USA not 1/1000th of the way through the Pandemic.

Discussion in 'Coronavirus Pandemic Discussions' started by Kurmugeon, Mar 31, 2020.

PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening. We urge you to seek reliable alternate sources to verify information you read in this forum.

  1. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He reached that number by trying to use the technically correct method of comparing the number of deaths against the number of "resolved" cases (i.e. dead or recovered). Note, he did this incorrectly because you are supposed to add the dead to the recovered in the denominator. That would yield a (now) 19.57% death rate.

    upload_2020-4-2_11-53-46.png
     
  2. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes it is.

    Not against global, against USA.

    We are all unique; we are all individuals. But when talking about spread across the USA and deaths across the USA, then the US population as a whole needs to be the baseline. If honing in on rates only among "confirmed" cases, then "confirmed" cases would be the baseline.

    Sure, as do other factors such as travel habits and what not.

    Correct.

    No it isn't. That calculation is simply showing at what rate the disease is killing off the country. I realize that you are looking to figure out how many people who get COVID-19 end up dying from it. One problem is, you have no clue how many people actually have gotten it. There is a difference between "confirmed" cases and "total" cases. Thus, you have no clue what the baseline number should be in your calculation, and whatever number you decide to plug in as the "baseline" significantly impacts what the resulting "death rate" is. Another significant factor is what is decided to be the cause of death. For example, "death caused solely by COVID-19" vs "COVID-19 related" vs "heart failure actually killed the person, but they also happened to have COVID-19, so we'll just chalk this death up to COVID instead of heart failure". By using "confirmed" cases, you are only referencing known cases. You are not referencing unknown cases, so that calculated "death rate" will be much higher than it is in actuality since you're using a "baseline" number that doesn't include everyone who got infected.

    Wrong. I am simply admitting that I cannot predict the future. I am using what I know on the day that I know it. If there are changes, then I adjust my rates. If I am using a number different than what has actually occurred, I note that I am doing so and I provide reasoning for why I am doing so. "Fancy models" do the same thing. They are only as good as their inputs. If their inputs are correct, then they will be accurate. If their inputs are way off, then their results will be way off. Look at the H1N1 models of 2009 for an example. They predicted 90K deaths from H1N1. Actual deaths were closer to 17K or so, WAY less than what models showed. COVID-19 is likely to be the same.

    There is no "proper formula" for predicting the future. Random number mathematics (or any branch that makes use of random numbers) does not have the power of prediction that is normally inherent in other branches of mathematics.

    I'm just going by the data that is known.

    I'm not.

    Okay. I'll let you know in a month if I'm scared or not. I'll also be around here most days over the course of the next month, and can regularly update you on my level of fear about COVID-19. I've only personally known two people who have gotten it as of my typing of this, which admittedly is already one more than the H1N1 "scare" of 2009.
     
  3. Aleksander Ulyanov

    Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    41,184
    Likes Received:
    16,180
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Assuming they were ruthless enough to do that, why would they need a disease?
     
  4. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not much of an assumption.
    Aside form the R+D - which, given CV-19 is part of a family of existing viruses, is likely small - implementation takes no effort and has no cost.
     
  5. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,287
    Likes Received:
    22,667
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have looked it up. Apparently it's irrelevant if there is no time component involved.

    So you are not claiming 220,000 people dead for yesterday? What date do we hit 220,000 dead in the US?
     
  6. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,287
    Likes Received:
    22,667
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I've been astounded reading this thread and others how some people uncritically accept Chinese numbers. And at the same time, disbelieve everything Trump says, except for his mention of 220,000 dead. I think Trump is wrong and I think the Chinese are lying. How about you?
     
  7. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,287
    Likes Received:
    22,667
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "And these projections are based on what the US, made by their best scientists with their best of their knowledge!!!"

    Loved that quote!

    And I also like this one:

    "All models are approximations. Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful. However, the approximate nature of the model must always be borne in mind. Statisticians, like artists, have the bad habit of falling in love with their models."

    -George E. P. Box
     
  8. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    -Some- people choose to believe and repeat whatever information they believe will most likely lead to a Trump loss in November.
    Many of these people work for CNN, ABC, MSNPC...
     
    Lil Mike likes this.
  9. Curious Always

    Curious Always Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2016
    Messages:
    16,924
    Likes Received:
    13,462
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    When did I throw that number out there? I don't think I did.

    You can look at the IHME data yourself. So far, they've been pretty spot on.

    https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections
     
  10. Curious Always

    Curious Always Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2016
    Messages:
    16,924
    Likes Received:
    13,462
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    I don't think anyone in the world believes the China numbers. Reason being, it's China... Who knows how many are actually dead. It would be extremely helpful to know.
     
  11. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The ranges on those projections are pretty broad.
     
  12. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,287
    Likes Received:
    22,667
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You replied to my reply to another poster:

    Apparently you had no opinion on the very thing you commented on.
     
  13. Curious Always

    Curious Always Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2016
    Messages:
    16,924
    Likes Received:
    13,462
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    I'm not a modeling expert, but I'll take a stab at it.

    The social distancing factor is a complete unknown. The lower end goes on the assumption that everything is going perfectly, everyone is doing what they should, and social distancing will work. The higher end is going with the assumption that nothing goes perfectly and social distancing is not being followed by enough people.

    It's really up to all of us, but as we can see just on this forum, many, many people still think this is no worse than the average flu, so they are going to help skew the numbers up.

    So far, the projected number has been very, very close. I take that to mean social distancing is working, but not enough people are complying.
     
  14. Curious Always

    Curious Always Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2016
    Messages:
    16,924
    Likes Received:
    13,462
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Oh - I had to go back and look. I didn't remember the context. Yes, the 220K number is what Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx are saying is possible if not enough people do what they should.
     
  15. notme

    notme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    42,019
    Likes Received:
    5,395
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh? So you're saying you know best. There won't be more people dying tomorrow?
    "loving it" how you think preparing for this nightmare is totally unnecessary.
     
  16. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A large range usually indicates a lack of statistical confidence because of, as you said, unknowns.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2020
  17. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,287
    Likes Received:
    22,667
    Trophy Points:
    113
    During my lifetime the "experts" have been wrong way more often than right. You are free of course, to swallow everything they're saying, but here's something we can actually test. The "peak" is currently scheduled for April 16, with 2,644 COVID-19 deaths in the US. Let's just see if that happens.
     
  18. notme

    notme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    42,019
    Likes Received:
    5,395
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh we can also look at numbers of Italy and Spain. It's also beautiful to see how you ignore my post about Donald, total looser, downplaying that it only was 22 deaths Corona deaths vs up to 90,000 deaths from your random flu... and we think about how insignificant Corona is.

    Oh he didn't say that. Fauci did, the epidemic expert who facepalmed next to Trump.
     
  19. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The range is 1216-4136 deaths - a 46% deviation both ways.
     
  20. notme

    notme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    42,019
    Likes Received:
    5,395
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh you're free to predict where these endless stream of people dying is going to end at, lil mikey. And dude... really... 2,644? The US is passed 5,000. You really know even less that Donald does. lol. Amazing.
     
  21. Curious Always

    Curious Always Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2016
    Messages:
    16,924
    Likes Received:
    13,462
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Deaths per DAY. We are projected to have peak deaths per day on April 16.
     
  22. Aleksander Ulyanov

    Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    41,184
    Likes Received:
    16,180
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Right now the main thing that we can actually do that will help a lot is to increase the number of people tested. Yet Trump is still dragging his feet on that. WHY? Is it because his My Pillow Man acolyte is producing facemasks (shitty ones, N95 EQUIVALENT, rather than real N95. I wouldn't put it past either one of those lying crooks.

    Then you think the Chinese leaders have a vaccine?
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2020
  23. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No. If the purpose is to weed out the old sick and weak, why vaccinate?
     
  24. Aleksander Ulyanov

    Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    41,184
    Likes Received:
    16,180
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Most of the Chinese leaders are old and I'll bet more than a few have health problems. Why would they unleash a disease on the population that is just as likely to kill them unless they were vaccinated against it?

    This is silly as **** anyway, You and I both know our main problems are due to Trump and all this blaming the Chinese is just deflection. This would be nothing more than a minor annoyance if he'd done what he should months ago and we would even know this disease existed if he had done what he should over the last 3 years.

    Why do Trumpers love him so anyway? He's nothing more than a bloviating mean-ass con man. Do they all really hate Mexicans and other minorities that much?
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2020
  25. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Chinese leadership has -far- better medical care than the rice farmers.
    Yes - blaming all this in Trump is, indeed, deflection.
     

Share This Page