OT - The New Coronavirus

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

And there you mention 'scaring me' again. Great debating technique.....

You are not scaring me, I am not scared - in fact even though I am in the 'at risk' bracket due to my health issues, I am more concerned about the economic consequences than anything else at present.

You are the one who first brought that word up. Not me. But it's irrelevant.

In addition I am not silly and I do get it.

Sorry if you took umbrage at that. I had no idea you were so thin skinned. But, again, it's irrelevant. Let's stick to the issue, please.

You are not soberly evaluating the numbers. You are manipulating data by skewing the numbers through the removal of a key variable in order that you can come up with a high mortality rate which you then bandy round here like some sort of grim reaper.

Sober assessment would make mention of the active cases within any presentation of the 7.1% figure. You choose not to. There is nothing sober about that.

No. It is not manipulation to omit samples that haven't yet resolved. How could they possibly be included? We don't know how they will turn out!

warspite1

a) I did not bring it up 'fear' in that manner as well you know. I mentioned fear in respect of those who feel the need to strip supermarkets clean. As I am not one of those then that hardly applies to me does it? If its irrelevant why continually mention it even after you've been told I'm not scared?

b) I am not thin skinned and don't get easily offended in a robust debate. You were the one that resorted to 'silly' but now you want to 'stick to the issue'. Fine so I assume we will have no more of that from you?

c) Yes it's manipulation. If the relative size of that variable were small then one could possibly justify its total exclusion. Possibly. But its not. It's a very big number in relative and actual terms. So can't be ignored unless you seek to skew the results. "How could they possibly be included?" Well I've told you in at least three posts. Because the number is so large you need to include it. If you include it you then need to detail what assumptions are being made about its inclusion and then people can decide whether that assumption is reasonable. To simply remove it (given the size - and importance - of this variable) is to make your 7.1% figure totally and utterly pointless.

[TulliusDetritus]

"The most fundamental function of a government is to keep its people safe"

A M E N

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... are_btn_tw

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

c) Yes it's manipulation. If the relative size of that variable were small then one could possibly justify its total exclusion. Possibly. But its not. It's a very big number in relative and actual terms. So can't be ignored unless you seek to skew the results. "How could they possibly be included?" Well I've told you in at least three posts. Because the number is so large you need to include it. If you include it you then need to detail what assumptions are being made about its inclusion and then people can decide whether that assumption is reasonable. To simply remove it (given the size - and importance - of this variable) is to make your 7.1% figure totally and utterly pointless.

Maybe I should have said "How could they possibly be included with any validity?"

I don't know why this is so hard to understand: My evaluation is based upon the known resolved samples only. Adding unresolved samples would just be wrong. It would falsely dilute the death rate figure. Adding guesses about unknown samples would be equally wrong.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




The only variable I've removed are the unresolved cases (like those coins that were still in the air in our snapshot.)

How many resolved cases are you including because they were not reported because the symptoms were minor or were non-existent?

warspite1

I don't think you can blame Curtis Lemay for using numbers we don't know about because they weren't reported. But the active cases are known. Take for example the case of the Arsenal FC manager. He is an active case, he has the virus, he is on the list. So what's his situation. Well he's recovering at home and his wife has confirmed he isn't even unwell enough to have missed work had this not been Coronavirus.

That is the type that is not being reported unless the patient is tested. That is the problem with using the reported cases since so many are unreported.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

c) Yes it's manipulation. If the relative size of that variable were small then one could possibly justify its total exclusion. Possibly. But its not. It's a very big number in relative and actual terms. So can't be ignored unless you seek to skew the results. "How could they possibly be included?" Well I've told you in at least three posts. Because the number is so large you need to include it. If you include it you then need to detail what assumptions are being made about its inclusion and then people can decide whether that assumption is reasonable. To simply remove it (given the size - and importance - of this variable) is to make your 7.1% figure totally and utterly pointless.

Maybe I should have said "How could they possibly be included with any validity?"

I don't know why this is so hard to understand: My evaluation is based upon the known resolved samples only. Adding unresolved samples would just be wrong. It would falsely dilute the death rate figure. Adding guesses about unknown samples would be equally wrong.

warspite1

In which case, if you are so upset about possibly adding in wrong numbers (even though you would have provided your assumptions for so doing and these may be accepted or not by the reader) you are quite happy to produce a 7.1% figure that you know to be equally wrong?

You have stated the 7.1% as some kind of fact - asking what battles would have produced such casualties. But you know 7.1% isn't a fact. Don't you? I mean, don't you? The WHO is talking about 3.4% or less but you confidently state "Hate to be bearer of bad tidings, but I think we've been looking at the statistics wrong". So are the WHO wrong but you are right?

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Red2112

What really matters statistically, when other real life issues are not sorted? Statistics should have stopped the bubble in 2006-7 then, which it didn´t, same goes for climatic change! UK is taking another approach with a built health immune society to reduce the risk of infection.

A action is more efficient then a reaction. Right now there´s not enough mask for medical personell, or civilians. Civilians are using mask that are not protective, they are only preventive for the user to not spread the infection. The protective mask (type) are limited even to govermental personell (police etc.). You can leave your home for shopping food, go to work, or buy medical supplys etc, BUT most pharamcies (none in my town) have mask to sell, and if they did, I wonder what type they would have. So it makes no freaking sense to be able to go out for supplys but be exposed because you can´t buy a mask (a proper one).

In Spain if you have been detected as a positive host, you are then permited to be in sick-leave from your job and the goverment will pay 80% of you´re wage while you´re on sick-leave. This is the usual when sick in Spain, but I ask myself, what about other countrys? How are small business going to deal with a shut-down of a minimum of 15 days? What happens to those who live day-by-day, in other words make it barely to the end of the month, without being able to save a penny?

There´s money to rescue banks, but none for mask and supplys?

Italy asked for help to the EU when the outbreak, no one offered help, they then looked at China which did help. After this issue, the EU has changed it´s posture and has rectified it´s initial decision of not giving help due to the mass criticism they recieved from the rest of the EU countrys. What´s the use of being in the EU then?

Don´t know but I think these things are more important to deal with right now, and that´s were goverments should be firm.

What a BIG mess! Meanwhile, some will loose there loved one´s. Colatiral damage my A**!

Instead of a pharmacy, go to a home improvement store and get the good masks there. Those masks are for working around dust and other things.

[Erik Rutins]

Please keep it civil everyone.

Looking only at resolved cases is an important statistic to also watch, but it only becomes significant with larger numbers and over a longer period of time. It's less useful as a snapshot. There's a lot still unknown about the real mortality levels, but I've seen estimates ranging from 0.7% to 4%, when modeling in assumptions for undetected cases and delays in case resolution. I think it's going to end up in that range, which is way worse than seasonal flu no matter what.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

In which case, if you are so upset about possibly adding in wrong numbers (even though you would have provided your assumptions for so doing and these may be accepted or not by the reader) you are quite happy to produce a 7.1% figure that you know to be equally wrong?

You have stated the 7.1% as some kind of fact - asking what battles would have produced such casualties. But you know 7.1% isn't a fact. Don't you? I mean, don't you? The WHO is talking about 3.4% or less but you confidently state "Hate to be bearer of bad tidings, but I think we've been looking at the statistics wrong". So are the WHO wrong but you are right?

It's just arithmetic. I'm guessing the WHO just hasn't tumbled to it yet. I wish I was in some position to query them on it.

For sure, using a ratio of all cases (including unresolved cases) to dead is wrong. And that sounds like what they are doing.

I didn't expect to catch such resistance to this. I'm just pointing out a fact: Resolved cases have had a 7.1% mortality rate worldwide. That's going to change my behavior. Feel free to whistle past the graveyard if you wish.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

So are the WHO wrong but you are right?

I am not saying that WHO is wrong, however, I do not trust them to be the bringers of truth.

[z1812]

@ Curtis Lemay. We don't need to debate X number of deaths and Y number of recoveries. It is evident enough that the situation is not very good and is becoming worst.

[Sieben]

OK, try this: Number of deaths (assuming we've found all the bodies) and number recovered (assuming the test is accurate) are parameters. They apply to the entire population. Number infected is a statistic based on a sample (the number who have been tested for one reason or another). It's not even a good sample, since it's not random. This is the variable that people are talking about. Both the other calculations depend on it and thus will change during the course of the pandemic. It simply makes more sense to use deaths/cases to calculate mortality rate. You can calculate a recovery rate, and that's interesting, but you can't calculate death rate based on recovery rate.

In South Korea, where they have tested a much larger percentage of the population than elsewhere (and thus moved the "number infected" closer to being a parameter), the rate is around 1%.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: z1812

@ Curtis Lemay. We don't need to debate X number of deaths and Y number of recoveries. It is evident enough that the situation is not very good and is becoming worst.

Yes we do. It impacts how we will decide to act. A 2% risk might be something I would run if I really needed to. 7% is over the edge.

[Orm]

One trouble with comparing the number of recovered versus the number of death is that it usually takes longer time for people to be declared recovered than it takes for those who dies. So the percentage will be higher in the middle when infected begins to die, and then get lower, and lower as time goes by.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

That's going to change my behavior.

warspite1

Sounds like you've scared yourself [;)]

[Red2112]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe
Instead of a pharmacy, go to a home improvement store and get the good masks there. Those masks are for working around dust and other things.

Not sure if those shops are allowed to be opened after the state of alarm declared. I do have a proper mask for when I use to be welding but would look like Darth Vader with that on. A bit overkill, but if I have no choice, will go with that.

Still, I don´t get how goverments don´t employ more resources in that aspect of prevention for there citizens.

Sorry Erik if went a-wall there a bit, fixed. But will see when people go from speculating (which I blame for most of todays world issues), to direct personal effect.

Red...out

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Sieben

In South Korea, where they have tested a much larger percentage of the population than elsewhere (and thus moved the "number infected" closer to being a parameter), the rate is around 1%.

Cherry-picking South Korea is actual "data manipulation".

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

That's going to change my behavior.

warspite1

Sounds like you've scared yourself [;)]

I've said as much already.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Orm

One trouble with comparing the number of recovered versus the number of death is that it usually takes longer time for people to be declared recovered than it takes for those who dies. So the percentage will be higher in the middle when infected begins to die, and then get lower, and lower as time goes by.

More data manipulation. I'm sticking to the raw statistics.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Red2112

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe
Instead of a pharmacy, go to a home improvement store and get the good masks there. Those masks are for working around dust and other things.

Not sure if those shops are allowed to be opened after the state of alarm declared. I do have a proper mask for when I use to be welding but would look like Darth Vader with that on. A bit overkill, but if I have no choice, will go with that.

Still, I don´t get how goverments don´t employ more resources in that aspect of prevention for there citizens.

Sorry Erik if went a-wall there a bit, fixed. But will see when people go from speculating (which I blame for most of todays world issues), to direct personal effect.

Red...out

Overkill is better than underkill in this case.

Masks that protect against silica dust, asbestos, and such that fit with an air tight seal should be good, better than nothing. So that might mean shaving facial hair . . . [:@]

A military style gas mask should also work.

[z1812]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: z1812

@ Curtis Lemay. We don't need to debate X number of deaths and Y number of recoveries. It is evident enough that the situation is not very good and is becoming worst.

Yes we do. It impacts how we will decide to act. A 2% risk might be something I would run if I really needed to. 7% is over the edge.

So what is it particularly that gives you reason to think you know better than world experts? Perhaps you specialize in predictive statistics, epidemiology, or maybe infectious diseases.