Cont: 2019-nCoV / Corona virus Pt 3

[Ulf Nereng]

Was the pun intentional? Either way I was amused.

I'm glad someone spotted it!

 

[JeanTate]

The source is all over the news today, give me a break. I didn't tell tall tales, I used existing government figures and projections.

Let me know when the global death toll exceeds 200k. Until then you are the ones saying the sky is falling with no evidence.

(my hilite).

OK, will do. Will you still be reading this thread?

May I take it that you think it exceedingly unlikely that the total number of deaths from covid-19 will exceed 200k, in 2020?

 

[JeanTate]

The UK says death rate is 0.6%. I don't know anyone who believes in a 5% dearh rate, that's obviously due to the testing sample heavily favoring the ill.

Source?

"The UK" is a country; how can a country "say" anything?

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

(my hilite).

OK, will do. Will you still be reading this thread?

May I take it that you think it exceedingly unlikely that the total number of deaths from covid-19 will exceed 200k, in 2020?

I think it's possible, but unlikely and it would be around that time that I would begin to think it might be more of a concern than I thought. Yes, I will still be reading the thread.

 

[JeanTate]

Thank you, this is very useful and interesting information. I wish more people wouldn't assume I'm a bad actor who doesn't want information. I actually WANT to understand the discrepancies I'm seeing.

I would like to know more about the test sample in South Korea. Was it primarily sick/symptomatic people?

There's quite a lot on this, in this thread and its predecessors.

The answer is "sorta" ... as usual it's rather complicated ...

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

Keep in mind that the current number of deaths is with the measures that have been put in place. We don't do that with flu/common cold. Italy's health system is being overwhelmed despite the strong measures they have taken. Imagine what it would have looked like if they had done nothing!

Italy's health system isn't being overwhelmed, its health system in Lombardy/Milan is. We have seen this before in certain places. Israel in 2015, for example, or Boston in 2013.

 

[JeanTate]

But even SK only tested the self-suspected. That is why I keep pounding on the Kirkland Life Care Staff. No selection bias involved.

Um ... no.

Quite apart from the fact that there would be huge uncertainties on such data (too much time has passed, for example), there's the selection effect of a very small sample (~100 people), in just one environment, with a (very likely) unrepresentative demographic. And so on.

 

[Olmstead]

On Monday, Slovenia has introduced a law that requires all people inside public buildings (including supermarkets etc.) to wear protective equipment for the face and hands at all times (since there's a shortage, scarves over the nose and mouth and simple rubber gloves are acceptable), and the police have been carrying out occasional inspections. It’s an imperfect solution, but it probably helps. Have other countries implemented anything like that?

 

[Steve]

Why do people keep bringing up Trump? What does he have to do with this?

Well, the projections that you say you believe come from people under his direct influence and people under his direct influence are lacking in reliability.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

Well, the projections that you say you believe come from people under his direct influence and people under his direct influence are lacking in reliability.

I actually don't know who's projections to believe, I assumed those projections were considered reliable, but am happy to be corrected. I didn't know Fauci was considered an unreliable source, as he has seemed very concerned about the issue and in favor of extreme measures to combat it.

He originally said 2%, now he said 0.1%, I assumed he could be listened to as an objective source.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

Source?

"The UK" is a country; how can a country "say" anything?

You're being pedantic! This is what I was referring to:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/30/health/coronavirus-lower-death-rate/index.html

How many people die after being infected with the novel coronavirus? Fewer than previously calculated, according to a study released Monday, but still more than die from the flu.

The research, published in the medical journal The Lancet Infectious Diseases, estimated that about 0.66% of those infected with the virus will die.

Should I not believe this research? If not, why not?

 

[Delphic Oracle]

On Monday, Slovenia has introduced a law that requires all people inside public buildings (including supermarkets etc.) to wear protective equipment for the face and hands at all times (since there's a shortage, scarves over the nose and mouth and simple rubber gloves are acceptable), and the police have been carrying out occasional inspections. It’s an imperfect solution, but it probably helps. Have other countries implemented anything like that?

I want MORE aggressive than that.

I want them walking my aisles and to tell that guy with shelf liner and command strips in his cart "that's not essential, go the **** home!"

 

[Samson]

Good analysis of different methods to estimate mortality rate during the outbreak: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-rate/

Most of it is like month old, but some formulas are recomputed using live numbers.

I especially suggest looking at South Korea, where the outbreak is mostly over:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/south-korea/

Look for Outcome of Cases (Recovery or Death) in South Korea. It stands at 2.93%, and it won't change much anymore. And South Korea is one of countries which tested most, and had surprisingly low death rate.

Also from the death-rate page (with references in the original article):



And SARS was way slower outbreak with much faster deaths, ie. removing lots of time-delay induced errors.

Surely that places an upper limit of 2.93% and the true figure is less than or equal.
It could be way less even with a high frequency testing regime.

 

[Minoosh]

As far as I'm concerned the case is closed. We have the US government itself projecting 0.1% death rate. A coronavirus with that death rate compared to total infections is literally, by definition "normal flu". We have this German doctor:

Setting aside the other things you've said that people have countered, wtf do you mean "the case is closed?" What case are you talking about, and why would you close it? To me that means you are saying that new information is of no importance. I doubt if that's what you meant, but that's how I read it.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

Surely that places an upper limit of 2.93% and the true figure is less than or equal.
It could be way less even with a high frequency testing regime.

The study I just posted says 0.6% so 2.93% seems absurd.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Well, the projections that you say you believe come from people under his direct influence and people under his direct influence are lacking in reliability.

Which projections aren't? Most of the sources I've been seeing have been revising their projections and information about the virus like gangbusters.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

Setting aside the other things you've said that people have countered, wtf do you mean "the case is closed?" What case are you talking about, and why would you close it? To me that means you are saying that new information is of no importance. I doubt if that's what you meant, but that's how I read it.

Yeah, I agree, I got carried away with my rant. Shouldn't have said that.

 

[Meadmaker]

Someone smarter than me please explain how this isn't all a bunch of BS, because I'm not a conspiracy theorist or a denialist about most things but this is really striking me as questionable.

As Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark) was quoted in National Review today,

“They don’t turn the Javits Center into a field hospital for the flu. They don’t bring in ice trucks to back up the morgue for the flu.”

 

[JeanTate]

(my hilite).

OK, will do. Will you still be reading this thread?

May I take it that you think it exceedingly unlikely that the total number of deaths from covid-19 will exceed 200k, in 2020?

I think it's possible, but unlikely and it would be around that time that I would begin to think it might be more of a concern than I thought. Yes, I will still be reading the thread.

The source is all over the news today, give me a break. I didn't tell tall tales, I used existing government figures and projections.

Let me know when the global death toll exceeds 200k. Until then you are the ones saying the sky is falling with no evidence.

Suppose the global death toll, today (31 March 2020) is 40k.

Suppose it's doubling every four days*.

On 4 April, it will be 80k.

8 April, 160k.

12 April, 320k.

Looks like we won't have to wait for long.

*From the WHO situation reports, Grand Total :
19 March: 8,778
23 March: 14,509
27 March: 23,335

 

[Mader Levap]

What we find unwelcome is the logical fallacy Argument from Authority.

Well, it is not fallacy if that authority happens to be someone that should know these things. We doubt Fauci's numbers for other reasons than his scientific credentials.

Let me know when the global death toll exceeds 200k. Until then you are the ones saying the sky is falling with no evidence.

If you really meant global then you will have to eat that crow pretty soon. Admit it, you didn't even check what are current numbers of cases, infected, died and trends for world in general and various countries in particular.

I personally use this site as source:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Have nice tasty crow in two weeks or so.

Why do people keep bringing up Trump?

Because Trump followers have motivation to downplay threat of COVID-19 and Trump administration has means to do it.