The median age thing could be an observation bias, which should be be examined dispassionately and objectively if we are going to be scientific...... use the S in CEPS
There are clear confounding factors, younger people with covid on average spend longer in hospital recovering than older people who are often sicker and die more quickly and often. Mean time to outcome is longer in younger patients. If you look at in-patients at any time there are at first sight a surprising number of younger people but when you work it out it is less surprising, they have been there longer, have overall milder symptoms and they usually go on to recover. Dead people are not left on gurneys in the corridors. A higher proportion older people end up in high dependency which hospital coronatourists don't get to see. So what coronatourists see is the subset of people who are too sick to be discharged but not sick enough to be high dependency or critical care...and that is the younger subset.
Of course the younger people out in the community who are never sick enough to admit, you don't see them at all and there are lots of them.
The other factor is that the covid hospitalized younger people <60 disproportionately are less healthy than the general population, they have a biological age much greater than their chronological age, brutally fewer of them will see old age corona or no corona.
How many morbidly obese seniors are there? very few because those people die before they become old.
If your BMI is over 40 (morbidly obese) then you have 3.8x higher risk of ending up in critical care with covid if your BMI is 30-40 (obese) then the risk is 1.28x but if your BMI is merely overweight at 25-30 the risk is reduced to 0.75x
2015 and 2017 seasonal flu was more visually disturbing because that was disproportionately younger and fitter people hit harder, but overall both were milder than corona, causing significant bed demand from people who were not sick enough to require critical care but who were too sick to discharge.
Until you check for bias and confounders and try to remove them what you see might not be real.
This COVID thing is a very weird viral syndrome.
CFR and hospitalization rate for Covid aligns closely with hospitalization and all causes mortality rate by age in recent times. That makes it either the weirdest fucking viral disease ever seen based on who it kills and hospitalizes, or maybe all is not what it seems.....
There are relatively few deaths below 60, but the age-stratified risk of death following a coronavirus positive test result for the over 60s is easy to calculate
Based on 700 000+ people with positive tests, dead is dead within 28 days of a positive test. This is the pseudo CFR of positive testing people and includes people who died
with coronavirus not of coronavirus.
60-69 Covid CFR = 0.97% historic annual (all causes) mortality rate =0.6%-2% Mid 1.3% (strong age skew)
70-79 Covid CFR 3.78% annual mortality = 2% - 5.5% Mid 3.7%
80+ Covid CFR 12.61% annual mortality = 5.5%- 15% Mid 10.5% (small sample skew in CFR)
30-59 CFR is 0.12% which is also pretty close to the all causes mortality for the group and is concentrated in the older 50-59 group where it is 0.24% which.....is almost exactly in line with annual all causes mortality for 50-59 year olds...... There is a clear pattern here
FWIW annual risk of death goes up predictably from 5 years old, roughly 3-4 fold per decade til 90s where it is still less than 50%.
In this study of people in the community with coronavirus positives tests
, the 30+ years old CFR is 0.3% and for 5-30 years it is lower still.
It is reasonable to say the
whole population 28 day CFR for people in the community testing positive for coronavirus is less than 0.3%
The infection fatality rate IFR which is much more important. It includes recovered people who were not tested is likely much lower than the CFR but is still one year on the IFR is an unknown number, it can be estimated.
for those that want to read the paper
Objective To establish whether there is any change in mortality from infection with a new variant of SARS-CoV-2, designated a variant of concern (VOC-202012/1) in December 2020, compared with circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants. Design Matched cohort study. Setting Community based (pillar 2)...
dx.doi.org
Clearly almost all the risk is in the the older groups, who are pretty much getting vaccinated and with that almost all the risk is reduced so long as the vaccines actually work. So what the hell are people doing? If scared younger people people want to run around double masking or getting vaccinated whatever that is fine, it doesn't make much difference to their absolute risk but that is their choice.
The big question is how can the CFR be claimed to be 2% on a population basis when looking at the other way following people subsequent to a positive test gives a CFR is 8 times lower. One of these numbers is wrong, someone is lying or there is a serious problem in the hospitals and long term care facilities, take your pick.
stats can be dangerous if misused with an agenda......
If you make some guesses and do the Hazard Ratio calculation for being a Bluelight user and it doesn't look good.
There are approx 20k active registered BL users at any one time there are >100 deaths in the shrine covering the last 10 years, >10 per year, >1 in 2000 of the active population, the average age of BL users is 20-30 so
being a BL member is associated with at least a 5 times higher than expected mortality. The MFR member fatality rate for BL members is >0.05% per year. The situation could worse than that because not all the Bluelighters who die end up being mentioned in the shrine.
Using the Covidian logic then we should ban Bluelight because it associated with hugely increased mortality rate. Better safe than sorry, can't be too careful the numbers don't lie, follow the science.....