General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsExplain to me why I am wrong, please.
The numbers came from here .
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
To go from active to closed one must recover or die.
The mild condition population contributes to the recovered count.
So why would this not be an accurate projection?
4/11/2020 US ONLY
533115 Total Cases
30502 Recovered
20580 Dead
51082 51082 Resolved Cases
482033 Active Cases
59.71% 318333 Total Projected Recovered
40.29% 214782 Total Projected Dead
Celerity
(43,356 posts)is off by a huge amount because of that.
StTimofEdenRoc
(445 posts)The recovered and death numbers are based on tested people with positive results, why should that number/rate not be applied to the population of tested with positive results (yet to recover or die). Where is the large population of recovered or undocumented recovered hiding?
OnDoutside
(19,956 posts)figure for the number infected, and there's no certainty that all who died since January, were tested for CV. In fact, due to the change in who qualifies for a test (due to lack of test kits), if your state is even testing in any great number, other than deaths, most of the other stats are just indications. Even in New York, the rate of people dying at home has gone from 20-25 to 250-275 a day. Will all those deaths be tested for CV ? If they are, good, but what about all the Red States ? Will the just be entered as Cardiac or some other non specific reason ?
The one possible way to get a more accurate idea is if funeral directors reported their numbers compared to a normal year.
uponit7771
(90,336 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,315 posts)because as soon as a death happens, it is recorded as such; by definition, any "recovery", when you're certain someone won't die, has to wait longer.
Exactly how long there should be between the numbers for dead and recovered isn't clear (some people die early in the infection, some later); but if it's, say, a week on average, then the proportion would look quite different.
mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)People who test positive and don't die, and then don't contact doctors and get tested, they just 'get better', are likely to not count as recovered.
StTimofEdenRoc
(445 posts)That would be stupid but welcome news.
mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)However, even if you're given a call two weeks after your test and you say 'yeah I'm still alive' ... how do you (or they) know for sure, in the scientific sense, that you're 'recovered'? Most likely they'd say 'we'd like you to get another test' ... but do they? Do they have enough tests to be doing that yet? What about the people who just go 'yeah, naw, I think I'm fine, I don't wanna get another test'? Do they count as 'recovered'?
Now, the time delay as mentioned above is almost surely the bigger factor, but I'm pretty sure a decent % of people are uncounted as 'recovered' simply by virtue that they, for one reason or another, aren't completing the stuff they'd need to do to count thusly.
StTimofEdenRoc
(445 posts)But I am looking for where are the undocumented recovered hiding in the numbers. May their be lots of them.
Celerity
(43,356 posts)StTimofEdenRoc
(445 posts)Celerity
(43,356 posts)especially (and I am not ready to believe this) the is 6.0 and not the 2.5 to 3.5 that has been previously accepted.
StTimofEdenRoc
(445 posts)1784331 Total Cases
108962 Recovered
405043 Dead
514005 514005 Resolved Cases
1270326 Active Cases
21.20% 378254 Total Projected Recoverd
78.80% 1406077 Total Projected Dead
It's currently running 20%. Where does the 2 or 3 percent number come from?
I am just not seeing it.
Celerity
(43,356 posts)Take where I live (Sweden) for instance.
We are only testing people who are either
1. symptomatic AND in a high risk group
OR
2. if you go into an ICU with suspected COVID-19
and even with that the death ratio is only 8.7%, in reality it is probably under 2%.
https://c19.se/en
StTimofEdenRoc
(445 posts)Celerity
(43,356 posts)There isn't anything REMOTELY approaching double-digit (let alone 40%) lethality for COVID-19.
SARS-CoV-2
mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)Celerity
(43,356 posts)I am really tired, lol.
mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)I actually tried to say there's been <2M cases worldwide period, how could there be 10's of Millions of deaths in Europe alone?
Celerity
(43,356 posts)Last edited Sun Apr 12, 2020, 06:48 AM - Edit history (1)
lethality rate of to 40% (which is just insanely overstated) the result would be 10's of millions dead.
The EU dwarfs the US as a whole, both in population (around 450m after the UK left) and economically, even after my fellow Brits stupidly voted to leave.
If just 20% of that 450m got COVID that yields 36 million dead IF it had a 40% lethality rate.
And in reality, EUROPE (the virus does not give a fuck about borders) as whole has around 750 million people
so at a 20% infection rate (which is super low from where it will end up) at 40% lethality equals 60 million europeans dead.
If the virus has a of 3.0, that means to hit herd immunity around 66.7% need to catch the virus
that would equal, again at 40% lethality, 200 million dead (for all of Europe), although you start to get into variables at that high a lethality rate and that level of viral penetration as well, as so many dying off can start to obstruct the dispersional pathways available to the virus.
mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)To whit, essentially 'hundreds of millions of Europeans actually would test positive for CV if we had only already tested them' ... and asserting that the 40% must be wrong because of what the number of dead would be based upon that WAG.
Look, I don't believe anywhere near 40% for a second, and I've argued as to why it's wrong above, so I'm not disagreeing with you about the outcome in that regard.
But we don't actually KNOW that a single person who's not been tested actually has CV. However, such a number can be estimated statistically, but the proper methodology for coming up with than number should be adhered to (it would involve looking at % of negative tests and various adjustments derived from that) ... one shouldn't just make up a number offhand when one does that.
The numbers used by the OP are based on 'known cases' and the argument against it should also be based on known cases. Or more specifically, in this instance, the reason(s) why the 'recovered' numbers are much lower now than what they will eventually turn out to be.
MHO
Celerity
(43,356 posts)would mean at a certain spread %.
I must say that this:
Is just off the rails and serves no purpose.
Again I was only showing the OP that a 40% lethality ratio is absurd by showing the numbers when you start to wind it out into the populace at large, AND the largest numbers were most definitely NOT pulled from thin air whatsover, but based off herd immunity-necessary percentages at a reasonable R-naught value.
mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)You argued that the 40% must be wrong because if it were correct, there WOULD BE 10's of Millions of dead Europeans right now.
So ... lets start with how many 10's of millions actually is ... since there's a plural involved there ... it implies >1, so to make it simple, lets say you meant the minimum, i.e. 20,000,000 dead people.
20,000,000 is 40% of 50,000,000.
Currently, the total known cases in Europe so far are just under 681,000.
So ... 'showing the numbers' for you in this case involves you explaining how you started with the number of 681,000 ... and multiplied it by 73 ... to arrive at the actual number of infected Europeans as being 50,000,000 ... instead of 681,000.
From whence did you derive that only 1 in 73 people in Europe who are actually infected with coronavirus ... have been tested? What formula did you use?
That would be how you would show the numbers to back your original assertion.
Celerity
(43,356 posts)ratcheted up and now you have joined the OP in putting for another absurdist stance (just from a different angle)
both of the following are just patently wrong
1.
and then yours
2.
Let's bottom line this
I am the one here who is using basic, mainstream (put forth by the global leading scientific authorities atm) science, neither you nor the OP are, or at least are not using the data correctly. You stepped in and tried to infer and spin-up things I never said, plus added in that super problematic statement above.
Done here.
My replies on this thread speak for themselves, are soundly argued, and I have nothing further to add, as you are all off in the weeds m8.
cheers
mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)To whit, we do not KNOW, but we can infer based on statistics how many more people are likely to be infected ... in addition to the known cases. In fact, 'what formula should be used to derive that number', is at the very heart of what we're talking about.
The argument of yours I originally took issue with was your assertion that: IF the OP's calculation of 40% were actually correct, we WOULD HAVE 10's of Millions of Dead NOW ... in Europe. I.E. the LACK of 10's of Millions of dead bodies is de-facto PROOF, that the 40% is wrong.
If you cannot show how you derived that >=50,000,000 in Europe is the 'correct number' of infected people, when we know that only 680,000 have tested positive, then your counter-argument to the OP's ... has not been proven.
I am not in any way promoting this 40% number ... I'm just saying that the lack 10's of millions of dead Europeans ... is not proof that it's wrong ... UNLESS you can show that 50,000,000 Europeans are infected.
It's that simple. And this is like a 6th grade math word problem we're talking about here.
I love ya BTW Celerity
Celerity
(43,356 posts)HYPOTHETICAL viral penetration rate, and the largest was what you have to get to (in the absence of a vaccine) to achieve herd immunity given the value of the virus at 3.0. I used those to show the absurdity of a 40% lethality rate, as many contagious diseases get to those larger levels of populace infection rates. I NEVER SAID that the penetration rate for COVID-19 was anywhere NEAR THOSE LARGE numbers at the present time, but it most definitely could get up there if we massively fail at mitigation, and/or a 2nd, or even 3rd wave rolls through. The higher the is the greater the percentage of the populace infected needs to be for herd immunity to kick in.
For brevity's sake, I will not even start to get into mutagenic possibilities for the virus.
A contagious disease with an of 2.0 means 50% or so of the populace needs to be infected in order for herd immunity to kick in. An of 2.5 means around 60% need to be infected, and an of 3.0 means 66.7% of the populace needs to be infected in order for herd immunity to kick in. COVID-19 has been postulated to have an of between 2.0 and 3.5. It is basic science that I was using.
I will add one thing, and I have doubts over this, BUT I have seen a couple epidemiologists on MSNBC who are now saying that they think COVID-19 has an of 6 or so. If that is the case, we are well and truly fucked until a vaccine comes around.
The (R-naught) value is how contagious a disease-causing pathogen is.
https://www.healthline.com/health/r-nought-reproduction-number
Understanding the possibilities
R0 is pronounced R naught. Its a mathematical term that indicates how contagious an infectious disease is. Its also referred to as the reproduction number. As an infection spreads to new people, it reproduces itself.
R0 tells you the average number of people who will catch a disease from one contagious person. It specifically applies to a population of people who were previously free of infection and havent been vaccinated. If a disease has an R0 of 18, a person who has the disease will transmit it to an average of 18 other people, as long as no one has been vaccinated against it or is already immune to it in their community.
What do R0 values mean?
Three possibilities exist for the potential spread or decline of a disease, depending on its R0 value:
If R0 is less than 1, each existing infection causes less than one new infection. In this case, the disease will decline and eventually die out.
If R0 equals 1, each existing infection causes one new infection. The disease will stay alive and stable, but there wont be an outbreak or an epidemic.
If R0 is more than 1, each existing infection causes more than one new infection. The disease will spread between people, and there may be an outbreak or epidemic.
snip
mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)You said, and I quote:
especially (and I am not ready to believe this) the is 6.0 and not the 2.5 to 3.5 that has been previously accepte"
That was the one and only statement I took issue with of yours.
In order for there to be 10's of millions (which is a minimum of 20,000,000 by definition) of dead Europeans, at a 40% death rate, there must be 50,000,000 infected. Currently we know of some 680,000 cases.
I simply asked you where you got the 50,000,000 from the 680,000.
I'm not making up any numbers, these are *exactly implied* from what you said ... that I took issue with.
To be very clear, I'm in no way insinuating that 40% is correct. I'm merely saying that I very much doubt that the lack of >=20,000,000 European bodies ... is a mathematically sustainable counter-argument.
The correct IMHO counter-argument involves showing why the 'recovered' number that the OP used in the denominator ... is not the correct number to use. He looked at Dead Vs. Recovered, and came up with 2 dead for every 3 recovered, which is 40% dead.
The proper answer involves explaining why that math is wrong. That's it. It doesn't involve throwing out random counts of dead Europeans ... pulled from thin air.
With that explanation, hopefully we're done. Love ya
Celerity
(43,356 posts)and I shall correct it. I can see now what you were saying, and hope you see what I was saying as well.
cheers n hugz
mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)I promise this debate would never have started
Honestly I was kinda tripping that you weren't conceding the point, cause I know how smart you are ... but I figured once it 'clicked' you'd be like ... uh ... oh, ok, right ... I told you I was tired
Celerity
(43,356 posts)markets overall and I am helping lead a departmental audit of open positions we have at the firm I consult for. Money never sleeps, to steal part of a title from a movie that ended with this wonderful tune.....................
Celerity
(43,356 posts)has come from the subject line not being carefully parsed when I look at my pre-post final version. I think it has to do with my dyslexia, but am not going to fall back upon that as a crutch or rationale.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,315 posts)If 1000 people were infected 4 weeks ago, we may be able to say 50 of them died, and 200 have now recovered. But if 4000 people were infected 3 weeks ago, 150 may have died, but we can't say any have recovered yet, because you have to wait and see. Although, given time, 4 times as many may recover as die, if you add all the numbers together at this moment, it says 200 dead, 200 recovered.
StTimofEdenRoc
(445 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,315 posts)you can see that, in general, the places where the outbreak reached earlier have a higher proportion of recovered to died. This is a function of the infection rates not growing so quickly there, by now. There are also wide variations in recovered numbers reported in countries - because they may have different definitions of when you can report someone as 'recovered'.
mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)2 weeks after your first positive test ... another locale may say you need a 2nd test at least 3 weeks after your last positive test in order to 'count as recovered', etc.
Just as examples, I don't know any actual 'standards' but I don't believe there necessarily are worldwide standards that are always adhered to.
StTimofEdenRoc
(445 posts)beachbumbob
(9,263 posts)the world. The only relationship one can derived is the reported deaths per million of population and that is only as accurate as the deaths being counted caused by the virus and we know that number is not.
FBaggins
(26,737 posts)How am I supposed to guess WHY you are wrong?
But I can tell you HOW youre wrong.
The mild condition population does not contribute to the recovered count. In most cases they arent even tested. Nor, in many cases, are those with moderate cases who recover at home and never get close to admission to a hospital.
mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)So why do people keep bringing the fact that not everyone is tested, even though it's completely irrelevant?
Maybe bad dental hygiene or wrong shoes?
The proper explanation for the OP involves explaining to him/her why how 'recovered' number they're seeing ... is actually far lower than it will eventually be. Out of the KNOWN CASES, which is the population from whence he's deriving his calculations.
FBaggins
(26,737 posts)They don't.
Response to StTimofEdenRoc (Original post)
FBaggins This message was self-deleted by its author.