Corona Virus Updates Part 5

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: carewemust

It will never be an absolute value but when the number of unresolved cases (hospitalized or not) becomes negligible (statistically insignificant) the estimates become more reliable. But simple ratios of fatalities to cases at a point in time cannot be relied upon.

Say, for example, that it turns out that chloroquine turns out to be an effective treatment. The numbers now would instantly become meaningless as would an average. Conversely, say that the health care system is overrun to the point that our current level of medical care becomes moot. Same situation, the numbers now don't count.

I can agree with this.

But right now: FACT: 18%



www.worldometers.info...

Lets hope it dwindles.

a reply to: UFO1414

But right now: FACT: 18%

Yes. But for predictive purposes, useless. Except that, as the number of cases increases, so will the number of deaths.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UFO1414

But right now: FACT: 18%

Yes. But for predictive purposes, useless. Except that, as the number of cases increases, so will the number of deaths.

Phage,

This is the whole GD point. Not predicting. Translating LIVE numbers.

I agree, I expect the numbers will get better, eventually. But we're living in the now.

originally posted by: BPilgrim
a reply to: elitegamer23

I don't disagree with what he said in general but in relation to your post it makes zero sense. It blows my mind that people can read what you said and then what he said and consider it a good response. You said, "I’m not religious but if you are , please pray". So according to your words religion is necessary for prayer.

Then hopenot comes along and says, "Prayer is sending positive energy, one doesn't have to be religious to get that concept." So one doesn't have to be religous to pray. And this is a perfect explanation of what you said?

Y'all are too clever for me.

I normally don’t talk about politics or religion with people because it turns people crazy. You’re thinking about what I said way too much !

Stay safe and wash your hands man !

a reply to: UFO1414

The psychology of this takes a while to settle in, everyone will go through a variety of emotions, Young people will think it wont worry them, until one of their friends get sick. But they will have infected granny by the time they wake up. People paying heavy Mortgages will have been doing all the right things and suddenly wont have a job anymore. They will get a holiday from it, but end up paying a million dollar mortgage for a property they cant sell for a hundred grand. When the cars microprocessor needs replacing the parts might not be available. In Aussie 55% of the economy is in selling and buying houses thinking you have become rich on your property portfolio, what's that going to do to your state of mind. The Banks are going to find out all the million dollar mortgages they have financed , have reduced their balance sheet by ninety per cent , so they are technically bankrupt. Crazy but # happens , I think we have our Black Swan.

a reply to: UFO1414

The problem with that approach is that it becomes fodder to deny the actual gravity of the crisis.

It is not a reliable number, especially since the testing rate is so dismal.

a reply to: UFO1414

Case fatality ratio is not a number based upon closed cases. Case fatality ratio is a number based over time as ALL diagnosed cases vs. resultant deaths from diagnosed cases. Right now, the only thing more alarming than large numbers, are incorrect numbers.

How to calculate CFR

Was just watching the livestream of Wuhan on YT, and read on the "ticker" that "lethality" is deaths×100/deaths+recovered. Does anyone know how this is different from CFR? In other words, what exactly does "lethality" express?

Russia on the 30th will close with only 1,264 cases and, with four deaths, land sea air and borders,

a reply to: BPilgrim

I have an acquaintance that yells about 'Christians' to the top of her lungs constantly, talking down on us, mocking about 'oh but your God says this or that'...... but as soon as something happens to her or her family she's in my inbox saying 'alert your family (all Christians) that so and so is doing bad and really needs prayers'. Yeah, kinda funny.

originally posted by: DictionaryOfExcuses
Was just watching the livestream of Wuhan on YT, and read on the "ticker" that "lethality" is deaths×100/deaths+recovered. Does anyone know how this is different from CFR? In other words, what exactly does "lethality" express?

deaths×100/deaths+recovered, I think. Off the top of my head.

a reply to: Phage

Well that was circular, thanks a lot.

I did not mean "express" in a mathematical way.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UFO1414

The problem with that approach is that it becomes fodder to deny the actual gravity of the crisis.

It is not a reliable number, especially since the testing rate is so dismal.

Not gonna question that. Especially if I was on my own island.

Another FACT for this thread is I have a family of four in an urban locale. Not going to risk anything I don't have to. People are still not taking this seriously enough...

Well, hold on, that is hearsay. Gotta sleep... Be well all.

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: DictionaryOfExcuses
Was just watching the livestream of Wuhan on YT, and read on the "ticker" that "lethality" is deaths×100/deaths+recovered. Does anyone know how this is different from CFR? In other words, what exactly does "lethality" express?

deaths×100/deaths+recovered, I think. Off the top of my head.

Well at least the facts are presented

a reply to: DictionaryOfExcuses

You're the one who asked for a definition which was provided in your post.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DictionaryOfExcuses

You're the one who asked for a definition which was provided in your post.

Just to say, "As a comedian in all seriousness" I think the solaidarity thing in Poland is overrated.

a reply to: Phage

No Phage, I did not. While "deaths×100/deaths+recovered" might be the method for calculating "lethality", it is not the definition.

In plain language I asked "Does anyone know how this (lethality) is different from CFR?" You ignored this. To state my question in yet another way: is "lethality" synonymous with "CFR"?

This is not an unreasonable question to ask, given I do not have an epidemiological background with all its related jargon.

a reply to: DictionaryOfExcuses

While "deaths×100/deaths+recovered" might be the method for calculating "lethality", it is not the definition.

Yes, it is.

Just as the definition of pi is the ratio between the diameter of a circle and its circumference.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DictionaryOfExcuses

While "deaths×100/deaths+recovered" might be the method for calculating "lethality", it is not the definition.

Yes, it is.

Just as the definition of pi is the ratio between the diameter of a circle and its circumference.

I was hoping for no reason that you would respond with an SCTV anecdote.

originally posted by: alphabetaone
a reply to: UFO1414

I'd be curious to know where and how those numbers are derived though.

They are "confirmed cases of coronavirus (as it says in the data descriptors). In other words, not the actual number of sick, but sick ones who have been tested and the tests sent to a lab and (4-5 days later) a positive result was returned.

So the numbers are generally 4-5 days old and represent testing by available tests (we don't have a lot here in Texas).

Testing will tell us when it slows. Right now, it's rising and we're in the first phase.