Coronavirus RESPECTFUL Discussion Only! (Mod edit: Closed)

[NormZauchin]

During Riots in Baltimore a few years ago, the Orioles played an afternoon game to an empty stadium, no fans allowed at all.

I would imagine the NFL would have to change its black out rules.
Would home teams be allowed to pipe in crowd noise?

Down here in Washington, the Redskins have been experimenting with playing in an empty stadium.

 

[Kontradiction]

This one isn't it, it's not deadly enough. The real McCoy will be swift and lethal, like the Black Death of 14th century Europe.

BTW, are you sure you want to bring kids into a world headed for disaster within 30 years?

Hell yeah. It’ll be awesome. They’re going to die at some point either way. Might as well give them the gift of life before that happens. Jesus, you’re in a depressing mood tonight. Go smoke some pot or something.

 

[Tunescribe]

Hell yeah. It’ll be awesome. They’re going to die at some point either way. Might as well give them the gift of life before that happens. Jesus, you’re in a depressing mood tonight. Go smoke some pot or something.

I'm just a realist. You need to make me their godfather, I'll advise them on survival prep.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

..
Does C-19 have a higher mortality rate than the flu? So far, yes. But 23x is an exaggeration.

Not really. Italy has 1128 cases and 29 deaths, 2.5% mortality rate.(25x)
Italy’s Total Known Coronavirus Infections Top 1,000 Cases

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Not really. Italy has 1128 cases and 29 deaths, 2.5% mortality rate.(25x)
Italy’s Total Known Coronavirus Infections Top 1,000 Cases

The rate is fairly high among older people. It is closer to the flu level for younger and middle age people (0% for kids, up to about .5% as you get closer to 50). I don’t know if that’s the same as the flu. But it is definitely very concerning for someone 60+ to become infected where the fatality rate is 10-15%.

It also has a much higher fatality rate for people already dealing with big health issues. Seems this disease can finish off weaker immune systems but is generally quite mild against healthy ones.

 

[XLIX]

Not really. Italy has 1128 cases and 29 deaths, 2.5% mortality rate.(25x)
Italy’s Total Known Coronavirus Infections Top 1,000 Cases

Yeah ok, and South Korea has 17 of 3,526. That’s roughly one half of one percent.

 

[Joker]

Hi sports fans...say, how about a neat game show to while away the time?

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Here is a good resource:

Operations Dashboard for ArcGIS

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Yeah ok, and South Korea has 17 of 3,526. That’s roughly one half of one percent.

When a disease is in its exponential growth phase just dividing total deaths by total cases is incorrect and give a misleadingly low death rate, especially for a disease like this where if you end up dying it takes about 2 weeks or more from infection to death.

To get the true death rate you need to look at each day's reported deaths and divide them by the cases reported on the day two weeks earlier. That way you are dividing the deaths due to a block of infections by the actual since of that block of infections.

Here's an example of what I mean. Say you have a disease with a 100% per day growth rate, a 10% fatality rate, and if you die, you die after 3 days. (Picking all that to make the numbers simpler, not because those are the stats for this coronavirus. (For the love of god they better not be!)).

And we'll start with 100 infections on day 1
Day 1: 100 cases, 0 deaths, 100 total cases, 0 total deaths
Day 2: 200 cases, 0 deaths, 300 total cases, 0 total deaths
Day 3: 400 cases, 0 deaths, 700 total cases, 0 total deaths
Day 4: 800 cases, 10 deaths (these are the 10% of those infected on day 1), 1500 total cases, 10 total deaths
Day 5: 1600 cases, 20 deaths (10% of those infected on day 2), 3100 total cases, 30 total deaths
Day 6: 3200 cases, 40 deaths, (10% of those infected on day 3), 6300 total cases, 70 total deaths
etc

So on days 1-3 simple division makes it look like a 0% death rate
On day 4 it makes it look like a 0.67% death rate
On day 5 it makes it look like a 0.97% death rate
On day 6 it makes it look like a 1.1% death rate

But it's really 10%.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

This might be it. On top of being long overdue for an economic correction, we’re also long overdue for a good, old fashioned purge. Some lady in Sanford just came up and visited the nearby beach town next to the one I live in, Atlantic Beach. Now she’s screaming that she thinks she has the Coronavirus. The news reported it and stores are already cleared out of hand sanitizer. At least they’ll have clean hands when they breathe in an airborne virus though.

Woman in Sanford fears she has coronavirus, claims Health Department won’t test her for virus

I Googled this and wasn’t disappointed in the idiocy. This waste of oxygen has absolutely zero reason to believe she has the Coronavirus, doesn’t know what symptoms are consistent with the Coronavirus, is clearly lying about her contact with “sick Chinese citizens” and the news reports it anyway. Lmao. I’d bet anyone $10,000 and give them 10:1 odds that she does not have the disease. It’s obvious the Florida Health Dept wants to get her out of the hospital room and into the loony bin.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Not really. Italy has 1128 cases and 29 deaths, 2.5% mortality rate.(25x)
Italy’s Total Known Coronavirus Infections Top 1,000 Cases

Yeah ok, and South Korea has 17 of 3,526. That’s roughly one half of one percent.

At this writing, Ice_Ice's link above is giving 89,692 as the total cases number, yielding 2979 deaths, worldwide. That's 3.3% total, worldwide. That's at 42,606 recovered. So that's an interesting metric if you think about it -- at the disease "half life" (roughly half recovered, half still infected or dead) you get 3.3% fatality. The apparent way to look at this is misleading, since many are new, many are cycling out, and so on.

I think that both S. Korea's and Italy's numbers will still change but I don't know anything, beyond the fact that these are small and new clusters compared with the "mature" Chinese case.

There is likely a tendency not to count infection or death as coronavirus related unless one has tested, since its symptoms are similar to those of other diseases.

It's been a few days since some headline stories on our testing being minimal here. I'd love to see comparative protocols on when you test, for example, spanning Italy, ROK, and U.S.

Think about it: If you find ALL cases through testing (i.e., thorough testing,) and deaths are noted/reported at a constant rate, the apparent fatality rate compared with all infections will plummet.

So in the U.S. case, somebody might figure out that ramping up testing is GOOD to prevent deaths (and therefore the reporting of deaths), and also GOOD to water down the apparent lethality of the disease (as the full incidence of cases becomes larger compared with the constant report of deaths).

But knowing the number of cases might be the bigger ding to the economy, e.g., events, hospitality industry, etc... even though knowing the number of deaths at the same rate, the apparent death rate increases the less you know about the infection rate/number.

The true horror is that if reliable knowledge of deaths is unavailable, the rate will also be unreliable. That's when we'll be in full Soviet-style statistical vacuum/denial.

Lest we go full political, right now we'll stick with "the numbers that we know are the numbers until we know otherwise."

Here's the "scoreboard" link again, thanks to Ice_Ice
Operations Dashboard for ArcGIS

 

[XLIX]

Read it - you seem most in need.





At this writing, Ice_Ice's link above is giving 89,692 as the total cases number, yielding 2979 deaths, worldwide. That's 3.3% total, worldwide. That's at 42,606 recovered. So that's an interesting metric if you think about it -- at the disease "half life" (roughly half recovered, half still infected or dead) you get 3.3% fatality. The apparent way to look at this is misleading, since many are new, many are cycling out, and so on.

I think that both S. Korea's and Italy's numbers will still change but I don't know anything, beyond the fact that these are small and new clusters compared with the "mature" Chinese case.

There is likely a tendency not to count infection or death as coronavirus related unless one has tested, since its symptoms are similar to those of other diseases.

It's been a few days since some headline stories on our testing being minimal here. I'd love to see comparative protocols on when you test, for example, spanning Italy, ROK, and U.S.

Think about it: If you find ALL cases through testing (i.e., thorough testing,) and deaths are noted/reported at a constant rate, the apparent fatality rate compared with all infections will plummet.

So in the U.S. case, somebody might figure out that ramping up testing is GOOD to prevent deaths (and therefore the reporting of deaths), and also GOOD to water down the apparent lethality of the disease (as the full incidence of cases becomes larger compared with the constant report of deaths).

But knowing the number of cases might be the bigger ding to the economy, e.g., events, hospitality industry, etc... even though knowing the number of deaths at the same rate, the apparent death rate increases the less you know about the infection rate/number.

The true horror is that if reliable knowledge of deaths is unavailable, the rate will also be unreliable. That's when we'll be in full Soviet-style statistical vacuum/denial.

Lest we go full political, right now we'll stick with "the numbers that we know are the numbers until we know otherwise."

Here's the "scoreboard" link again, thanks to Ice_Ice
Operations Dashboard for ArcGIS

tl;dr

 

[PatsFanInVa]

tl;dr

I posted a recent president saying "It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant," but took it down. It could be viewed as political.

 

[XLIX]

I posted a recent president saying "It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant," but took it down. It could be viewed as political.

That’s why I spend a great deal of time reading from the learned on this subject. I don’t, however, spend a great deal of time reading from agenda driven randos on the internet.

 

[Jangles]

With only a 98% chance of survival I dont think the news stations are taking this seriously all. It’s barely even being talked about

We’re doomed. That’s all there is to it. Want to know where Tom Brady is going in free agency? Into the ground. Provided there’s enough people left to even organize funerals

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

The Princess Diamond cruise is considered “complete” and had 705 infections and 6 deaths. Smaller sample size, but I think it’s the only isolated bubble study that you can look at.

 

[XLIX]

When a disease is in its exponential growth phase just dividing total deaths by total cases is incorrect and give a misleadingly low death rate, especially for a disease like this where if you end up dying it takes about 2 weeks or more from infection to death.

To get the true death rate you need to look at each day's reported deaths and divide them by the cases reported on the day two weeks earlier. That way you are dividing the deaths due to a block of infections by the actual since of that block of infections.

Here's an example of what I mean. Say you have a disease with a 100% per day growth rate, a 10% fatality rate, and if you die, you die after 3 days. (Picking all that to make the numbers simpler, not because those are the stats for this coronavirus. (For the love of god they better not be!)).

And we'll start with 100 infections on day 1
Day 1: 100 cases, 0 deaths, 100 total cases, 0 total deaths
Day 2: 200 cases, 0 deaths, 300 total cases, 0 total deaths
Day 3: 400 cases, 0 deaths, 700 total cases, 0 total deaths
Day 4: 800 cases, 10 deaths (these are the 10% of those infected on day 1), 1500 total cases, 10 total deaths
Day 5: 1600 cases, 20 deaths (10% of those infected on day 2), 3100 total cases, 30 total deaths
Day 6: 3200 cases, 40 deaths, (10% of those infected on day 3), 6300 total cases, 70 total deaths
etc

So on days 1-3 simple division makes it look like a 0% death rate
On day 4 it makes it look like a 0.67% death rate
On day 5 it makes it look like a 0.97% death rate
On day 6 it makes it look like a 1.1% death rate

But it's really 10%.

You're not wrong when you talk about the bias involved in mortality rate, and yet my understanding is that is how the powers-that-be calculate it. It seems to me that the numbers are too darn low at this point to get an accurate result, not to mention that almost 40% of all cases worldwide came from Hubei Province, which completely skews the whole thing. That's why I have seen estimates/predictions anywhere from less than 1% up to 6% or 7%.

The numbers are still so low that if, say, 2000 people in China got it but never knew they had it (because the symptoms were so mild or they chalked it up to the common cold/flu or they live in remote communities with no access to health care), that would have a noticeable impact on mortality rates. If we look strictly at deaths vs. recovered, Hubei has a 6.3% mortality rate. But the rest of China is 1.0%. I have to think that when all is said and done, the U.S. would be far, far more in line with that 1.0% number (if not lower).

 

[libra957]

Future pre snap cadence:"Covid -19, hut hut"

 

[primetime]

Gonna kill all the olds so Pats Fans dot com will just be Kontra and I arguing about data analysis while that one anime poster looks on

 

[primetime]

Current media citations of case fatality rate come from a single study of 189 patients in Hubei province without any way to model asymptomatic and mild cases who weren't tested (we have years of data to do this with the flu and none to do it with covid). That is to say, the case fatality rate was about 2% in this population among people who tested positive at this one hospital, which is not representative in any way (especially since Chinese people smoke a lot more than Americans). So just keep that in mind every time someone in the media cites that 2% figure.

Based off reading the research that's been published thus far, best guess is that it'll be like another flu but skewed towards impacting the elderly, particularly those with underlying conditions, and with basically zero impact on children. I don't think I'd want to be an 80 year old lifelong smoker right now but being an 80 year old lifelong smoker is generally not conducive to heightened life expectancy; otherwise I wouldn't freak out.