Covid-19 by the numbers

[Deech]

California is doing surprisingly well (so far), with only 242 deaths. Keep in mind the population is 40 million.

I think the much-maligned lack of public transportation has helped the state not end up like some of the bad ones elsewhere.

"Nobody walks in LA" might be a saving grace.

Check out 2:51... the video predicts the future with Surgical Masked Man dancing in the crowd lol.

Lead singer, Dale Bozzio, had been living in the nearby town of Bellingham, MA the last couple of years. She is originally from Boston (actually Medford).

[mickeycrimm]

These stats suggest a mortality rate of 1% or less.

[kewlJ]

These stats suggest a mortality rate of 1% or less.

How do you figure that Mickey?

Among resolved cases, 20% have died. And sadly that number continues to tick upward.

You can not use total cases. You must use resolved cases, because the deaths occur several weeks, even as long as a month after infection. I mean people that got infected today, or yesterday or 2 days ago are included in the total cases, but whether or not they die can not possible be determined for another few weeks.

Here's another way of looking at it: Suppose some how, with a magic swipe of the wand, there were no more cases after today. So the number of cases "froze" right there. Deaths would still occur for several more weeks from the current cases. It takes several weeks to a month for deaths to catch up.

here is yet a third way. Since it takes several weeks for deaths to catch up you could compare the death total of today against the case total of several weeks ago. That would be an approximation, but much closer to the actual death rate.

The only way the death rate is at 1% or less, is if millions and millions of people have had the virus and resolved on their own without being counted. And this is possible. It is what we are all hoping for. But we need testing to know for sure. Not the testing to see who has the virus, but the antibody test to see who has had it and resolved. And they don't have to test every person, just a significant sample size to know that yeah, for every confirmed case, there have been 10 cases that were not confirmed that people recovered on their own. Boy wouldn't that be a great thing! But we need testing to know for sure.

[mickeycrimm]

These stats suggest a mortality rate of 1% or less.

How do you figure that Mickey?

Among resolved cases, 20% have died. And sadly that number continues to tick upward.

You can not use total cases. You must use resolved cases, because the deaths occur several weeks, even as long as a month after infection. I mean people that got infected today, or yesterday or 2 days ago are included in the total cases, but whether or not they die can not possible be determined for another few weeks.

Here's another way of looking at it: Suppose some how, with a magic swipe of the wand, there were no more cases after today. So the number of cases "froze" right there. Deaths would still occur for several more weeks from the current cases. It takes several weeks to a month for deaths to catch up.

here is yet a third way. Since it takes several weeks for deaths to catch up you could compare the death total of today against the case total of several weeks ago. That would be an approximation, but much closer to the actual death rate.

The only way the death rate is at 1% or less, is if millions and millions of people have had the virus and resolved on their own without being counted. And this is possible. It is what we are all hoping for. But we need testing to know for sure. Not the testing to see who has the virus, but the antibody test to see who has had it and resolved. And they don't have to test every person, just a significant sample size to know that yeah, for every confirmed case, there have been 10 cases that were not confirmed that people recovered on their own. Boy wouldn't that be a great thing! But we need testing to know for sure.

95% of cases are mild conditions according to the graph. So 5% are serious or critical. The deaths come out of the 5%. So what do you figure the death rate within that 5% is?

[monet]

If you have a Fever and Cough or Sore Throat... STAY HOME!!

[kewlJ]

95% of cases are mild conditions according to the graph. So 5% are serious or critical. The deaths come out of the 5%. So what do you figure the death rate within that 5% is?

Mickey, I think you are interpreting the numbers incorrectly. The problem continues to be that it takes weeks for the cases to resolve.

So each and every day there is a new high in number of new cases. So that means that number you are looking at 95% mild cases contains all of the new cases from the past couple days, even the past week. Of course those newer cases are now "mild". People don't get sick for up to several weeks. So if we looked at just these cases that are listed today, as active cases, 797,398 and checked back next week, on just those cases, the criticals and deaths would both go up from that pool of cases. And the week after that the deaths and criticals would have gone up even more.

The problem is by next week or the week after there will be a whole new slew of active cases, again with the majority, listed as mild, because there hasn't yet been sufficient time for them to progress to critical and/or death. It is sort of a ponzi scheme. Again, the problem is that it takes so long, weeks even a month for the cases to resolve. Only then can you determine what percent are critical and what percent die.

[The Boz]

I like this video better. Maybe a money making opportunity for someone.

[kewlJ]

here would be yet another way to figure the real death rate. Go back and look at the first 1000 cases who tested positive in the U.S. It has probably been a couple weeks now. So when every one of those cases has fully resolved, meaning every one of them has either recovered or died, do you really think only 10 (1%) will have died? No. The number is going to be much higher.

[mcap]

Most places in US, and likely other countries, those confirmed cases are almost all ones with more severe symptoms. If you have symptoms but aren’t having breathing troubles you’re advised to just self quarantine, manage symptoms at home. Obviously this creates a biased death rate statistic, all we’re really looking at are moderate to severe cases or rich connected people. But Kewlj won’t listen to any of that and insists that no one can use any inferential statistical reasoning based on that, can only use biased confirmed case count and resolved cases. Why? Idk, maybe Kewlj just being ass hoe.

You can pretty easily just assume the 5% currently critical cases are going to die, a few won’t but a few non critical will turn that or die anyway and that there’s at least 4x as many non confirmed cases that have shown symptoms but are advised to not be tested based on what we’re being told on how many severe vs non severe cases there are, leads you to a pretty easy rough 1% fatality assumption.

[kewlJ]

Most places in US, and likely other countries, those confirmed cases are almost all ones with more severe symptoms. If you have symptoms but aren’t having breathing troubles you’re advised to just self quarantine, manage symptoms at home. Obviously this creates a biased death rate statistic. But Kewlj won’t listen to any of that and insists that no one can use any inferential statistical reasoning based on that, can only use confirmed cases. Why? Idk, maybe Kewlj just being ass hoe.

Why the need to call names, mcap? why is it that on this site there can be no reasonable discussion without name calling?

Again, I hope like hell that there is a large pool of people that have already contracted the virus, had mild symptoms and recovered. And that would make the death rate 1% or even less. But there is yet no proof of that. That means it is purely an assumption at this point. Assume....you know how that works?

[mcap]

Most places in US, and likely other countries, those confirmed cases are almost all ones with more severe symptoms. If you have symptoms but aren’t having breathing troubles you’re advised to just self quarantine, manage symptoms at home. Obviously this creates a biased death rate statistic. But Kewlj won’t listen to any of that and insists that no one can use any inferential statistical reasoning based on that, can only use confirmed cases. Why? Idk, maybe Kewlj just being ass hoe.

Why the need to call names, mcap? why is it that on this site there can be no reasonable discussion without name calling?

. Assume....you know how that works?

Why the names? Cuz it’s Dan’s forum, management style fosters and encourages it. Gotta go somewhere else or make our own forum if we want it to be civil:

Yeah I guess assumption make ass hoe out of both you and me. You’re calculating style make assumption too that there are zero undiagnosed cases.

[monet]

Anyone who says that Hitlers Recipe is MendleBread has no right to ask others why they are name calling.
If your gonna shove it in peoples asses you have to be able to take it up the ass.

[mickeycrimm]

95% of cases are mild conditions according to the graph. So 5% are serious or critical. The deaths come out of the 5%. So what do you figure the death rate within that 5% is?

Mickey, I think you are interpreting the numbers incorrectly. The problem continues to be that it takes weeks for the cases to resolve.

So each and every day there is a new high in number of new cases. So that means that number you are looking at 95% mild cases contains all of the new cases from the past couple days, even the past week. Of course those newer cases are now "mild". People don't get sick for up to several weeks. So if we looked at just these cases that are listed today, as active cases, 797,398 and checked back next week, on just those cases, the criticals and deaths would both go up from that pool of cases. And the week after that the deaths and criticals would have gone up even more.

The problem is by next week or the week after there will be a whole new slew of active cases, again with the majority, listed as mild, because there hasn't yet been sufficient time for them to progress to critical and/or death. It is sort of a ponzi scheme. Again, the problem is that it takes so long, weeks even a month for the cases to resolve. Only then can you determine what percent are critical and what percent die.

The same site these stats came off of, worldometers, says with rare exceptions it runs its course in 14 days.

[mickeycrimm]

Also, this is not completely about survival. A good chunk of people who get this are going to have permanent lung damage, like having tuberculosis. So quality of life will be reduced for those who survive. That hasn't even been discussed much publicly because then, with 30% minimum having the virus, you're talking about tens of millions with reduced quality of life. Those are the facts. That's the reality. if you prefer to believe something else, be my guest.

I have, at each step of this, been correct about virtually everything. And that did not take any super powers. It took a little reading and listening to actual experts and understanding that science and the military have been running models for this....

Tens of millions with lung damage? That would mean more than tens of millions would have to get the virus. I think your number here is not only wrong its outrageous.

Mickey, just do the math. California is going to have more than 50% infected. California has 40 million people. New York will be 70-80%. New York has 20 million people. Just do the math. I do not know why you can't do the math. You're better at math than I am, so what is the problem? The models have been accurate.

At each step of this, mickey, you have said one thing. I have said another. You have yet to be correct. I guess you're due, as they say.

As far as the president is concerned, he had the power and the ability to report reality to the American people at least six weeks ahead of what he did. That would have been honest. It would have saved lives. Republicans, when polled, actually registered a higher percentage of taking the virus seriously before the president made his February statements. He made those statements, and the percentage of Republicans taking it seriously went down. At any point, he could have said, "Fox News ain't telling it like it's gonna be. Here's what's going to happen."

Cuomo blundered badly early. The CDC was a disgrace the entire way. The Georgia governor is a horse's ass. But President Trump had the ability and the platform to clean up many of these blunders by just admitting the truth.

I had a blunder myself about a month ago. My girlfriend had watched shows with Japanese and Korean infectious disease specialists, and they recommended masks. I had figured masks couldn't hurt, but the CDC said masks were of no benefit. I believed the CDC. Well, of course, the CDC was bullshitting and just trying to prevent civilians from buying masks because the U.S. government hadn't stockpiled a serious amount. So the girlfriend was right; I was wrong.

She's sewn some mask prototypes the last few days, and we should be good to go.

I just seen a film bite from January where Fauci is saying coronavirus was not a threat to the U.S. If Trump was getting his advice from Fauci then it was faulty advice. And what is Fauci saying today? He's saying the country should stay in quarantine until there are no more infections and no more deaths.

Fauci is just a doctor and thats all he has to think about. Trump has to think about a lot more than the virus. He has to also think about the economy and constitutional rights.

[House of Orange]

here would be yet another way to figure the real death rate. Go back and look at the first 1000 cases who tested positive in the U.S. It has probably been a couple weeks now. So when every one of those cases has fully resolved, meaning every one of them has either recovered or died, do you really think only 10 (1%) will have died? No. The number is going to be much higher.

Real death rate? Glad you Asked!
https://www.foxnews.com/health/half-...toms-data-show

Read along to the results of the cruise liner where EVERYONE got tested! Then analysts in the U.K. came up with a .66% mortality rate.

[Guy Incognito]

My brother and I filed for unemployment two days ago and our status were both changed to approved today only 48 hours later. Because we qualify under the recovery package expanded eligibility, I assumed we would have to jump through hoops and provide all kinds of paperwork proving our income. So far that isn't the case, maybe they will be requesting that at some point.

I'm curious as to how you did this; I assumed you were self-employed? Per the website:

Pandemic Unemployment Assistance: Unemployment support for otherwise ineligible workers, including self-employed.

Status: awaiting federal guidance. Last updated 03/31/20

[dannyj]

My brother and I filed for unemployment two days ago and our status were both changed to approved today only 48 hours later. Because we qualify under the recovery package expanded eligibility, I assumed we would have to jump through hoops and provide all kinds of paperwork proving our income. So far that isn't the case, maybe they will be requesting that at some point.

I'm curious as to how you did this; I assumed you were self-employed? Per the website:

Pandemic Unemployment Assistance: Unemployment support for otherwise ineligible workers, including self-employed.

Status: awaiting federal guidance. Last updated 03/31/20

Don’t mean to answer for KJ, but one of the criteria is place(s) of employment closed due to covid19.

[mickeycrimm]

Liberal prayer:

[kewlJ]

My brother and I filed for unemployment two days ago and our status were both changed to approved today only 48 hours later. Because we qualify under the recovery package expanded eligibility, I assumed we would have to jump through hoops and provide all kinds of paperwork proving our income. So far that isn't the case, maybe they will be requesting that at some point.

I'm curious as to how you did this; I assumed you were self-employed? Per the website:

Pandemic Unemployment Assistance: Unemployment support for otherwise ineligible workers, including self-employed.

Status: awaiting federal guidance. Last updated 03/31/20

Hate to cross-thread direct, but I gave as detailed an account of my filing as I can now recall in post #88 of the "handout thread" that you may find beneficial.

[House of Orange]

here would be yet another way to figure the real death rate. Go back and look at the first 1000 cases who tested positive in the U.S. It has probably been a couple weeks now. So when every one of those cases has fully resolved, meaning every one of them has either recovered or died, do you really think only 10 (1%) will have died? No. The number is going to be much higher.

Real death rate? Glad you Asked!
https://www.foxnews.com/health/half-...toms-data-show
Crickets
Read along to the results of the cruise liner where EVERYONE got tested! Then analysts in the U.K. came up with a .66% mortality rate.