWING Reasonable Precaution Rocks™ AT THE SICK AND ELDERLY!

        DO THE RIGHT THING BY SAVING MORE LIVES THAN YOU TAKE!

        Reasonable Precaution Rocks™ FOR SALE!

        1. How much?

          1. Normally, it would be $5 for your standard Reasonable Precaution Rocks™ and $7.50 if you want a Reasonable Precaution Rock™ that was made with the best of intentions.

            But, because I like you, I’m going to let you in on a little secret, but don’t tell anybody. We’re working on a new line of mRNA-based Reasonable Precaution Rock™ that’s going to make our current Reasonable Precaution Rocks™ obsolete. It’s over 95% effective at preventing COVID.

            So, since my existing stock is about to be obsolete, I can let you have the regular Reasonable Precaution Rock™ for the one-time, Rufus the Monocled-only price of $4 and the upgraded good-intention model for $6.50.

  14. You mean I only have a 99.6% chance of surviving this virus? My god…

    1. That’s for TX. Overall, it’s closer to 99.85%.

      What a bunch of sissies, eh?

      1. 99.6% of the world survived the Holocaust. No big deal right?

        1. A true champion of bullshit slingers!!
          And an slimy piece if shit for trivializing he Halocaust, besides. Your rep is well deserved, scumbag.

        2. Are you suggesting that the conscious and deliberate mass murder of the Jews was something that would inevitably need to become part of the human biota? I’m ashamed of myself for even responding to your idiocy.

        3. If only they’d been wearing masks…

          1. Okay, my own comment just made me uncomfortable. I didn’t think it through.

            Let’s avoid comparisons between an indiscriminate virus and attempted violent genocide, shall we?

            1. Why? Dead is dead. Whether human agents caused the death only affects the particulars of the response. It’s a bug of especially conservative thinking that the only problems worth paying attention to are the ones caused by agents. It’s why they can’t understand climate change. If you can’t shoot it, it’s not a real threat. It’s sort of how chimps think.

            2. Let’s avoid that shall we?

      2. Sissies

        Let us add that to your list.

        Eh?

        1. Arrogant assholes; let’s add that to our list, arrogant asshole.
          OK?

        2. BTW, you’ve never answered my questions (yes, plural) regarding whether your arrogance is a result of a credential, or simply a result of arrogance.
          Care to tell us of your self-importance?

      3. I live in Texas!!! I’m dooomed!!

  15. Why is flu the baseline? Anything deadlier than the flu then it means you need to shutdown and destroy society. No cost is too great huh?

    1. If it saves just one life!!!
      What are you, a granny killer?

      1. If it saves just one life!!!

        Again, the first two weeks were to figure out saving one or more lives. At this point, we’re pretty much just at “If it gets just one more socialist authoritarian a little more power!!!”

        1. Longest flattening the curve in history.

          The shame? None of the measures make one iota of difference.

          Statistically marginal. But the collateral damage is enormous.

          Hence, public officials (and the dumbness who support them) are CRIMINALS.

          1. Early on even the CDC advisors were saying reasonable stuff like “we cannot change the area under the curve but we are trying to keep the rate low enough that the hospitals are not over whelmed”. They soon learned a different tune.

            Now that we know that lock downs do not effect Covid mortality, they are indeed criminal.

            1. Without question.

              All of them are criminals now because they’re acting with deliberate malice.

  16. Do these numbers include the illegals that are coming into El Paso with COVID and filling the hospitals or just Americans?

  17. If it saves simply one life!!! What are you, a granny killer?

    https://dealmarkaz.pk/solar

  18. According to an analysis by the University of Texas at Austin COVID-19 Modeling Consortium, based on cellphone mobility data and hospitalization numbers, one in six Texans has been infected by the virus that causes the disease.

    Why not a model based on pizza consumption? FFS – quit with the stuck on stupid of modelling and start doing public health in this country. You wanna know how to estimate how many people have been infected by a virus? MEASURE that via whatever serological or medical indicators show that someone has been infected. And then extrapolate that sample to the broader population using really simple statistics to know whether the sample actually does represent the population.

  19. The two weeks were to discern out saving one or extra lives. At this point, we’re pretty much simply at “If it receives just one greater socialist authoritarian a little more power

    https://www.divineleather.com/mens-10-pocket-side-lace-leather-vest-tall/

  20. According to an evaluation with the aid of the University of Texas at Austin COVID-19 Modeling Consortium, based on cellphone mobility statistics and hospitalization numbers, one in six Texans has been infected via the virus that causes the disease.
    https://www.divineleather.com/classic-riding-chaps-with-thigh-pocket/

  21. Seems like only yesterday when, at the beginning of the AIDS epidemic, Tony was advocating forced (if necessary) isolations of high risk homosexuals (gay night club/bath houses) in NY and Miami, ala tuberculosis quarantines of the past. He advocated such government was necessary to flatten the infection curve like no other method. Always at the cutting edge that guy. Girl. Whatever.

Please to post comments