University of Miami says COVID infections in Miami-Dade could be 20x higher than official stats

Just the Nees ^ | April 25,2020 | By Daniel Payne

[Hojczyk]

Researchers at the University of Miami said this week that preliminary tests indicate as many as 221,000 residents of Miami-Dade County may have already been infected by the coronavirus, a rate 20 times greater than the current official tally of infections.

Scientists from the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the university's Miller School of Medicine revealed in a virtual meeting on Friday that a county-wide COVID-19 survey, which followed 1,400 participants over a two-week period, indicated that at least 4.4 percent, and as much as 7.9 percent of the county, could have already contracted the coronavirus.

That is a substantially larger number than the official data set logged by the state of Florida, which on Saturday afternoon had recorded just over 11,000 infections in Miami-Dade County, far and away the most out of any county in the state. Miami-Dade is the most populous county in Florida, with over 2.6 million residents.

The new numbers would also significantly drive down the county's COVID-19 fatality rate, which with 295 deaths officially stands at around two percent. At the upper bound of the researchers' new estimates, the death rate would fall to around 0.1 percent, roughly in line with that of the seasonal flu.

[ClearCase_guy]

Everybody has had it. A tiny, tiny percentage of victims had a bad outcome.

[Mom MD]

other studies would indicate its more like 55-85 times the number of cases reported

[Flick Lives]

The new numbers would also significantly drive down the county’s COVID-19 fatality rate, which with 295 deaths officially stands at around two percent. At the upper bound of the researchers’ new estimates, the death rate would fall to around 0.1 percent, roughly in line with that of the seasonal flu.

—

The saving grace of this incessant yammering for testing is it is going to help prove out the actual infection rate in the population, which is going to show as with this study, a dramatically lower mortality rate.

Watch for the MSM to then pivot 180° from screaming for “more testing” to screaming “why did you overreact and shut everything down”.

[exDemMom]

If they are using the same methodology as the Stanford study, then their estimates are wildly inflated.

This is still cold season. Coronaviruses are responsible for roughly 1/5 of colds. How do we know they are picking up Covid-19 specifically, rather than coronavirus in general? Are they showing that these people had detectable virus, or are they using antibody dip sticks?

[elpadre]

and the University of Miami “may be” wrong!

[Czech_Occidentalist]

Not in my country. In the Czech Republic, staff and clients at care homes (about 13,000 people) were tested for antibodies. 38 of them had antibodies, which is approximately 0.3%. The population of my country is about 10 million people and we have about 7,000 reported cases, which is 0.07% of the population. It would mean that the real number of exposed people is 4-5 times the number of reported cases.

Another testing of 27,000 people is underway, and we should know the results in early May.

[allwrong57]

I’d say they both are closer to being accurate than the millions dead forecasts we got from the govt CDC.

[treetopsandroofs]

Big Media decided on “20x” rather than 50x or 75x so they wouldn’t be accused of fear-mongering.

[Mouton]

The over all rate for Florida for testing positive came in at 9.2% last night, in total. Headline this AM, Deaths rise to 1055.

Looking at the numbers, the death rate of those who test positive is 3% (1055/30839). That is a rate of 3 of each 100 testing positive from a universe of individuals who had symptoms and comorbitity issues. This rate has been dropping of late. 1055 represents about 005% of the entire population of the state. IOW, you have almost an equal chance of hitting the state lottery. Lastly, the rate of positive tests shows the proportion of those testing positive now is dropping.

Unfortunately the naysayers want the number of new cases to drop to zero before they feel safe. At that point, it will be we don't feel safe as a second round could come at any time. So, unless we plan on keeping the country closed till the end of time, we better plan to protect those deemed most vulnerable (nursing homes, in hospitals or severe comorbitity) as best as possible. The rest can stay home if they deem it is in their best interest, just not on my dime.

[jeffc]

Scare-mongering. The official tally is confirmed cases only. Anyone can barf up projection numbers...

[Grampa Dave]

At that point, it will be we don't feel safe as a second round could come at any time. So, unless we plan on keeping the country closed till the end of time, we better plan to protect those deemed most vulnerable (nursing homes, in hospitals or severe comorbidity) as best as possible. The rest can stay home if they deem it is in their best interest, just not on my dime.

jazminerose: "Because I do this sort of thing, I looked up some definitions, using a disease prevention context.

You cannot *quarantine* healthy people.

You cannot *lockdown* healthy people.

The only word I found that fit our present situation is *internment*.

Thanks to HotHunt for the above great visual!

If people want to stay home, let them! NO ONE wants to force them to go out!

Easy - if you as a small business owner don’t feel safe - don’t open.*

Easy - If you as an individual don’t feel safe with things opening up - don’t go out.*

*PeteB570

[Grampa Dave]

At that point, it will be we don't feel safe as a second round could come at any time. So, unless we plan on keeping the country closed till the end of time, we better plan to protect those deemed most vulnerable (nursing homes, in hospitals or severe comorbidity) as best as possible. The rest can stay home if they deem it is in their best interest, just not on my dime.

jazminerose: "Because I do this sort of thing, I looked up some definitions, using a disease prevention context.

You cannot *quarantine* healthy people.

You cannot *lockdown* healthy people.

The only word I found that fit our present situation is *internment*.

Thanks to HotHunt for the above great visual!

If people want to stay home, let them! NO ONE wants to force them to go out!

Easy - if you as a small business owner don’t feel safe - don’t open.*

Easy - If you as an individual don’t feel safe with things opening up - don’t go out.*

*PeteB570

[null and void]

Everybody has had it. A tiny, tiny percentage of victims had a bad outcome.

If, for the first time in human history, we can count people who were never sick as part of the denominator, then it is a tiny, tiny percentage who are victims.

For the sake of accurate historical comparisons we should only count the overtly sick.

Going forward the Chinese Virus, with the ability to do PCR and antibody tests, will become the gold standard, looking back not so much.

Bring Out Your Dead

Post to me or FReep mail to be on/off the Bring Out Your Dead ping list.

The purpose of the “Bring Out Your Dead” ping list (formerly the “Ebola” ping list) is very early warning of emerging pandemics, as such it has a high false positive rate.

The false positive rate was 100%.

At some point we may well have a high mortality pandemic, and likely as not the “Bring Out Your Dead” threads will miss the beginning entirely.

*sigh* Such is life, and death...

If a quarantine saves just one child's or one old fart’s life, it's worth it.

[exDemMom]

The only study for which I have found details, the Stanford study, did not show that there is any prevalence of undiagnosed Covid-19 among the population. I know there was a lot of hoopla about that study, but the details of it just don’t support that conclusion.

If others are using the same methodology and coming up with the same conclusions, then I take it with a huge grain of salt.

As far as I know, no one has check cross-reactivity of the antibodies. This is a technical issue that can greatly skew the results. In addition, the way study participants were selected in the Stanford study (and maybe the other studies, I don’t know) would guarantee that people who suspect they were exposed would enroll at a much higher rate than other people. That, too, would skew results.

[Pearls Before Swine]

I wish these articles would specify two things:

1) What is the false positive rate of the test? Because, roughly speaking (there are more exact statistical adjustments theoretically), that number should be subtracted from the reported positives, and

2) How specific is the test for the current virus, SARS-COV2, or COVID-19? Does it pick up infection with other, less problematic corona viruses from the past?

[exDemMom]

Bah, I forgot to mention: the projections are based on if we do nothing to contain the spread. We have been implementing measures to contain the virus; the projections can therefore be revised downward. And if we stop the quarantines, we can expect the virus to spread freely and the projections to be revised upwards again.

It’s all based on risk assessment and mitigation measures.

[exDemMom]

You cannot *quarantine* healthy people.

You cannot *lockdown* healthy people.

Covid-19 is contagious before symptoms appear. How, then do you propose to prevent infected people from spreading the virus before they have symptoms?

So, unless we plan on keeping the country closed till the end of time, we better plan to protect those deemed most vulnerable (nursing homes, in hospitals or severe comorbidity) as best as possible.

How is this to be accomplished? Lock up everyone who has a comorbidity or is over a certain age? The only ways I can think of to "protect" those who are most vulnerable involve way more loss of freedoms than being required to wear a mask when shopping or having to order take out instead of eating at a restaurant. Do you think locking a diabetic person in a "safe space" for life is really a solution?

[fireman15]

Thanks Grampa Dave. The problem with mortality rates based on the testing done to determine if people currently have the disease is that the tests miss the vast majority of those who have been exposed.

My wife and I live in the part of the country which was the first place to have both recognized cases and recognized deaths from this form of coronavirus. It had already peaked in this area and was on the decline before our governor issued his “stay at home order”.

11 people on the fire department that I retired from tested positive a month ago, only 1 developed any symptoms but they may have been from his seasonal allergies. Two weeks later all tested negative. If they had not been firefighters none would have been tested at all, unless of course they were politicians or celebrities.

One of the safest bets you could make would be to wager that the mortality rate on this virus will eventually be shown to be no or barely worse than a typical flu bug. The problems arise in densely populated area where people are exposed to a much higher amount of virus on first contact by being in enclosed areas with sick people. And of course also any place with a large number of vulnerable people housed together.

[Mom MD]

It may have hit your country later than the US. the positive rate is significantly higher here