Re: All things Chinese CoronaVirus
Posted: Fri May 01, 2020 10:59 am
Same Party, Different House
https://fanlax.com/forum/
Facts?
There are no "Democrat States" or "Republican States". There is one USA.
Italy coronavirus deaths 27,967MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 11:56 am exponentially higher, Kram?
Higher, yes, exponentially?
I do think that the #'s are blunt and need more context.
No doubt.
And the worst may well be yet to come all over the world.
Hope not, but it's almost surely going to be killing hundreds of thousands more worldwide, absent a breakthrough therapy or vaccine darn soon. Many will go unconfirmed, just estimated.
If we want to be political about the US response, though, the question is pretty simple.
Could we, should we, have done better, acting sooner on a variety of fronts and with more clarity of purpose?
Would that have saved lives and saved $ ?
That appears to be an unequivocal, yes.
Then we have to ask whether leadership from the POTUS would have mattered to the above?
To me, that too, is an unequivocal yes.
Then we need to ask ourselves whether the POTUS we have today is going to do any better over the next many months?
Sure hope so. Not betting on it.
The scientists are the best hope.
partisan to what? spelling it out... it's my opinion that there is a lot more to "the numbers" than usa has a higher % of x than the world.
6ftstick wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 12:52 pmItaly coronavirus deaths 27,967MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 11:56 am exponentially higher, Kram?
Higher, yes, exponentially?
I do think that the #'s are blunt and need more context.
No doubt.
And the worst may well be yet to come all over the world.
Hope not, but it's almost surely going to be killing hundreds of thousands more worldwide, absent a breakthrough therapy or vaccine darn soon. Many will go unconfirmed, just estimated.
If we want to be political about the US response, though, the question is pretty simple.
Could we, should we, have done better, acting sooner on a variety of fronts and with more clarity of purpose?
Would that have saved lives and saved $ ?
That appears to be an unequivocal, yes.
Then we have to ask whether leadership from the POTUS would have mattered to the above?
To me, that too, is an unequivocal yes.
Then we need to ask ourselves whether the POTUS we have today is going to do any better over the next many months?
Sure hope so. Not betting on it.
The scientists are the best hope.
Spain coronavirus deaths 24,543
France coronavirus deaths 24,376
Germany coronavirus deaths 6,623
UK coronavirus deaths 26,771
total population 320 million
Total deaths=110,280
---------------------------------------------
United States
Total population 324 million
Total deaths 63,019
(New York/New Jersey 40% of that total)
All things considered we could be doing much worse.
Partisan to your political leanings. Please. If you were truly interested in more detailed data, you would have asked for a breakdown for each state. Again, what relevance is there to whether the state is led by a democrat or a republican? Other than the obvious one to try to further your political agenda?wgdsr wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 1:46 pmpartisan to what? spelling it out... it's my opinion that there is a lot more to "the numbers" than usa has a higher % of x than the world.
and you could take that conversation in 50 different directions. or many more.
just like there's a lot more to certain states having worse numbers than others.
i pointed out the lack of context. that's why it's relevant, or actually not necessarily relevant on its face. capisce?
you don't know me very well. it was a rhetorical question. it was a point made. i don't need the answer as i already know what it is. the relevance is that local leaders have a good deal of influence in how their state/city/county is operated.njbill wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 2:07 pmPartisan to your political leanings. Please. If you were truly interested in more detailed data, you would have asked for a breakdown for each state. Again, what relevance is there to whether the state is led by a democrat or a republican? Other than the obvious one to try to further your political agenda?wgdsr wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 1:46 pmpartisan to what? spelling it out... it's my opinion that there is a lot more to "the numbers" than usa has a higher % of x than the world.
and you could take that conversation in 50 different directions. or many more.
just like there's a lot more to certain states having worse numbers than others.
i pointed out the lack of context. that's why it's relevant, or actually not necessarily relevant on its face. capisce?
(Infection Fatality Rate)In Search of the COVID19 ‘IFR’
How deadly is COVID19? The question has mobilized countless researchers, become a political football around the globe and probably occurred to and triggered fear in the minds of most members of the human species. The question can be posed in various ways. But the closest to what people likely mean by it is what epidemiologists call an ‘IFR’, an infection mortality rate. That is to say, the percentage of people who will die from COVID19 after being infected by it. That’s different from the number of ‘cases’ since some infections never show symptoms and many never get recorded in any medical or governmental dataset.
The epidemic in New York City allows us to make initial calculations which, though imperfect, move us toward a real estimate as opposed to inferences, history and guesswork. For each variable in the formula we have an actual number based in science and quality record keeping, even if each is subject to substantial uncertainty and revision.
So in this estimate, using data from NYC, just under 1% of the population infected with CV-19 die. Roughly a factor of 10 higher than the flu.The population of New York City, according to the 2018 Census estimate, is 8,398,748 people.
The most recent estimate from New York State’s on-going blood antibody (serology) testing suggests that 24.7% of New York City residents have COVID19 antibodies and were infected with the disease. (We don’t know precisely when these tests were conducted – probably about one week ago. There’s a couple week lag before you develop antibodies.) If we apply that percentage to the city population we get 2,074,490 infections in the city.
New mortality data updated this afternoon shows the total number of confirmed (lab test) and probable (diagnosed without a test) COVID19 deaths is 18,231.
If we take those deaths and that total number of infections we get a death rate of .878%. We can round it to .9%.
you are wrong, also attacking me. good for you. so i'll bite back... you don't seem to comprehend things very well. even when spelled out for you. at least not this. oh, well.
Sure. Definitely could be worse.6ftstick wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 12:52 pmItaly coronavirus deaths 27,967MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 11:56 am exponentially higher, Kram?
Higher, yes, exponentially?
I do think that the #'s are blunt and need more context.
No doubt.
And the worst may well be yet to come all over the world.
Hope not, but it's almost surely going to be killing hundreds of thousands more worldwide, absent a breakthrough therapy or vaccine darn soon. Many will go unconfirmed, just estimated.
If we want to be political about the US response, though, the question is pretty simple.
Could we, should we, have done better, acting sooner on a variety of fronts and with more clarity of purpose?
Would that have saved lives and saved $ ?
That appears to be an unequivocal, yes.
Then we have to ask whether leadership from the POTUS would have mattered to the above?
To me, that too, is an unequivocal yes.
Then we need to ask ourselves whether the POTUS we have today is going to do any better over the next many months?
Sure hope so. Not betting on it.
The scientists are the best hope.
Spain coronavirus deaths 24,543
France coronavirus deaths 24,376
Germany coronavirus deaths 6,623
UK coronavirus deaths 26,771
total population 320 million
Total deaths=110,280
---------------------------------------------
United States
Total population 324 million
Total deaths 63,019
(New York/New Jersey 40% of that total)
All things considered we could be doing much worse.
they don't have anything reasonably accurate with respect to antibody testing. can't do that until they get more comprehensive. as an example, i think the 24.7% number was taken from a statewide survey of 3,000 people. how many were in ny? don't know but given they were sampling all over the state maybe not a very large number. their cohorts were often those that were at supermarkets. random samplings that could have all sorts of error.RedFromMI wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 2:35 pm(Infection Fatality Rate)In Search of the COVID19 ‘IFR’
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/in ... ovid19-ifr
How deadly is COVID19? The question has mobilized countless researchers, become a political football around the globe and probably occurred to and triggered fear in the minds of most members of the human species. The question can be posed in various ways. But the closest to what people likely mean by it is what epidemiologists call an ‘IFR’, an infection mortality rate. That is to say, the percentage of people who will die from COVID19 after being infected by it. That’s different from the number of ‘cases’ since some infections never show symptoms and many never get recorded in any medical or governmental dataset.
The epidemic in New York City allows us to make initial calculations which, though imperfect, move us toward a real estimate as opposed to inferences, history and guesswork. For each variable in the formula we have an actual number based in science and quality record keeping, even if each is subject to substantial uncertainty and revision.So in this estimate, using data from NYC, just under 1% of the population infected with CV-19 die. Roughly a factor of 10 higher than the flu.The population of New York City, according to the 2018 Census estimate, is 8,398,748 people.
The most recent estimate from New York State’s on-going blood antibody (serology) testing suggests that 24.7% of New York City residents have COVID19 antibodies and were infected with the disease. (We don’t know precisely when these tests were conducted – probably about one week ago. There’s a couple week lag before you develop antibodies.) If we apply that percentage to the city population we get 2,074,490 infections in the city.
New mortality data updated this afternoon shows the total number of confirmed (lab test) and probable (diagnosed without a test) COVID19 deaths is 18,231.
If we take those deaths and that total number of infections we get a death rate of .878%. We can round it to .9%.
This number is certainly subject to revision - it is only an estimate that further information will likely refine. But the likely final result should not be as low as the typical flu number (around a tenth of a percent).
no worries, mate. i'm sure most everyone else on here can read and comprehend the dialogue. and who came on with "an agenda". peace.njbill wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 2:51 pm
Nope. Not attacking you at all. You are entitled to your political leanings just like everyone else. Not sure why you are so sensitive when they are pointed out.
I’m done on this one. If you want to have the last word, have at it.
The 24% number is broken out for NYC. Not sure of the error bars, as I don't have the underlying data. Data was taken outside of groceries/big box stores, so there could be a selection error as well.wgdsr wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 2:54 pmthey don't have anything reasonably accurate with respect to antibody testing. can't do that until they get more comprehensive. as an example, i think the 24.7% number was taken from a statewide survey of 3,000 people. how many were in ny? don't know but given they were sampling all over the state maybe not a very large number. their cohorts were often those that were at supermarkets. random samplings that could have all sorts of error.RedFromMI wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 2:35 pm(Infection Fatality Rate)In Search of the COVID19 ‘IFR’
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/in ... ovid19-ifr
How deadly is COVID19? The question has mobilized countless researchers, become a political football around the globe and probably occurred to and triggered fear in the minds of most members of the human species. The question can be posed in various ways. But the closest to what people likely mean by it is what epidemiologists call an ‘IFR’, an infection mortality rate. That is to say, the percentage of people who will die from COVID19 after being infected by it. That’s different from the number of ‘cases’ since some infections never show symptoms and many never get recorded in any medical or governmental dataset.
The epidemic in New York City allows us to make initial calculations which, though imperfect, move us toward a real estimate as opposed to inferences, history and guesswork. For each variable in the formula we have an actual number based in science and quality record keeping, even if each is subject to substantial uncertainty and revision.So in this estimate, using data from NYC, just under 1% of the population infected with CV-19 die. Roughly a factor of 10 higher than the flu.The population of New York City, according to the 2018 Census estimate, is 8,398,748 people.
The most recent estimate from New York State’s on-going blood antibody (serology) testing suggests that 24.7% of New York City residents have COVID19 antibodies and were infected with the disease. (We don’t know precisely when these tests were conducted – probably about one week ago. There’s a couple week lag before you develop antibodies.) If we apply that percentage to the city population we get 2,074,490 infections in the city.
New mortality data updated this afternoon shows the total number of confirmed (lab test) and probable (diagnosed without a test) COVID19 deaths is 18,231.
If we take those deaths and that total number of infections we get a death rate of .878%. We can round it to .9%.
This number is certainly subject to revision - it is only an estimate that further information will likely refine. But the likely final result should not be as low as the typical flu number (around a tenth of a percent).
the number could be a quarter of that or twice that.
also, i haven't seen much on elder care and nursing homes in ny, how many died were elderly as a %... did it race thru a number of nursing homes and cause what likely would be awful damage?
i did see three different studies that seemed "robust" and they all had pegged their estimate @ b/t 0.35%- 0.4% independently, using different inputs, etc.
No. The US is more comparable to Europe in it's entirety, rather than just Germany, In size, dispersal & diversity.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 2:47 pm Personally, I like Germany's ratio.
Population of 83 million, 6,623 deaths...so US is 4X pop, 10X deaths.
Of course, this is just round one of this battle, so #'s and ratio could change in future rounds, but right now they have done way, way better than us.
The Germans are the most analogous country in Europe to our own.
In general, they look pretty dismissively at France, worse at Spain, and really down their noses at Italy.
The UK made a tragic error of mirroring Trump's dismissiveness of the threat.
But hey, if we just focus on one piece of the US, New York State. 55k sq miles, pop. 19.45 million ; Germany 138k sq miles, pop 83 million...so, basically NYS is 1/4 the size of Germany, yet has almost 4X the deaths. Want to add in Connecticut and New Jersey?
Or, hey, we could look at our neighbors to the north. Canada is physically larger than the US, but only 37 million people (mostly concentrated in only part), so about 1/9th in pop. 3,387 deaths. So, the US is 9X more people, about 20X deaths.