Anonymous wrote:For many reasons, Italy is not a good comp.
We won't have as high a percentage of deaths, but there is a good chance we will have the highest percentage of sick people in the world and that our hospitals will be overwhelmed.
Based on?
Extrapolating out the exponential curve out a week or two. We are where Italy was a week ago and have a higher growth rate.
On Tuesday, based on a 30% growth rate, I predicted we would have 10,000 cases by today. Well we have more like a 45% growth rate which gave us 20,000 cases today.
Thanks. I don’t even think number of cases is really a useful metric at this juncture. The numbers are all over the place because people have simply stopped testing or are only testing those with the worst symptoms. None of these are apples to apples comparisons. On the whole, I say we fare better than Italy.
Well, we have several datasets that include testing all or almost all of those who were exposed. One is from the Diamond Princess and one is from South Korean. Both suggest a death rate around 1%. We can also use the Diamond Princess to estimate a maximum number likely to be infected. About 20% of the people on the Diamond Princess were infected. 20% of the US population is around 65 million. One per cent of that is 650,000 deaths. This is what has everybody freaking out. If you play around with my numbers to account for various uncertainties, you still get a large number of deaths, and worst epidemic since the Spanish Flu. Also, about 20% of people have a severe case than penetrates into the lungs. Most of those people survive, but a significant number will develop scarred lungs, which will impair their health for the rest of their lives. This isn't talked about so much, but it also is causing experts to freak out.
If your brain has trouble absorbing this, just understand that epidemiologist make these estimates for a living and most of them are freaking out.
You are wrong. In three months this will look like one of the biggest hype jobs ever. Do more research.
I can always be wrong, but I provided my research and analysis to you, and all you did was say, "you are wrong, do more research." Umm, no. You do your own research and analysis. Well see who is right in a few months. But I'm pretty sure I'm right because it's just math now. Hell, I'll tell you how many dead people we'll have in two weeks. About 6,000. Don't believe me now. But if I'm right, will you believe you might, just might, be wrong.
Lol. Bookmarked.
“LOL” because people dying is just a joke to Trumpsters.
The overreaction is a bit humorous. This mayyyyyy end up being a slight uptick in deaths from a normal flu season. 99% of the deaths in Italy are from patients with one or multiple comorbidities. Many deaths from those are actually being attributed to CV. There is a difference between dying with CV and dying because of CV. I guess we shall see when it all shakes out.
Not a trumpster btw
I didn't base my estimate on anything to do with Italy. I based it on an exponential growth formula. Deaths have been growing by an average of about 25% a day for the last two weeks. That means deaths are quintupling every 7 days. On March 13, we had 49 total deaths. March 20 we had 256. So if the trend continues, we will have 1,250 dead by March 27 and 6,250 by April 3. It's really simple math, but it's counter intuitive because we tend to think linearly rather than exponentially. So unless something intervenes, the trend will continue.
The rate of growth will not stay the same. Take a cue from the other countries, many of whom have already come through the worst (Japan, SK). None of them kept growing exponentially because there were interventions. This is not a math equation. Human intervention is at work. Your projections will look wildly off the mark when all of the data is sorted.
First you say don't look at Italy, then you say look at South Korea and Japan. Last I checked, we weren't very much like those countries either.
First you say the data can't be trusted. Then based on nothing more than this lack of trustworthy data you make predictions about the data.
You are just making a bunch of assumptions, then assuming they must be right because... reasons.
Which is why I made a prediction that can be tested. Not based on math alone. But also based on what we are actually doing (and not doing) right now.
You'll see.
The point is none of the data right now is reliable because we don’t know what is being counted and even if you do look at data available, nothing is close to as bad as what you’re projecting. Is there some particular reason why the US will fare as badly as you’re projecting other than you’re little formula? This isn’t some plug and play scenario.
We will see indeed.
Unfortunately, the growth rate went up this week, and we reached 1290 deaths today, one day ahead of my prediction for this. The growth rate slowed slightly in the last two days, perhaps reflecting the success of social distancing in the hardest hit states, but it's too soon to establish a trend.
When I made my prediction that we'd see 6,000 deaths by April 3, there were 246 dead. It took 71 days from January 15 to March 25 to reach 1000 dead. It took 2 days from March 25 to today, March 28, to reach our second thousand. We are actually on a worse path than I predicted.
Are you starting to see the terrifying power of exponential growth?
You are insufferable. Stop trying to gloat and come back in three months when the data will be more clear. Everybody knows what exponential growth is. Millions of Americans will not die from this.
Decisions we make today determine how many will die in three months. At least you aren't laughing anymore.
It's just sad now. You lot enjoy drama and hysteria. Smh.
Yes, it's sad that you pride yourself on your rationality, but emotion rules you. That's why you see "hysteria" when others see a grim reality.
Is this the "reality" you see? The media pushing this as a "healthy" and "no underlying conditions case...lol
Anonymous wrote:For many reasons, Italy is not a good comp.
We won't have as high a percentage of deaths, but there is a good chance we will have the highest percentage of sick people in the world and that our hospitals will be overwhelmed.
Based on?
Extrapolating out the exponential curve out a week or two. We are where Italy was a week ago and have a higher growth rate.
On Tuesday, based on a 30% growth rate, I predicted we would have 10,000 cases by today. Well we have more like a 45% growth rate which gave us 20,000 cases today.
Thanks. I don’t even think number of cases is really a useful metric at this juncture. The numbers are all over the place because people have simply stopped testing or are only testing those with the worst symptoms. None of these are apples to apples comparisons. On the whole, I say we fare better than Italy.
Well, we have several datasets that include testing all or almost all of those who were exposed. One is from the Diamond Princess and one is from South Korean. Both suggest a death rate around 1%. We can also use the Diamond Princess to estimate a maximum number likely to be infected. About 20% of the people on the Diamond Princess were infected. 20% of the US population is around 65 million. One per cent of that is 650,000 deaths. This is what has everybody freaking out. If you play around with my numbers to account for various uncertainties, you still get a large number of deaths, and worst epidemic since the Spanish Flu. Also, about 20% of people have a severe case than penetrates into the lungs. Most of those people survive, but a significant number will develop scarred lungs, which will impair their health for the rest of their lives. This isn't talked about so much, but it also is causing experts to freak out.
If your brain has trouble absorbing this, just understand that epidemiologist make these estimates for a living and most of them are freaking out.
You are wrong. In three months this will look like one of the biggest hype jobs ever. Do more research.
I can always be wrong, but I provided my research and analysis to you, and all you did was say, "you are wrong, do more research." Umm, no. You do your own research and analysis. Well see who is right in a few months. But I'm pretty sure I'm right because it's just math now. Hell, I'll tell you how many dead people we'll have in two weeks. About 6,000. Don't believe me now. But if I'm right, will you believe you might, just might, be wrong.
Lol. Bookmarked.
“LOL” because people dying is just a joke to Trumpsters.
The overreaction is a bit humorous. This mayyyyyy end up being a slight uptick in deaths from a normal flu season. 99% of the deaths in Italy are from patients with one or multiple comorbidities. Many deaths from those are actually being attributed to CV. There is a difference between dying with CV and dying because of CV. I guess we shall see when it all shakes out.
Not a trumpster btw
I didn't base my estimate on anything to do with Italy. I based it on an exponential growth formula. Deaths have been growing by an average of about 25% a day for the last two weeks. That means deaths are quintupling every 7 days. On March 13, we had 49 total deaths. March 20 we had 256. So if the trend continues, we will have 1,250 dead by March 27 and 6,250 by April 3. It's really simple math, but it's counter intuitive because we tend to think linearly rather than exponentially. So unless something intervenes, the trend will continue.
The rate of growth will not stay the same. Take a cue from the other countries, many of whom have already come through the worst (Japan, SK). None of them kept growing exponentially because there were interventions. This is not a math equation. Human intervention is at work. Your projections will look wildly off the mark when all of the data is sorted.
First you say don't look at Italy, then you say look at South Korea and Japan. Last I checked, we weren't very much like those countries either.
First you say the data can't be trusted. Then based on nothing more than this lack of trustworthy data you make predictions about the data.
You are just making a bunch of assumptions, then assuming they must be right because... reasons.
Which is why I made a prediction that can be tested. Not based on math alone. But also based on what we are actually doing (and not doing) right now.
You'll see.
The point is none of the data right now is reliable because we don’t know what is being counted and even if you do look at data available, nothing is close to as bad as what you’re projecting. Is there some particular reason why the US will fare as badly as you’re projecting other than you’re little formula? This isn’t some plug and play scenario.
We will see indeed.
Unfortunately, the growth rate went up this week, and we reached 1290 deaths today, one day ahead of my prediction for this. The growth rate slowed slightly in the last two days, perhaps reflecting the success of social distancing in the hardest hit states, but it's too soon to establish a trend.
When I made my prediction that we'd see 6,000 deaths by April 3, there were 246 dead. It took 71 days from January 15 to March 25 to reach 1000 dead. It took 2 days from March 25 to today, March 28, to reach our second thousand. We are actually on a worse path than I predicted.
Are you starting to see the terrifying power of exponential growth?
You are insufferable. Stop trying to gloat and come back in three months when the data will be more clear. Everybody knows what exponential growth is. Millions of Americans will not die from this.
Decisions we make today determine how many will die in three months. At least you aren't laughing anymore.
It's just sad now. You lot enjoy drama and hysteria. Smh.
Yes, it's sad that you pride yourself on your rationality, but emotion rules you. That's why you see "hysteria" when others see a grim reality.
Is this the "reality" you see? The media pushing this as a "healthy" and "no underlying conditions case...lol
Anonymous wrote:No. The article very clearly states that he had the flu.
So why is it being covered under COVID?
The connection is stated in the article.
More importantly, why did PP bring it up as an example of the media falsely stating that the person was healthy before he fell ill? He was in fact healthy.
On top of that, it was in response to post that was just about statistics, not about media. So really just a distraction.
Anonymous wrote:No. The article very clearly states that he had the flu.
No. Read it more closely. The article clearly states that he had the covid and that people were dismissing the covid by calling it "just a bad flu". Pay attention while reading.
Anonymous wrote:No. The article very clearly states that he had the flu.
No. Read it more closely. The article clearly states that he had the covid and that people were dismissing the covid by calling it "just a bad flu". Pay attention while reading.
Can you please copy/paste the exact text where it says he contracted CV? Maybe I am missing it. You may be proving the point that media conflation and sloppiness is confusing people.
Anonymous wrote:Don’t waste time arguing with stupid. Ignorance can be addressed with wisdom. You can’t fix stupid. Ignore the dumb Trump Sympathizers.
Would this post be Exhibit A? A shining example of "wisdom"?
Once there you can research what per capita means and why it matters.
This has been answered a few times in this thread. The Y axis is logarithm of the total cases or deaths. The population being a constant doesn't change the trajectory. The author of the chart explained it well.
Once there you can research what per capita means and why it matters.
This has been answered a few times in this thread. The Y axis is logarithm of the total cases or deaths. The population being a constant doesn't change the trajectory. The author of the chart explained it well.
+1000
The per capita poster here is so dumb. She thinks she’s smart by using that statistic but doesn’t realize that number is meaningless until the entire pandemic is over and we see the final results. Everyone starts with 1 case. One case in a population. Of 1 million looks 1000 times worse per capita than one case in a population of one billion. Then when the numbers increase to 2 each it still looks worse. The virus has the same growth rate (known as R0) regardless of total population. Per capita numbers are useless at the start of an outbreak - and we are still at the start. If you compare this to a road trip to the beach, we are still pulling out of the driveway. It isn’t until the pandemic is over that comparing per capita numbers will be useful in terms of which counties did better than others.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
