Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: 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.

I can do arithmetic.

Even if we knew exactly how many people in the population had the disease (a parameter), we still wouldn't know how many would die and how many would recover. Since we expect many more will recover than die, calculating death rate from recovery rate will always be well ahead of the curve (overestimated), unless we have a "Stand"-level catastrophe. These estimates will change, so it makes sense to use the most straightforward estimate. In the US we were at over 7% when the outbreak was confined to a nursing home in Washington state. Now it's about 2.4%. I'm not picking cherries, just trying to find the best data.

This will make a difference regarding mortality in different countries and how age will be a factor. When you sort by age over 65 note who is at the top. It's like Europe had a big bull's eye on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... _structure

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: z1812

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




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.

I can do arithmetic.

Can you do statistics? I mean do them with no bias? Then understand the results?

ORIGINAL: Sieben

Even if we knew exactly how many people in the population had the disease (a parameter), we still wouldn't know how many would die and how many would recover. Since we expect many more will recover than die, calculating death rate from recovery rate will always be well ahead of the curve (overestimated), unless we have a "Stand"-level catastrophe. These estimates will change, so it makes sense to use the most straightforward estimate. In the US we were at over 7% when the outbreak was confined to a nursing home in Washington state. Now it's about 2.4%. I'm not picking cherries, just trying to find the best data.

What you are doing is putting all the outstanding (unresolved) cases in the recovered pile. We know that's wrong.

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Can you do statistics?

That's just arithmetic in this case.

I mean do them with no bias?

In other words, without manipulating the data. Again, I'm using the raw numbers. Everybody else wants to massage the data.

Then understand the results?

I understand that this is a snapshot. But that's all we have now.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Can you do statistics?

That's just arithmetic in this case.

Statistics is not just arithmetic.

I mean do them with no bias?

In other words, without manipulating the data. Again, I'm using the raw numbers. Everybody else wants to massage the data.

The raw numbers can be misleading depending upon how they are used.

Then understand the results?

I understand that this is a snapshot. But that's all we have now.

We can look at it differently to get a more objective result.

Statistics is not just arithmetic.

The raw numbers can be misleading depending upon how they are used.

We can look at it differently to get a more objective result.

A lot of times the answers change based upon how the question is worded.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Everybody else wants to massage the data.

warspite1

Lol [:)] That's genuinely funny.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

..... is putting all the outstanding (unresolved) cases in the recovered pile. We know that's wrong.

warspite1

100% that is wrong (if anyone is doing that) - but no more wrong than you ignoring the active cases (and so effectively assuming they are all going to the die).

I take as a given that we can never in practice know how many people have a disease (parameter). We estimate it by how many people are diagnosed or tested positive (statistic). At the start of a pandemic, basing mortality on death rates will generally underestimate, since few have yet died. Late in the course of the disease, it will overestimate, since most people are getting well. Basing mortality on survivor rates will greatly overestimate mortality at the start, since no one has survived. Later it will underestimate, since most have. Take your pick.

I once argued with a guy on a wargame forum who claimed he could prove that x/y + z/y was not the same as (x+z)/y. He never did, and I'm sure not going to get into that again.

This thread was informative and interesting before becoming bogged down in a discussion about relative death percentages that really leads nowhere. Sadly authorities will eventually be able fix a proper rate.

In the meantime we should continue in the spirit of the conversation before the percentage debate started. Here is an update focused on Canada and the World.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/coronavi ... -1.5498348

ORIGINAL: Sieben
I once argued with a guy on a wargame forum who claimed he could prove that x/y + z/y was not the same as x+z/y. He never did, and I'm sure not going to get into that again.

Just picking a nit, but aren't you forgetting the parentheses around x+z? That way it will evaluate the addition before the division.

Back to COVID-19 news. Here in New Mexico the number of positives have been rising as tests have been completed. It still seems like a majority of cases are from travel and relatives of those who've travelled. I'm sure that'll start to change this week as community spread kicks in and additional labs assist in testing.

ORIGINAL: z1812

This thread was informative and interesting before becoming bogged down in a discussion about relative death percentages that really leads nowhere. Sadly authorities will eventually be able fix a proper rate.

In the meantime we should continue in the spirit of the conversation before the percentage debate started. Here is an update focused on Canada and the World.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/coronavi ... -1.5498348

warspite1

The thread remains informative and interesting. The mortality rate is pretty key. I don't see how a few people discussing this - with strongly held views on either side - as an adjunct (depending on your view) to the topic is a cause for you to react like that. Its a discussion forum. If you want to ignore that element of the thread, just ignore it.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

100% that is wrong (if anyone is doing that) - but no more wrong than you ignoring the active cases (and so effectively assuming they are all going to the die).

No. I am not assuming anything about those cases. I'm leaving them out of the formula - just like those coins that were still in the air. Others (you, Sieben) are wrongly trying to include them.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

100% that is wrong (if anyone is doing that) - but no more wrong than you ignoring the active cases (and so effectively assuming they are all going to the die).

No. I am not assuming anything about those cases. I'm leaving them out of the formula - just like those coins that were still in the air. Others (you, Sieben) are wrongly trying to include them.

warspite1

And you are wrongly ignoring them - but its clear we won't see eye to eye on this, so rather than upset the neighbours I think we should agree to disagree. One thing I know we can all 100% agree on is that your figures don't come to pass....

Thanks, OldSarge, post corrected. Now I really am out of here.

"French authorities also warned that widely used over-the-counter anti-inflammatory drugs [ibuprofen, cortisone] may worsen the coronavirus"

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... -infection

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: z1812

This thread was informative and interesting before becoming bogged down in a discussion about relative death percentages that really leads nowhere. Sadly authorities will eventually be able fix a proper rate.

In the meantime we should continue in the spirit of the conversation before the percentage debate started. Here is an update focused on Canada and the World.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/coronavi ... -1.5498348

warspite1

The thread remains informative and interesting. The mortality rate is pretty key. I don't see how a few people discussing this - with strongly held views on either side - as an adjunct (depending on your view) to the topic is a cause for you to react like that. Its a discussion forum. If you want to ignore that element of the thread, just ignore it.

Closing the bars in Ireland? That is serious!

As of 13 March, 2020:

Kianoush Jahanpour, the head of the public relations and information center of the Iranian Ministry of Health, said Saturday the new coronavirus has claimed 97 lives in the past 24 hours, taking the overall death toll to 611.

Jahanpour added that 1,365 fresh cases have been added to the number of the confirmed infections during the period, bringing the total to 12,729.

More than 4,300 of those with confirmed infections have recovered so far, he added

https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2020/03/ ... nse-drills

ORIGINAL: warspite1

And you are wrongly ignoring them

No. I am correctly ignoring them - just like all those coins still in the air. We can get a perfectly valid estimate of coin flips just by examining the coins that have already landed and come to rest.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: z1812

This thread was informative and interesting before becoming bogged down in a discussion about relative death percentages that really leads nowhere. Sadly authorities will eventually be able fix a proper rate.

In the meantime we should continue in the spirit of the conversation before the percentage debate started. Here is an update focused on Canada and the World.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/coronavi ... -1.5498348

warspite1

The thread remains informative and interesting. The mortality rate is pretty key. I don't see how a few people discussing this - with strongly held views on either side - as an adjunct (depending on your view) to the topic is a cause for you to react like that. Its a discussion forum. If you want to ignore that element of the thread, just ignore it.

I don't find "Yes it is", "No it isn't", very informative.

You are entitled to your point of view as I am entitled to mine. Feel free to ignore my posts if you don't like them.