Coronavirus math
Quote: DeMangoStanford doctors ... assumptions. Hopefully this works
Many thanx. It worked. The Stanford doctors suggest a different metric for tabulating the fatality rate, basing the denominator on more-common "number of infections," rather than on "idenified cases" (one per fatality). The authors suggest orders of magnitude difference using their methodology.
The story ends with a very BIG if (but my emphasis):
Quote:If we’re right about the limited scale of the epidemic, then measured [sic] focused on older populations and hospitals are sensible, A universal quarantine may not be worth the costs it imposes on the economy, community and individual mental and physical health.
But, will the pandemic be of "limited scale"? (Not to mention, America has never had a universal quarantine, but this idea was nowhere mentioned elsewhere in the article.) Personally, I think the authors are "sneezing into the wind." Reliable "infection rate" data for the general population is too often lacking. I hope the authors are correct. Gamblers are optimists, even against high odds.
Right now many of the hospitals are like adult children that don't know how to budget their money. They come up short on what they really need because they didn't plan ahead, and then scream at mom and dad while they come to the rescue and bail them out.
Quote: KeyserIn NY why didn't they buy more ventilators back in 2015 when they had the chance?
Michigan wants help. They should get it regardless of politics
Not a chance.
Quote: KeyserIn NY why didn't they buy more ventilators back in 2015 when they had the chance? Why did they instead waste money on solar panels instead of preparing for a future pandemic? Who's job is it in the hospitals to buy supplies and to plan ahead?
Right now many of the hospitals are like adult children that don't know how to budget their money. They come up short on what they really need because they didn't plan ahead, and then scream at mom and dad while they come to the rescue and bail them out.
This is a valid point. Not for the hospitals, but for the State. A hospital has a budget, and plans to buy machines and supplies it could REASONABLY expect to use. Had my hospital bought 20 extra ventilators in 2015 that would be $1,000,000. You must be aware that they face a budget crisis every year, always looking for where they can save $1. Would you have been happy to have a $50 surcharge on your health insurance bill for "ventilator stockpile"? What about the $10 surcharge for N-95 mask stockpile? What if there is a different disease that causes massive kidney failure? Should all hospitals now be required to stockpile dialysis machines? You get my point.
If you feel the State should have had a stockpile of ventilators, they would feel the same budgetary constraints. The 30,000 that Cuomo now wants is a BILLION dollars. Not including storage costs. And maintenance costs, etc.... I can only laugh at the thought after struggling to get a balanced budget in 2015 if Cuomo would have told the legislators.... ummmm.... please come up with another BILLION dollars in cuts so I can buy 30,000 ventilators!
Summary.... each hospital addresses its own reasonable expected needs. Preparing for something like this is up to the government.
Quote: billryanAs the real testing for the vaccine won't start until September, I'm afraid you might be a bit optimistic.
I realize people want go grasp at miracle solutions, but this fantasy that it is going to go away in two or three weeks is going to get a lot of people killed.
Better optimistic then the naysayers that predict 3 million dead in this country. Folks are gonna die, a lot of them, no matter what. So will we economically destroy this country? Seems to be your wish, in all your posts.
If your county is lagging by 400 deaths, they may happen today and/or tomorrow.
Quote: DeMangoBetter optimistic then the naysayers that predict 3 million dead in this country. Folks are gonna die, a lot of them, no matter what. So will we economically destroy this country? Seems to be your wish, in all your posts.
I want to save lives. Seems like that should be the only priority. Obviously you don't put as much value on that as others do.
I hope my wish comes true. Don't you?
Quote: billryanI want to save lives. Seems like that should be the only priority. Obviously you don't put as much value on that as others do.
I hope my wish comes true. Don't you?
Pandemic or not, there will always be situations that are balancing act between saving human life and keeping the economy going.
Almost 40,000 people die each year in the US by motor vehicle accident. Yet we don’t ban driving because our economy depends on it.
I am not saying that we shouldn’t be in quarantine, trying to flatten the curve, etc. But the ugly truth is that at some point we need to cut the loss of life in favor of economics. It’s not an easy pill to swallow, but we do it all the time with many other things.
Quote: gamerfreak
Almost 40,000 people die each year in the US by motor vehicle accident. Yet we don’t ban driving because our economy depends on it.
.
And untold thousands lives are ruined as well from MVAs. Forget about banning driving. EASY to save 10,000+ lives if we lowered the speed limit on highways to 50mph (and enforced it). We have decided that avoiding the inconvenience of driving that slow is worth more than those 10,000 lives. All the blather about 'can't place the value on a human life is just that, blather.
Quote: ChumpChangeTypically if your area has 500 cases, there's already 10 deaths. If there's 5,000 cases, there's already 100 deaths. If there's 50,000 cases, there's already 1,000 deaths. These numbers may change if the curve flattens or changes the other way.
If your county is lagging by 400 deaths, they may happen today and/or tomorrow.
Due death theory?
2% mortality rate? You pulling these numbers out of your derrière??
Really? You want to save your life. So you ignore abortion, car wrecks, lung cancer(self inflicted) the “normal” flu, not to mention eating yourself to 400 pounds. There a host of others we could mention here as preventable deaths. You would sacrifice your country for an unprovable number of deaths. Didn’t John Kennedy have something to say about that?Quote: billryanI want to save lives. Seems like that should be the only priority. Obviously you don't put as much value on that as others do.
I hope my wish comes true. Don't you?
No, it’s all about you.
Wuhan has seven other mortuaries.
Full story at the Shanghai-ist
Quote: GialmereI'm not sure if this article has been posted here but there seems to be a discrepancy with the number of deaths reported in China's Wuhan province and the number of funeral urns being distributed to family members. According to official Chinese government data, 50,006 people were infected with the Covid-19 virus in Wuhan with 2,535 dying from the disease. Recent photos, however, show a single mortuary receiving 5,000 urns for families to claim.
Wuhan has seven other mortuaries.
Full story at the Shanghai-ist
So, what's the point? The Chinese probably lied about their death toll. Is this supposed to provide some comfort to America on its own self-induced COVID slaughter?
France had an usually low death per case during 2010. China had more swine than usa.
North korea had reported recoveries and deaths in 2010.
Im more worried that countries will not release a cure for a year
Quote: LuckyPhowReally? That low??
Do these Stanford doctors make any assumptions about hospitals functioning well or poorly? Is this a news interview? Or, a peer-reviewed journal article with a full explanation and a more detailed data analysis? I sure would like to know more... link, perhaps?
C'mon, man, there has absolutely not been any time to write up journal articles and have them peer reviewed. If those are your standards, then no statement that anyone makes about covid-19 meets your standards - and thus nobody knows anything about this subject other than the WHO report of January 28.
Quote: jjjoooggg
France had an usually low death per case during 2010. China had more swine than usa.
North korea had reported recoveries and deaths in 2010.
Im more worried that countries will not release a cure for a year
Why did Italy lead the world in Swine Flu cases in 2009-2010? I mean, what in Hell goes on in Italy?
US deaths more than doubled in less than 48 hours, with 1005 deaths at 4pm Friday, and 2298 as of noon Sunday (just now).
Incubation until showing symptoms 2-5 days on average, as long as 14 days reported. Serious cases taking 2-4 weeks to resolve to the point of "recovered".
Rolling rates by region, all showing a similar curve sharply upward, but at different points in time for the escalation.
I said earlier (Friday) somewhere on here, that it was 5 to 1, deaths to recovered. That has improved, with recovered just today passing deaths at 1:1. So no telling where this ratio will end up, though certainly it appears it will continue to improve.
Total cases "resolved", either by death or recovery, still less than 5000, with 130,156 total cases reported in the US, so 125,000+ still sick and testing positive.
And those cases are reflecting what actually happened 2 weeks ago on average, NOT the real picture of infection today.
Stay the hell home, people.
Quote: gordonm888
Why did Italy lead the world in Swine Flu cases in 2009-2010? I mean, what in Hell goes on in Italy?
Supposedly, Italy has a high concentration of people per square mile.
Quote: GDBONESThe only somewhat accurate numbers that we do have is the daily number of deaths due to the virus. On 3/28 that number was 447. Which means with a mortality rate of 1%, on 3/5 there were roughly 44,700 individuals that were newly infected in the United States. On March 5th there were 45 new cases reported.
It doesn't have a mortality rate of 1%. It's most widely reported as 3.4% in countries further along in the process, but some countries are showing as high as 6% or so. US, with an incomplete curve (still rising, way too few tests still), mortality rate is 1.77%, at current reports.
Quote: jjjooogggSupposedly, Italy has a high concentration of people per square mile.
Italy has a population of around SEVENTY million and is the size of New Mexico. New Mexico has a population of around TWO million.
Buttttt...... NY City metro are has over 10 million in an area a fraction the size of Italy. NY city metro area cases will eventually dwarf that of Italy, I predict. Death rate per infected individual will be far less due to our superior health care system and pre-existent resources, but the lower rate multiplied by higher infection rate will result in a high number of deaths on an absolute scale.
Quote: beachbumbabsIt doesn't have a mortality rate of 1%. It's most widely reported as 3.4% in countries further along in the process, but some countries are showing as high as 6% or so. US, with an incomplete curve (still rising, way too few tests still), mortality rate is 1.77%, at current reports.
I thought the 3.4%and higher numbers was using confirmed cases in the denominator. If so, that will of course understate actual cases so overstate the mortality rate.
Quote: beachbumbabsIt doesn't have a mortality rate of 1%. It's most widely reported as 3.4% in countries further along in the process, but some countries are showing as high as 6% or so. US, with an incomplete curve (still rising, way too few tests still), mortality rate is 1.77%, at current reports.
I think the higher numbers like 6% reflect inability to deal with the overload. Either lack of facilities, equipment, or even sick workers. Whereas the number drops when all the infected were to be under more traditional circumstances.
A more accurate estimate of mortality rated would be based on countries that have done extensive testing and have a slowing rate of mortality growth (further along in the process)
Norway 4239 cases and 25 deaths
South Korea 9583 cases and 152 deaths
Which yields a mortality rate of 1.3%
However, even using a mortality rate of 3.4% means that 13,147 people were newly infected on March 5th when only 45 new cases were reported.
Quote: SOOPOOItaly has a population of around SEVENTY million and is the size of New Mexico. New Mexico has a population of around TWO million.
Buttttt...... NY City metro are has over 10 million in an area a fraction the size of Italy. NY city metro area cases will eventually dwarf that of Italy, I predict. Death rate per infected individual will be far less due to our superior health care system and pre-existent resources, but the lower rate multiplied by higher infection rate will result in a high number of deaths on an absolute scale.
Venice, Italy
New York
Quote: jjjooogggSupposedly, Italy has a high concentration of people per square mile.
Here at WoV we have a high concentration of chicken littles per square inch on my iPad. The only controlled group we have so far was that cruise liner that just returned after quarantine. I believe it was 700+ cases with seven deaths. No shadow of a doubt in my mind the average age of crew members and passengers is higher than national average. So no 100% infections and 1% mortality. I trust Finland’s figure of .7% mortality is holding up too.
A more accurate estimate of mortality rated would be based on countries that have done extensive testing and have a slowing rate of mortality growth (further along in the process)
Norway 4239 cases and 25 deaths
South Korea 9583 cases and 152 deaths
Which yields a mortality rate of 1.3%
However, even using a mortality rate of 3.4% means that 13,147 people were newly infected on March 5th when only 45 new cases were reported.
Quote: DeMangoPlease throw that 3.4% out with the bath water.
DeMango, your signature is "The fool says in his heart: 'There is no God'"
Admins, please note, this fool says in his heart this is a religious statement, and steps over the forum's no religion policy.
Quote: GDBONESI was using a rough estimate of what has been reported in the literature. Obviously with 50% of people infected being asymptomatic the number of reported positive tests are going to greatly underestimate the true number of infections.
A more accurate estimate of mortality rated would be based on countries that have done extensive testing and have a slowing rate of mortality growth (further along in the process)
Norway 4239 cases and 25 deaths
South Korea 9583 cases and 152 deaths
Which yields a mortality rate of 1.3%
However, even using a mortality rate of 3.4% means that 13,147 people were newly infected on March 5th when only 45 new cases were reported.
I'm not even sure it's a high number being tested. A man died around here, he died at home because of COVID, his wife couldn't even get tested even though she took care of him. Supposedly here in Ohio, you need to have 2 symptoms and have a fever of 101F for 2 days before they'll test you, because they say at the hospital, it's too expensive and time consuming to test people(people who are pretty obviously infected).
Quote: onenickelmiracleI'm not even sure it's a high number being tested. A man died around here, he died at home because of COVID, his wife couldn't even get tested even though she took care of him. Supposedly here in Ohio, you need to have 2 symptoms and have a fever of 101F for 2 days before they'll test you, because they say at the hospital, it's too expensive and time consuming to test people(people who are pretty obviously infected).
That was my point, that there really was a large amount of people already infected in early March when no testing was being done and that by now there are probably at least 2 million people that have been infected. We are never going to control the spread of coronavirus in this country without expanding testing to anyone who has even a remote chance of being infected and then to anyone they may have had close contact in the previous 5-7 days. It is expensive and time consuming to do this, but when you look at a country like South Korea who aggressively did this and has now controlled the spread of the virus in their country with a return to normal economy; it's a very cheap undertaking.
Cheap in South Korea isn't cheap in the US. It works, people get tested before getting on buses, trains, offices, we have to spend $25 and hour here on anyone doing this. I wish we would do this, we have so many people staying home for no reason at all, they could be working or spending money. Yet, I find what we're not doing suspicious for being possibly sinister, I cannot know why, but we should want to know who is at risk, and who isn't at risk. I wonder what could be happening somewhere here with nobody watching. It just doesn't make sense our government is so useless for all the people saying how the federal government is too powerful and too big. These so-called unlimited resources seem to be pretty limited to me. I know I could do better at fixing things if I had a credit card I could use I never had to pay off.Quote: GDBONESThat was my point, that there really was a large amount of people already infected in early March when no testing was being done and that by now there are probably at least 2 million people that have been infected. We are never going to control the spread of coronavirus in this country without expanding testing to anyone who has even a remote chance of being infected and then to anyone they may have had close contact in the previous 5-7 days. It is expensive and time consuming to do this, but when you look at a country like South Korea who aggressively did this and has now controlled the spread of the virus in their country with a return to normal economy; it's a very cheap undertaking.
Testing since we have no approved treatments and no vaccines isn't very helpful, but it helpful. It works to determine who has already been sick, and not at risk, and not at risk of infecting other people, and it works to find out who is sick and can infect people. The infected have to be told they're not going home, they need to basically be imprisoned until they need the hospital or they need to go home because it's cleared up. In places like South Korea, they don't go to the hospital, they go where they;re set up to not infect anyone, people are waiting in hazmat suits.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/is-the-coronavirus-as-deadly-as-they-say-11585088464?emailToken=ffd3b7a8efee8314880206fae7b42084ZmCtgPUNUaBC6XnhnOdCg/HPR0Y2fiy5fODXm/AzGYPqwqDM28IT8AvISUwgUDj9Bsb/Y63/sSc8bnHJhK03O1/KPK7+fi5axTQqSlI6OgU%3D&reflink=article_copyURL_share
Quote: DeMangoPlease throw that 3.4% out with the bath water.
You're premature with all of your figures. You can't dismiss all the positive infections that are yet unresolved, which so far takes most of a month or longer.
Quote: DeMangoWall Street Journal Opinion based on math.
If you want a real world test, let's pretend it's actually only as bad as your average flu, and simply discharge all the least sickest patients until we're down to a similar flu season number of patients.
I suspect discharging the least sickest patients we would be trying to send people home who are going to die from lack of oxygen, pneumonia, and possibly even have to disconnect ventilator patients in order to pretend it's just a big exaggeration.
Nothing I've seen coming out of hospitals suggests your alternate reality.
Quote: onenickelmiracleCheap in South Korea isn't cheap in the US. It works, people get tested before getting on buses, trains, offices, we have to spend $25 and hour here on anyone doing this. I wish we would do this, we have so many people staying home for no reason at all, they could be working or spending money. Yet, I find what we're not doing suspicious for being possibly sinister, I cannot know why, but we should want to know who is at risk, and who isn't at risk. I wonder what could be happening somewhere here with nobody watching. It just doesn't make sense our government is so useless for all the people saying how the federal government is too powerful and too big. These so-called unlimited resources seem to be pretty limited to me. I know I could do better at fixing things if I had a credit card I could use I never had to pay off.
Testing since we have no approved treatments and no vaccines isn't very helpful, but it helpful. It works to determine who has already been sick, and not at risk, and not at risk of infecting other people, and it works to find out who is sick and can infect people. The infected have to be told they're not going home, they need to basically be imprisoned until they need the hospital or they need to go home because it's cleared up. In places like South Korea, they don't go to the hospital, they go where they;re set up to not infect anyone, people are waiting in hazmat suits.
Extensive testing is very cheap compared to spending 2 trillion dollars on a stop gap bail out of the economy. Probably somewhere between 35 and 50% of the infections are asymptomatic. Without extensive test you will never discover who these people are and who they are spreading it to.
Quote: KeyserHere in the US we've now tested more people in eight days than South Korea has tested since it began. We have the testing capacity.
On a per capita basis we lag far behind South Korea. Even this late into the outbreak we do not have enough testing available to test everyone that should be tested. Never mind trying to track down those that have coronavirus, but are asymptomatic.
Quote: beachbumbabsYou're premature with all of your figures. You can't dismiss all the positive infections that are yet unresolved, which so far takes most of a month or longer.
I'm sorry but here it is: Your opinion versus a report from Doctors at Stanford that you obviously haven't read.
Did you know that mortality rate, countrywide, all causes, are radically lower than the last five years! Wunderground on Twitter has that chart up.
Quote: DeMangoI'm sorry but here it is: Your opinion versus a report from Doctors at Stanford that you obviously haven't read.
I read the second article. It is by the same 2 Stanford doctors as your earlier reference. This is NOT a separate, independent case of new research. It's the same story. Same doctors. But, I'd enjoy other researchers supporting their conclusions. However, DeMango, my opinion dovetails with CDC Director Fauci: 60K - 200K+ fatalities, all depending... vs your opinion of two Stanford doctors.
I'm probably seeing this all wrong, because I'm not sure I see a problem. If you base the fatality rate on the total number of identified cases, you get one number. The doctors replace "cases" with "total population," as best I can tell.
They say more folks get C-virus than have their case reported. Some get it twice (or more), but only get counted when they get it the last time (and die). Some get it, but never evidence any symptom of illness and never get counted. Once again, same as the first article, the doctors confess that data of the infection rate is sparse and not entirely reliable. So, I'm still not sure how to use the doctors' infection rate without good data.
And, as to your comment about reading the article, I wonder why -- after reading it yourself -- you didn't call our attention to the article referring to the same two doctors as in your first story. Perhaps, something like, "Must be something to it, because WSJ just picked it up." But, you didn't, and it makes me wonder who may or may not have read the (two, almost identical) articles.
I hope I live to survive the "orders of magnitude" lower infection rate the Stanford doctors suggest.
Quote: GDBONESOn a per capita basis we lag far behind South Korea. Even this late into the outbreak we do not have enough testing available to test everyone that should be tested. Never mind trying to track down those that have coronavirus, but are asymptomatic.
Not true! Maybe two week ago, but now we are on it.
Quote: GDBONESOn a per capita basis we lag far behind South Korea. Even this late into the outbreak we do not have enough testing available to test everyone that should be tested. Never mind trying to track down those that have coronavirus, but are asymptomatic.
Not true! Maybe two week ago, but now we are on it.
Quote: LuckyPhow
I'm probably seeing this all wrong, because I'm not sure I see a problem. If you base the fatality rate on the total number of identified cases, you get one number. The doctors replace "cases" with "total population," as best I can tell.
Quote truncated to above paragraph.
At a site dedicated (in part) to statistical fluency, you’ve nailed the issue. Since tests are not conducted randomly on the population, the mortality rate of the sample of tested persons is not indicative of the mortality rate in the population. Based on the “experimental” setup (eg, predominantly testing people with more severe symptoms) it will tend to overestimate the mortality rate of the population.
As tests become more broadly available, so testing criteria, relax, the mortality rate will tend to fall towards the true population mortality rate (though never get there unless testing becomes truly randomized).
But in this more relaxed environment, people should not expect 3.4% to hold up as the mortality rate (thankfully). And anyone tested today is making a basic statistical error to think they have a 3.4% chance of dying (holding aside differences based on age and underlying conditions).
@CNN
:
Four weeks ago: 89
Three weeks ago: 558
Two weeks ago: 3,485
One week ago: 32,502
Right now: 139,773
*********************************************************************************
So 2 weeks from now, 5 million infected means 100,000 die. #FlattenTheCurve
