There is also an approximate 10 day delay between positive case and death. Thus you would need to take the death numbers today against the positive cases from 10 days ago to account for that delay.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Printable View
There is also an approximate 10 day delay between positive case and death. Thus you would need to take the death numbers today against the positive cases from 10 days ago to account for that delay.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
1. Flu numbers are also understated because half of flu cases are asymptomatic and not diagnosed.Quote:
Originally Posted by CARTEK
2. Exponential transmission and time delay of deaths (time shift by 10 days as mentioned in my previous post and the COVID death rate looks worse).
See where a 17-yr-old young man has died from C-19 in New Orleans. Don't know anything about the case...did he have some other medical conditions? But, damn! 17!
We'll see in 10 days!Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
BTW the NY Dem Governor Cuomo has been telling the entire truth and neither have some on here. Good video clip as well.
Today at the WH news conference:
Dr. Birx: Coronavirus Data Doesn't Match The Doomsday ...
https://www.realclearpolitics.com › video › 2020/03/26 › dr_birx_coronav...
2 hours ago - DR. DEBORAH BRIX: I'm sure you have seen the recent report out of the ... If you remember, that was the report that says there would be 500000 deaths in ... that there are still I.C.U. Beds remaining and still significant -- over 1000 ... of ventilators and other parts of New York state that don't have any infected.
White House coronavirus task force member Dr. Deborah Birx warned the public not to panic when they hear about models and projections of the pandemic's spread.
"Models are models," she said. "When people start talking about 20% of a population getting infected, it's very scary, but we don't have data that matches that based on our experience."
She said the media should not "make the implication that when they need a hospital bed it's not going to be there, or a ventilator, it's not going to be there, we don't have evidence of that."
"It's our job collectively to assure the American people," she also said. "There is no model right now -- no reality on the ground where we can see that 60% to 70% of Americans are going to get infected in the next eight to 12 weeks. I want to be clear about that."
DR. DEBORAH BRIX: I'm sure you have seen the recent report out of the U.K. about them adjusting completely their needs. This is really quite important. If you remember, that was the report that says there would be 500,000 deaths in the U.K. and 2.2 million deaths in the United States. They've adjusted that number in the U.K. to 20,000. Half a million to 20,000. We are looking at that in great detail to understand that adjustment.
I'm going to say something that is a little bit complicated but do it in a way we can understand it together. In the model, either you have to have a large group of people who a-asymptomatic, who never presented for any test to have the kind of numbers predicted. To get to 60 million people infected, you have to have a large group of a-symptomatics. We have not seen an attack rate over 1 in 1,000. So either we are measuring the iceberg and underneath it, are a large group of people. So we are working hard to get the antibody test and figure out who these people are and do they exist. Or we have the transmission completely wrong.
So these are the things we are looking at, because the predictions of the model don't match the reality on the ground in China, South Korea or Italy. We are five times the size of Italy. If we were Italy and did all those divisions, Italy should have close to 400,000 deaths. They are not close to achieving that.
Models are models. We are -- there is enough data of the real experience with the coronavirus on the ground to really make these predictions much more sound. So when people start talking about 20% of a population getting infected, it's very scary, but we don't have data that matches that based on our experience.
And the situation about ventilators. We are reassured in meeting with our colleagues in New York that there are still I.C.U. Beds remaining and still significant -- over 1,000 or 2,000 ventilators that have not been utilized.
Please for the reassurance of people around the world, to wake up this morning and look at people talking about creating DNR situations, Do Not Resuscitate situations for patients, there is no situation in the United States right now that warrants that kind of discussion. You can be thinking about it in the hospital. Certainly, hospitals talk about this on a daily basis, but to say that to the American people and make the implication that when they need a hospital bed it's not going to be there or a ventilator, it's not going to be there, we don't have evidence of that.
It's our job collectively to assure the American people, it's our job to make sure that doesn't happen. You can see the cases are concentrated in highly urban areas and there are other parts of the states that have lots of ventilators and other parts of New York state that don't have any infected. We can meet the needs by being responsive.
There is no model right now -- no reality on the ground where we can see that 60% to 70% of Americans are going to get infected in the next eight to 12 weeks. I want to be clear about that. We are adapting to the reality on the ground and looking at the models of how they can inform but learning from South Korea and Italy and from Spain and I know you will look up my numbers.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi..._analysis.html
This is why the federal bureaucracy is supposed to handle immigration, defense and a few other things. They don't even do those things particularly well.
Look what they've done to education, health insurance, student loans and all the other things they have decided to "organize" and "fix". The CDC was, and likely still is, trying to catch up with what is going on.
Where the feds did drop the ball here is by letting this idea of the great benign global supply chain provide for our every need. There are no altruistic nations out there (we are likely the closest).
And in all honesty, most of the complaining per this current issues actually stems from what is the individual state's job (governors to mayors). And the entire supply chain mess should have been fixed after 9-11 and subsequent national threats.Quote:
Originally Posted by DawgyNWindow
These lifetime politicians, most are lawyers by trade, have been a total joke for decades! Make sure another doesn't get put in office again!
You guys are way more socialist than those that you label with that name!
You don't have data to support #1. Your source says nothing of that not being included in the flue estimates. Granted the flu estimates do not specifically say they include asmptomatic cases (it does include those that are not diagnosed). If Trump said something like this you would call it a lie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
2. What is the delay in testing and recieving results. It is less than 10 days, but greater than 0. There is nothing to support what you are saying. This is where the title of the book "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics" comes from.
I made a prediction in this thread. Have to go back and look for it. I said after two months we would look back on this and think we overreacted. That's not to say we didn't need to enact social distancing and take other actions, but I think the level of panic is way overblown and the damage to the economy will be felt for a long time to come.
I'm really starting to believe I had this the week after Mardis Gras. It will be interesting to see once they are able to look for antibodies and we can see who has already had it.
If you look at the data for countries where you can see a more defined peak in the curve (like China) you can see the delay in the peak of death vs reported cases.Quote:
Originally Posted by detltu
https://www.worldometers.info/corona...country/china/
The variability of the testing delay introduces some noise (as does the change in how cases were calculated in China over a few days leading to an odd data point), but the bottom line is that there is in fact a delay between the cases that are reported and the deaths, so before we reach the peak new cases the mortality rate will look lower than it actually is and will be once the pandemic is over.
Basic data science principles.
Trump issued DPA requirement on GM to produce ventilators after suggesting that they weren’t really needed just yesterday.
So just to be clear if it's 1.3% as of today (3/27/2020) you think it will continue to rise and will be greater than 1.3% when the pandemic subsides?Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
With a Twitter tirade in between the two.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Yes as long as you are using the same basis for calculating mortality rate today and at the end.Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonPieBlue
I'm in agreement with you that there is a lag time in positive test versus death. I think Cuomo indicated people were staying on a ventilator an average of 10 days. Don't know if that's how long before they die, recover, or a combination of the two. However, as we continue to test more and more people, I'm assuming with less sever cases then the denominator should grow at a faster rate than the numerator. While the number of deaths per day should flatten out, the number of positive cases should continue to increase. Either way that's of little comfort to those in the numerator.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp