RE: FROM THE RED ZONE

RE: FROM THE RED ZONE (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion

Message

Sieben -> RE: FROM THE RED ZONE (3/15/2020 5:41:02 PM)
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.

Lobster -> RE: FROM THE RED ZONE (3/15/2020 5:53:44 PM)
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_countries_by_age_structure

RangerJoe -> RE: FROM THE RED ZONE (3/15/2020 6:03:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: z1812 quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: 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. Can you do statistics? I mean do them with no bias? Then understand the results?

Curtis Lemay -> RE: FROM THE RED ZONE (3/15/2020 7:18:37 PM)
quote: 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.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: FROM THE RED ZONE (3/15/2020 7:23:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe Can you do statistics? That's just arithmetic in this case. quote: 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. quote: Then understand the results? I understand that this is a snapshot. But that's all we have now.

RangerJoe -> RE: FROM THE RED ZONE (3/15/2020 8:05:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe Can you do statistics? That's just arithmetic in this case. Statistics is not just arithmetic. quote: 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. quote: 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.

warspite1 -> RE: FROM THE RED ZONE (3/15/2020 8:19:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay Everybody else wants to massage the data. warspite1 Lol [:)] That's genuinely funny.

warspite1 -> RE: FROM THE RED ZONE (3/15/2020 8:21:42 PM)
quote: 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).

Sieben -> RE: FROM THE RED ZONE (3/15/2020 8:32:00 PM)
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.

z1812 -> RE: FROM THE RED ZONE (3/15/2020 8:41:09 PM)
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/coronavirus-covid19-march-15-canada-world-1.5498348

OldSarge -> RE: FROM THE RED ZONE (3/15/2020 8:49:32 PM)
quote: 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.

warspite1 -> RE: FROM THE RED ZONE (3/15/2020 8:57:57 PM)
quote: 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/coronavirus-covid19-march-15-canada-world-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.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: FROM THE RED ZONE (3/15/2020 8:58:27 PM)
quote: 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 -> RE: FROM THE RED ZONE (3/15/2020 9:00:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: 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....

Sieben -> RE: FROM THE RED ZONE (3/15/2020 9:07:01 PM)
Thanks, OldSarge, post corrected. Now I really am out of here.

TulliusDetritus -> RE: FROM THE RED ZONE (3/15/2020 9:09:31 PM)
"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/mar/14/anti-inflammatory-drugs-may-aggravate-coronavirus-infection

RangerJoe -> RE: FROM THE RED ZONE (3/15/2020 9:22:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: 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/coronavirus-covid19-march-15-canada-world-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: quote: 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/2020/03/14/620874/Iranian-Army-to-hold-nationwide-biodefense-drills

Curtis Lemay -> RE: FROM THE RED ZONE (3/15/2020 9:36:24 PM)
quote: 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.

z1812 -> RE: FROM THE RED ZONE (3/15/2020 9:43:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: 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/coronavirus-covid19-march-15-canada-world-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.

Zovs -> RE: FROM THE RED ZONE (3/15/2020 9:47:10 PM)
No your math is incorrect. I took the numbers from Washington Post and using a correct percentage calculator, calculated the top areas. First number is deaths second is known cases and the percentages tell an interesting story. Not trying to sound harsh but per these numbers it�s not as bad as some are saying or the fear of it of spreading false and faulty data. IMHO of course. Percentages China 3203 is 3.95% of 81003 Italy 1441 is 6.81% of 21167 Iran 724 is 5.19% of 13938 South Korea 75 is 0.92% of 8162 Spain 289 is 3.71% of 7798 Germany 11 is 0.20% of 5426 France 91 is 2.02% of 4511 United States 62 is 1.91% of 3244

warspite1 -> RE: FROM THE RED ZONE (3/15/2020 9:49:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: 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. warspite1 Nope. Still no. You are simply playing with numbers with the result that, by your own admission, you simply scare yourself. I'm sure you are getting some (grim) satisfaction from it but I fail to see how or why.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: FROM THE RED ZONE (3/15/2020 9:51:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zovs No your math is incorrect. I took the numbers from Washington Post and using a correct percentage calculator, calculated the top areas. First number is deaths second is known cases and the percentages tell an interesting story. Not trying to sound harsh but per these numbers it�s not as bad as some are in fear of it of spreading false and faulty data. IMHO of course. Percentages China 3203 is 3.95% of 81003 Italy 1441 is 6.81% of 21167 Iran 724 is 5.19% of 13938 South Korea 75 is 0.92% of 8162 Spain 289 is 3.71% of 7798 Germany 11 is 0.20% of 5426 France 91 is 2.02% of 4511 United States 62 is 1.91% of 3244 You are comparing total cases to deaths. That's obviously wrong, since plenty of those total cases haven't resolved whether the sample will be a recovery or a death. I'm saying we should compare recoveries to deaths.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: FROM THE RED ZONE (3/15/2020 9:57:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 Nope. Still no. You are simply playing with numbers with the result that, by your own admission, you simply scare yourself. I'm sure you are getting some (grim) satisfaction from it but I fail to see how or why. I am using raw recovery vs. death figures - no playing with anything whatsoever. And I am not doing this for any grim satisfaction. I really want to be informed about how deadly this thing is. For certain using unresolved samples to dilute the results is just plain wrong.

warspite1 -> RE: FROM THE RED ZONE (3/15/2020 10:00:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: z1812 quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: 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/coronavirus-covid19-march-15-canada-world-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. warspite1 ... and if you read the posts that you are critical of then you would know that that Yes or No (or heads or tails in Curtis Lemay's example) is exactly what I am NOT saying. This isn't bloody heads or tails on a coin toss - these are human beings and this is serious. If people want to play the shock jock, number cruncher, then they can - but any helpful, intelligent analysis needs to take into account the detail re the current active cases. Without that the 'mortality rate' is nothing of the sort - its just a number with no real meaning or context - and for many of the reasons that have come out as a result of this debate, they are massively skewed.

Gray Fox -> RE: FROM THE RED ZONE (3/15/2020 10:02:03 PM)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCa0JXEwDEk What the data means. At 1% death rate, if one person dies, then 99 other people were infected on the same day as the deceased. If the number of infected doubles every 5 days and the deceased was infected 20 days ago then you now have approximately 1600 other infected and 15 will die.

TulliusDetritus -> RE: FROM THE RED ZONE (3/15/2020 10:26:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay I'm saying we should compare recoveries to deaths. Hospitalised people then? Because you're ignoring the mild cases (80% iirc). In that case I prefer the x:y expression as in 2:1, 3:1. But that would be the mortality rate (or ratio) of hospitalised people only. WHO and everyone else here is talking about all the infected (an unknown variable, as others have said -myself included- South Korea might be closer to that number). As a potential victim, I prefer our system. If I test positive, I may be one of these 80%... or not, gulp. And yes, I am scared [:D]

Red2112 -> RE: FROM THE RED ZONE (3/15/2020 10:42:34 PM)
Some insight on numbers... http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/02/some-covid-19-patients-test-positive-days-after-recovery

Pvt_Grunt -> RE: OT - The New Coronavirus (3/15/2020 10:43:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lobster OMG...the looting has started. [:D] https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-australia-51867525/christmas-island-a-giant-robber-crab-stole-my-camera And the gang wars! https://www.indiatoday.in/trending-news/story/coronavirus-monkeys-from-rival-gangs-fight-over-food-in-thailand-viral-video-1655094-2020-03-13

Lobster -> RE: OT - The New Coronavirus (3/15/2020 11:34:13 PM)
�Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are pliable.� ― Mark Twain �Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns- the ones we don't know we don't know.� ― Donald Rumsfeld �If your experiment needs a statistician, you need a better experiment.� ― Ernest Rutherford �99 percent of all statistics only tell 49 percent of the story.� ― Ron DeLegge II, Gents with No Cents �Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination� ― Andrew Lang

RangerJoe -> RE: OT - The New Coronavirus (3/15/2020 11:41:16 PM)
quote: "Total duration of illness was 10-16 days. The main issue is that without reporting a cough or trouble breathing many of us were refused testing. I got tested through the Seattle Flu Study. As of Monday, March 9, it has been 13 days since my symptoms started and more than 72 hours since my fever subsided. The King County Public Health Department is recommending you stay isolated for 7 days after the start of symptoms or 72 hours after your fever subsides," Schneider added. US woman who survived coronavirus shares her experience: I caught it at a small house party https://www.indiatoday.in/trending-news/story/us-woman-who-survived-coronavirus-shares-her-experience-i-caught-it-at-a-small-house-party-1655076-2020-03-13

Page: << < prev 15 16 [17] 18 19 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.453125