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.

This is worth watching I think because there are reasonably balanced people on both sides of the vaccination debate. None of them are coming across as hysterical. The doctor that I mentioned stated that his impression of what the disease can do has changed over time.

fact checking sources
I sort of lose interest when people are relying on self appointed fact checkers.

At the beginning of the pandemic, the scientists advising the government were saying that this was mostly a disease that adversely affects old people.

The reality is more complex. Sometimes people appear to have a mild illness but they end up dying. I don't live in fear of covid. But I see a lot of people trying to argue that we don't need to vaccinate and that the vaccine is experimental. I think this is misguided.

I live in an area that has been less affected by covid than most places but I keep hearing about people in their 30s and 40s (only now) being admitted to ICU. This is not the media, it's from people I know working in the hospital. One man in his early 40s died, leaving behind 2 children.

Because it's a new illness, the information about it is changing. To say the survival rate is 99.6% is no longer correct is it?

At the beginning of the pandemic, the scientists advising the government were saying that this was mostly a disease that adversely affects old people.

Which is true. 'Mostly' does not equaly 'exclusively'.

Sometimes people appear to have a mild illness but they end up dying.

Really? What's your source for this? And in % terms, how frequent is it?

To say the survival rate is 99.6% is no longer correct is it?

Perhaps not. It could be lower, it could be higher. And of course there are many variables to take into account. The (unsupported) comments of a random American doctor don't provide much evidence one way or the other.

Goes to show how dangerous statistics can be!

Not only do they vary according to the source's intent, but they also vary according to the data used, and they rarely predict anything directly relevant to you as an individual.

View statistics with extreme caution.

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

Some unintended irony here I think.

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

The key part here is "That he sees". If he is an ITU doctor, he is going to be seeing the sickest patients in a concentrated area (globally). It's a good starting point, but isn't a research study.

@MurielSpriggs

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

Some unintended irony here I think.

So you think the 99.6% claim is still correct? Because that's not what the statistics say.

I'm not looking for confirmation bias. I was skeptical at the beginning of the pandemic.

I'm also not terrified of dying. But I think the vaccination programme is the only thing that can realistically stop further lockdowns.

The key part here is "That he sees". If he is an ITU doctor, he is going to be seeing the sickest patients in a concentrated area (globally). It's a good starting point, but isn't a research study.

I agree. My point has been that 99.6 doesn't appear to be accurate any more. If anyone has research that shows otherwise though I'm happy to stand corrected.

This is not the media, it's from people I know working in the hospital. One man in his early 40s died, leaving behind 2 children.

This is called anecdotal it isn't facts.

It’s like me saying I’m a criminal lawyer and 90% of my clients break the law. You can’t conclude from that that 90% of people overall break the law. I might have real life experience of people breaking the law but that doesn’t qualify me to talk about the prevalence of law breaking in society.

Likewise the fact that some healthy 30 year olds die of covid only tells you that there is some risk of death for a healthy 30 year old. It does nothing to quantify that risk. In fact we know that the risk to a healthy 30 year old is tiny. I worked out that for me the risk of giving birth was significantly higher both in terms of risk of death and of long term complications.

@Againstmachine

This is not the media, it's from people I know working in the hospital. One man in his early 40s died, leaving behind 2 children.

This is called anecdotal it isn't facts.

That doesn't mean it isn't true though does it?

So you think the 99.6% claim is still correct? Because that's not what the statistics say.

Could you link to these 'statistics'?

It might be true in that incidance but not true overall.

Either way, the survival rate is very high. 99% or 98% is really not that different in the grand scheme of things is it?

2% would be a terrifyingly high death rate by the standards of developed nations in the twenty first century. 1% is only half as much but still really scary. But actually, as we've been explicitly told all along, the problem is not the death rates but the hospitalisation rates. If you let this disease run freely through an unvaccinated population then your health system collapses.

but it is incorrect.

No one knows exactly what the infection fatality rate is because we don’t have universal testing.
But 0.4% is a more reasonable an estimate that 1-3%. So it’s you who is barking up the wrong tree , suffering from “confirmation bias”, I’m afraid OP.

2% would be a terrifyingly high death rate by the standards of developed nations in the twenty first century.

The problem is society is obsessed with death.

People die that is life, and old people especially die. I'm not in gleee over it but if it wasn't covid it would be flu

97-99%??

97% is 1 in 33 people dying of covid seem reasonable assessment to you? 98% is 1 in 50, look around you - does that seem likely to you?

My point has been that 99.6 doesn't appear to be accurate any more. If anyone has research that shows otherwise though I'm happy to stand corrected.

OP I posted such a link on the first page. Do you have a link to a study which shows a higher rate?

The stat I read at the outset was 97% of the population will survive covid. (For comparison flu is just under 1%)

I assume that it's the vax has changed that stat in the uk.

We are now projected to have around 30-40k deaths each year from covid. In a population of 65 million that is about .046% - .061%

Surely vaccination reduces the risk substantially compared to the pre-vaccination fatality rate.... and any discussion needs make reference to that.

Meh. The chances of becoming seriously ill or dying of covid (unless you are elderly or have other serious health conditions) is very, very low. At this juncture it certainly isn't worth the hysteria I keep seeing on these forums - perfectly healthy people too anxious to leave their houses. The media have a lot to answer for...!

Exactly, Warhertisuff.

the most quoted CFRs were based on first infection across entire population.
Now the first infection is 2 vaccine doses, safe, and especially high uptake among the most vulnerable groups.

So what is the CFR if one had 2 vaccine doses in last 6months?
Bound to be very small CFR in that situation.