• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

NYC Reporting 6 new Deaths: City Total at 38

Re: NYC Reporting 6 new Deaths: City Total at 38

wotan that is pretty scary.

NYC has this as a disclaimer under their fatality report:

** Preliminary data on underlying medical conditions shows that most of the decedents had one or more established underlying risk factors for developing severe influenza or complications.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you can do with that on your graph, it's a pretty vague statement.




Or how about this one:

? In the 6/23 report, one death, in the 5-24 year old age group, had previously been reported as occurring in the 0-4 age group. This was a misclassification and has been corrected in the current table.
Click to expand...

Their reporting is so vague they're even confusing themselves now.
:rolleyes:
 
Re: NYC Reporting 6 new Deaths: City Total at 38

Without details it is a meaningless statement. I will continue using me methodology.

If there are real underlying conditions they can release information without compromising confidentiality.
 
Re: NYC Reporting 6 new Deaths: City Total at 38

wotan said:
If there are real underlying conditions they can release information without compromising confidentiality.
Click to expand...

I agree. Seems like the confidentiality laws are being used to protect the health officials, not the patients.
 
Re: NYC Reporting 6 new Deaths: City Total at 38

Looking at that graph, I think I have an idea about what happened. The first deaths were in people with underlying conditions because the virus killed them faster than the "healthy" group. Since the number of cases is growing exponentially, there are still a lot more people dying with underlying conditions, but for every one of those deaths, there are maybe 2-3 "healthy" people still sitting in the ICU whose prognosis is grim.

The problem is that to establish a true CFR, you need to randomly look at the outcome of a large number of cases. Say we pick 1000 people who were confirmed to have the virus in early May. By May 15, 3 had died and they respectively had cancer, AIDS, and Asthma. At that point, it is fair to say that people with health conditions are at highest risk, but of the 1000 cases, 47 are still in hospital while 950 have recovered. By June 1, there have been 3 more deaths and two of them have underlying conditions, while 25 of the hospitalized cases have recovered. By June 15, 3 more deaths and none of those had underlying conditions, while 10 recovered. Buy June 30, 5 more deaths, all healthy people while 1 recovers.

In this scenario, 5 deaths per thousand had underlying conditions while 9 deaths per thousand were healthy and when compared to the overall population in which a third of people have underlying health conditions there is no significant correlation.

By the end of June there are so many new cases due to exponential growth where the people dying have underlying conditions that the healthy deaths don't show up in the stats.

But because it takes longer for the healthy people to die and for the results of the CFR study to be tallied, public health people don't have studies to go by and just look at the deaths vs. cases numbers and come up with the underlying conditions statements.
 
Re: NYC Reporting 6 new Deaths: City Total at 38

blacknail said:
Looking at that graph, I think I have an idea about what happened. The first deaths were in people with underlying conditions because the virus killed them faster than the "healthy" group. Since the number of cases is growing exponentially, there are still a lot more people dying with underlying conditions, but for every one of those deaths, there are maybe 2-3 "healthy" people still sitting in the ICU whose prognosis is grim.

The problem is that to establish a true CFR, you need to randomly look at the outcome of a large number of cases. Say we pick 1000 people who were confirmed to have the virus in early May. By May 15, 3 had died and they respectively had cancer, AIDS, and Asthma. At that point, it is fair to say that people with health conditions are at highest risk, but of the 1000 cases, 47 are still in hospital while 950 have recovered. By June 1, there have been 3 more deaths and two of them have underlying conditions, while 25 of the hospitalized cases have recovered. By June 15, 3 more deaths and none of those had underlying conditions, while 10 recovered. Buy June 30, 5 more deaths, all healthy people while 1 recovers.

In this scenario, 5 deaths per thousand had underlying conditions while 9 deaths per thousand were healthy and when compared to the overall population in which a third of people have underlying health conditions there is no significant correlation.

By the end of June there are so many new cases due to exponential growth where the people dying have underlying conditions that the healthy deaths don't show up in the stats.

But because it takes longer for the healthy people to die and for the results of the CFR study to be tallied, public health people don't have studies to go by and just look at the deaths vs. cases numbers and come up with the underlying conditions statements.
Click to expand...


Do we know that it takes longer for healthy people to die?
 
Re: NYC Reporting 6 new Deaths: City Total at 38

from post #2
And with them added I am just under 51% of US deaths having no announced underlying conditions.
Click to expand...
How are the women with pregnancy counted?
 
Re: NYC Reporting 6 new Deaths: City Total at 38

colormyquilt said:
Do we know that it takes longer for healthy people to die?
Click to expand...

In the absence of critical care my expectation is healthy people will die faster. The cytokine storm (since that's what it seems is happening in some cases) seems to strike and kill quickly.
 
Re: NYC Reporting 6 new Deaths: City Total at 38

Thornton said:
from post #2

How are the women with pregnancy counted?
Click to expand...

For my purposes pregnancy is classified as an underlying condition. As far as the baby goes, well, I won't interject my personal believes. I don't believe any of these deaths include a miscarriage or subsequent death of a prematurely delivered baby. My numbers should be +/- 1 within appleblossom's numbers, so whatever policy is used there will be reflected in my tracking.
 
Re: NYC Reporting 6 new Deaths: City Total at 38

I don't think that babies and old people would necessarily get infected more slowly, given the same level as exposure, and I think that babies, at least, probably would die faster than older children. I base that mainly on a few reports of babies or toddlers dying very quickly, and the observation that babies tend to get sick very intensely and get better quite quickly too, if they recover.

But I think that old people and babies are a slower population to get infected and get sick. Presumably the virus spreads like wild fire through school kids, then travels more slowly upward to parents (and downward to babies), then outward to other, mostly young or middle-aged adults, and finally to a smaller number of old people. That would explain why serious cases, hospitalizations and deaths can continue to increase while the general rate of infection decreases. Moreover, of course, for many people it takes a considerable amount of time between initial infection and hospitalization, and then between hospitalization and death.

For the new cases in New York, it was said that many became ill in May or early June. That's a big time lag between initial illness and reported death. If we only knew how many people were infected in New York by the end of May, we could have a much better idea of the fatality rate. (E.g. if 100,000 people in New York City were infected by June 1, and 30 have subsequently died, the fatality rate is at least 0.03%, but probably about double that, since many deaths have either not occurred yet, not been reported yet, or have not been and may never be identified.)
 
Re: NYC Reporting 6 new Deaths: City Total at 38

wotan, the Globe and Mail is backing you up:

Swine flu hits young, healthy adults hard

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/swine-flu-hitting-young-healthy-adults-hardest/article1203826/

...Nearly two-thirds of Canadians hospitalized due to swine flu, and half of those who have died, had no underlying health conditions.

Experts do not yet understand why the new strain affects some healthy people so severely, ravaging their lungs with an aggressive pneumonia and forcing them to spend weeks in hospital, attached to breathing machines.

"They are ending up on ventilators and it can last from weeks to months," ...
Click to expand...


and this

...According to the Public Health Agency of Canada, two-thirds of 94 hospitalized cases where information was available showed the patients were perfectly healthy before being admitted...
Click to expand...


So regardless of what NYC says about "underlying conditions" in their fatalities, other places have a large number of deaths occurring among previously healthy people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom