The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
15% Infection Rate for First 500 Tested in Gangelt, Germany
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From a preliminary analysis by scientists in the hard-hit Heinsberg region in Germany (on the Dutch border) in the town of Gangelt, where that February 15, 2020 Carnival party I mentioned yesterday acted as a superspreader event:

Procedure: A serial letter was sent to about 600 households. In total, about 1000 inhabitants from about 400 households took part in the study. Questionnaires were collected, throat swabs taken and blood tested for the presence of antibodies (IgG, IgA). The interim results and conclusions of approx. 500 persons are included in this first evaluation.

Preliminary result: An existing immunity of approx. 14% (antiSARS-CoV2 IgG positive, specificity of the method >.99 %) was determined. About 2% of the persons had a current SARS-CoV-2 infection detected by PCR method. The infection rate (current infection or already been through) was about 15 % in total. The case fatality rate in relation to the total number of infected persons in the community of Gangelt is approx. 0.37 % with the preliminary data from this study. The lethality rate currently calculated in Germany by Johns-Hopkins University is 1.98 %, which is 5 times higher. The mortality in relation to the total population in Gangelt is currently 0.15 %.

Preliminary conclusion: The lethality calculated by Johns-Hopkins University is 5 times higher than in this study in Gangelt, which is explained by the different reference size of the infected persons. In Gangelt, this study covers all infected persons in the sample, including those with asymptomatic and mild courses. In Gangelt, the proportion of the population that has already developed immunity to SARS-CoV-2 is about 15%. This means that 15% of the population in Gangelt can no longer become infected with SARS-CoV-2, and the process has already begun until herd immunity is achieved. This 15% of the population reduces the speed (net reproduction rate R in epidemiological models) of a further spread of SARS-CoV-2 accordingly.

So, an infection fatality rate of 0.37%, which is likely to go up over time to, say, 0.5% (just me speculating from the Diamond Princess history) under strong German health care conditions without the hospitals overwhelmed.

 
Hide 45 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. IFR of 0.5% and $4T of lockdown costs (so far) equals millions of dollars per life saved.

    • Replies: @Daniel Williams
    But how can you put a price on some eighty-year-old with three or four other serious illnesses’s final weeks?
  2. Not specifically explained in the English sumary: of those who have the antibodies but who are not presently suffering from the disease (86.67 pct of those who test positive, 13 pct of the total population), how many suffered at least moderate symptims buy just powered through it? Versus how many who were blissfully unaware – no bad cough, no fever, no norhing?

    Big question. For anyone who can read German – is that addressed in the full report?

  3. How many excess deaths from the 40% decline in our economy and 30+ million newly unemployed Americans? These are the latest JP Morgan estimates for Q2.

    So far it appears to be about 0: turns out stay at home is reducing mortality of children quite a bit.

    The excess deaths caused by the Great Depression 2.0 the shutdowners and friends of the Communist Party of China have already caused may have a long lag. People under more stress now in their 50s could lose a few months of life in their 80s.

    Medical progress is roughly a function of general economic progress, and the effect on mortality will be slow to build but permanent.

    • Replies: @Hypnotoad666
    As far as I can tell, the concept of "excess deaths" is forbidden from discussion, as it might distract from the official body count.

    The summary of the German study says nothing about how the numerator death count of their CFR is calculated. Were they mostly 80+, with other life threatening conditions? Like our numbers, there is probably substantial overstatement there as well.

  4. This means that 15% of the population in Gangelt can no longer become infected with SARS-CoV-2,

    But is this true? In S. Korea, 91 patients have been re-infected, had a relapse, reactivation of the virus, or possibly a false positive test according to a news report from Reuters.

    Jeong Eun-kyeong, director of the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC), told a briefing that the virus may have been “reactivated” rather than the patients being re-infected.

    South Korean health officials said it remains unclear what is behind the trend, with epidemiological investigations still under way.

    The prospect of people being re-infected with the virus is of international concern, as many countries are hoping that infected populations will develop sufficient immunity to prevent a resurgence of the pandemic.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-southkorea/south-korea-reports-recovered-coronavirus-patients-testing-positive-again-idUSKCN21S15X

    • Replies: @HammerJack
    Yep, now there's a story.

    “The number will only increase — 91 is just the beginning now,” said Kim Woo-joo, professor of infectious diseases at Korea University Guro Hospital, adding that patients had likely “relapsed” rather than been reinfected.
     
    Not pretty, and not consistent with the favored narratives. P.S. I did not make up that professor's name.
  5. There are also some indications from Iceland that the the number of very mild or totally asymptomatic infections may be many times larger than previously believed:

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/ioannidis-under-65s-dont-need-to-worry-much-about-dying-in-europe-in-u-s-though/#comment-3829047

    If that’s the case, it would obviously tend to substantially reduce the total death rate. Some disturbing South Korea data had seemed to suggest the fatality rate was 1.5%-2%, but maybe the true figure is just 1/3 or 1/4 of that.

    And if the fraction of asymptomatic cases is high enough, maybe it’s actually already infected a substantial fraction of everyone in NYC, so this week will indeed mark the peak. And that might also help to explain why NYC hospitalizations are running 85% below what had been expected.

    • Replies: @kpkinsunnyphiladelphia
    Which, if true, means that NYC should open for business -- and open completely -- on May 1.

    Those who are too scared to go out will stay in.

    Those who don't care -- mostly young people and rich investment bankers -- will go back to normal.

    Time for arrogant alarmists like Zeke Emmanuel to lose their guest appearances on MSNBC, and Anthony Fauci to retire so his wife can serve him dinner like a normal human.
    , @Hail
    Yes; a lag effect. And if we are already past the peak, the devastating shutdowns are doubly unnecessary.

    The expert estimates that were being proposed by late March, of 0.01% to 0.1%, look vindicated more and more every day.

    , @O'Really
    As of 5pm today, there are 5,429 confirmed fatalities in NYC (let's ignore uncounted deaths at home for now). If the true IFR is 0.5%, then there were over 1M infected in NYC 3 weeks ago. The new case rate has been pretty flat in NYC under lockdown, so let's assume Ro=1 and generation time of 6 days. That means there are ~3.5M infected in NYC, or about 40% of the total population of the five boroughs. This seems unrealistically high, but if the number is 15% in Gangelt, I wouldn't be surprised if it's 25% in NYC due to density and subway.
  6. @Ron Unz
    There are also some indications from Iceland that the the number of very mild or totally asymptomatic infections may be many times larger than previously believed:

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/ioannidis-under-65s-dont-need-to-worry-much-about-dying-in-europe-in-u-s-though/#comment-3829047

    If that's the case, it would obviously tend to substantially reduce the total death rate. Some disturbing South Korea data had seemed to suggest the fatality rate was 1.5%-2%, but maybe the true figure is just 1/3 or 1/4 of that.

    And if the fraction of asymptomatic cases is high enough, maybe it's actually already infected a substantial fraction of everyone in NYC, so this week will indeed mark the peak. And that might also help to explain why NYC hospitalizations are running 85% below what had been expected.

    Which, if true, means that NYC should open for business — and open completely — on May 1.

    Those who are too scared to go out will stay in.

    Those who don’t care — mostly young people and rich investment bankers — will go back to normal.

    Time for arrogant alarmists like Zeke Emmanuel to lose their guest appearances on MSNBC, and Anthony Fauci to retire so his wife can serve him dinner like a normal human.

  7. @trelane
    IFR of 0.5% and $4T of lockdown costs (so far) equals millions of dollars per life saved.

    But how can you put a price on some eighty-year-old with three or four other serious illnesses’s final weeks?

    • Agree: Farenheit
    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
    The Feds do: 10MM per life saved, though not by years of life saved.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-value-of-life/

    So, at a .25% death rate, we would lose 800k people in the USA, worth 8 trillion according to the government. If we lose only 160k people, we've spent too much on the regulation to justify 4 trillion in expenses.
  8. @Ron Unz
    There are also some indications from Iceland that the the number of very mild or totally asymptomatic infections may be many times larger than previously believed:

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/ioannidis-under-65s-dont-need-to-worry-much-about-dying-in-europe-in-u-s-though/#comment-3829047

    If that's the case, it would obviously tend to substantially reduce the total death rate. Some disturbing South Korea data had seemed to suggest the fatality rate was 1.5%-2%, but maybe the true figure is just 1/3 or 1/4 of that.

    And if the fraction of asymptomatic cases is high enough, maybe it's actually already infected a substantial fraction of everyone in NYC, so this week will indeed mark the peak. And that might also help to explain why NYC hospitalizations are running 85% below what had been expected.

    Yes; a lag effect. And if we are already past the peak, the devastating shutdowns are doubly unnecessary.

    The expert estimates that were being proposed by late March, of 0.01% to 0.1%, look vindicated more and more every day.

    • Replies: @O'Really
    If the true IFR is 0.01%, then there are 54 million stories in the naked city, or at least there were 3 weeks ago.
    , @Ron Unz

    The expert estimates that were being proposed by late March, of 0.01% to 0.1%, look vindicated more and more every day.
     
    Not that I can see. Given those South Korean numbers, I doubt that the true fatality rate will go much below 0.5%, which is still pretty high.

    Given the extremely contagious nature of the Coronavirus, without strong government action I think there's a pretty good chance it would have spread across the entire country, probably infecting something like 200M. That suggests a million deaths, even if the health system didn't collapse.

    Offhand, a million dead Americans by summer sounds like a pretty big number to me, though I suppose that's a matter of opinion.

    Just look at that huge monthly NYC death-spike published in the NYT and shown in the previous thread.
    , @Western
    According to this guy, it will be over next week. He has been predicting this for weeks.

    watch 4:00 through 13:45

    It's about 1/10 as dangerous as the flu.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXvqYV_YwNQ&t=832s

    He has a lot of good videos. The previous one was excellent too.
    , @AnotherDad

    The expert estimates that were being proposed by late March, of 0.01% to 0.1%, look vindicated more and more every day.
     
    No they don't.

    What seems to be coming down the pike--at least from this Gangelt study, but it confirms what we saw from the Diamond Princess--is something around 0.5% for a Western ZPGish population.

    In other words, what people like me in the boring moderate middle--not the "it's just the flu bro" and not the hysterics--have been saying all along. It's 10-50x more lethal than a typical flu, but skewing heavily to the old and/or sick. (I feel like i've written that 50 times on this blog in the last month.)

    I'm not claiming any great insight--just the ability to read and do math. Could still be wrong. But this is what the reports and math have indicated all along.

    If you're going to have a pandemic ... this is the one to have. Leave them young healthy kids alone. Then we get back up and running and they can get busy and replace us old fogeys.
    , @Ragno
    So.....against his better judgment, which must have been screaming stop!, a four-year track record of Democrats and the media persecuting him relentlessly 24/7/365 - and now prone to find his every utterance and decision grounds for not just impeachment, but later prosecution - left Trump no choice but to let the CDC, a gaggle of Democratic governors, and the usual traitors in his own ranks steer him towards total economic shutdown, secure in the knowledge that he'd either be smeared as murderously inept or an outright mass murderer....i.e., no choice at all.

    In other words, we destroyed the economy, our remaining freedoms and whatever future our children were counting on....for nothing. More succinctly put, to keep Schiff and Schumer and Pelosi from holding the country hostage all the way to Election Day, brandishing every dead geriatric in the country like grotesque campaign attack-ads.

    You wonder what, if anything, can drive Americans to channel their own history and pick up torches and pitchforks to clear out that swamp once and for all. If trillion-dollar handcuffs and leg shackles for their families don't do the trick, maybe serfhood was our destiny all along.
    , @utu
    There is an open thread for you and the expert of yours.

    https://www.unz.com/runz/the-government-employee-who-may-have-saved-a-million-american-lives/#comment-3829606
    Okay, I suppose that’s a reasonable request. The previous Open Thread on the Sidebar had already gotten nearly 800 comments, mostly arelating to religion, so I just opened up a new one:

    https://www.unz.com/announcement/open-thread-2/

    So I don’t see much problem if all the fanatical Coronavirus Hoaxers what to congregate there and debate whether its the Deep State or the Martians who are trying to trick people into believing there’s a very dangerous disease going around. Just so long as you don’t clutter up serious articles with your crazy nonsense.

    I think I saw some commenter claiming somewhere that viruses don’t really exist and are just a hoax. So maybe you can argue with him.

     

  9. @Ron Unz
    There are also some indications from Iceland that the the number of very mild or totally asymptomatic infections may be many times larger than previously believed:

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/ioannidis-under-65s-dont-need-to-worry-much-about-dying-in-europe-in-u-s-though/#comment-3829047

    If that's the case, it would obviously tend to substantially reduce the total death rate. Some disturbing South Korea data had seemed to suggest the fatality rate was 1.5%-2%, but maybe the true figure is just 1/3 or 1/4 of that.

    And if the fraction of asymptomatic cases is high enough, maybe it's actually already infected a substantial fraction of everyone in NYC, so this week will indeed mark the peak. And that might also help to explain why NYC hospitalizations are running 85% below what had been expected.

    As of 5pm today, there are 5,429 confirmed fatalities in NYC (let’s ignore uncounted deaths at home for now). If the true IFR is 0.5%, then there were over 1M infected in NYC 3 weeks ago. The new case rate has been pretty flat in NYC under lockdown, so let’s assume Ro=1 and generation time of 6 days. That means there are ~3.5M infected in NYC, or about 40% of the total population of the five boroughs. This seems unrealistically high, but if the number is 15% in Gangelt, I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s 25% in NYC due to density and subway.

  10. @Hail
    Yes; a lag effect. And if we are already past the peak, the devastating shutdowns are doubly unnecessary.

    The expert estimates that were being proposed by late March, of 0.01% to 0.1%, look vindicated more and more every day.

    If the true IFR is 0.01%, then there are 54 million stories in the naked city, or at least there were 3 weeks ago.

  11. @Hail
    Yes; a lag effect. And if we are already past the peak, the devastating shutdowns are doubly unnecessary.

    The expert estimates that were being proposed by late March, of 0.01% to 0.1%, look vindicated more and more every day.

    The expert estimates that were being proposed by late March, of 0.01% to 0.1%, look vindicated more and more every day.

    Not that I can see. Given those South Korean numbers, I doubt that the true fatality rate will go much below 0.5%, which is still pretty high.

    Given the extremely contagious nature of the Coronavirus, without strong government action I think there’s a pretty good chance it would have spread across the entire country, probably infecting something like 200M. That suggests a million deaths, even if the health system didn’t collapse.

    Offhand, a million dead Americans by summer sounds like a pretty big number to me, though I suppose that’s a matter of opinion.

    Just look at that huge monthly NYC death-spike published in the NYT and shown in the previous thread.

    • Replies: @Gen X Ruined America

    Given the extremely contagious nature of the Coronavirus, without strong government action I think there’s a pretty good chance it would have spread across the entire country, probably infecting something like 200M. That suggests a million deaths, even if the health system didn’t collapse.
     
    Nope. Sweden and Brazil have similar outcomes to the US and they didn't close their economies down.

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/04/update-data-shows-us-efforts-combat-china-coronavirus-crushed-economy-brazil-sweden-similar-fatality-numbers-open-economies/
  12. @Lot
    How many excess deaths from the 40% decline in our economy and 30+ million newly unemployed Americans? These are the latest JP Morgan estimates for Q2.

    So far it appears to be about 0: turns out stay at home is reducing mortality of children quite a bit.

    The excess deaths caused by the Great Depression 2.0 the shutdowners and friends of the Communist Party of China have already caused may have a long lag. People under more stress now in their 50s could lose a few months of life in their 80s.

    Medical progress is roughly a function of general economic progress, and the effect on mortality will be slow to build but permanent.

    As far as I can tell, the concept of “excess deaths” is forbidden from discussion, as it might distract from the official body count.

    The summary of the German study says nothing about how the numerator death count of their CFR is calculated. Were they mostly 80+, with other life threatening conditions? Like our numbers, there is probably substantial overstatement there as well.

    • Replies: @utu
    Germany was an outlier form the very beginning with a very low mortality. Also Sweden has only 800 deaths so far while their countermeasures are minimal. The Chief Epidemiologist of Sweden, Anders Tegnell on April 3 explicitly stated that they will slash the death rate to well below 1 per cent:

    https://archive.fo/seBhv#selection-981.0-981.230

    The Swedes believe that changing how the figures are reported will cut the number of people dying from coronavirus by as much as four fifths , and slash the death rate to well below 1 per cent, perhaps even lower than seasonal flu
     
    by tweaking the setting of the threshold between the cases 'died from coronavirus' and 'died with coronavirus'.

    But public health officials have one more trick up their sleeves to dampen down the fears over the virus. The country is also about to start releasing figures that show how many people died "from" coronavirus rather than died "with" coronavirus
     
    I suspect that also in Germany the threshold is set to show a lower death rate.
  13. @Hail
    Yes; a lag effect. And if we are already past the peak, the devastating shutdowns are doubly unnecessary.

    The expert estimates that were being proposed by late March, of 0.01% to 0.1%, look vindicated more and more every day.

    According to this guy, it will be over next week. He has been predicting this for weeks.

    watch 4:00 through 13:45

    It’s about 1/10 as dangerous as the flu.

    He has a lot of good videos. The previous one was excellent too.

  14. Because if a 93 year-old dies three, six, or 72 months after the cruise ends, you obviously have to ascribe his death to the coronavirus.

    • Agree: LondonBob
  15. https://www.bccourier.com/implausible-figures-criticism-of-the-heinsberg-study/

    For what it’s worth–concern about specificity, cross-reactivity with the non-novel coronaviruses

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Thanks.
  16. Some almost, but not quite, completely useless data on total rate of infection in various countries, might be percentage of infections among people flying home from overseas. Not quite a random sample, but better than most samples.

    Here in NZ most of our cases have been from the influx of New Zealanders returning home, new cases from which are just diminishing now.

    Unfortunately I don’t have good numbers. They mentioned about 40,000 had returned home, and about 1000 infections. But that’s people returning from all over the world, probably mostly Europe, and there is no data on how many infections have come in from which countries.

  17. @Coco
    https://www.bccourier.com/implausible-figures-criticism-of-the-heinsberg-study/

    For what it's worth--concern about specificity, cross-reactivity with the non-novel coronaviruses

    Thanks.

  18. @Hail
    Yes; a lag effect. And if we are already past the peak, the devastating shutdowns are doubly unnecessary.

    The expert estimates that were being proposed by late March, of 0.01% to 0.1%, look vindicated more and more every day.

    The expert estimates that were being proposed by late March, of 0.01% to 0.1%, look vindicated more and more every day.

    No they don’t.

    What seems to be coming down the pike–at least from this Gangelt study, but it confirms what we saw from the Diamond Princess–is something around 0.5% for a Western ZPGish population.

    In other words, what people like me in the boring moderate middle–not the “it’s just the flu bro” and not the hysterics–have been saying all along. It’s 10-50x more lethal than a typical flu, but skewing heavily to the old and/or sick. (I feel like i’ve written that 50 times on this blog in the last month.)

    I’m not claiming any great insight–just the ability to read and do math. Could still be wrong. But this is what the reports and math have indicated all along.

    If you’re going to have a pandemic … this is the one to have. Leave them young healthy kids alone. Then we get back up and running and they can get busy and replace us old fogeys.

    • Replies: @utu
    "we saw from the Diamond Princess–is something around 0.5%" - I see people keep repeating the 0.5% number for Diamond Princess. Where did it come form?

    Here the death rate among the infected is at 1.3%.

    https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912e3.htm
    Among 3,711 Diamond Princess passengers and crew, 712 (19.2%) had positive test results for SARS-CoV-2 (Figure 1). Of these, 331 (46.5%) were asymptomatic at the time of testing. Among 381 symptomatic patients, 37 (9.7%) required intensive care, and nine (1.3%) died.
     
    And almost everybody was tested 3,063 out of 3,711 as of Feb 20.
    https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.10.2000180
    , @Kratoklastes

    It’s 10-50x more lethal than a typical flu, but skewing heavily to the old and/or sick
     
    Do it apples-to-apples: same protocol for recording cause of death, same assumptions about undetected positives.

    The vast bulk of the denominator for seasonal flu's CFR, is based on people who are evaluated 'clinically', not by a test (and then at the end of the season they divide by population, not 'tested cases').

    Also, Johns Hopkins needs to lift its fucking game, and extrapolate its guess at the German fatality rate using age-group weightings - this will drops it a lot, because the young get infected at roughly population-weight, but it kills fuck-all of them.

    It's whole data game is a disgrace: all their stupid site shows is the crude ('all cases') numbers, which are massive overstatements if extrapolated by age cohort.

    It's a pity for the Doomers that it'll be warm soon: the political walk-back is already being pumped out of CNN, CNBC, Fox, Sky News here in Australia, absolutely non-stop (and of course the morning shows for stupid housewives will join the chorus on Monday).

    Another 3 news cycles and they will have brainwashed enough housewives, and it will be "Full speed ahead" as if it never happened.

    GDP will still fall more than double digits for 2 or 3 quarters; unemployment will still get into the high teens (at best); tens of thousands of people will still have their lives ruined; there will still be thousands of excess suicides.

    All that will simply be irrelevant, because that fuckwit Sanjay Gupta won't be braying about it every 20 minutes (he is to medicine, what his fellow dotheads are to datasec: it took him 20 years to work out that weed is benign FFS).
  19. Hail says: • Website

    Steve Sailer wrote:

    So, an infection fatality rate of 0.37%, which is likely to go up over time to, say, 0.5% (just me speculating from the Diamond Princess history) under strong German health care conditions without the hospitals overwhelmed.

    Yesterday I attempted an extrapolation to the surrounding Kreis Heinsberg district (pop. 254,000) that surrounds the town of Gangelt (pop: 12,500). (I think the data supports the ca. 0.1% soft-upper-bound true-fatality-rate proposed by Ioannidis and many others.) Data for Kreis Heinsberg is public, via the Robert Koch Institute and cited in the German media. Data for Gangelt itself, the town of most interest within the district, is not public. Looking back at the paper, I realize the researchers, though, were privy to the Gangelt-only data:

    Streeck et. al.’s Gangelt study suggests that 19 residents of the town of Gangelt have died with coronavirus-positive status. (19 corona-positive deaths / 12,500 = ~0.15%, which is the figure that appears in the study.) Given the number of unresolved cases and the running case-resolution death-rate, this likely rises to 25 deaths in coming weeks. This, in the place thought to have been among the earliest epicenters in Germany, and the best documented.

    But there is a big unanswered, and kind of important, question that Steve has still overlooked. How many of these 19 deaths were “deaths with the coronavirus” and how many “deaths from the coronavirus”?

    Look at it this way: In any given winter month, statistically speaking about 13 to 15 Gangelt citizens die. This is the natural death rate for Germany for late-winter as applied to the town. It’ll be a few more than that if a peak-flu-activity event is going on and the town sees a modest flu-death spike (see, e.g., here, note the 2016-17 and 2017-18 winter spikes).

    We would expect 14 to 16 natural deaths in Gangelt for the same period (=33 days) starting from when the first “coronavirus death” occurred (it was a 78-year-old Gangelt man; he checked into the hospital with flu symptoms March 6, died March 9), to the present. During a peak-flu event, we could expect this to reach 20 deaths (2010s EuroMOMO data), or if a bad flu-spike is going on and for whatever reason conditions are particularly unfavorable for poor Gangelt, a peak localized area within a general flu peak, a bad-flu-event could push deaths up to 25. The marginal deaths all being with age-and-condition profiles of the usual sort at risk for flu.

    To summarize: We have 19 corona-positive deaths in Gangelt for the period where we expect 15 ‘normal’ deaths, and a not-unusual +5 or +10 marginal deaths given a peak-flu event, for a total range of 15 to 25 reasonably-expectable deaths, especially when we learn how mild the 2019-20 season had been (deaths noticeably below normal) before the March 9 corona-attributed first death.

    If we had the figure “total deaths, all causes,” for Gangelt during the same period, that would be useful to help shed light on the “died with, vs. died from” problem. How much did they rise?

    If a figure as high as Sweden’s two-thirds are “deaths with, not deaths from” applies also to Gangelt, we are talking about a total true corona-attributable population loss to Gangelt of 0.o5% to 0.075% ([25/3]/12,500), which might plausibly bump its total-population-loss-to-death for the year from 1.10% to 1.15% for 2020. And that in one of Germany’s epicenters! (Conclusion: There continues to be no real evidence for this as a particularly dangerous virus. If any number of other flu viruses were subject to this level of intense scrutiny…)

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    But we have the figures for Bergamo province of 1 million people, and about 5 times as many people died in March 2020 as in the average March. New York City is about double the usual death rate and 1.5 times the death rate in September 2001.
  20. Take a look at the NYC COVID-19 Daily Data Summary: Deaths (PDF, as of April 10, 4 p.m.)

    5429 total deaths reported.

    3/5429 deaths are in 0 to 17 age group (all had underlying conditions). This is miniscule. Flu and influenza-like viruses (including RSV, parainfluenza, and other coronaviruses) kill many healthy children every year.

    103/5429 deaths are in objectively healthy people. So no, COVID does not kill healthy or young people at a rate higher than motor vehicle collisions. Much lower fatality rate than the flu.

    215/5429 deaths where the sex was unknown?! How can that be, are these the deaths of transsexuals!?? It is certainly possible, because HIV/AIDS is a major risk factor for even a mild infection.

    4219/5429 of those that died had obvious underlying conditions. This list includes Diabetes, Lung Disease, Cancer, Immunodeficiency, Heart Disease, Hypertension, Asthma, Kidney
    Disease, and GI/Liver Disease… But not obesity or smoking. Another 1107/5429 had probable underlying conditions.

    Most interestingly, there has been a major decrease in heart attacks and strokes in pandemic countries, with specialists asking where have all these patients gone? It’s starting to become clear that they’re dying of “COVID-heart disease” or “COVID-neurological disease”. Survivors be damned.

    What’s alarming is that under everyday conditions, majority of these cases would be treated immediately in the cath lab or with thrombolysis, without delay. Time is heart/brain. Failure to do so is medical malpractice.

    Under the present hysteria, probable heart attack patients coming in with dyspnea and hypoxemia symptoms as a result of STEMI or NSTEMI are held without standard treatment pending COVID tests. Those testing negative for COVID have wasted precious time. Meanwhile, those testing positive are denied life-saving treatment at most centers and likely put on ventilators to die. Protocols protect healthcare staff from lawsuit. Autopsies are not done. COVID diagnoses are fully reimbursed, and receive ventilator bonuses.

    Astute clinicians have started questioning the standard narrative after COVID has hit their paychecks. Most hospitals are empty. Cardiologists are reporting 40-80% decline in heart attacks and 40-80% decreases in emergency interventional procedures (see Twitter/recent articles on this). These guys are some of the highest paid medical professionals in the US and around the world.

    It doesn’t take a genius to put the two and two together. This has become a racket.

    • Thanks: Almost Missouri
  21. @AnotherDad

    The expert estimates that were being proposed by late March, of 0.01% to 0.1%, look vindicated more and more every day.
     
    No they don't.

    What seems to be coming down the pike--at least from this Gangelt study, but it confirms what we saw from the Diamond Princess--is something around 0.5% for a Western ZPGish population.

    In other words, what people like me in the boring moderate middle--not the "it's just the flu bro" and not the hysterics--have been saying all along. It's 10-50x more lethal than a typical flu, but skewing heavily to the old and/or sick. (I feel like i've written that 50 times on this blog in the last month.)

    I'm not claiming any great insight--just the ability to read and do math. Could still be wrong. But this is what the reports and math have indicated all along.

    If you're going to have a pandemic ... this is the one to have. Leave them young healthy kids alone. Then we get back up and running and they can get busy and replace us old fogeys.

    “we saw from the Diamond Princess–is something around 0.5%” – I see people keep repeating the 0.5% number for Diamond Princess. Where did it come form?

    Here the death rate among the infected is at 1.3%.

    https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912e3.htm
    Among 3,711 Diamond Princess passengers and crew, 712 (19.2%) had positive test results for SARS-CoV-2 (Figure 1). Of these, 331 (46.5%) were asymptomatic at the time of testing. Among 381 symptomatic patients, 37 (9.7%) required intensive care, and nine (1.3%) died.

    And almost everybody was tested 3,063 out of 3,711 as of Feb 20.
    https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.10.2000180

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    I think Diamond Princess deaths were up to 11 now.
    , @AnotherDad


    “we saw from the Diamond Princess–is something around 0.5%” – I see people keep repeating the 0.5% number for Diamond Princess. Where did it come form?
     
    Age adjustment.

    The Diamond Princess is a cruise ship. I.e. it was full of old people. You can pull up the age distribution yourself but simplified there is one peak of 30-something (presumably young married couples) and then most of the boat is old people with the peak in the 70s somewhere. There's smattering of kids--tagging along with the young marrieds--and basically zero teenagers.

    This is not the population of the US--nor any nation. To be fair, cruise passengers are generally not at deaths door, so healthier than the average for their age. But age is the butt kicker with this virus. Everyone who has died is old--the youngest is 60 something. None--zero--of the--much younger--crew has died.

    The US population is only 16% >65. To use the Diamond Princess to make a case fatality rate for the US you must age adjust. And given the age skew on the Diamond Princess and the extreme age skew of this virus's fatalities that whacks the IFR roughly in half.

    ~~

    BTW, you have to do this analysis if you're going to extrapolate from Italy to the US. Italy is a much older place. 65+ are 22% there versus 16% here. And in extreme elderly--those worst hit by corona-chan, it's even more skewed. (We didn't birth a lot of people during the great depression and have taken in a lot more immigrants reducing their relative weight.)

    I speculate that another big factor in Italy is inter-generational households creating spread to elderly with big viral loads they could not recover from. But even that aside the age skew issue is huge. Whack roughly 1/3 off their death rate to get in the ballpark age wise for the US.

    Of course there may be other factors that pump the US back up. "Diversity". Weight and diabetes. Or deflate it back down--less crowded, more suburban. So i'm not claiming just adjust for age and you're done. But you have to do that just to start the comparisons.
  22. @Sparkon

    This means that 15% of the population in Gangelt can no longer become infected with SARS-CoV-2,
     
    But is this true? In S. Korea, 91 patients have been re-infected, had a relapse, reactivation of the virus, or possibly a false positive test according to a news report from Reuters.

    Jeong Eun-kyeong, director of the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC), told a briefing that the virus may have been “reactivated” rather than the patients being re-infected.

    South Korean health officials said it remains unclear what is behind the trend, with epidemiological investigations still under way.

    The prospect of people being re-infected with the virus is of international concern, as many countries are hoping that infected populations will develop sufficient immunity to prevent a resurgence of the pandemic.
     

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-southkorea/south-korea-reports-recovered-coronavirus-patients-testing-positive-again-idUSKCN21S15X

    Yep, now there’s a story.

    “The number will only increase — 91 is just the beginning now,” said Kim Woo-joo, professor of infectious diseases at Korea University Guro Hospital, adding that patients had likely “relapsed” rather than been reinfected.

    Not pretty, and not consistent with the favored narratives. P.S. I did not make up that professor’s name.

  23. @utu
    "we saw from the Diamond Princess–is something around 0.5%" - I see people keep repeating the 0.5% number for Diamond Princess. Where did it come form?

    Here the death rate among the infected is at 1.3%.

    https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912e3.htm
    Among 3,711 Diamond Princess passengers and crew, 712 (19.2%) had positive test results for SARS-CoV-2 (Figure 1). Of these, 331 (46.5%) were asymptomatic at the time of testing. Among 381 symptomatic patients, 37 (9.7%) required intensive care, and nine (1.3%) died.
     
    And almost everybody was tested 3,063 out of 3,711 as of Feb 20.
    https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.10.2000180

    I think Diamond Princess deaths were up to 11 now.

    • Thanks: utu
    • Replies: @GalenMD
    Infections on cruise ships are common.

    See article titled:
    "A large outbreak of influenza A and B on a cruise ship causing widespread morbidity"

    In September 2000 an outbreak of influenza-like illness was reported on a cruise ship sailing between Sydney and Noumea with over 1,100 passengers and 400 crew on board. Laboratory testing of passengers and crew indicated that both influenza A and B had been circulating on the ship. The cruise coincided with the peak influenza period in Sydney. Morbidity was high with 40 passengers hospitalized, two of whom died. A questionnaire was sent to passengers 3 weeks after the cruise and 836 of 1,119 (75%) responded. A total of 310 passengers (37%) reported suffering from an influenza-like illness (defined as cough, fever, myalgia and weakness) and 528 (63%) had seen a doctor for illness related to the cruise. One-third of passengers reported receipt of influenza vaccination in 2000; however neither their rates of influenza-like illness nor hospitalization were significantly different from those in unvaccinated passengers. A case-control study also found no significant protective effect of influenza vaccination. With the increasing popularity of cruise vacations, such outbreaks are likely to affect increasing numbers of people. Whilst influenza vaccination of passengers and crew may afford some protection, uptake and effectiveness may not be sufficient to prevent outbreaks. Surveillance systems and early intervention measures, such as antiviral therapies, should be considered to detect and control such outbreaks.


    Not only is the hysteria/quarantine unjustified, the proposed solution of a vaccine is highly unlikely to work.
    , @Intelligent Dasein

    I think Diamond Princess deaths were up to 11 now.
     
    Well, the hysteria certainly is.
  24. @Hail
    Yes; a lag effect. And if we are already past the peak, the devastating shutdowns are doubly unnecessary.

    The expert estimates that were being proposed by late March, of 0.01% to 0.1%, look vindicated more and more every day.

    So…..against his better judgment, which must have been screaming stop!, a four-year track record of Democrats and the media persecuting him relentlessly 24/7/365 – and now prone to find his every utterance and decision grounds for not just impeachment, but later prosecution – left Trump no choice but to let the CDC, a gaggle of Democratic governors, and the usual traitors in his own ranks steer him towards total economic shutdown, secure in the knowledge that he’d either be smeared as murderously inept or an outright mass murderer….i.e., no choice at all.

    In other words, we destroyed the economy, our remaining freedoms and whatever future our children were counting on….for nothing. More succinctly put, to keep Schiff and Schumer and Pelosi from holding the country hostage all the way to Election Day, brandishing every dead geriatric in the country like grotesque campaign attack-ads.

    You wonder what, if anything, can drive Americans to channel their own history and pick up torches and pitchforks to clear out that swamp once and for all. If trillion-dollar handcuffs and leg shackles for their families don’t do the trick, maybe serfhood was our destiny all along.

    • Agree: The Alarmist, TomSchmidt
  25. @Hail
    Yes; a lag effect. And if we are already past the peak, the devastating shutdowns are doubly unnecessary.

    The expert estimates that were being proposed by late March, of 0.01% to 0.1%, look vindicated more and more every day.

    There is an open thread for you and the expert of yours.

    https://www.unz.com/runz/the-government-employee-who-may-have-saved-a-million-american-lives/#comment-3829606
    Okay, I suppose that’s a reasonable request. The previous Open Thread on the Sidebar had already gotten nearly 800 comments, mostly arelating to religion, so I just opened up a new one:

    https://www.unz.com/announcement/open-thread-2/

    So I don’t see much problem if all the fanatical Coronavirus Hoaxers what to congregate there and debate whether its the Deep State or the Martians who are trying to trick people into believing there’s a very dangerous disease going around. Just so long as you don’t clutter up serious articles with your crazy nonsense.

    I think I saw some commenter claiming somewhere that viruses don’t really exist and are just a hoax. So maybe you can argue with him.

  26. @Steve Sailer
    I think Diamond Princess deaths were up to 11 now.

    Infections on cruise ships are common.

    See article titled:
    “A large outbreak of influenza A and B on a cruise ship causing widespread morbidity”

    In September 2000 an outbreak of influenza-like illness was reported on a cruise ship sailing between Sydney and Noumea with over 1,100 passengers and 400 crew on board. Laboratory testing of passengers and crew indicated that both influenza A and B had been circulating on the ship. The cruise coincided with the peak influenza period in Sydney. Morbidity was high with 40 passengers hospitalized, two of whom died. A questionnaire was sent to passengers 3 weeks after the cruise and 836 of 1,119 (75%) responded. A total of 310 passengers (37%) reported suffering from an influenza-like illness (defined as cough, fever, myalgia and weakness) and 528 (63%) had seen a doctor for illness related to the cruise. One-third of passengers reported receipt of influenza vaccination in 2000; however neither their rates of influenza-like illness nor hospitalization were significantly different from those in unvaccinated passengers. A case-control study also found no significant protective effect of influenza vaccination. With the increasing popularity of cruise vacations, such outbreaks are likely to affect increasing numbers of people. Whilst influenza vaccination of passengers and crew may afford some protection, uptake and effectiveness may not be sufficient to prevent outbreaks. Surveillance systems and early intervention measures, such as antiviral therapies, should be considered to detect and control such outbreaks.

    Not only is the hysteria/quarantine unjustified, the proposed solution of a vaccine is highly unlikely to work.

    • Replies: @Bubba
    Cruise ships are notorious superspreader vectors for norovirus, influenza A & B , coronoavirus (most recent) and every other communicable disease.

    iSteve is correct in his Taki's column this week - businesses, especially cruise ships (and airlines) need to make noticeable changes to their hygiene and sanitary practices that will make their customers feel safe.

    Handing out masks to passengers before boarding an airplane would be a good start. And anyone intentionally avoiding these hygiene practices should receive a lifetime ban traveling on airlines.

    https://www.nydailynews.com/resizer/zG6W_k2pdmfgSgfyPVX4t4e9P5w=/800x726/top/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-tronc.s3.amazonaws.com/public/5WNZDMSJF5FJBN4SCF45CKT4MA.jpg
    , @The Alarmist
    Has anyone done a study of mortality attributable to cruises?
  27. @Ron Unz

    The expert estimates that were being proposed by late March, of 0.01% to 0.1%, look vindicated more and more every day.
     
    Not that I can see. Given those South Korean numbers, I doubt that the true fatality rate will go much below 0.5%, which is still pretty high.

    Given the extremely contagious nature of the Coronavirus, without strong government action I think there's a pretty good chance it would have spread across the entire country, probably infecting something like 200M. That suggests a million deaths, even if the health system didn't collapse.

    Offhand, a million dead Americans by summer sounds like a pretty big number to me, though I suppose that's a matter of opinion.

    Just look at that huge monthly NYC death-spike published in the NYT and shown in the previous thread.

    Given the extremely contagious nature of the Coronavirus, without strong government action I think there’s a pretty good chance it would have spread across the entire country, probably infecting something like 200M. That suggests a million deaths, even if the health system didn’t collapse.

    Nope. Sweden and Brazil have similar outcomes to the US and they didn’t close their economies down.

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/04/update-data-shows-us-efforts-combat-china-coronavirus-crushed-economy-brazil-sweden-similar-fatality-numbers-open-economies/

    • Replies: @Hypnotoad666

    Sweden and Brazil have similar outcomes to the US and they didn’t close their economies down.
     
    By letting the virus run its course, more or less unabated, they may also get to herd immunity much sooner than we do. As I noted somewhere else, "flattening the curve" also means "lengthening the curve."
  28. @GalenMD
    Infections on cruise ships are common.

    See article titled:
    "A large outbreak of influenza A and B on a cruise ship causing widespread morbidity"

    In September 2000 an outbreak of influenza-like illness was reported on a cruise ship sailing between Sydney and Noumea with over 1,100 passengers and 400 crew on board. Laboratory testing of passengers and crew indicated that both influenza A and B had been circulating on the ship. The cruise coincided with the peak influenza period in Sydney. Morbidity was high with 40 passengers hospitalized, two of whom died. A questionnaire was sent to passengers 3 weeks after the cruise and 836 of 1,119 (75%) responded. A total of 310 passengers (37%) reported suffering from an influenza-like illness (defined as cough, fever, myalgia and weakness) and 528 (63%) had seen a doctor for illness related to the cruise. One-third of passengers reported receipt of influenza vaccination in 2000; however neither their rates of influenza-like illness nor hospitalization were significantly different from those in unvaccinated passengers. A case-control study also found no significant protective effect of influenza vaccination. With the increasing popularity of cruise vacations, such outbreaks are likely to affect increasing numbers of people. Whilst influenza vaccination of passengers and crew may afford some protection, uptake and effectiveness may not be sufficient to prevent outbreaks. Surveillance systems and early intervention measures, such as antiviral therapies, should be considered to detect and control such outbreaks.


    Not only is the hysteria/quarantine unjustified, the proposed solution of a vaccine is highly unlikely to work.

    Cruise ships are notorious superspreader vectors for norovirus, influenza A & B , coronoavirus (most recent) and every other communicable disease.

    iSteve is correct in his Taki’s column this week – businesses, especially cruise ships (and airlines) need to make noticeable changes to their hygiene and sanitary practices that will make their customers feel safe.

    Handing out masks to passengers before boarding an airplane would be a good start. And anyone intentionally avoiding these hygiene practices should receive a lifetime ban traveling on airlines.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    Yes, the outcome of all this should certainly be improved concern for hygiene on airlines and cruises.

    The biggest issue with all this remains coding deaths as with coronavirus, not from.

  29. @Steve Sailer
    I think Diamond Princess deaths were up to 11 now.

    I think Diamond Princess deaths were up to 11 now.

    Well, the hysteria certainly is.

  30. @Hypnotoad666
    As far as I can tell, the concept of "excess deaths" is forbidden from discussion, as it might distract from the official body count.

    The summary of the German study says nothing about how the numerator death count of their CFR is calculated. Were they mostly 80+, with other life threatening conditions? Like our numbers, there is probably substantial overstatement there as well.

    Germany was an outlier form the very beginning with a very low mortality. Also Sweden has only 800 deaths so far while their countermeasures are minimal. The Chief Epidemiologist of Sweden, Anders Tegnell on April 3 explicitly stated that they will slash the death rate to well below 1 per cent:

    https://archive.fo/seBhv#selection-981.0-981.230

    The Swedes believe that changing how the figures are reported will cut the number of people dying from coronavirus by as much as four fifths , and slash the death rate to well below 1 per cent, perhaps even lower than seasonal flu

    by tweaking the setting of the threshold between the cases ‘died from coronavirus’ and ‘died with coronavirus’.

    But public health officials have one more trick up their sleeves to dampen down the fears over the virus. The country is also about to start releasing figures that show how many people died “from” coronavirus rather than died “with” coronavirus

    I suspect that also in Germany the threshold is set to show a lower death rate.

    • Thanks: Hypnotoad666
  31. @Bubba
    Cruise ships are notorious superspreader vectors for norovirus, influenza A & B , coronoavirus (most recent) and every other communicable disease.

    iSteve is correct in his Taki's column this week - businesses, especially cruise ships (and airlines) need to make noticeable changes to their hygiene and sanitary practices that will make their customers feel safe.

    Handing out masks to passengers before boarding an airplane would be a good start. And anyone intentionally avoiding these hygiene practices should receive a lifetime ban traveling on airlines.

    https://www.nydailynews.com/resizer/zG6W_k2pdmfgSgfyPVX4t4e9P5w=/800x726/top/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-tronc.s3.amazonaws.com/public/5WNZDMSJF5FJBN4SCF45CKT4MA.jpg

    Yes, the outcome of all this should certainly be improved concern for hygiene on airlines and cruises.

    The biggest issue with all this remains coding deaths as with coronavirus, not from.

    • Agree: Bubba
  32. @AnotherDad

    The expert estimates that were being proposed by late March, of 0.01% to 0.1%, look vindicated more and more every day.
     
    No they don't.

    What seems to be coming down the pike--at least from this Gangelt study, but it confirms what we saw from the Diamond Princess--is something around 0.5% for a Western ZPGish population.

    In other words, what people like me in the boring moderate middle--not the "it's just the flu bro" and not the hysterics--have been saying all along. It's 10-50x more lethal than a typical flu, but skewing heavily to the old and/or sick. (I feel like i've written that 50 times on this blog in the last month.)

    I'm not claiming any great insight--just the ability to read and do math. Could still be wrong. But this is what the reports and math have indicated all along.

    If you're going to have a pandemic ... this is the one to have. Leave them young healthy kids alone. Then we get back up and running and they can get busy and replace us old fogeys.

    It’s 10-50x more lethal than a typical flu, but skewing heavily to the old and/or sick

    Do it apples-to-apples: same protocol for recording cause of death, same assumptions about undetected positives.

    The vast bulk of the denominator for seasonal flu’s CFR, is based on people who are evaluated ‘clinically’, not by a test (and then at the end of the season they divide by population, not ‘tested cases’).

    Also, Johns Hopkins needs to lift its fucking game, and extrapolate its guess at the German fatality rate using age-group weightings – this will drops it a lot, because the young get infected at roughly population-weight, but it kills fuck-all of them.

    It’s whole data game is a disgrace: all their stupid site shows is the crude (‘all cases’) numbers, which are massive overstatements if extrapolated by age cohort.

    It’s a pity for the Doomers that it’ll be warm soon: the political walk-back is already being pumped out of CNN, CNBC, Fox, Sky News here in Australia, absolutely non-stop (and of course the morning shows for stupid housewives will join the chorus on Monday).

    Another 3 news cycles and they will have brainwashed enough housewives, and it will be “Full speed ahead” as if it never happened.

    GDP will still fall more than double digits for 2 or 3 quarters; unemployment will still get into the high teens (at best); tens of thousands of people will still have their lives ruined; there will still be thousands of excess suicides.

    All that will simply be irrelevant, because that fuckwit Sanjay Gupta won’t be braying about it every 20 minutes (he is to medicine, what his fellow dotheads are to datasec: it took him 20 years to work out that weed is benign FFS).

  33. Hi Steve,
    big fan and long-time reader from Vienna, Austria.
    Thought you and your readers might be interested in data from Austria (in lock down since March 14 – with active cases receding for five days, i.e. there have been more people recovering than newly infected) – there is too much focus on Germany here.

    In Austria there have been two random studies conducted so far (sample size about 1500 each). Austria ist the first country in contiental Europe to come out with such a study (Island is the famous other country in Europe). One sample focused on professions assumed to be at high risk of infection (health care, supermarket employees) whereas the other aimed at getting a representative sample for the enitere country.

    First the results of the random study whose results were released yesterday:
    About 0.33 percent of the population infected, or 28.500 people vs. 8.500 confirmed cases at the time (about 10 days ago), (95 percent confidence intervall: 10.200 and 67.400). As of today there are slightly more than 300 fatalities which equates to a CFR of around 1 percent – Austrian hospitals are not overwhelmed with capacity similar to Germany.

    One week ago, the results of another random study was published that focused on professions at risk:
    Result: 0.5 percent of health care workers were infected but, interestingly, out of 350 tested supermarket employees NONE were infected, suggesting the virus might be less contageous under certain circumstances than generally assumed. At the time of the study masks in supermarkets were not compulsory (they have become so since April 6th)

    One week ago I read in the newspaper that in Austria there is a group who tries to trace and identify infections – similar to what Mr. Streeck is doing. They had traced about 150 cases and I remember the article said that they could not find indications of casual infections, in all cases there had been close contact for at least 15 minutes between for the infection to happen – Prof Streeck mentions similar findings. They said, that it looks the virus is less contageous than previously thought.

    My preliminary conclusion:
    The virus seems to have binary properties: not very contageous under most circumstances, but highly contageous in others. I am no expert on this, but believe that solving the superspreader issue is key to understanding this thing. I am surprised that no modeller has tried to come up with an “adjusted R0” , adjusted for superspreaders that is – what if we find out that eliminating superspreaders (or events) reduces R0 to close to 1?
    I am also surprised that not more random studies have been conducted around the world in order to better get a final grip on the data.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Thanks.
    , @GermanReader2
    Did they say anything about the estimated infection rate in cities vs the countryside, age groups etc.? In Munich around 0.2% of the population is already infected without extrapolating (they are doing some studies right now to estimate the true infection rate and spread in the city by randomly picking a few thousand people and testing them every 4 weeks). What I really would like to know are the infection rates of the locals in the ski towns (Ischgl) by profession. I think most of the Barkeepers in the apres ski bars are probably positive, but how about the hoteliers etc?
  34. @viennacapitalist
    Hi Steve,
    big fan and long-time reader from Vienna, Austria.
    Thought you and your readers might be interested in data from Austria (in lock down since March 14 - with active cases receding for five days, i.e. there have been more people recovering than newly infected) - there is too much focus on Germany here.

    In Austria there have been two random studies conducted so far (sample size about 1500 each). Austria ist the first country in contiental Europe to come out with such a study (Island is the famous other country in Europe). One sample focused on professions assumed to be at high risk of infection (health care, supermarket employees) whereas the other aimed at getting a representative sample for the enitere country.

    First the results of the random study whose results were released yesterday:
    About 0.33 percent of the population infected, or 28.500 people vs. 8.500 confirmed cases at the time (about 10 days ago), (95 percent confidence intervall: 10.200 and 67.400). As of today there are slightly more than 300 fatalities which equates to a CFR of around 1 percent - Austrian hospitals are not overwhelmed with capacity similar to Germany.

    One week ago, the results of another random study was published that focused on professions at risk:
    Result: 0.5 percent of health care workers were infected but, interestingly, out of 350 tested supermarket employees NONE were infected, suggesting the virus might be less contageous under certain circumstances than generally assumed. At the time of the study masks in supermarkets were not compulsory (they have become so since April 6th)

    One week ago I read in the newspaper that in Austria there is a group who tries to trace and identify infections - similar to what Mr. Streeck is doing. They had traced about 150 cases and I remember the article said that they could not find indications of casual infections, in all cases there had been close contact for at least 15 minutes between for the infection to happen - Prof Streeck mentions similar findings. They said, that it looks the virus is less contageous than previously thought.

    My preliminary conclusion:
    The virus seems to have binary properties: not very contageous under most circumstances, but highly contageous in others. I am no expert on this, but believe that solving the superspreader issue is key to understanding this thing. I am surprised that no modeller has tried to come up with an "adjusted R0" , adjusted for superspreaders that is - what if we find out that eliminating superspreaders (or events) reduces R0 to close to 1?
    I am also surprised that not more random studies have been conducted around the world in order to better get a final grip on the data.

    Thanks.

  35. GermanReader2 [AKA "GermanReader2_new"] says:
    @viennacapitalist
    Hi Steve,
    big fan and long-time reader from Vienna, Austria.
    Thought you and your readers might be interested in data from Austria (in lock down since March 14 - with active cases receding for five days, i.e. there have been more people recovering than newly infected) - there is too much focus on Germany here.

    In Austria there have been two random studies conducted so far (sample size about 1500 each). Austria ist the first country in contiental Europe to come out with such a study (Island is the famous other country in Europe). One sample focused on professions assumed to be at high risk of infection (health care, supermarket employees) whereas the other aimed at getting a representative sample for the enitere country.

    First the results of the random study whose results were released yesterday:
    About 0.33 percent of the population infected, or 28.500 people vs. 8.500 confirmed cases at the time (about 10 days ago), (95 percent confidence intervall: 10.200 and 67.400). As of today there are slightly more than 300 fatalities which equates to a CFR of around 1 percent - Austrian hospitals are not overwhelmed with capacity similar to Germany.

    One week ago, the results of another random study was published that focused on professions at risk:
    Result: 0.5 percent of health care workers were infected but, interestingly, out of 350 tested supermarket employees NONE were infected, suggesting the virus might be less contageous under certain circumstances than generally assumed. At the time of the study masks in supermarkets were not compulsory (they have become so since April 6th)

    One week ago I read in the newspaper that in Austria there is a group who tries to trace and identify infections - similar to what Mr. Streeck is doing. They had traced about 150 cases and I remember the article said that they could not find indications of casual infections, in all cases there had been close contact for at least 15 minutes between for the infection to happen - Prof Streeck mentions similar findings. They said, that it looks the virus is less contageous than previously thought.

    My preliminary conclusion:
    The virus seems to have binary properties: not very contageous under most circumstances, but highly contageous in others. I am no expert on this, but believe that solving the superspreader issue is key to understanding this thing. I am surprised that no modeller has tried to come up with an "adjusted R0" , adjusted for superspreaders that is - what if we find out that eliminating superspreaders (or events) reduces R0 to close to 1?
    I am also surprised that not more random studies have been conducted around the world in order to better get a final grip on the data.

    Did they say anything about the estimated infection rate in cities vs the countryside, age groups etc.? In Munich around 0.2% of the population is already infected without extrapolating (they are doing some studies right now to estimate the true infection rate and spread in the city by randomly picking a few thousand people and testing them every 4 weeks). What I really would like to know are the infection rates of the locals in the ski towns (Ischgl) by profession. I think most of the Barkeepers in the apres ski bars are probably positive, but how about the hoteliers etc?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Right, infection rates by occupation would be very useful. For example, flight attendants, bus drivers, supermarket checkout clerks, etc.
  36. @GermanReader2
    Did they say anything about the estimated infection rate in cities vs the countryside, age groups etc.? In Munich around 0.2% of the population is already infected without extrapolating (they are doing some studies right now to estimate the true infection rate and spread in the city by randomly picking a few thousand people and testing them every 4 weeks). What I really would like to know are the infection rates of the locals in the ski towns (Ischgl) by profession. I think most of the Barkeepers in the apres ski bars are probably positive, but how about the hoteliers etc?

    Right, infection rates by occupation would be very useful. For example, flight attendants, bus drivers, supermarket checkout clerks, etc.

  37. @Hail
    Steve Sailer wrote:

    So, an infection fatality rate of 0.37%, which is likely to go up over time to, say, 0.5% (just me speculating from the Diamond Princess history) under strong German health care conditions without the hospitals overwhelmed.
     
    Yesterday I attempted an extrapolation to the surrounding Kreis Heinsberg district (pop. 254,000) that surrounds the town of Gangelt (pop: 12,500). (I think the data supports the ca. 0.1% soft-upper-bound true-fatality-rate proposed by Ioannidis and many others.) Data for Kreis Heinsberg is public, via the Robert Koch Institute and cited in the German media. Data for Gangelt itself, the town of most interest within the district, is not public. Looking back at the paper, I realize the researchers, though, were privy to the Gangelt-only data:

    Streeck et. al.'s Gangelt study suggests that 19 residents of the town of Gangelt have died with coronavirus-positive status. (19 corona-positive deaths / 12,500 = ~0.15%, which is the figure that appears in the study.) Given the number of unresolved cases and the running case-resolution death-rate, this likely rises to 25 deaths in coming weeks. This, in the place thought to have been among the earliest epicenters in Germany, and the best documented.

    But there is a big unanswered, and kind of important, question that Steve has still overlooked. How many of these 19 deaths were "deaths with the coronavirus" and how many "deaths from the coronavirus"?

    Look at it this way: In any given winter month, statistically speaking about 13 to 15 Gangelt citizens die. This is the natural death rate for Germany for late-winter as applied to the town. It'll be a few more than that if a peak-flu-activity event is going on and the town sees a modest flu-death spike (see, e.g., here, note the 2016-17 and 2017-18 winter spikes).

    We would expect 14 to 16 natural deaths in Gangelt for the same period (=33 days) starting from when the first "coronavirus death" occurred (it was a 78-year-old Gangelt man; he checked into the hospital with flu symptoms March 6, died March 9), to the present. During a peak-flu event, we could expect this to reach 20 deaths (2010s EuroMOMO data), or if a bad flu-spike is going on and for whatever reason conditions are particularly unfavorable for poor Gangelt, a peak localized area within a general flu peak, a bad-flu-event could push deaths up to 25. The marginal deaths all being with age-and-condition profiles of the usual sort at risk for flu.

    To summarize: We have 19 corona-positive deaths in Gangelt for the period where we expect 15 'normal' deaths, and a not-unusual +5 or +10 marginal deaths given a peak-flu event, for a total range of 15 to 25 reasonably-expectable deaths, especially when we learn how mild the 2019-20 season had been (deaths noticeably below normal) before the March 9 corona-attributed first death.

    If we had the figure "total deaths, all causes," for Gangelt during the same period, that would be useful to help shed light on the "died with, vs. died from" problem. How much did they rise?

    If a figure as high as Sweden's two-thirds are "deaths with, not deaths from" applies also to Gangelt, we are talking about a total true corona-attributable population loss to Gangelt of 0.o5% to 0.075% ([25/3]/12,500), which might plausibly bump its total-population-loss-to-death for the year from 1.10% to 1.15% for 2020. And that in one of Germany's epicenters! (Conclusion: There continues to be no real evidence for this as a particularly dangerous virus. If any number of other flu viruses were subject to this level of intense scrutiny...)

    But we have the figures for Bergamo province of 1 million people, and about 5 times as many people died in March 2020 as in the average March. New York City is about double the usual death rate and 1.5 times the death rate in September 2001.

    • Replies: @Craken
    Italy's epicenter, Lombardy, has reported about 10,000 Covid deaths. Its population is about 10 million. If Covid deaths are 3 times the reported and verified number, then 0.3% of the entire population of Lombardy has died of Covid in the last 6 weeks. Reported daily deaths continue, but are down to about 200 from a peak of 550. How much of that decline is real and how much of any real decline is due to lockdown vs herd immunity? No one yet knows, but if the Gangelt study is accurate then some may claim that they are most of the way through to herd immunity. Two problems with that: more old people means a higher death rate in Lombardy and overburdened hospitals probably raised the Italian CFR higher than the German CFR. I have my doubts about the Gangelt numbers--mainly because it's hard to square the previously infected: currently infected ratio with other information on the course of the disease.
  38. @GalenMD
    Infections on cruise ships are common.

    See article titled:
    "A large outbreak of influenza A and B on a cruise ship causing widespread morbidity"

    In September 2000 an outbreak of influenza-like illness was reported on a cruise ship sailing between Sydney and Noumea with over 1,100 passengers and 400 crew on board. Laboratory testing of passengers and crew indicated that both influenza A and B had been circulating on the ship. The cruise coincided with the peak influenza period in Sydney. Morbidity was high with 40 passengers hospitalized, two of whom died. A questionnaire was sent to passengers 3 weeks after the cruise and 836 of 1,119 (75%) responded. A total of 310 passengers (37%) reported suffering from an influenza-like illness (defined as cough, fever, myalgia and weakness) and 528 (63%) had seen a doctor for illness related to the cruise. One-third of passengers reported receipt of influenza vaccination in 2000; however neither their rates of influenza-like illness nor hospitalization were significantly different from those in unvaccinated passengers. A case-control study also found no significant protective effect of influenza vaccination. With the increasing popularity of cruise vacations, such outbreaks are likely to affect increasing numbers of people. Whilst influenza vaccination of passengers and crew may afford some protection, uptake and effectiveness may not be sufficient to prevent outbreaks. Surveillance systems and early intervention measures, such as antiviral therapies, should be considered to detect and control such outbreaks.


    Not only is the hysteria/quarantine unjustified, the proposed solution of a vaccine is highly unlikely to work.

    Has anyone done a study of mortality attributable to cruises?

  39. @Daniel Williams
    But how can you put a price on some eighty-year-old with three or four other serious illnesses’s final weeks?

    The Feds do: 10MM per life saved, though not by years of life saved.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-value-of-life/

    So, at a .25% death rate, we would lose 800k people in the USA, worth 8 trillion according to the government. If we lose only 160k people, we’ve spent too much on the regulation to justify 4 trillion in expenses.

  40. @utu
    "we saw from the Diamond Princess–is something around 0.5%" - I see people keep repeating the 0.5% number for Diamond Princess. Where did it come form?

    Here the death rate among the infected is at 1.3%.

    https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912e3.htm
    Among 3,711 Diamond Princess passengers and crew, 712 (19.2%) had positive test results for SARS-CoV-2 (Figure 1). Of these, 331 (46.5%) were asymptomatic at the time of testing. Among 381 symptomatic patients, 37 (9.7%) required intensive care, and nine (1.3%) died.
     
    And almost everybody was tested 3,063 out of 3,711 as of Feb 20.
    https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.10.2000180

    “we saw from the Diamond Princess–is something around 0.5%” – I see people keep repeating the 0.5% number for Diamond Princess. Where did it come form?

    Age adjustment.

    The Diamond Princess is a cruise ship. I.e. it was full of old people. You can pull up the age distribution yourself but simplified there is one peak of 30-something (presumably young married couples) and then most of the boat is old people with the peak in the 70s somewhere. There’s smattering of kids–tagging along with the young marrieds–and basically zero teenagers.

    This is not the population of the US–nor any nation. To be fair, cruise passengers are generally not at deaths door, so healthier than the average for their age. But age is the butt kicker with this virus. Everyone who has died is old–the youngest is 60 something. None–zero–of the–much younger–crew has died.

    The US population is only 16% >65. To use the Diamond Princess to make a case fatality rate for the US you must age adjust. And given the age skew on the Diamond Princess and the extreme age skew of this virus’s fatalities that whacks the IFR roughly in half.

    ~~

    BTW, you have to do this analysis if you’re going to extrapolate from Italy to the US. Italy is a much older place. 65+ are 22% there versus 16% here. And in extreme elderly–those worst hit by corona-chan, it’s even more skewed. (We didn’t birth a lot of people during the great depression and have taken in a lot more immigrants reducing their relative weight.)

    I speculate that another big factor in Italy is inter-generational households creating spread to elderly with big viral loads they could not recover from. But even that aside the age skew issue is huge. Whack roughly 1/3 off their death rate to get in the ballpark age wise for the US.

    Of course there may be other factors that pump the US back up. “Diversity”. Weight and diabetes. Or deflate it back down–less crowded, more suburban. So i’m not claiming just adjust for age and you’re done. But you have to do that just to start the comparisons.

    • Replies: @Sparkon

    The Diamond Princess is a cruise ship. I.e. it was full of old people. You can pull up the age distribution yourself but simplified there is one peak of 30-something
     
    According to its Wikipedia article, the Diamond Princess had about 1,100 crew among the 3,711 on the cruise ship while it was under quarantine outside Yokohama, so about 30% of those people onboard the vessel were presumably healthy adults in the prime of life.

    Previously I had read a study focused on the infection rate just among the crew, but I can't find it now, nor can I remember the number.

    In an article dated Feb. 25, Science magazine reported


    eight public servants who worked on the ship to support the quarantine have tested positive for COVID-19, and more may follow. Most of the roughly 90 health ministry employees who visited the ship during the first 2-week quarantine that ended on 19 February initially returned to their normal work duties, but in light of the infections, the health ministry yesterday revised its policy...
     
    https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/02/coronavirus-infections-keep-mounting-after-cruise-ship-fiasco-japan

    There are potentially a number of environmental factors that make comparisons between infection rates in different localities tilt toward the apples and oranges variety. You can do it, but the results probably will be flavored by local conditions, like comparing New York with California.

  41. I started writing this as a reply to Hail on the “German Scientists” thread, but I’ll post it here.

    Hail wrote

    The most important thing about the Streeck et al study is that it reconfirms again the non-government, dissident-experts’ consensus of 0.1% as the upper-bound death rate from this coronavirus strain; whatever the true figure is, and it looks to lie between 0.01% and 0.1% with a best-bet being closer to 0.01%…

    To contrast with Gangelt, here is some cocktail-napkin calculations on the NY Metro area.

    tl;dr conclusions: For the NY Metro area, assuming an incubation period of 2.5 weeks:
    * A CFR of 1% implies that 4.4% of residents were infected circa 3/24/20
    * A flu-like CFR of 0.1% implies 44% of residents were infected
    * A CFR of 1% or a little higher seems to make the most sense for the NY mortality data, taking the Streeck study’s findings into account.

    [MORE]

    The NYC Metro area leads the US in Covid-19 confirmed cases and reported deaths. The best compilation I found was at Buzzfeed, These Charts And Maps Show How The Coronavirus Outbreak Is Affecting Your Nearest US City. It’s dated April 4, but the table (“Search the data for your nearest city”) is updated. To verify, I checked Americus, GA, which at this writing lists 10 deaths. This Friday (4/10/20) evening story in the Americus Times-Recorder lists 9 deaths.

    At this writing, Buzzfeed lists the NY Metro area population as 19.2 million, with 8,411 Covid-19 deaths.

    I have to get from cumulative deaths to most-recent-week (Week 15 ends today) deaths.

    Using NY State as a proxy: JHU’s tally (via 91-DIVOC) of recorded Covid-19 deaths shows the first week of deaths (Week 12) with 57 deaths. Then Week 13 was 668, and Week 14 was 2,837. Week 15 numbers (assuming today is the same as yesterday) are 594, 539, 791, 779, 799, 800, 800, or 5,102 total.

    So Week 13 contains 668/8,664 = 8% of NYS deaths.
    So Week 14 contains 2,837/8,664 = 33% of NYS deaths.
    The just-ending Week 15 contains 5,102/8,664 = 59% of NYS deaths.

    Applying that to the NY Metro figures gives:
    670 deaths during Week 13 (formula is 8,411 * 8%)
    2,780 deaths during Week 14
    4,960 deaths during Week 15

    If the true CFR is 1%, figuring cumulative numbers of NY Metro people infected:
    circa 3/10/20 (31 days ago) it was 670/0.01 = 67,000. That’s 0.3% of all people
    circa 3/17/20 (24 days ago) it was 280,000+67,000 = 350,000. That’s 1.8% of all people
    circa 3/24/20 (17 days ago) it was 500,000+350,000 = 850,000. That’s 4.4% of all people

    If the true CFR is 0.1%:
    circa 3/10/20 it was 670,000. That’s 3% of all people
    circa 3/17/20 it was 3.5 million. That’s 18% of all people
    circa 3/24/20 it was 8.5 million. That’s 44% of all people

    If the true CFR is 0.01%:
    circa 3/10/20 it was 6.7 million. That’s 30% of all people
    circa 3/17/20 it was 35 million. That’s 180% of all people
    circa 3/24/20 it was 85 million. That’s 440% of all people

    – – – – – –

    Circling back to Streeck’s study. He recently (~April 6th?) found 2% of his Gangelt sample were currently infected, and about 14% were positive for a history of infection. At this writing, Gangelt’s region of Heinsberg (population 46,000) has 46 Covid-19 deaths recorded.

    Heinsberg — 46/46,000 = 0.1%
    NY Metro — 8,411/19.2 million = 0.04%

    Heinsberg is thus about twice as hard-hit as the NY Metro area.
    Heinsberg had a cumulative infection rate of about 15%, around 4/6/20.

    Eyeballing the NY Metro figures above: A CFR estimate of 1% gave a cumulative infection estimate of about 4.4% around 3/24/20. That’s a pretty good order-of-magnitude match to the Gangelt findings.

    I conclude that the SARS-CoV-2 virus’ CFR is likely to be in the range of 1% to 2%.

  42. @AnotherDad


    “we saw from the Diamond Princess–is something around 0.5%” – I see people keep repeating the 0.5% number for Diamond Princess. Where did it come form?
     
    Age adjustment.

    The Diamond Princess is a cruise ship. I.e. it was full of old people. You can pull up the age distribution yourself but simplified there is one peak of 30-something (presumably young married couples) and then most of the boat is old people with the peak in the 70s somewhere. There's smattering of kids--tagging along with the young marrieds--and basically zero teenagers.

    This is not the population of the US--nor any nation. To be fair, cruise passengers are generally not at deaths door, so healthier than the average for their age. But age is the butt kicker with this virus. Everyone who has died is old--the youngest is 60 something. None--zero--of the--much younger--crew has died.

    The US population is only 16% >65. To use the Diamond Princess to make a case fatality rate for the US you must age adjust. And given the age skew on the Diamond Princess and the extreme age skew of this virus's fatalities that whacks the IFR roughly in half.

    ~~

    BTW, you have to do this analysis if you're going to extrapolate from Italy to the US. Italy is a much older place. 65+ are 22% there versus 16% here. And in extreme elderly--those worst hit by corona-chan, it's even more skewed. (We didn't birth a lot of people during the great depression and have taken in a lot more immigrants reducing their relative weight.)

    I speculate that another big factor in Italy is inter-generational households creating spread to elderly with big viral loads they could not recover from. But even that aside the age skew issue is huge. Whack roughly 1/3 off their death rate to get in the ballpark age wise for the US.

    Of course there may be other factors that pump the US back up. "Diversity". Weight and diabetes. Or deflate it back down--less crowded, more suburban. So i'm not claiming just adjust for age and you're done. But you have to do that just to start the comparisons.

    The Diamond Princess is a cruise ship. I.e. it was full of old people. You can pull up the age distribution yourself but simplified there is one peak of 30-something

    According to its Wikipedia article, the Diamond Princess had about 1,100 crew among the 3,711 on the cruise ship while it was under quarantine outside Yokohama, so about 30% of those people onboard the vessel were presumably healthy adults in the prime of life.

    Previously I had read a study focused on the infection rate just among the crew, but I can’t find it now, nor can I remember the number.

    In an article dated Feb. 25, Science magazine reported

    eight public servants who worked on the ship to support the quarantine have tested positive for COVID-19, and more may follow. Most of the roughly 90 health ministry employees who visited the ship during the first 2-week quarantine that ended on 19 February initially returned to their normal work duties, but in light of the infections, the health ministry yesterday revised its policy…

    https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/02/coronavirus-infections-keep-mounting-after-cruise-ship-fiasco-japan

    There are potentially a number of environmental factors that make comparisons between infection rates in different localities tilt toward the apples and oranges variety. You can do it, but the results probably will be flavored by local conditions, like comparing New York with California.

  43. @Steve Sailer
    But we have the figures for Bergamo province of 1 million people, and about 5 times as many people died in March 2020 as in the average March. New York City is about double the usual death rate and 1.5 times the death rate in September 2001.

    Italy’s epicenter, Lombardy, has reported about 10,000 Covid deaths. Its population is about 10 million. If Covid deaths are 3 times the reported and verified number, then 0.3% of the entire population of Lombardy has died of Covid in the last 6 weeks. Reported daily deaths continue, but are down to about 200 from a peak of 550. How much of that decline is real and how much of any real decline is due to lockdown vs herd immunity? No one yet knows, but if the Gangelt study is accurate then some may claim that they are most of the way through to herd immunity. Two problems with that: more old people means a higher death rate in Lombardy and overburdened hospitals probably raised the Italian CFR higher than the German CFR. I have my doubts about the Gangelt numbers–mainly because it’s hard to square the previously infected: currently infected ratio with other information on the course of the disease.

  44. 0.37% infected died means 1 in 270 died. Did they identify 270 infected?

  45. @Gen X Ruined America

    Given the extremely contagious nature of the Coronavirus, without strong government action I think there’s a pretty good chance it would have spread across the entire country, probably infecting something like 200M. That suggests a million deaths, even if the health system didn’t collapse.
     
    Nope. Sweden and Brazil have similar outcomes to the US and they didn't close their economies down.

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/04/update-data-shows-us-efforts-combat-china-coronavirus-crushed-economy-brazil-sweden-similar-fatality-numbers-open-economies/

    Sweden and Brazil have similar outcomes to the US and they didn’t close their economies down.

    By letting the virus run its course, more or less unabated, they may also get to herd immunity much sooner than we do. As I noted somewhere else, “flattening the curve” also means “lengthening the curve.”

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
How a Young Syndicate Lawyer from Chicago Earned a Fortune Looting the Property of the Japanese-Americans, then Lived...
Becker update V1.3.2