OT - The New Coronavirus

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Have I missed something or isn't that just being alarmist? How can the death rate be compared just to one portion of those with the disease i.e. those that have recovered? Most people in the current cases category will be absolutely fine and we know this, so what's with the 7.1%?

It's just arithmetic. X number of cases have resolved. 7.1% were fatal. Other cases that haven't resolved yet can't be counted yet because we don't know the outcome of those cases.

warspite1

But look at the number of active cases and then the number in intensive care. Yes it's arithmetic but fits nicely into the lies, damned lies and statistics camp. Sure, the number of intensive care cases within the active cases may increase - and the number that dies increases, but then I'm not hanging my hat on the assumption that none of the active cases not in intensive care get worse either.

I just think its unhelpful to be bandying around mortality rates of over 7% when we know nothing of the sort.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe
Just because they have the GDP does not mean that they will have the ability to pay the bill for the testing, nor the equipment and supplies needed be available, nor the trained people to take the samples, and do the testing.

I suppose any rational strategy is based on what can or can't be done. You're talking about a new outbreak (hopefully not) or wave (next winter they say?). I'm pretty sure every state is already thinking about that future scenario (if it can't be avoided and / or vaccines don't fix the problem). Needless to say, I don't know these plans.

True, I don't know these plans. For the 1918 influenza outbreak, from what I read, the second wave was worse.

But I did hear that if the original SARs vaccine were available then it might offer some protection. But when that virus went away, work was not funded. We could be in a better place if it had been finished.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

But look at the number of active cases and then the number in intensive care. Yes it's arithmetic but fits nicely into the lies, damned lies and statistics camp. Sure, the number of intensive care cases within the active cases may increase - and the number that dies increases, but then I'm not hanging my hat on the assumption that none of the active cases not in intensive care get worse either.

Cases that are unresolved are irrelevant to the analysis. Think of it like this: Flip 10,000 coins in the air. Take a snapshot at some point. You only evaluate the coins that are on the ground and stopped. The ones that are still in the air or rolling around on the ground are irrelevant.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

But look at the number of active cases and then the number in intensive care. Yes it's arithmetic but fits nicely into the lies, damned lies and statistics camp. Sure, the number of intensive care cases within the active cases may increase - and the number that dies increases, but then I'm not hanging my hat on the assumption that none of the active cases not in intensive care get worse either.

Cases that are unresolved are irrelevant to the analysis. Think of it like this: Flip 10,000 coins in the air. Take a snapshot at some point. You only evaluate the coins that are on the ground and stopped. The ones that are still in the air or rolling around on the ground are irrelevant.

warspite1

Irrelevant? Well if you want to paint a worst case situation (for whatever reason) then there is lots of arithmetic that can be done. As said, I don't choose to go down that route, not because its uncomfortable, not because I don't want to believe its that bad (though I don't) - I choose not to go down that route because its incorrect, imprecise and serves no purpose whatsoever other than to feed the fear of those who are stripping shelves of everything.

[Canoerebel]

Curtis, your methodology is hopelessly flawed.

Using your method results in a ridiculously skewed mortality rate. You asked to see the math. Here it is:

Compare recoveries to deaths, as you stated below (in bold).

Currently in the USA we've had 56 recoveries and 60 deaths. That's a death rate, by your method, of 93.33%. (I was off a bit about it being more than 100%, but you get the idea).

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Hate to be bearer of bad tidings, but I think we've been looking at the statistics wrong. Here are the current figures:

156,478 cases
75,844 recovered
5833 deaths
(Source Wikipedia)

We had been comparing cases to deaths (5833/156478 = 3.7%).
But, we should compare recovered to deaths (5833/75844 = 7.7%), since those are the cases that have resolved the life vs. death issue (the rest have not).

That puts it far past a tour in Nam. I'm trying to find something that compares. So far I've got the Battle of Shiloh with 1728 vs 40335 = 4.3% for the Confederates (that doesn't count missing - many of which were dead). Gotta find something even worse.

This is definitely something you don't want to get.

(Edit: Confederate dead at Gettysburg sound closer. Stay tuned).

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I choose not to go down that route because its incorrect, imprecise and serves no purpose whatsoever other than to feed the fear of those who are stripping shelves of everything.

How is it incorrect? It's just a simple arithmetical conclusion from the data we have at our disposal.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

But look at the number of active cases and then the number in intensive care. Yes it's arithmetic but fits nicely into the lies, damned lies and statistics camp. Sure, the number of intensive care cases within the active cases may increase - and the number that dies increases, but then I'm not hanging my hat on the assumption that none of the active cases not in intensive care get worse either.

Cases that are unresolved are irrelevant to the analysis. Think of it like this: Flip 10,000 coins in the air. Take a snapshot at some point. You only evaluate the coins that are on the ground and stopped. The ones that are still in the air or rolling around on the ground are irrelevant.

You are also not factoring in the cases that are resolved that are not reported.

As an example, I know someone who never had the chicken pox nor the vaccine yet has the antibodies to the virus.

[RangerJoe]

What would be interesting to note is if the people who had SARS are wholly or partially immune. If so, finish that SARs vaccine and try that!

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I choose not to go down that route because its incorrect, imprecise and serves no purpose whatsoever other than to feed the fear of those who are stripping shelves of everything.

How is it incorrect? It's just a simple arithmetical conclusion from the data we have at our disposal.

warspite1

Its incorrect because you are manipulating data to get a worse scenario than the situation warrants. It's scare-mongering based on what we know. You are completely removing a key variable. Now, because we don't know where that variable will end up (death or recovery) one can reasonably make assumptions. I choose to look at active cases and intensive care cases. You choose to ignore this key variable completely for a reason I don't understand.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Curtis, your methodology is hopelessly flawed.

Using your method results in a ridiculously skewed mortality rate. You asked to see the math. Here it is:

Compare recoveries to deaths, as you stated below (in bold).

Currently in the USA we've had 56 recoveries and 60 deaths. That's a death rate, by your method, of 93.33%. (I was off a bit about it being more than 100%, but you get the idea).

The more samples you get the more valid statistics become. Very early small sets do give skewed results. But, even US numbers can be expected to approach the World numbers further down the process. Once you get to very high samples (what we have in the World figures), we can have more confidence.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe
But I did hear that if the original SARs vaccine were available then it might offer some protection. But when that virus went away, work was not funded. We could be in a better place if it had been finished.

It's life. We're here and ten seconds later *poof gone*

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Its incorrect because you are manipulating data to get a worse scenario than the situation warrants. It's scare-mongering based on what we know. You are completely removing a key variable. Now, because we don't know where that variable will end up (death or recovery) one can reasonably make assumptions. I choose to look at active cases and intensive care cases. You choose to ignore this key variable completely for a reason I don't understand.

I'm not manipulating data at all. I'm using raw figures for resolved cases. If this is scaring you, it's scaring me as well!

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

You are also not factoring in the cases that are resolved that are not reported.

Yes, I'm sticking strictly to the evidence we have.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Its incorrect because you are manipulating data to get a worse scenario than the situation warrants. It's scare-mongering based on what we know. You are completely removing a key variable. Now, because we don't know where that variable will end up (death or recovery) one can reasonably make assumptions. I choose to look at active cases and intensive care cases. You choose to ignore this key variable completely for a reason I don't understand.

I'm not manipulating data at all. I'm using raw figures for resolved cases. If this is scaring you, it's scaring me as well!

warspite1

You've removed a major variable - its data manipulation. And no, it is not scaring me in the slightest because I do not believe what you are saying is true so how could it?

[Canoerebel]

Wow, what can you do when people refuse to see the truth and insist on making a mistake?

By the way, I actually inverted your numbers. By your reckoning, the death rate (deaths/recoveries) in the USA is 60 to 56. That's a death rate of 107%.

Of course, that's impossible.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

You've removed a major variable - its data manipulation. And no, it is not scaring me in the slightest because I do not believe what you are saying is true so how could it?

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

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Wow, what can you do when people refuse to see the truth and insist on making a mistake?

By the way, I actually inverted your numbers. By your reckoning, the death rate (deaths/recoveries) in the USA is 60 to 56. That's a death rate of 107%.

Of course, that's impossible.

Actually, the correct evaluation would be 60/(56 + 60) = 52%.

And, again, that's based upon a very small sample set. The World figures are a large sample set, and have plenty of validity.

[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.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

You've removed a major variable - its data manipulation. And no, it is not scaring me in the slightest because I do not believe what you are saying is true so how could it?

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]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

You've removed a major variable - its data manipulation. And no, it is not scaring me in the slightest because I do not believe what you are saying is true so how could it?

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

warspite1

And you seriously think that variable is so unimportant you can simply ignore it? Despite the size of the number within the overall data set, you believe it can simply be ignored. No assumptions, no educated guestimates, just simply ignore it? Erm.... okay, but that's not science, that's not maths, that's scaremongering for no reason.