Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Today's worldwide figures:

Total Cases: 213557
Total Recovered: 84317
Total Deaths: 8790

Death Rate: 8790 / (8790 + 84317) = 9.4%

That's up from 8.5% yesterday.

Note that the above figures are all we have to work with. If you don't like the results you can:

1. Manipulate the data. That means cherry-picking the data you like and ignoring the data you don't like. That's an obvious vector for bias.
2. Speculate about unknowns. That seems to be the balm most of you are turning to (especially for the recoveries - not the deaths). But this will only result in a guess and everyone's guess will vary wildly. (And deaths are unknown as well - victims that died at home alone may not be found for months, and N. Korea's and Iran's numbers are suspect).
3. Cram the unresolved cases into the "recovered" column. Obviously wrong.
4. Wait months for a fully accurate accounting. We can't do that. We need the best estimate NOW.

The figure above is the only one we have that is available NOW, and has no data MANIPULATION or SPECULATION.

Let me know when your number reaches 100%. At that point I will go to all the active cases and let them know they have to die to support your logic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Today's worldwide figures:

Total Cases: 213557
Total Recovered: 84317
Total Deaths: 8790

Death Rate: 8790 / (8790 + 84317) = 9.4%

That's up from 8.5% yesterday.

Note that the above figures are all we have to work with. If you don't like the results you can:

1. Manipulate the data. That means cherry-picking the data you like and ignoring the data you don't like. That's an obvious vector for bias.
2. Speculate about unknowns. That seems to be the balm most of you are turning to (especially for the recoveries - not the deaths). But this will only result in a guess and everyone's guess will vary wildly. (And deaths are unknown as well - victims that died at home alone may not be found for months, and N. Korea's and Iran's numbers are suspect).
3. Cram the unresolved cases into the "recovered" column. Obviously wrong.
4. Wait months for a fully accurate accounting. We can't do that. We need the best estimate NOW.

The figure above is the only one we have that is available NOW, and has no data MANIPULATION or SPECULATION.

Let me know when your number reaches 100%. At that point I will go to all the active cases and let them know they have to die to support your logic.

Especially if he were to catch it. Then, if it is not allowed where he lives, he could relocate to someplace where assisted suicide is legal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Today's worldwide figures:

Total Cases: 213557
Total Recovered: 84317
Total Deaths: 8790

Death Rate: 8790 / (8790 + 84317) = 9.4%

That's up from 8.5% yesterday.

Note that the above figures are all we have to work with. If you don't like the results you can:

1. Manipulate the data. That means cherry-picking the data you like and ignoring the data you don't like. That's an obvious vector for bias.
2. Speculate about unknowns. That seems to be the balm most of you are turning to (especially for the recoveries - not the deaths). But this will only result in a guess and everyone's guess will vary wildly. (And deaths are unknown as well - victims that died at home alone may not be found for months, and N. Korea's and Iran's numbers are suspect).
3. Cram the unresolved cases into the "recovered" column. Obviously wrong.
4. Wait months for a fully accurate accounting. We can't do that. We need the best estimate NOW.

The figure above is the only one we have that is available NOW, and has no data MANIPULATION or SPECULATION.

Let me know when your number reaches 100%. At that point I will go to all the active cases and let them know they have to die to support your logic.

Especially if he were to catch it. Then, if it is not allowed where he lives, he could relocate to someplace where assisted suicide is legal.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Today's worldwide figures:

Total Cases: 213557
Total Recovered: 84317
Total Deaths: 8790

Death Rate: 8790 / (8790 + 84317) = 9.4%

That's up from 8.5% yesterday.

Note that the above figures are all we have to work with. If you don't like the results you can:

1. Manipulate the data. That means cherry-picking the data you like and ignoring the data you don't like. That's an obvious vector for bias.
2. Speculate about unknowns. That seems to be the balm most of you are turning to (especially for the recoveries - not the deaths). But this will only result in a guess and everyone's guess will vary wildly. (And deaths are unknown as well - victims that died at home alone may not be found for months, and N. Korea's and Iran's numbers are suspect).
3. Cram the unresolved cases into the "recovered" column. Obviously wrong.
4. Wait months for a fully accurate accounting. We can't do that. We need the best estimate NOW.

The figure above is the only one we have that is available NOW, and has no data MANIPULATION or SPECULATION.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


...

So perhaps the "ignore him and he'll go away approach" is best?

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

So this is the first day of working from home while my little warspites are still at Uni/School and Mrs W is at work. Weird.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Today's worldwide figures:

Total Cases: 213557
Total Recovered: 84317
Total Deaths: 8790

Death Rate: 8790 / (8790 + 84317) = 9.4%

That's up from 8.5% yesterday.

Note that the above figures are all we have to work with. If you don't like the results you can:

1. Manipulate the data. That means cherry-picking the data you like and ignoring the data you don't like. That's an obvious vector for bias.
2. Speculate about unknowns. That seems to be the balm most of you are turning to (especially for the recoveries - not the deaths). But this will only result in a guess and everyone's guess will vary wildly. (And deaths are unknown as well - victims that died at home alone may not be found for months, and N. Korea's and Iran's numbers are suspect).
3. Cram the unresolved cases into the "recovered" column. Obviously wrong.
4. Wait months for a fully accurate accounting. We can't do that. We need the best estimate NOW.

The figure above is the only one we have that is available NOW, and has no data MANIPULATION or SPECULATION.

Let me know when your number reaches 100%. At that point I will go to all the active cases and let them know they have to die to support your logic.

Especially if he were to catch it. Then, if it is not allowed where he lives, he could relocate to someplace where assisted suicide is legal.

warspite1

Zorch, RangerJoe I really wouldn't bother. He's clearly enjoying his five minutes of fame and appears to be getting off on the numbers rising higher. He knows that if this thing does prove worse than we are currently being led to believe then he can be the all knowing sage - and if in time the numbers prove to be lower, then he can use his 'mathematical formula' as his defence. I note he hasn't broken his numbers down by country - after all that would expose the absurdity of his 'methodology'. You mention 100% Zorch, but the US is around 50% death rate (according to him) so instead of telling the active cases in the US they have to die, just tell them they need to flip one of those coins he keeps banging on about before knowing what is the appropriate course of action for them to take.

One thing that is clear is that he isn't going to stop, he's on a roll and loving it. So in responding we are just going to get the same thing everyday; The poor man's grim reaper pipes up with his daily shock headline based on selected, cherry-picked data for maximum effect, then calmer, more measured heads take exception, and others get angry that the same conversations are being had.

So perhaps the "ignore him and he'll go away approach" is best?

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Does that information include the cases where people got sick from the virus but it was not reported as such? That number should be included.

quote:

warspite1

Zorch, RangerJoe I really wouldn't bother. He's clearly enjoying his five minutes of fame and appears to be getting off on the numbers rising higher. He knows that if this thing does prove worse than we are currently being led to believe then he can be the all knowing sage - and if in time the numbers prove to be lower, then he can use his 'mathematical formula' as his defence.

quote:

I note he hasn't broken his numbers down by country - after all that would expose the absurdity of his 'methodology'. You mention 100% Zorch, but the US is around 50% death rate (according to him) so instead of telling the active cases in the US they have to die, just tell them they need to flip one of those coins he keeps banging on about before knowing what is the appropriate course of action for them to take.

quote:

One thing that is clear is that he isn't going to stop, he's on a roll and loving it. So in responding we are just going to get the same thing everyday; The poor man's grim reaper pipes up with his daily shock headline based on selected, cherry-picked data for maximum effect, then calmer, more measured heads take exception, and others get angry that the same conversations are being had.

So perhaps the "ignore him and he'll go away approach" is best?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Curtis is the kind of guy who would start a round of golf, score an eagle on the first hole, and project confidently that he'll finish at 36 under par.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Curtis is the kind of guy who would start a round of golf, score an eagle on the first hole, and project confidently that he'll finish at 36 under par.

I see others not even playing the round and using rounds they have never played as proof of their prowess. In every game only the finished ones count as won or lost. You can't use imagined games as a factor.

Any disease is 'Schrodinger's disease'. If you are still sick you are either died from it or survived it. But until you 'open the box' (the disease has come to a conclusion with the patient) you don't know. Only resolved cases can concretely be verified as dead or alive. If you can tell me how someone who currently is sick with the latest virus out of Asia is going to resolve with 100% accuracy then someone at WHO would like to have a talk with you.

People can blather all they want about who is still sick. But until they have either died from it or survived it you can't count them as resolved. And only until it is resolved you can't count them as dead from it or alive/survived it because they are still sick.

All Bob is doing is counting resolved cases. Yet everyone gets their panties in a wad because everyone is obviously an expert as to how anything should be counted.

I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong. I'm simply saying someone is showing their numbers based on a specific data point. Nothing wrong with that. Well, unless your ego has trouble fitting into a football field.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Curtis is the kind of guy who would start a round of golf, score an eagle on the first hole, and project confidently that he'll finish at 36 under par.

I see others not even playing the round and using rounds they have never played as proof of their prowess. In every game only the finished ones count as won or lost. You can't use imagined games as a factor.

Any disease is 'Schrodinger's disease'. If you are still sick you are either died from it or survived it. But until you 'open the box' (the disease has come to a conclusion with the patient) you don't know. Only resolved cases can concretely be verified as dead or alive. If you can tell me how someone who currently is sick with the latest virus out of Asia is going to resolve with 100% accuracy then someone at WHO would like to have a talk with you.

People can blather all they want about who is still sick. But until they have either died from it or survived it you can't count them as resolved. And only until it is resolved you can't count them as dead from it or alive/survived it because they are still sick.

All Bob is doing is counting resolved cases. Yet everyone gets their panties in a wad because everyone is obviously an expert as to how anything should be counted.

I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong. I'm simply saying someone is showing their numbers based on a specific data point. Nothing wrong with that. Well, unless your ego has trouble fitting into a football field.

warspite1

So who has claimed to be an expert? who claims to know exactly what to do with the largest variable we have? What's it got to do with ego? Ego? I don't give a stuff about ego. Like most people I have a family to protect and knowledge is a vital commodity (same as it ever was). So its got nothing to do with proving what an 'expert' everyone is, and everything to do with trying to get sensible, non-alarmist, but as accurate as possible information.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rico21

This thread is interesting for the variety of these opinions.
Personally, if if I want to hear: "blablabla, don't worry blablabla everything will be better tomorrow blablabla but not today ...".
I turn on the TV.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Bob used two data points. Same data points that people who are more qualified than anyone on this board. If you want to use different data points fine. Not my call. But when people call someone wrong because of the factual data points they use and continue down that line then I have to question their motives.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

If you are looking for the data points that tell you the risk of a people group in a particular area getting this virus then you need to look at local data, not global, not national but local. It varies greatly by where you are. You need to look at what is happening where you are, certainly not global. I'm certainly not an expert but even I know this.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

...

Bob used two data points. Same data points that people who are more qualified than anyone on this board. If you want to use different data points fine. Not my call. But when people call someone wrong because of the factual data points they use and continue down that line then I have to question their motives.
...

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

...

Bob used two data points. Same data points that people who are more qualified than anyone on this board. If you want to use different data points fine. Not my call. But when people call someone wrong because of the factual data points they use and continue down that line then I have to question their motives.
...

There are two problems with his 'data' points and how he combines them. First, the infected N is too low, we know this not least as (for eg) the UK stopped proper testing unless you were admitted to hospital. So going back to my table above, we only have the ratio between disease+hospital admission and outcome.

Second, lets make the heroic assumption that his data is correct and complete. We know/strongly fear, that this thing is going to infect most people - hence all the various states trying to delay this so as to keep some functioning society as it works through the population. His numbers can only be applied to that near complete population group if (and only if) the sample of infected is typical of the wider population. Its not. Which is why statisticians then apply all sorts of moderating factors to come up with estimates using the data from the sample (and that is what he has) to the full population.

Ignoring this expertise and process is pretty obtuse.