Skip to main content

Survival Rates

By September 9, 2021Commentary

Dave Dixon put together this chart, shows survival rates by age group, for Minnesota, based on reported cases.  The inverse would be the death rates.  Way lower than the public thinks.  And since the latest data suggest there are at least twice as many total infections as reported ones, cut the death rates in half for a more accurate infection fatality rate (IFR).  I know it is heresy to suggest this, but we are at flu levels, if flu were tested for and deaths attributed in the same manner.

Age GroupMN Covid Survival Rate (Cumulative)
0 to 999.99%
10 to 19100.00%
20 to 2999.99%
30 to 3999.95%
40 to 4999.85%
50 to 5999.57%
60 to 6998.51%
70 to 7994.30%
80 to 8984.08%
90 to 9971.90%
100 and over65.98%

Join the discussion 16 Comments

  • J. Thomas says:

    Not to mention deaths from; auto accidents, cancers, heart conditions, diabetes, etc., maybe even lightening strikes on Tuesday’s between midnight and 2AM ! It would be great to gather and chart all of these together for a real world comparison about overall life risks. BTW, I think you should not only divide by 2 for unknown cases, but again by 4 to account for the “from vs. with” lies. You’ll need more decimal points …

  • Chet says:

    And to think of all the other life events (both planned and unplanned) that provide similar or worse survival rates — how many of those events have led to the societal changes & mandates we’re seeing now??? So many activities must now be banned!!

  • Zak Gangestad says:

    This is great info. I need info on how this data was obtained and analyzed, can you provide reference sources? Also, can you please share who Dave Dixon is?

  • Bill in Seminole says:

    I’m in Florida, and “cases” having been rising for the past month or two. What is not disclosed in the Florida data is the number of hospitalizations among vaccinated persons. Anecdotal comments suggest that the unvaccinated are the overwhelming number of persons hospitalized. Is there data available on this?

  • Rob says:

    On top of this, think of the deaths that occurred where the person received no treatment for the symptoms even after seeing a doctor. And think of the deaths where the first action was intubation.

    Then think of the locations of these deaths: the majority being in LTC’s that are dependent on government for 80%+ of their revenue – essentially government nursing homes. Compare that to the death rates at LTC’s that get less than half of their revenue from government.

  • Kevin Roche says:

    not sure why florida hasn’t released breakthrough data, Kyle Lamb says they are working on it. I would guess Minnesota’s experience is not unique and we are seeing breakthrough’s everywhere

  • Kevin Roche says:

    this is data straight from the DOH weekly reports. Dave is someone who does data analysis and prepares the charts

  • Chuck says:

    Interesting the number of people who see the survival stats and have been terrorized to believe they fall into the .025% that will die. Especially sad for K-12 parents that see their child as possibly dying when a 100% survival rate should provide comfort.

  • Abhijit Bhakshi says:

    These types of charts are incredibly valuable.

    Kevin, do you have information on timeline? (e.g. is this all-time cases in Minnesota?)

    The reason I ask is that my sense is the IFR has declined since the early days. I would love to see the same chart but with one column for every quarter that has elapsed.

    —-

    I recently looked at Canadian data from their official statistics agency, Statistics Canada. If you look hard enough they have detailed cause of death stats for many years broken down using the same age structure they use to break down the COVID stuff. Result: in the 0-19 band, COVID killed fewer people in the entire pandemic (18 months last time I looked) than flu killed in calendar 2018.

  • Kevin Roche says:

    this is all Minnesota deaths by age since the start, with the wildly excessive attribution of deaths.

  • DuluthGuy says:

    It’s pointless to point out statistics to a good portion of the population. You can show them concrete proof that the chances of their child dying from COVID are less than getting struck by lightning twice and surviving both times and it won’t do any good. They are convinced that they need to be afraid. I don’t understand it, but a good portion of the population is beyond any hope at this point. Until we stop the mass testing and the media stops reporting on every positive COVID test (which obviously won’t happen), the chaos is going to continue.

  • Chet says:

    Abhi, I think you could put that together (seeing the above table as a timeline by quarter) using the historical Covid reports (PDFs) on MN DOH data page. That way you could see the demographics breakdown for cases and deaths. For example, here is the link to the June 4, 2020 PDF (https://www.health.state.mn.us/diseases/coronavirus/stats/covidweekly23.pdf). Slide 8 of that document has the “Demographics: Age” data you’d need, which is cumulative to that date, and could be used to show the progression of survival rate by quarter. One thing to note, since I also looked at the September 3, 2020 report, the location of the data in each PDF can change as they add/remove pages to the reports. In the September 3 PDF, the Demographics: Age page is slide 22.

  • Chet says:

    Abhi, I decided to see for myself, and I can say that the overall rates of survival across the various age groups doesn’t change much as each quarter progresses cumulatively unless you’re looking above the age of 60. Below 60, most groups haven’t changed more than 1.2% from July 2020 until July 2021, and nearly every group has increased their survival rate over that year. I will say that in the July 2020 demographics data, the age groups were slightly different (0-5 is one group, and 6-19 is the next, and each group is by 10 year increments after that).

    Kevin, if you’re interested, I’d be happy to share the data I’ve compiled for that for you or Dave to continue using.

  • Jody says:

    It would be much more accurate and useful to shown these numbers broken down by those who have known health issues that are exacerbated by this flu virus and those who are healthy. I would be willing to bet that the odds of survival are almost 100% for pretty much all healthy people. And from the info I have seen from real doctors who aren’t toeing the party line, the odds of survival for the others would be higher if medical people would use HCQ, Ivermectin, Remedisvir (sp?), etc.
    Also, is there a chance that this is really less deadly than the normal flu? It appears to be much more transmissible – thus more people will get it than the normal flu which means that more of those at risk get it which then leads to more deaths.
    Finally, I still have a hard time believing any of the numbers being given by government agencies, especially those regarding deaths. There is simply too much incentive for these people to pad the numbers – to use any excuse to label a death as covid related.
    One of the things this so called pandemic has really killed is any idea that doctors and medical ‘professionals’ have any integrity whatsoever.

Leave a comment