OT - The New Coronavirus

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

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

Again, I'm sticking strictly to the known evidence.

[Canoerebel]

Now you've changed the formula, apparently acknowledging that your first post was incorrect (as indeed it was).

But you latest method is also flawed. Surely you understand that mortality isn't 52%. In South Korea, the mortality and recoveries were at one time the same, but most active cases transitioned to recoveries instead of mortalities. Now, South Korea is somewhere above 90% recoveries. And that will continue to improve, as only 1% of its active cases are deemed serious. When all is said and done, South Korea will likely be at something in the neighborhood of 3% or less mortality, perhaps less than 1%.

The same is likely to hold true in the USA.

Your original methodology was completely wrong and your new one is basically useless - and certainly useless for the purpose you're trying to use it for.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: 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.

You're just being silly. Let's change that coin flipping experiment so that maybe you can finally get it:

Let's flip coins one at a time and accumulate the results as they come in. We plan to do 10,000 flips, but, after 5,000 flips, we evaluate the results. That's perfectly valid. The flips that haven't occurred yet are irrelevant at that snapshot in time.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: 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

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.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Now you've changed the formula, apparently acknowledging that your first post was incorrect (as indeed it was).

I corrected it in my second post (#398).

But you latest method is also flawed. Surely you understand that mortality isn't 52%. In South Korea, the mortality and recoveries were at one time the same, but most active cases transitioned to recoveries instead of mortalities. Now, South Korea is somewhere above 90% recoveries. And that will continue to improve, as only 1% of its active cases are deemed serious. When all is said and done, South Korea will likely be at something in the neighborhood of 3% or less mortality, perhaps less than 1%.

The same is likely to hold true in the USA.

Your original methodology was completely wrong and your new one is basically useless - and certainly useless for the purpose you're trying to use it for.

My original method was slightly wrong. I fixed it. And I'm basing everything on evidence, not speculation (which is what you're engaged in).

[Orm]

I think this will be tough to evaluate because we do not know the real number infected, nor recovered, and probably not even the number of dead. Nor do we know how many that are immune to the disease.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: 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.

You're just being silly. Let's change that coin flipping experiment so that maybe you can finally get it:

Let's flip coins one at a time and accumulate the results as they come in. We plan to do 10,000 flips, but, after 5,000 flips, we evaluate the results. That's perfectly valid. The flips that haven't occurred yet are irrelevant at that snapshot in time.

warspite1

We are having a grown up debate Curtis Lemay, please don't go down the route of condescension - its not helpful. I didn't go to university but I'm not silly and I do 'get it' - I just don't happen to agree with you.

But let's go with your test. You are looking to see which way a coin will land. All you know is that the coins will land, and if they do, then they will land heads or tails - there is no alternative. So what could you do? Well you could do what you have done, because this is about coin flipping.

However the Coronavirus isn't coin flipping. Its very real and, potentially very serious and we the public need to make decisions based on information we are given. What we don't need is people manipulating data to make this whole thing appear as bad as possible. What does that achieve exactly?

Now if you want, you can use the active cases and, if you want, you can assume everyone dies (or whatever you choose). But at that point you have made an assumption and that assumption is made known along with the calculation and result.

But you've simply stated - having simply removed this key variable - that the mortality rate is over 7%. That is not helpful, not accurate and simply alarmist.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Orm

I think this will be tough to evaluate because we do not know the real number infected, nor recovered, and probably not even the number of dead. Nor do we know how many that are immune to the disease.

But we need a number now - to base our behavior on. How we function will vary wildly depending upon how deadly it really is.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

But let's go with your test. You are looking to see which way a coin will land. All you know is that the coins will land, and if they do, then they will land heads or tails - there is no alternative. So what could you do? Well you could do what you have done, because this is about coin flipping.

However the Coronavirus isn't coin flipping. Its very real and, potentially very serious and we the public need to make decisions based on information we are given. What we don't need is people manipulating data to make this whole thing appear as bad as possible. What does that achieve exactly?

They are both random processes. In both cases evaluating just the resolved samples is valid.

I'm not trying to scare you. I'm soberly evaluating the numbers. Period.

[Canoerebel]

Okay, keep using the Curtis Lemay method of grossly inflated statistics that have no bearing on what's actually going on.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Okay, keep using the Curtis Lemay method of grossly inflated statistics that have no bearing on what's actually going on.

Got any evidence for that?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

But let's go with your test. You are looking to see which way a coin will land. All you know is that the coins will land, and if they do, then they will land heads or tails - there is no alternative. So what could you do? Well you could do what you have done, because this is about coin flipping.

However the Coronavirus isn't coin flipping. Its very real and, potentially very serious and we the public need to make decisions based on information we are given. What we don't need is people manipulating data to make this whole thing appear as bad as possible. What does that achieve exactly?

They are both random processes. In both cases evaluating just the resolved samples is valid.

I'm not trying to scare you. I'm soberly evaluating the numbers. Period.

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.

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

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Orm

I think this will be tough to evaluate because we do not know the real number infected, nor recovered, and probably not even the number of dead. Nor do we know how many that are immune to the disease.

But we need a number now - to base our behavior on. How we function will vary wildly depending upon how deadly it really is.

It would be nice to have accurate numbers. But we do not need them to take actions. We just need leaders willing to do so (and history will judge). But I fear talking about that may make this political.

[Canoerebel]

Yeah, but you've opted out of evidence Curtis, preferring inaccuracies.

If you want a real number to go by, simply use the number of deaths.

If a pandemic gets loose in the USA, how many deaths would you expect to see in the USA per day? 100? 500? 1,000? 10,000?

So far, the most we've seen is 8 in a day.

It's too early to draw any hard and fast conclusions, but that gives you a number to work with that isn't being fudged beyond all recognition. Let's see how that number varies in coming days and weeks. If it remains at 8 or 15 or 30, we're dealing with a pandemic on a certain level that should be manageable. If it blooms to 100 or 300 or 500 per day and sustains that or grows, gulp.

But 52% mortality is a meaningless number that bears on nothing.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

But 52% mortality is a meaningless number that bears on nothing.

warspite1

Yeah but it looks real cool if you want to be a shock-jock.

[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!

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

But 52% mortality is a meaningless number that bears on nothing.

I haven't said otherwise. But the World numbers are not meaningless.

[Canoerebel]

Curtis, when you're wrong, just admit it. Don't change the topic or duck and weave. Just admit it. That earns you a lot more respect that remaining purposefully obtuse.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Curtis, when you're wrong, just admit it. Don't change the topic or duck and weave. Just admit it. That earns you a lot more respect that remaining purposefully obtuse.

I'm right.

[Canoerebel]

LOL. Okay.