RE: OT - The New Coronavirus

RE: OT - The New Coronavirus (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion

Message

loki100 -> RE: OT - The New Coronavirus (4/6/2020 4:03:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: loki100 Do you really believe this has a mortality rate of 20%,ie 10/20 times the best estimates? Best guesses you mean. I'm simply not going to work with "belief". I'll stick to the data. As I've said before, the figures I'm posting are the only ones available to us that do not use data manipulation or speculation. Regardless, note that the first three columns are just raw data. Their charts have a usefulness independent of any conflict over the death rate. For example, we can see clearly that there has been no "flattening of the curve" on the Total Cases chart. or maybe you are comparing apples and pink hippos, and, inevitably, the ratio you produce has no actual meaning. I mean yes you can divide two random numbers by each other, but that is all you are doing

Curtis Lemay -> RE: OT - The New Coronavirus (4/6/2020 4:09:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: loki100 or maybe you are comparing apples and pink hippos, and, inevitably, the ratio you produce has no actual meaning. I mean yes you can divide two random numbers by each other, but that is all you are doing They are not random numbers. They are the official total recovered and the total deaths. In other words, the Total Resolved. That's all I'm doing is a simple act of arithmetic on the raw data from the WHO.

RangerJoe -> RE: OT - The New Coronavirus (4/6/2020 4:40:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: Zovs Bob and Jack both of your numbers are incorrect, even the WHO numbers are faulty. Why you ask? Because the Chinese are not reporting all the cases of confirmed and dead. China is not telling the truth on their actual numbers. Those that would believe what the Chinese communist party is reporting, well I have a golden bridge for sale, it’s a steal at $50 bucks. More "belief". I simply choose not to deal in belief. That is why you post the numbers that you do. To incite panic, to confuse the issue. BTW, how is your online store doing? Or are you just selling alongside the highway?

Curtis Lemay -> RE: OT - The New Coronavirus (4/6/2020 4:43:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: Zovs Bob and Jack both of your numbers are incorrect, even the WHO numbers are faulty. Why you ask? Because the Chinese are not reporting all the cases of confirmed and dead. China is not telling the truth on their actual numbers. Those that would believe what the Chinese communist party is reporting, well I have a golden bridge for sale, it’s a steal at $50 bucks. More "belief". I simply choose not to deal in belief. That is why you post the numbers that you do. To incite panic, to confuse the issue. BTW, how is your online store doing? Or are you just selling alongside the highway? Make that pathological liar.

loki100 -> RE: OT - The New Coronavirus (4/6/2020 4:59:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: loki100 or maybe you are comparing apples and pink hippos, and, inevitably, the ratio you produce has no actual meaning. I mean yes you can divide two random numbers by each other, but that is all you are doing They are not random numbers. They are the official total recovered and the total deaths. In other words, the Total Resolved. That's all I'm doing is a simple act of arithmetic on the raw data from the WHO. except the two numbers combined are as meaningful as if I posted the cat:bike ratio in my house. Lets take this slowly. We know (ie good statistical modelling keeps on coming back to this) that in the context of a decent functioning secondary health care system this virus has a mortality rate in the 1-2% range (now please note there are some conditional elements to that sentence). So far worse than a normal flu season. We know (& this ratio really does stack up), that 20% of those infected get a really nasty dose. The spread of this 20% of course maps onto age and other existing health variables but the ratio works at the population level. We know (ie statistics again), that around 40-50% of this group (so 8-10% of the those infected) need secondary health care to survive. We also know (ie we know the ratio but we don't yet know why) that it seems that the virus infects up to 75-80% of a population group. So lets take a hugely vulnerable group. Say the Syrian internal refugees in Idlib - probably as vulnerable as any group on the planet and totally lacking secondary medical care. The most likely death rate is around 10% directly due to the virus - think we can all agree its truely horrific but its only 50% of the number you are claiming for the global population. Now given that group, and most other refugee groups, such a loss will cause secondary deaths as family/social ties collapse. In effect, this is stats 101. First lesson when I start teaching multivariate techniques is to go on about common sense. Always have a rough and ready idea where the answer can lie. The global mortality for this at the moment cannot be the 20% you so prettily display. QED - your method is wrong.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: OT - The New Coronavirus (4/6/2020 5:13:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: loki100 except the two numbers combined are as meaningful as if I posted the cat:bike ratio in my house. Lets take this slowly. We know (ie good statistical modelling keeps on coming back to this) that in the context of a decent functioning secondary health care system this virus has a mortality rate in the 1-2% range (now please note there are some conditional elements to that sentence). So far worse than a normal flu season. We know (& this ratio really does stack up), that 20% of those infected get a really nasty dose. The spread of this 20% of course maps onto age and other existing health variables but the ratio works at the population level. We know (ie statistics again), that around 40-50% of this group (so 8-10% of the those infected) need secondary health care to survive. We also know (ie we know the ratio but we don't yet know why) that it seems that the virus infects up to 75-80% of a population group. So lets take a hugely vulnerable group. Say the Syrian internal refugees in Idlib - probably as vulnerable as any group on the planet and totally lacking secondary medical care. The most likely death rate is around 10% directly due to the virus - think we can all agree its truely horrific but its only 50% of the number you are claiming for the global population. Now given that group, and most other refugee groups, such a loss will cause secondary deaths as family/social ties collapse. In effect, this is stats 101. First lesson when I start teaching multivariate techniques is to go on about common sense. Always have a rough and ready idea where the answer can lie. The global mortality for this at the moment cannot be the 20% you so prettily display. QED - your method is wrong. You can go as slowly as you like. It doesn't make any of the above anything more than belief. You are speculating. None of it is based upon the official numbers.

Red2112 -> RE: OT - The New Coronavirus (4/6/2020 5:14:28 PM)
Should we thank you for your "golden" numbers? Because I don´t get it, if so what are you doing here? Why are they not paying you for the truth, or you devine vertude with numbers? Like I said, we see numbers everyday Rico, we are VERY aware what they are, as we are very aware that REAL numbers are not being taken into account (everywhere, not only in China), because AGAIN, not enough test kits, or they are lieing! Do we need that here too? People that are being recoverd are asking if they should be tested again to see if they have been infected again. No way, as there´s not enough test kits! This is happening all over the world. But Bob Ross and his magical paint kit seems to resist to that fact!

rico21 -> RE: OT - The New Coronavirus (4/6/2020 5:33:07 PM)
These figures show globally the general effectiveness against covid 19. The figures will go up very high and when they come down it will be the moment when humanity will subdue the beast.

Red2112 -> RE: OT - The New Coronavirus (4/6/2020 6:01:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rico21 These figures show globally the general effectiveness against covid 19. The figures will go up very high and when they come down it will be the moment when humanity will subdue the beast. Is this something we don´t already know? Plenty of things going on that we can talk about, like the need´s of the frontline, and what they are missing in terms of supplies and protection. That´s what we really know. Did you know that the elder, which of most don´t have a credit card are having issues to withdraw money from there bank? Do they have somebody who can go to the bank for them? As they are very vulnerable, and should stay isolated. So many things that are worth talking about that need solutions, besides some statistics in a graph. They won´t go down if we don´t take care of all these other related issues, which is my point.

loki100 -> RE: OT - The New Coronavirus (4/6/2020 9:13:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay ... You can go as slowly as you like. It doesn't make any of the above anything more than belief. You are speculating. None of it is based upon the official numbers. If I were you, I'd be applying for my Nobel Prize now. You've identified a death rate well in excess of anyone else, in fact well in excess of the % who will get a dangerous form of infection, and ... (in your world) you are utterly right. Don't waste your time on us mere mortals, take your graphs and go for glory [8D]

Curtis Lemay -> RE: OT - The New Coronavirus (4/6/2020 9:32:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: loki100 If I were you, I'd be applying for my Nobel Prize now. You've identified a death rate well in excess of anyone else, in fact well in excess of the % who will get a dangerous form of infection, and ... (in your world) you are utterly right. Don't waste your time on us mere mortals, take your graphs and go for glory [8D] It is a FACT: Of all the known resolved corona virus cases worldwide, over 20% have died. I'm only expressing facts. You are welcome to your opinion. But, if you had any integrity, you would admit that's all that you're proffering.

RangerJoe -> RE: OT - The New Coronavirus (4/6/2020 10:10:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: loki100 If I were you, I'd be applying for my Nobel Prize now. You've identified a death rate well in excess of anyone else, in fact well in excess of the % who will get a dangerous form of infection, and ... (in your world) you are utterly right. Don't waste your time on us mere mortals, take your graphs and go for glory [8D] It is a FACT: Of all the known resolved corona virus cases worldwide, over 20% have died. I'm only expressing facts. You are welcome to your opinion. But, if you had any integrity, you would admit that's all that you're proffering. If what you are consuming is legal, would you kindly share what it is?

Curtis Lemay -> RE: OT - The New Coronavirus (4/6/2020 10:13:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: loki100 If I were you, I'd be applying for my Nobel Prize now. You've identified a death rate well in excess of anyone else, in fact well in excess of the % who will get a dangerous form of infection, and ... (in your world) you are utterly right. Don't waste your time on us mere mortals, take your graphs and go for glory [8D] It is a FACT: Of all the known resolved corona virus cases worldwide, over 20% have died. I'm only expressing facts. You are welcome to your opinion. But, if you had any integrity, you would admit that's all that you're proffering. If what you are consuming is legal, would you kindly share what it is? More lies.

Lobster -> RE: OT - The New Coronavirus (4/6/2020 10:25:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: loki100 You've identified a death rate well in excess of anyone else Not true. Just sayin. [image]local://upfiles/45799/98FBBC08C8F3420E902962732F8F9726.jpg[/image]

RangerJoe -> RE: OT - The New Coronavirus (4/6/2020 10:36:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: loki100 If I were you, I'd be applying for my Nobel Prize now. You've identified a death rate well in excess of anyone else, in fact well in excess of the % who will get a dangerous form of infection, and ... (in your world) you are utterly right. Don't waste your time on us mere mortals, take your graphs and go for glory [8D] It is a FACT: Of all the known resolved corona virus cases worldwide, over 20% have died. I'm only expressing facts. You are welcome to your opinion. But, if you had any integrity, you would admit that's all that you're proffering. If what you are consuming is legal, would you kindly share what it is? More lies. What lies?

Lobster -> RE: OT - The New Coronavirus (4/6/2020 10:56:16 PM)
In Miami people are being tested to see if they have antibodies to the virus whether or not they have had symptoms. This will eventually be done in other parts of the U.S. In this way a better picture will be made of how wide spread the virus is and who can go back to work because they now have immunity.

RangerJoe -> RE: OT - The New Coronavirus (4/6/2020 11:04:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lobster In Miami people are being tested to see if they have antibodies to the virus whether or not they have had symptoms. This will eventually be done in other parts of the U.S. In this way a better picture will be made of how wide spread the virus is and who can go back to work because they now have immunity. Not just that but their plasma can be used to treat people who are sick from the virus.

MrRoadrunner -> RE: OT - The New Coronavirus (4/7/2020 12:34:08 AM)
70,482/1,288,372 = 5.5%

warspite1 -> RE: OT - The New Coronavirus (4/7/2020 5:39:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: loki100 except the two numbers combined are as meaningful as if I posted the cat:bike ratio in my house...... You've identified a death rate well in excess of anyone else..... warspite1 Mate, for the sake of your own sanity, give it up. Nothing you say will stop these pretty graphs and the 'death rate' - totally ridiculous, alarmist nonsense in isolation though it is - from being presented. That the same numbers (without the totally redundant "Total Cases" which form no part of his calculation) are posted in places such as worldometers appears lost on some. Their numbers are suitably caveated to clearly state that they are based on "cases which had an outcome" and which have the serious/critical numbers as a % of the active cases next to it, and which provide further useful links - one of which clearly states "A precise estimate of the case fatality rate is therefore impossible at present". But then, they have obviously tried to present numbers in a more meaningful form but this distinction appears to be totally lost on the "I hate to be the bearer of bad news but we've been calculating this all wrong" brigade. He is happy to create graphs of totally meaningless numbers, without explanation or caveat, for no useful purpose whatsoever, so why not just let him and save yourself the aggravation? By the way vis a vis your first comment, do you like my pretty pie chart? Maybe could do with a dash of colour? I think I can safely conclude from this that I have a cat light/bike heavy type scenario going on chez warspite. [image]local://upfiles/28156/5FAE84C0427D4F7999B9471E27469206.jpg[/image]

loki100 -> RE: OT - The New Coronavirus (4/7/2020 6:09:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 ... By the way vis a vis your first comment, do you like my pretty pie chart? Maybe could do with a dash of colour? I think I can safely conclude from this that I have a cat light/bike heavy type scenario going on chez warspite. [image]local://upfiles/28156/5FAE84C0427D4F7999B9471E27469206.jpg[/image] think it would be more conclusive if you had it shaded a bit (and in pink?) well the cat/bike ratio has just altered as one of our older toms has come back from his night out so things are back to 4/4 edit: shortly after that it altered to 3/4, at the moment it is 2/4 but will be 2/2 fairly soon. Its almost as if by comparing 2 factual but unrelated numbers I am either (a) talking mince or (b) have proved there is a correlation between the number of cats and the number of bikes in the house at any time. FWIW, I'll opt for the mince explanation.

Lobster -> RE: OT - The New Coronavirus (4/7/2020 11:41:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: loki100 except the two numbers combined are as meaningful as if I posted the cat:bike ratio in my house...... You've identified a death rate well in excess of anyone else..... warspite1 Mate, for the sake of your own sanity, give it up. Nothing you say will stop these pretty graphs and the 'death rate' - totally ridiculous, alarmist nonsense in isolation though it is - from being presented. That the same numbers (without the totally redundant "Total Cases" which form no part of his calculation) are posted in places such as worldometers appears lost on some. Their numbers are suitably caveated to clearly state that they are based on "cases which had an outcome" and which have the serious/critical numbers as a % of the active cases next to it, and which provide further useful links - one of which clearly states "A precise estimate of the case fatality rate is therefore impossible at present". But then, they have obviously tried to present numbers in a more meaningful form but this distinction appears to be totally lost on the "I hate to be the bearer of bad news but we've been calculating this all wrong" brigade. He is happy to create graphs of totally meaningless numbers, without explanation or caveat, for no useful purpose whatsoever, so why not just let him and save yourself the aggravation? By the way vis a vis your first comment, do you like my pretty pie chart? Maybe could do with a dash of colour? I think I can safely conclude from this that I have a cat light/bike heavy type scenario going on chez warspite. [image]local://upfiles/28156/5FAE84C0427D4F7999B9471E27469206.jpg[/image] Mate, for the sake of your own sanity, give it up. [:D][:D][:D][:D]

Lobster -> RE: OT - The New Coronavirus (4/7/2020 11:44:22 AM)
BBC Coronavirus: Warning over daily death figures By Rachel Schraer Health reporter 7 April 2020 Experts are warning against over-interpreting daily figures of people dying with Covid-19, since they often reflect reporting delays. Spikes or dips may in part reflect bottlenecks in the reporting system, rather than real changes in the trend. On Monday, 439 coronavirus deaths were recorded in the UK - down from 621 on Sunday and 708 on Saturday. Many hospitals will not report deaths that happened over the weekend until the middle of the following week. Over the weekend, NHS England released new figures broken down by the actual date of death. And these reveal that between 11 March and 1 April there were about 300 more deaths than previously thought during that period. Prof Jim Naismith, at the University of Oxford, said because of "understandable" delays in reporting by NHS trusts, the daily figures included deaths that may have happened up to two weeks ago. Separate figures, published last week, also suggest the number of people dying with coronavirus is higher than the daily totals indicate. The Office for National Statistics examined registrations and found deaths in the community not included in the daily hospital deaths figures. Nevertheless, there are some early promising signs the virus's spread is slowing, as new confirmed cases fell from 4,450 to 3,802 between Friday and Monday. The rate of increase in new cases has halved in the past week. And this should feed through into a slowing in critical-care admissions and eventually deaths. But reporting delays mean once we reach the peak, we may not know about it for several days. And this makes it a challenge to see the real trend at the moment. Prof Naismith said daily data releases were good for transparency. "The only downside of government releasing data in this way is that it has become a scorecard for the media and a worried public," he said. Follow Rachel on Twitter https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52167016

Lobster -> RE: OT - The New Coronavirus (4/7/2020 12:03:13 PM)
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/we-could-be-vastly-overestimating-the-death-rate-for-covid-19-heres-why/

Lobster -> RE: OT - The New Coronavirus (4/7/2020 12:05:07 PM)
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2239497-why-we-still-dont-know-what-the-death-rate-is-for-covid-19/

Lobster -> RE: OT - The New Coronavirus (4/7/2020 12:05:59 PM)
So you see, no one knows. Worldometer's front page has about the same numbers as Bob. Maybe you should write them and tell them how stupid they are. [:D]

RangerJoe -> RE: OT - The New Coronavirus (4/7/2020 12:18:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lobster https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/we-could-be-vastly-overestimating-the-death-rate-for-covid-19-heres-why/ I wonder if Lemay will read that. Nope, it would ruin his fear mongering!

Lobster -> RE: OT - The New Coronavirus (4/7/2020 12:30:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe quote: ORIGINAL: Lobster https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/we-could-be-vastly-overestimating-the-death-rate-for-covid-19-heres-why/ I wonder if Lemay will read that. Nope, it would ruin his fear mongering! I don't understand why you people don't simply push the green button. Personally I don't do that. Maybe the person I censor has something to say that I need to hear. But then I'm not into censorship because I'm not a dicktator. Here, write these people and tell them they are fear mongering because of their front page. The math is correct but ignore that and tell them how wrong they are. [8\|] https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

warspite1 -> RE: OT - The New Coronavirus (4/7/2020 12:44:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lobster Here, write these people and tell them they are fear mongering because of their front page. The math is correct but ignore that and tell them how wrong they are. [8\|] https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ warspite1 As said above and about a berzillion times previously, its not the numbers on their own. Yes, the numbers on their own are pointless, useless, simplistic, mis-guided and scaremongering, but if he wants to post them then fine - post away to his little hearts content. But it would be sensible to add a simple caveat or two. It's not difficult, he doesn't need to make any judgements, assumptions or guestimates himself, just simply put some freakin' context around the 'pretty' graphs: That the same numbers (without the totally redundant "Total Cases" which form no part of his calculation) are posted in places such as worldometers appears lost on some. Their numbers are suitably caveated to clearly state that they are based on "cases which had an outcome" and which have the serious/critical numbers as a % of the active cases next to it, and which provide further useful links - one of which clearly states "A precise estimate of the case fatality rate is therefore impossible at present". But then, they have obviously tried to present numbers in a more meaningful form but this distinction appears to be totally lost on the "I hate to be the bearer of bad news but we've been calculating this all wrong" brigade.

warspite1 -> RE: OT - The New Coronavirus (4/7/2020 12:47:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lobster I don't understand why you people don't simply push the green button. warspite1 Yes you do, you've just explained it. I have never green buttoned anyone either for similar reasons to you. Personally I suspect very few people do - but some people (not all) just love to self importantly announce that they've green buttoned x.

warspite1 -> RE: OT - The New Coronavirus (4/7/2020 12:50:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lobster [image]local://upfiles/28156/5FAE84C0427D4F7999B9471E27469206.jpg[/image] Mate, for the sake of your own sanity, give it up. [:D][:D][:D][:D] warspite1 I hope you are not criticising my graph. I've put hours into extrapolating the key data points [:D]

Page: << < prev 31 32 [33] 34 35 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.78125