Covid does not have a 99.6% survival rate

[Anon778833]

A lot of people are going around with this incorrect notion and I think it's important to point out that it's not true.

It's not true here or in the US. I don't know about other countries.

I've just watched a current TV programme with an American doctor who oversees all the patients in ICU and he says that the survival rate is actually 97-99% and that he sees at least 30% of people with the infection go on to not really make a good recovery and to be stuck with long covid or other problems.

Was the Dr talking about the survival rate of the people he sees in the ICU or overall?
Because obviously a, lot of people who test positive, wont need to go hospital at all

If you have been unwell enough to be in ICU with any kind of illness then a large percentage will have ongoing problems.

Surely his stats will refer to 'of those hospitalised'. And of those hospitalised, AFAIR, most are covid cases complicated by one co-morbidity or more.

Source(s) for the stats you’ve mentioned?

coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality

[quote Itsnotover]coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality[/quote]
This link refers to the case fatality rate,which will be in the region you referred to in your OP. The infection fatality rate has been shown in many studies to be less than 1%

I'm not a scientist but does this study not show an infection mortality rate of 1% or less?
www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/estimating-mortality-from-covid-19

I've just watched a current TV programme with an American doctor who oversees all the patients in ICU and he says that the survival rate is actually 97-99% and that he sees at least 30% of people with the infection go on to not really make a good recovery and to be stuck with long covid or other problems.

Why is this doctor such an unimpeachable authority? Because he's on the telly? And as others have askd, is he basing his (unsourced) opinion from what he sees in ICU, or the broader figures? Given that the virus is often asymptomatic and that there are doubtless very many people who don't know they've even had it, it's an important question.

I was under the impression that statements such as x% mortality for any illness are too broadbrush as its just an average figure. Eg with covid people over 75 may have a mortality risk of 3% but someone of 30 may have a 0.25% mortality risk and it averages out over all age groups as say 2% meaning the 2% figure isn't terribly useful for anyone.

Perhaps a different argument than your original post OP but IMO you should always dig below the surface when statistics are being used.

You can't just look at the percentage of people who test positive who die. You need to consider the people with covid who don't test at all, many of whom are asymptomatic and therefore highly unlikely to die. Those who are mildly affected are probably also less likely to test whereas those who are hospitalised are almost certain to test.

You also need to consider whether the demographic which actually catches covid is representative of society. At least at the start of the first wave a person living in a care home or staying in hospital was probably more likely to be exposed to covid than other and because this demographic are more likely to die of covid you would get a scewed result if you based IFR on these cases.

There is now also the vaccine which very significantly lowers the risk of death and therefore the IFR.

An ICU doctor is not well placed to comment on IFR of covid across society though obviously they may be able to give anecdotal evidence of outcomes for covid patients who are admitted.

From what I've read a conservative estimate of IFR of covid in countries with an aging population (like the UK) as just under 1% prior to vaccination / initial infection but much lower in developing countries with younger populations (one study I read suggested 0.2% here). These studies may still underestimate asymptomatic infection though.

As we know, it is complex because a lot of people can have covid and not know that they've got it. Which would alter the figures significantly anyway.

But I think that some people are being far too dismissive. And a lot of people are looking for confirmation bias that the measures taken were unnecessary.

As for the rude 'is it because he was on the telly' comment. I don't think anyone should be dismissive of people who have first hand experience of the disease. Do you?

Because it's a new virus we just don't know much about how it will continue to play out either.

A random hospital doctor is not better placed to judge on IFR than the actual scientists studying the disease. Yes of course it’s going to be higher for hospitalised patients.

I am totally behind the drastic measures taken by most G20 governments but that doesn’t mean that we should exaggerate the lethality of this disease.

And yes the IFR will vary by population, age, vaccination status, increasing treatment sophistication, so it’s only of very limited use.

Most people aren't hospitalised so your statement about a random doctor doesn't make a lot of sense

As for the rude 'is it because he was on the telly' comment. I don't think anyone should be dismissive of people who have first hand experience of the disease. Do you?

Millions of people have 'first hand experience of the disease'. That doesn't make them statisticians.

Again, other than the fact that he was on TV, what exactly is it about this particular doctor that makes his unevidenced statement so unimpeachable?

Where did I say it was 'unimpeachable'? Just stop being pompous.

I know a lot of people who didn't know they had covid until it showed up on a lft. So if they hadn't been routinely testing, they would never have known they had it. There are thousands upon thousands of those people out there. That is why the infection fatality rate is generally agreed to be lower than in your OP.

I totally agree that a lot of people are too dismissive, but that isn't a defence for getting the figures wrong!

@Itsnotover

Where did I say it was 'unimpeachable'? Just stop being pompous.

You said that 'it's important to point out' that the 0.04% fatality rate is 'not true'. Pretty definitive statement.

The only support you gave for this is some American doctor on the telly.

So yes, it does appear that you consider him to be unimpeachable.

Are you trying to incite fear? What's the point of the post? It's incorrect for a start.

@Ellis989

I totally agree that a lot of people are too dismissive, but that isn't a defence for getting the figures wrong!

Exactly

@QueenofKattegat

Are you trying to incite fear? What's the point of the post? It's incorrect for a start.

It’s not ‘incorrect’ to say that 99.6% of people survive. fact checking sources are taking issue with this because it is causing people to not get vaccinated.

It’s not ‘incorrect’ to say that 99.6% of people survive

But you specicially said that it was indeed incorrect.

This is the FullFact fact checking versus the claim that the survival rate is 99.8%
fullfact.org/online/covid-19-survival-rate-less-998/
It puts the unvaccinated IFR for the UK at somewhere between 1.0% and 0.5% - somewhat higher than the 0.4% mentioned in your OP, but nowhere near 3%. For the world as a whole it would be lower, and it will have improved with medical advances. Not sure about the US which has a younger, though more obese and unequal population.

@IcedPurple

It’s not ‘incorrect’ to say that 99.6% of people survive

But you specicially said that it was indeed incorrect.

I meant it is incorrect