Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

Statistical models usually provide a "confidence interval"(usually +/-2 SD). These seem to be omitted for presentations to the public.

Interestingly, the National Weather Service does include "probability cones" when they publish hurricane maps. These models, though imperfect, are quite useful for planning purposes..ICU beds, vents, staffing...etc.

All across Canada and the U.S., emergency rooms and intensive care units have been split into separate worlds, with patients suspected or diagnosed with COVID-19 on one side and those without on the other.

But as the pandemic has ground on, doctors say, they’ve found it increasingly difficult to rule anyone out as a possible COVID carrier. “We’re just seeing so many strange presentations of this that basically we’re in a state where almost anybody coming in with anything is a potential COVID case,” said Dr. Brett Belchetz, who practises emergency medicine in Toronto.
.
.
.
The range of possible COVID symptoms has already expanded dramatically from the early days of the pandemic. One colleague told Belchetz about a patient who came in with a head laceration. “Everyone assumed it was nothing to worry about,” he said. Head wounds are bread and butter stuff in the ER. But after some detailed questioning, the patient revealed how he got the cut: He had passed out and fallen. He didn’t have a cough or a fever. But he wasn’t getting enough oxygen. He got swabbed. The test came back. He had COVID-19.

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

Statistical models usually provide a "confidence interval"(usually +/-2 SD). These seem to be omitted for presentations to the public.

Interestingly, the National Weather Service does include "probability cones" when they publish hurricane maps. These models, though imperfect, are quite useful for planning purposes..ICU beds, vents, staffing...etc.

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Already covered.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

We already covered that very thing in posts in here. You are stating and re-stating things, as though novel, that we've already addressed. We know these things.

Then what's the error on the Univ. of Washington predictions, and what is it compared to the true reported value?

https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/doede ... er-nyt-lys

For those of you willing to read Danish (Probably a minority).

Danish blooddonors were tested for antibodies, to determine how big a percentage of the population had been infected in Denmark. The number was 22 out of 1487. This, when a few grains of salt have been taken for inaccuracy of testing and other stuff, gives the total of Danes that have been infected to 127000. A number much bigger than thought. 203 Danes have so far died from the virus.

The interesting conclussion is then that the deathrate is as low as 0,16 percent.

Now there is some good news for all of you

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

....

938 deaths yesterday.

Projection for April 7th (as per https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-kingdom at this time and date) was 480-2614.

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna




More inappropriate.



For the record, since we seem to be self-moderating, that's why I'm tagging these.

And you were apparently voted hall monitor?

What part of self meaning only you is too complex for you?

A shame you can't grasp what you are doing is just as inappropriate.

Sorry, you're incorrect. Nor do you appear to know what self-moderating meant in that context.

Somebody has to keep us children in line, clearly. Somebody needs to play hall monitor to the schoolyard chest-puffing.

Here's how one "news" source chooses to capsulize the present situation, as of 10 a.m. eastern time.

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


What part of 'self' having nothing to do with 'we' is too complex a concept for you?

I understood fully the context in which you were incorrectly applying the term 'self moderating'.

Regardless of any need, your presumption that it needs to be you assuming the mantle of moderator is what you fail to grasp as being just as inappropriate as the behavior you are assailing.

I'm not, for a minute, disputing the inappropriateness of some posts, including mine, just taking strong exception with your self appointment as sheriff.

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

Here's how one "news" source chooses to capsulize the present situation, as of 10 a.m. eastern time.

Well that’s Drudge and he lives off sensational. As for looting. 99% of it has been people breaking into bars and restaurants stealing the top shelf booze. I expect some of them are going to end up getting shot

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

From Canada land (I think!)


Anything can be COVID-19: As pandemic grinds on, doctors find early definitions of disease were too narrow
'We're seeing so many strange presentations of this that basically we're in a state where almost anybody coming in with anything is a potential COVID case'

All across Canada and the U.S., emergency rooms and intensive care units have been split into separate worlds, with patients suspected or diagnosed with COVID-19 on one side and those without on the other.

But as the pandemic has ground on, doctors say, they’ve found it increasingly difficult to rule anyone out as a possible COVID carrier. “We’re just seeing so many strange presentations of this that basically we’re in a state where almost anybody coming in with anything is a potential COVID case,” said Dr. Brett Belchetz, who practises emergency medicine in Toronto.
.

The range of possible COVID symptoms has already expanded dramatically from the early days of the pandemic. One colleague told Belchetz about a patient who came in with a head laceration. “Everyone assumed it was nothing to worry about,” he said. Head wounds are bread and butter stuff in the ER. But after some detailed questioning, the patient revealed how he got the cut: He had passed out and fallen. He didn’t have a cough or a fever. But he wasn’t getting enough oxygen. He got swabbed. The test came back. He had COVID-19.

https://nationalpost.com/news/anything- ... too-narrow?

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Worldometers reported UK morality as 938 for today's list (which probably is the recapitulation for yesterday, since the day isn't over) and 786 yesterday (presumably for the day before).

The Univ. of Washington website projects 66k mortality for the UK. I sure hope that's wildly inaccurate (as previously posted this a.m.). On a hopeful note, yesterday's actual mortality came in at 786, about 550 less than projected. Hopefully that trend will continue, prompting revisions that prove much more accurate.