« The hospitals are being paid more for reporting "death by COVID." | Main | Polls lie. "Why We Shouldn’t Believe Polling About Trump" Lloyd Pettigrew »

18 July 2020


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


"That number has dropped for 12 straight weeks, down to 1,099 deaths reported by NCHS for the week ending Jul. 11."

Please. Between an infection and the death of the patient are around four weeks.

The number of US-wide infections have risen sice 15th of June, the death numbers are increasing since last week.



You are a very stubborn man. You wish to believe that the virus is running wild and so you do.


He should sign his full name: Til Ulenspiegel's Merry Pranks. Hat tip to composer Richard Strauss.

Memo to Merry Pranks: case rates and declining death rates prove this is not the Zombie Apocalyspe that the TDS media so fervently hoped for, and refuse to give up.

Eric Newhill

Chances of surviving COVID if you test positive

Female Age 0 - 49 (no serious underlying conditions) > 99.99
Female Age 50 - 59 (no serious underlying conditions) > 99.98
Female Age 60 - 69 (no serious underlying conditions) >99.95
Female Age 70 - 79 (no serious underlying conditions) >99.82
Female Age 80 and above (no serious underlying conditions) >98.9

Female Age 0 - 49 (serious underlying conditions) > 99.8
Female Age 50 - 59 (serious underlying conditions) > 99.3
Female Age 60 - 69 (serious underlying conditions) >99.7
Female Age 70 - 79 (serious underlying conditions) >99.6
Female Age 80 and above (serious underlying conditions) >92.8

Male Age 0 - 49 (no serious underlying conditions) > 99.99
Male Age 50 - 59 (no serious underlying conditions) > 99.98
Male Age 60 - 69 (no serious underlying conditions) >99.8
Male Age 70 - 79 (no serious underlying conditions) >99.5
Male Age 80 and above (no serious underlying conditions) >96.3

Male Age 0 - 49 (serious underlying conditions) > 99.6
Male Age 50 - 59 (serious underlying conditions) > 99.2
Male Age 60 - 69 (serious underlying conditions) >97.9
Male Age 70 - 79 (serious underlying conditions) >95.6
Male Age 80 and above (serious underlying conditions) >79.9


Eric Newhill



I a few weeks you will be eating your words as a side dish to crow. We have a lot of crows here in flyover territory. I am willing to send you one (I'll even gut and pluck it for you). I suggest you cook it low and slow.


A little perspective from a voice in the wilderness:

"There are nine million school age children in California, and not a single WITH-Covid death has occurred among them."

"you don’t need to take a single class in epidemiology to understand a core truth: That is, when the nearly 60 percent of the population under 45 years accounts for only 2.5 percent of the reported WITH-Covid deaths and has a rounding error mortality rate, while the 6.5 percent of the population 75 years and older accounts for 60 percent of the deaths—you don’t fight the disease with a one-size-fits all strategy of generic lockdowns, quarantines, and social regimentation."

Trump made a huge political blunder and he's still paying for it. Fauci should have been fired up front. Hopefully the DOJ will continue to investigate the communist Chinese connections amongst all the federal monies that were and are granted for research via NIH, CDC and other agencies and just who recieved what in return. I'm sure Harvard's big wig won't be the only fish to get caught.



OK. Send me documentation when it happens and not from the leftist media.


Reminder- this whole global scamdemic started with the Imperial College of Medicine Neil Ferguson, hair on fire we are all gonna die, predicted this "novel corona virus" would wipe millions of us off our mortal coil.

Then when this rocket British scientist was caught breaking quarantine with his AVAAZ director paramoor, we never heard from him again. Yet his sole threat threw the world into total panic.

Which should have pleased AVAAZ (and AVAAZ funder George Soros) greatly. And of course, who could forget the Great Toilet Paper Hoax - with origins such as this no wonder it took a while to get any perspective on this man-made Trump election year "crisis".

To think this was all unfolding only a few short months ago boggles the mind, looking over the path of associated destruction this scamdemic has left behind. How will history record this moment?

Somewhere between the Great Tulip Bubble and the Albanian Ponzi Racket?


Those death rates for the elderly do not match the rates I have seen.

Also, I am curious what percentage of the current infections are young or elderly. If primarily young, then we should expect low fatality rates. Unfortunately, the young spread infection to the elderly. Of course, many of the elderly are doing their best to avoid infection. Still we should expect an increasing infection rate of the elderly from the young and thus an increase in fatality rate.

Bill H

What, specifically, was the "huge political blunder" (presumably related to the corona virus) the Trump made, and how is he paying for it?

Was it locking down the economy? No, because he didn't do that. State governors did. So what was it? Specifically please.


The USA already is back to an 7-day average of a little over 700 deaths per day and it will likely peak at over 900 deaths/day by mid august, at least acordingly to one of the models with the best track record thus far:


On the other hand, treatment did get better, so the infection fatality rate will be lower now than when things went bad in New York.

Yeah, Right

"You wish to believe that the virus is running wild and so you do."

Pointing to the lower than predicted mortality rate is not the same thing as proving that the virus is under control in the USA.

It very clearly is not under control.

You can argue - as you are - that the lower than expected mortality rates means that you don't care that the disease is running wild. Fine, go ahead, it is a debatable point.

But that you don't care that the virus is running wild doesn't mean that it isn't running wild, because it very definitely is.


Yeah, right

My position is that the actual death rate of this disease is so low for productive members of society that it does not matter much if the disease culls the herd and that it is the panic and fear that are the real problem.

Eric Newhill

Sorry. I can't reveal the source. The figures will have be taken on faith; or not.

However, if it helps with your faith, consider that we are approaching 4 million tested and recorded cases in the US. Consider that most Americans 75 years of age or more have some kind of serious underlying condition (diabetes, cardio-vascular, obesity, pulmonary, oncological) and then consider that there are allegedly 140K deaths (though many of us - myself included - think that figure is artificially inflated), but lets go with it for now. Then look at my figures for chance of surviving; especially elderly and with underlying conditions. Back of the envelop, if 1 million or so of the tested and recorded cases are among the elderly, then it should put you right where we are. 140K dead and most of those elderly.

Eric Newhill

I stand by the figures I posted. This article should help confirm those figures. Special attention to the Lancet graph on hospitalization rates. It doesn't breakout the data as I did, but consider that in my figures 4.4% of males 70-79 with underlying conditions who contract the disease will die and 20.1% of those 80+ w/ underlying conditions who contract the disease will die. Think about how many Americans will have at least one underlying condition by the time they hit that age group. Reconcile what the link says about hospitalization rates by age and fatality rates. That should help you realize the correctness of my figures.




Data corruption is the easiest way to skew any study. When your data comes from an untestable model it becomes a game of garbage in, garbage out. Martin Armstrong posted an article with a link to the original British model few weeks back and I actually went and read the source code. Largely uncommented dreck that would put out whatever number you wanted by tweaking a few constants.

Now I'm reading that the CDC is merging the viral and antibody test results, which if true, would be a willful corruption of the data. Interestingly, I found that today at automaticearth (pretty lefty) which linked to an article at thehill (pretty righty).


Eric Newhill

OK, since you are in the health insurance bidness, I draw the obvious conclusion.


ZeroHedge claims "Trump's biggest mistake" is not firing Fauci and not being a 100% Monday Morning Quarterback on the prior Sunday.

Bummer, too bad Nancy Pelosi was dancing around in her skimpy impeachment cheerleader team outfit, at the same time. But no excuses, ZH says. Nor has Trump been making any excuses and the world still tries to sort this out.

ZH demands an all-seeing, all knowing, all-powerful, all-beneficent Daddy to be in sole charge. I guess Uncle Joe Biden, in the basement, is more to their liking and imperialistic persuasions.

ZEROHEDGE......."The key point, however, is that this whole unspeakable Lockdown Folly does not remotely stem from the “science”, as the MSM supporters of Fauci claim.

It’s just a hair-brained experiment in social control that happened because the Donald was too weak, ill-informed, distracted, and innumerate to send Fauci and his camarilla of doctors and vaccine-peddlers packing when the mid-March guidelines were first issued by the CDC.

Yes, the Donald’s political enemies in the ranks of big city mayors and Blue State governors have feasted upon the chum Fauci & Co have persistently tossed into the fetid waters of national politics, but that doesn’t let Trump off the hook.........."


"You are a very stubborn man. You wish to believe that the virus is running wild and so you do."

No, in contrast to you I understand that there is a delay between infection and death of about 4 weeks, and the now increasing deaths numbers indicate an increased infection rate for the last 4 weeks.

1) Do you really dispute this observation which BTW doas NOT depend on test strategy and levels?

2) I do not claim that the virsus is running wild, because the now much higher number of diagnosed cases MAY be a result of better testing. However, you will have for weeks now an elevated death count of 1000-1500 per day IMHO.

3) The opening of the US economy was a screw-up, if you are happy with the decisions of Trump it is ok for me, you pay.

4) Your problem is that a relativly high daily infection rate will cause real trouble in autum when the next flu season starts.



"We will see." I am quite aware of the four week gestation period but I think Eric Newhill's numbers are right and that there willl not be what I would consider a significant surge in deaths. This is a very big country and we have many, many people.


Deap wrot: "He should sign his full name: Til Ulenspiegel's Merry Pranks. Hat tip to composer Richard Strauss."

Look, when you cite then pleas correctly. :-)

The figure of Till Ulenspiegel is quite old the original version was quite rough/bawdy, not the sanetised version of the 19th century, that starts with the name:

Ulen can be either "owl" (symbol of wisdom or at least cleverness) or also mean "to wipe", Spiegel is either "mirror" or "ass".

The owl/mirror version is 19th century, the "wipe my ass" in the sense of kiss my ass is the original.

And always keep in mind that you are in trouble when a jester brings better scientific arguments than "serious" people. :-))

Eric Newhill

Your doomsday prediction is totally dependent on what demographic is becoming infected.

My understanding is that most of the surge in infections is among the younger people and they will not die; nor, for the most part, even require hospitalization. If they do require hospitalization the majority will not need a vent. That is why deaths are going down even as infections are going up.

The strategy should be to open the economy and protect the elderly/infirm. Both can be done. I think Florida's experience proves that. Anecdotally, one of my hobbies is playing guitar in a band. Our drummer is the chief dietician for a large nursing home. He hasn't been able to come out and play because he's trying to be responsible and not contract the virus and pass it along to the residents of the home. He gets mandatory tested once or twice a week as do the other staff. If someone tests positive, then they must stay home until they are clear. That is the model.

Something else, the most vulnerable have already died. So there is less "low hanging fruit" for the virus.

As Col. Lang notes, I work for one of the big healthcare insurance companies and I am in the data looking at cost drivers at the clinical level (what diagnoses, procedures, demographics, hospital systems, etc). I work exclusively on ACA (Obamacare) plans now. However, I still have contacts and access to tools/reports from my days in commercial employer group plans. As you might imagine the emergence of Covid was initially perceived a potentially massive threat to our bottom line, so it has been studied thoroughly. We just aren't seeing hospitalizations, let alone ICU/vent claims for Covid in our commercial/ACA populations. There are some showing up in our Medicare Advantage plans (that's Medicare sold and administered by private companies - about 33% of all Medicare), but even that is not a serious cost driver. There just isn't that much effect and those few effected were largely already costly due to their other conditions. Also, there are millions of members. Perspective is needed here. 140K dead sounds like a lot, but as the good Col. says, it is a big country.

What we have seen is a very significant decline in elective surgeries (as expected, since those were cancelled), but also hospitalizations for conditions that medically require hospitalizations. We are concerned about the lack of medically appropriate care being delivered for cardiac, diabetes, oncology, etc. We are also concerned about the lack of screenings this year. Screenings are diagnostic and preventive encounters. While all of that has been great for our bottom line, we are certain that it is all going to come back at us hard now that healthcare is opening up again and our members who delayed care are now in worse shape than if they had received it when they first needed it. When you talk about keeping the economy shut down, you are also talking about the healthcare system - and that has serious health consequences for many people; consequences that include chronic debilitation and death. Someone who needs an aortic stent, needs one now; not in four or five months. And, yes, that is one of the many important procedures that experienced a major decline in utilization because the hospitals were either converting to Covid only mode and/or because the members (patients) were made to be too afraid to leave their homes and venture into a medical setting.

Additionally, in the healthcare realm, psychiatric medication prescriptions are up 25% this year (I see that data myself). Drug ODs and alcohol poisonings are up. Admissions for suicide attempts have increased over prior years. So there is another very real negative impact that must be weighed against your recommended approach.

Telemedicine looks to me as though it is a poor substitute for actually sitting face to face with a medical team. I know of a situation where a 12 year old girl died because her doctor's office had closed due to Covid fears. She had a "stomach ache". The call in nurse line figured it was just something that would pass and basically recommended some warm milk and sleep. Well that doesn't cure appendicitis. That's just one example to illustrate. When you want things shut down, then you are also agreeing to accepting such casualties. Do you understand that?


Newsom says he's letting 8000 convicts out of prison, DeBlasio boasts of the numbers of criminals he's let out. Both these idiots want you wearing a mask all the time, couldn't they have just given the riff-raff a mask?

Yeah, Right

"My position is that the actual death rate of this disease is so low for productive members of society that it does not matter much if the disease culls the herd and that it is the panic and fear that are the real problem."

And that is a perfectly valid argument.

It is akin to Boris Johnson's "take it on the chin" argument before he had his epiphany, or Jair Bolsonaro's insistence that "it's only a cold".

Odd then that the three countries that look like they will take the worse economic hit are those led by Trump, Johnson and Bolsonaro.

Can't imagine why.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad