Deleted

[Drama Llama]

. . .

Edited October 26, 2021 by BaseballandHockey

[Annie G]

I wonder if his age is causing the results you’re seeing. I put my info in, female age 60, vaxxed, two low risk activities, etc., and it came back w a .59% chance of not surviving if I catch covid. But if I change only two things- I changed it to male, and my dad’s age, 89, and didn’t add his health issues…left the rest exactly the same…and the risk jumped to 8.2%  I don’t think the calculator is all that accurate- there are nuanced things they cannot take into account, such  as whether the people I’m around are vaccinated or not. 

I’d encourage you to ignore these kinds of ‘calculators’. You’re being careful, but you’re also anxious about your loved ones. That’s not a criticism- just saying that I don’t think the site is going to provide any benefit to you. 

[Drama Llama]

. . . 

Edited October 26, 2021 by BaseballandHockey

[Ailaena]

The number it gives you is not a percentage, it’s a risk score based on their calculations. The number is essentially meaningless unless you fully understand what they’re doing.  which I am apparently not in the headspace to do so rn 😛

near as I can tell, I cannot make sense of any numbers unless I put in two scenarios.  
 

“We wanted our tool to be sensitive to the wide variety of circumstances encountered in the US right now; as a result, it's calibrated around a score of 50. A score of 50 is defined as an equal disease burden as the flu, estimated based on total number of flu cases, hospitalizations, ICU admission, and deaths in the 2018-2019 flu season. For every 10x change in (Exposure*Susceptibility), the score will change by 50/3. Thus, for two users, one with a score of 20, and one with a score of 70, the user with a score of 70 is 1000x more likely to have been exposed to COVID-19 and experience a serious consequence (hospitalization, ICU admission, or death).”

[Drama Llama]

. . . 

Edited October 26, 2021 by BaseballandHockey

[Ailaena]

29 minutes ago, BaseballandHockey said:

That number is super confusing to me.  But if you scroll down it gives you other numbers including the percentage chance you have of getting covid in a 1 week period, and the percentage chance you have of dying if you get covid.  Those are straight percentages, or at least they seem to be. 

Ah, I see it. Are you sure the number you saw was 12% and not 0.12%?  I saw a risk of dying that was 0.069% before it crashed and managed to copy this: 

Among people in your county who have behaviors and levels of interaction with others that are similar to yours, the estimated probability of catching COVID-19 through community transmission in a week is 0.13% 

Edited September 12, 2021 by Ailaena

[Drama Llama]

. . . 

Edited October 26, 2021 by BaseballandHockey

[Junie]

I think what the problem with the calculation is that at age 91 any illness has some risk of death.

[Ailaena]

maybe it’s because historically, people that age who catch *anything* don’t have a great outcome and really don’t do well with covid?  Maybe it’s the formula they are using that skews high the higher the age?  How many people who are vaccinated have actually died from covid?  How many of those were over 90?

I have to say, I don’t think this site is rooted in hard data and needs to be taken with a grain of salt.  In fact, I would say it’s justifying people not masking properly and going to crowded places because it’s presents the risk of catching covid as tiny. 

[ktgrok]

And really, a 75% reduction is risk from the vaccine is better than we hoped for. 

[Katy]

I seriously doubt that is accurate, but any illness at his age has a chance of causing death.

[Bootsie]

I think the issue is that if someone is over 90 and has a serious illness (especially one that can lead to pneumonia) the risk of death is relatively high.  I cannot find case fatality rates for the flu for those who are in their 90s but for those who are 65 and over I am seeing numbers in the 1% range.  By the time someone reaches their 90s if they have the flu (and have underlying health conditions) it would not surprise me for the case fatality rate to be over 10%.

[Drama Llama]

. . . 

Edited October 26, 2021 by BaseballandHockey

[KSera]

8 minutes ago, BaseballandHockey said:

That wouldn't surprise me either, but I thought that the vaccine was providing more protection than that.  That break through cases were very rare, not 1/2 as common as cases in the unvaccinated, and that it was supposed to provide 95% protection against severe disease and death.  But obviously a 95% protection would result in a death rate of under 5%.  

What I have read is that the degree of protection from vaccine decreases significantly more for those over 75 than for those under it. It’s still very protective, but not as high as it is for younger people.

[Ausmumof3]

I don’t know about that specific site but the risk of dying for over 90s even fully vaccinated is definitely higher - I now can’t for the life of me find the stats I saw recently.  I’m pretty sure it drops with a booster though is that an option for him?

[Ausmumof3]

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e1.htm?s_cid=mm7037e1_w
 

This is not the data I’m thinking of but even using this CDC data CFR for over 65s fully vaxed comes out to around 5%.  363/7307 for un vaxed it’s 3,137/42,884 or around 7%. 

If I did the basic maths right.

Of course there’s a couple of things there.  Clearly the risk of actually being diagnosed with COVID is much lower for vaxed assuming there’s a high percentage of fully vaxed in that figures.  Either many less are catching it or many less are being diagnosed because they’re not testing and possibly not getting symptoms so not seeking testing.  The vaccines are still hugely protective from that point of view.

 

Presumably the stats are worse for 90 year olds than 65 -75 but that data isn’t separated out.

Edited September 12, 2021 by Ausmumof3

[Pawz4me]

6 hours ago, BaseballandHockey said:

That wouldn't surprise me either, but I thought that the vaccine was providing more protection than that.  That break through cases were very rare, not 1/2 as common as cases in the unvaccinated, and that it was supposed to provide 95% protection against severe disease and death.  But obviously a 95% protection would result in a death rate of under 5%.  

Sure. But that protection is for the overall population. All ages, all health conditions averaged together. No one who is 91 is going to get anywhere near that level of protection, simply because an older, weaker immune system can't develop the same level of protection in response to a vaccine that a 20 yo immune system can.

[ktgrok]

7 hours ago, BaseballandHockey said:

That wouldn't surprise me either, but I thought that the vaccine was providing more protection than that.  That break through cases were very rare, not 1/2 as common as cases in the unvaccinated, and that it was supposed to provide 95% protection against severe disease and death.  But obviously a 95% protection would result in a death rate of under 5%.  

Right, but that's an average. Those who are elderly will have less protection due to weaker immune system. That's why boosters will start with the elderly, after those with immune deficiency. 

[kiwik]

9 hours ago, Junie said:

I think what the problem with the calculation is that at age 91 any illness has some risk of death.

Yes the risk of dying of the flu is probably pretty high too.

[Bootsie]

This study Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccines in Preventing Hospitalization Among Adults Aged ≥65 Years — COVID-NET, 13 States, February–April 2021 | MMWR (cdc.gov) suggests that the vaccines as 96% effective in preventing hospitilizations of those 65 and older and 91% effective in preventing hospitilizations of those who are 75 years or older who contract COVID.  Age groups are not broken down any narrower than that, and there is no adjustment for male/female or underlying health conditions.  

[DawnM]

I just did it for my dad and it came back with a 46% chance of not surviving.  Doesn't surprise me.   He won't get the vaccine and won't wear a mask unless. he has to.   I have given up.

Meanwhile, my personal risk came back as .26% if I get it.   I am fully vaccinates and wear a mask.

[katilac]

I don't know if it's accurate, but I don't think it serves any purpose for the average person. 

Facts about the best ways to limit exposure, or the best supplements to build up the immune system - these are things you can act on and thus potentially very useful. Percentages of survival is someone does get ill? Nothing you can take action on, serves no purpose. 

Anyone who is 90+ is going to have what seems like a high chance of dying from any potentially serious illness. Those numbers might be useful in aggregate for healthcare professionals looking for trends and methods of improvement, but they do not serve a positive purpose at the individual level. 

 

[AbcdeDooDah]

Spelling errors on websites push me towards ‘not credible.’

[BusyMom5]

Gently, he is 91, and his chance if dying from any disease is much higher than someone younger.  I watch 2 near-ish to me hospitals that are releasing data each week.  About 8-10 percent of the hospitalized for Covid have been vaccinated.  The dying from Covid is about the same,  but ages are all much older than the non-vaxed and died.  There are and will be vaccinated people who still die from Covid.  You are still safer getting the vax,  but you are not 100% safe.  I have elderly grandparents of similar age.  My grandpa is in excellent health,  takes no medications, still has all his mind, exercises, etc.  I still consider him an at-risk person because of his age.  I also think he has limited time, regardless, so I'm not going to stop him from going places he wants to.  He did that for over a year.  The vax is the best option he has at a normal life.  Take it, then live your best life and don't worry.  (Mine has received the 3rd booster dose)

[prairiewindmomma]

16 hours ago, KSera said:

What I have read is that the degree of protection from vaccine decreases significantly more for those over 75 than for those under it. It’s still very protective, but not as high as it is for younger people.

There was an even bigger dropoff at age 85. I am trying to find the study, but I haven’t stumbled across it yet. I was discussing it with my elderly relative when we were discussing her priorities—-risk versus continued afternoon group card games with her friends—and what mitigation measures she should put back into place. 
 

Her comment, not to be crass, was that at her age waking up in the morning was an accomplishment. She is maintaining almost all of her social calendar, masked, because it is important to her quality of life. The complete isolation of the early pandemic was devastating to her. We have all gone into this with eyes wide open and a DNR and advance directives in place for her. 

[Mrs Tiggywinkle]

11 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

There was an even bigger dropoff at age 85. I am trying to find the study, but I haven’t stumbled across it yet. I was discussing it with my elderly relative when we were discussing her priorities—-risk versus continued afternoon group card games with her friends—and what mitigation measures she should put back into place. 
 

Her comment, not to be crass, was that at her age waking up in the morning was an accomplishment. She is maintaining almost all of her social calendar, masked, because it is important to her quality of life. The complete isolation of the early pandemic was devastating to her. We have all gone into this with eyes wide open and a DNR and advance directives in place for her. 

Yep. My grandmother feels the same way. She’s been insistant from the very beginning that Covid would be endemic and she’d catch it sooner or later; at 88 waiting a year or two to see family and friends was too long.  Her Parkinson’s has now advanced to the point that she is homebound.  I’m glad she didn’t lock down last year and continued to see the people and do things that were important to her, because now she can’t do that. 

Honestly, at 91 you’ve probably got above a 12% chance of dying from anything.  The flu, a common cold that causes dehydration, tripping and breaking your hip, anything. My great grandmother died at 98, independent and in perfectly wonderful health, by tripping over something left outside the door of her favorite breakfast diner. She hit her head causing a massive brain bleed.  It was a total freak accident, but when you’re 98, even a knock to the head has a high mortality rate.

[Faith-manor]

57 minutes ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle said:

Yep. My grandmother feels the same way. She’s been insistant from the very beginning that Covid would be endemic and she’d catch it sooner or later; at 88 waiting a year or two to see family and friends was too long.  Her Parkinson’s has now advanced to the point that she is homebound.  I’m glad she didn’t lock down last year and continued to see the people and do things that were important to her, because now she can’t do that. 

Honestly, at 91 you’ve probably got above a 12% chance of dying from anything.  The flu, a common cold that causes dehydration, tripping and breaking your hip, anything. My great grandmother died at 98, independent and in perfectly wonderful health, by tripping over something left outside the door of her favorite breakfast diner. She hit her head causing a massive brain bleed.  It was a total freak accident, but when you’re 98, even a knock to the head has a high mortality rate.

Off topic kind of, but last year it occurred to me that it should have been 0-60 who locked down hard and stayed that way until the virus was tamped down because this is the crowd that really does have a lot of years left and can afford to lead a limited life for a couple of years. This way the elderly could go on with life and not have crowds and indoor viral build up. But, it isn't like the rest of the country cared about doing what was rational! And of course had that been done and then the majority got on board with vaxes and continued masks, kids would not be in the school mess they are in now, and the elderly would not be back to this disaster. I mean, my mom is thinking maybe it is time to just live her life and hope for the best, however it puts me in a difficult bind because I am the primary care giver when she needs help, and am not eager to shove her into the grave by bringing covid to her if I can avoid it. Do I continue to be so very careful if she isn't going to be? This is especially problematic because it has been two years since she has seen my sister, and it will be spring or summer 2021 before sis can travel here from France. So basically we have sucky choices, nothing more than sucky choices.

My guess is that despite her two doses of Pfizer, at 77 and type 2 diabetic with not well controlled BP, covid is still going to be a killer virus for her. Mother in law has multiple health problems and is 85. She refused to take a two shot series and only got the JnJ. Mark's brother's family is a "who cares" people and now they want to come visiting. She has a right to see them for sure. But because he and I do a LOT of care for her and are there three evenings per week, their approach means very likely exposure to us, and then by extension my mom. My sister is already putting a lot of pressure on me to stay away from MIL now.

I am weary of the whole thing. I am exhausted constantly having to think about it. Our county vaccination rate is only 42 ish % with one shot, 39% with two. I think risk for both of them is very high. But, maybe we have reached that place where this shouldn't be the primary consideration anymore. Sigh.

[regentrude]

2 hours ago, Faith-manor said:

Off topic kind of, but last year it occurred to me that it should have been 0-60 who locked down hard and stayed that way until the virus was tamped down because this is the crowd that really does have a lot of years left and can afford to lead a limited life for a couple of years. This way the elderly could go on with life and not have crowds and indoor viral build up.

but that is, of course, impossible since it's the 20-60 year olds who are working and providing the services. And not everyone can work remote. It's that age group that is the nurses, nursing home aides, supermarket cashiers, restaurant servers, shuttle drivers, meat processing plant workers, sanitation workers... if they all had "locked down hard", the old folks wouldn't have had any life to "go on with".

Edited September 13, 2021 by regentrude

[Faith-manor]

26 minutes ago, regentrude said:

but that is, of course, impossible since it's the 20-60 year olds who are working and providing the services. And not everyone can work remote. It's that age group that is the nurses, nursing home aides, supermarket cashiers, restaurant servers, shuttle drivers, meat processing plant workers, sanitation workers... if they all had "locked down hard", the old folks wouldn't have had any life to "go on with".

I recognize that. It was just one of those fleeting thoughts, but the reality wad that we saw a ton of Non essential workers in that age range party like NO tomorrow! It did not help anything for anyone most certainly the elderly. I mean a ton of partying. I still have visceral.reactions about it when I see the fall out. I am aware that a full lockdown did not have to happen. On the other hand, the Easter party during the shutdown that the staff and family of the local nursing home through DURING the shutdown happened. So much sh#t from so many corners and now we are going into two years of this, and still trying to figure out what to do. I am tired. Tired to the bone of it.

[Drama Llama]

. . . 

Edited October 26, 2021 by BaseballandHockey

[lynn]

I got the same score being fully  vaccinated and not vaccinated.   How can that be?  

Edited September 13, 2021 by lynn

[Drama Llama]

. . . 

Edited October 26, 2021 by BaseballandHockey

[TravelingChris]

On 9/11/2021 at 10:54 PM, BaseballandHockey said:

That wouldn't surprise me either, but I thought that the vaccine was providing more protection than that.  That break through cases were very rare, not 1/2 as common as cases in the unvaccinated, and that it was supposed to provide 95% protection against severe disease and death.  But obviously a 95% protection would result in a death rate of under 5%.  

They aren't providing very good protection against the very elderly.  Which is why they should be getting their third vaccine now at the physician\s office.

[TravelingChris]

You don't have to have any condition now.  The Pfizer vaccine is approved and can be prescribed off label.

Just like I am going to get the Fluzone high dose off label (I am 58, not 65) because the American College of Rheumatology says that I should--people in their 50s with autoimmune rheumatological conditions need the higher dose of Flu vaccine and the CDC is just so stupid. 

Edited September 13, 2021 by TravelingChris

[TravelingChris]

I got a 4% chance of getting it but it was very inaccurate because I could put down only 2 shots.  Also, I couldn't put down I got 2 Pfizer and one Moderna.  Plus the main recommendation seemed to be wash your hands which was dumb-that helps with gastro diseases, not flues and COVID and measles, etc which are all airborne. And most people get gastro diseases from something they eat, not from not washing their hands.