Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I'm waiting for him to clarify. He ran together a figure (2) and a letter (P) in a way that I don't understand. I'm hoping he'll clarify.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I didn't comment on the data.

Suggesting Lowpe's 2% claim was a typo.

2%, and likely wasn't a typo. I'd warrant that the earlier 8/4/2020 figure was revised down to 101% and the 25/4/2020 figure isn't finished processing.

As a side note, American date rendering is daft, and it takes 8 weeks to process some of that data...that seems quite a long time...

The term "new deaths" sounds like something from a Zombie flick.

The name "Wuhan" came from the city's historical origin from the conglomeration of Wuchang, Hankou and Hanyang, which are collectively known as the "Three Towns of Wuhan." So I think we AE folks know it as Hankow.

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

Where is Wuhan on the WITP AE map?

Wuchang, I think?

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I didn't comment on the data.

Suggesting Lowpe's 2% claim was a typo.

It is read: Footnote 2 (space) Percent....

I put it in there to clarify the expected death column and merely caused confusion. [:D]

Here you go.

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

More on China.

United Front groups in Canada helped Beijing stockpile coronavirus safety supplies

https://globalnews.ca/news/6858818/coro ... um=Twitter

So China was panicking when it realized the virus could become a huge problem in their country, and started gathering what they would need if they could not contain it. And Canada concluded it was better to help the Chinese deal with it before it spread too much worldwide. At the time, no one knew how fast it would spread or how stealthy it was, and the Chinese did not know how effective their control measures would be. It looks like the Chinese were being really proactive. So now they are selling the PPE back to the world and bidders are setting the price. I don't see a problem.

BTW, here is a clip of the world's biggest cargo plane delivering a load of PPE to Quebec ...

https://globalnews.ca/news/6898314/coro ... pe-quebec/

I DO see a problem since China shut down factories making the PPE equipment. I posted on that a while ago. They kept the factories open that produced for China but shut down the ones that produced for export. Then the CCP had the supplies purchased in other countries, then shipped to China. Now, the Chinese are reselling it at much higher prices.

Thanks for the clarification.

So, the CDC chart shows that the US experienced 95% expected mortality week of 3/14 and again week of 3/20, rising to 120% for week of 4/10, and dropping to 101% April 18.

What does 49% on April 25 indicate? Surely we didn't incur only 49% of expected deaths? I assume the data was incomplete? And that might be true for some time prior thereto, as data may still be coming in?

The US experienced 120% of expected mortality the week of April 11. Mortality was 66,577, meaning the normal amount would be roughly 55,000. So roughly 11,000 mortalities more than expected that week.

I think the number of deaths attributed to Covid-19 was far more than 11,000 that week.

Interesting.

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

USA Today struggling with context here: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 062216001/

The newspaper notes that the US has more than 63k deaths, which is more than the combined total mortalities of the countries with the second and third most deaths, Italy and UK....but fails to note that their combined populations are about 127 million, more than 200 million less than the US.

[:-]

I hear what you are saying but population size, I would argue, is not the overriding factor in deaths from COVID-19. I think population density is probably the biggest factor. Compare rural loss of life in America to larger cities as an example. And then compare cities that are PHD (Piled Higher and Deeper - like Washington DC) VS cities that are spread out (Like LA).

And another strong spike in death rate is in nursing homes, where we have basically put many of our elder population that already have other health problems all into one basket, so to speak.

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Thanks for the clarification.

So, the CDC chart shows that the US experienced 95% expected mortality week of 3/14 and again week of 3/20, rising to 120% for week of 4/10, and dropping to 101% April 18.

What does 49% on April 25 indicate? Surely we didn't incur only 49% of expected deaths? I assume the data was incomplete? And that might be true for some time prior thereto, as data may still be coming in?

The US experienced 120% of expected mortality the week of April 11. Mortality was 66,577, meaning the normal amount would be roughly 55,000. So roughly 11,000 mortalities more than expected that week.

I think the number of deaths attributed to Covid-19 was far more than 11,000 that week.

Interesting.

If you'd read the caveats below the table, you'd know exactly why the 25/4 figure is at 49% [:'(]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

More on China.

United Front groups in Canada helped Beijing stockpile coronavirus safety supplies

https://globalnews.ca/news/6858818/coro ... um=Twitter

So China was panicking when it realized the virus could become a huge problem in their country, and started gathering what they would need if they could not contain it. And Canada concluded it was better to help the Chinese deal with it before it spread too much worldwide. At the time, no one knew how fast it would spread or how stealthy it was, and the Chinese did not know how effective their control measures would be. It looks like the Chinese were being really proactive. So now they are selling the PPE back to the world and bidders are setting the price. I don't see a problem.

BTW, here is a clip of the world's biggest cargo plane delivering a load of PPE to Quebec ...

https://globalnews.ca/news/6898314/coro ... pe-quebec/

I DO see a problem since China shut down factories making the PPE equipment. I posted on that a while ago. They kept the factories open that produced for China but shut down the ones that produced for export. Then the CCP had the supplies purchased in other countries, then shipped to China. Now, the Chinese are reselling it at much higher prices.

I don't know what resource inputs are required to make PPE, but China may not have had enough material to keep ALL of their factories open and running full blast. When you are panicking (as they certainly were), you don't worry about the rest of the world. I am not convinced that profit was the motive. It just worked out that way when the Chinese did not need all they had stockpiled.

So where were our own health officials and PPE factories when China was gathering up all it could? They were willingly selling to them to make a profit ...

Hey, durnedwolf. Yeah, there are many reasons for the disparities. But what I found interesting was USA Today's failure to give proper context in its report.

ORIGINAL: durnedwolf

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

USA Today struggling with context here: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 062216001/

The newspaper notes that the US has more than 63k deaths, which is more than the combined total mortalities of the countries with the second and third most deaths, Italy and UK....but fails to note that their combined populations are about 127 million, more than 200 million less than the US.

[:-]

I hear what you are saying but population size, I would argue, is not the overriding factor in deaths from COVID-19. I think population density is probably the biggest factor. Compare rural loss of life in America to larger cities as an example. And then compare cities that are PHD (Piled Higher and Deeper - like Washington DC) VS cities that are spread out (Like LA).

And another strong spike in death rate is in nursing homes, where we have basically put many of our elder population that already have other health problems all into one basket, so to speak.

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Thanks for the clarification.

So, the CDC chart shows that the US was a 95% expected mortality on 3/14 and 3/20, rising to 120% on 4/10, and dropping to 101% on April 18.

What does 49% on April 25 indicate? Surely we didn't incur only 49% of expected deaths? I assume the data was incomplete? And that might be true for some time prior thereto, as data may still be coming in?

The US experienced 120% of expected mortality the week of April 11. Mortality was 66,577, meaning the normal amount would be roughly 55,000. So roughly 11,000 mortalities more than expected that week.

I think the number of deaths attributed to Covid-19 was far more than 11,000 that week.

Interesting.

I think all the numbers need to be looked at and questioned. All the numbers from all the sources.

One of the reasons why early on I linked to a biomedical statistician.

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Very early on in here, there were predictions that Florida would be particularly hard hit due to its elderly population. Didn't happen (more accurately: hasn't happened and isn't now projected to happen).

From a historical standpoint it would be interesting to know what info went into the early models and why they were too high for places like Florida and too low for New York.

Part of it could be the polluted air.

Another part would be the weather. That is, the temperature and humidity. In Florida it is much warmer and more humid, the warmer weather would encourage people to be outside more there than in the colder climes while the humidity would decrease the time that the virus would be airborne. If you were to take -30 F air inside and warm it to room temperature, it would be drier than the Sahara Desert. While I am not saying that it got that cold in New York, it does give you an idea about how dry that air really is. That dry air really helps spread the virus.

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy



So China was panicking when it realized the virus could become a huge problem in their country, and started gathering what they would need if they could not contain it. And Canada concluded it was better to help the Chinese deal with it before it spread too much worldwide. At the time, no one knew how fast it would spread or how stealthy it was, and the Chinese did not know how effective their control measures would be. It looks like the Chinese were being really proactive. So now they are selling the PPE back to the world and bidders are setting the price. I don't see a problem.

BTW, here is a clip of the world's biggest cargo plane delivering a load of PPE to Quebec ...

https://globalnews.ca/news/6898314/coro ... pe-quebec/

I DO see a problem since China shut down factories making the PPE equipment. I posted on that a while ago. They kept the factories open that produced for China but shut down the ones that produced for export. Then the CCP had the supplies purchased in other countries, then shipped to China. Now, the Chinese are reselling it at much higher prices.

I don't know what resource inputs are required to make PPE, but China may not have had enough material to keep ALL of their factories open and running full blast. When you are panicking (as they certainly were), you don't worry about the rest of the world. I am not convinced that profit was the motive. It just worked out that way when the Chinese did not need all they had stockpiled.

So where were our own health officials and PPE factories when China was gathering up all it could? They were willingly selling to them to make a profit ...

I would get into details but that would delve into a forbidden topic of "many blood sucking creatures!"

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Hey, durnedwolf. Yeah, there are many reasons for the disparities. But what I found interesting was USA Today's failure to give proper context in its report.

ORIGINAL: durnedwolf

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

USA Today struggling with context here: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 062216001/

The newspaper notes that the US has more than 63k deaths, which is more than the combined total mortalities of the countries with the second and third most deaths, Italy and UK....but fails to note that their combined populations are about 127 million, more than 200 million less than the US.

[:-]

I hear what you are saying but population size, I would argue, is not the overriding factor in deaths from COVID-19. I think population density is probably the biggest factor. Compare rural loss of life in America to larger cities as an example. And then compare cities that are PHD (Piled Higher and Deeper - like Washington DC) VS cities that are spread out (Like LA).

And another strong spike in death rate is in nursing homes, where we have basically put many of our elder population that already have other health problems all into one basket, so to speak.

Laughter. If most people working as reporters engaged that muscle betwixt their ears, they'd have a different profession by now. I still can't believe we had people in America calling in to see if it was safe to shoot up a little Lysol or Bleach to help disinfect themselves from any COVID-19...

What does Ron White always say? "You can't fix stupid - 'cause stupid is fooooorrrrrrr-evvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvverrrrrrrrrrrrr-rrrrrrrr-rrrrrrr.

Lowpe, agreed that every number is suspect; and lots of variability between how jurisdictions report. Until we have a better source, Worldometers and Univ. of Wash. seem credible and have been used here from the start (or since first available, in the case of U. Wash.). If jurisdictions report differently, there is at least utility if each one is consistent in its own reporting.

Re: durnedwold: Yeah, the media is wonky...but they're mostly an educated wonky. At least, that's the case for the major newspapers/stations. Their issues don't arise from a lack of intelligence. [:)]

Italy reports 174 deaths today, its lowest total since March 10.

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Re: durnedwold: Yeah, the media is wonky...but they're mostly an educated wonky. At least, that's the case for the major newspapers/stations. Their issues don't arise from a lack of intelligence. [:)]

And I would just point out that an upper education does not necessarily provide evidence of an active and engaged mind. [;)]