Interesting. So for every 4 cases you catch because of symptoms, you have 3 asymptomatic carriers spreading it around. Interesting. Hard to tell if that carries to the wider population, but strongly implies we are going to miss a lot of cases.
Given that we are limiting testing to people with symptoms, that means we are absolutely not catching around half of the people who have it, if not more.
Interesting. Does indicate that the fatality rate is going to be a lot lower than the 3% running around.
Led me here:
Coronavirus model shows individual hospitals what to expect in the coming weeks
https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/16/...hat-to-expect/
Something for baseline bum
http://penn-chime.phl.io/
One of the checkboxes lays out the underlying equations.
Side note BLB has a low three digit member number.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 03-17-2020 at 05:26 PM.
So now the Lakers announce they’re all going to be tested, probably going to be every NBA player. Sure, why not. Instead of using kits to do some real epidemiological study lets test all the NBA players. ing idiots.
How the are the getting the tests so easily is my question. Are tests available to basically anyone able to s out a bunch of cash?
Yeah let government agents (doctors) test them and tell them that they're all positive. Idiots.
No freaking way I believe 0.125%. Korea has been doing extensive testing and they're at 1%.Interesting. Does indicate that the fatality rate is going to be a lot lower than the 3% running around.
Led me here:
Coronavirus model shows individual hospitals what to expect in the coming weeks
https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/16/...hat-to-expect/
Something for baseline bum
http://penn-chime.phl.io/
One of the checkboxes lays out the underlying equations.
Side note BLB has a low three digit member number.
Money opens all things...
Best estimates I have seen is 1%.
Still not quite the flu.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/flu.htm
Influenza
Data are for the U.S.
Deaths per 100,000 population: 2.0
Is the parlor still open?
I’m guessing ultimately 1% too skewed heavily to elderly and to a lesser extent younger but immunocompromised with lots of younger people asymptomatic or symptoms so mild they ignore them.
Diamond Princess tested everyone and that rate was 1%. And that sample skewed heavily toward old folks.
If we dont lock down the entire country - right now-
its gonna be a huge fail and many will die.
In think it's worth testing NBA players, for pure data collection. What those players do on a daily basis is the opposite of "social distancing". They're in close quarters, sweating profusely, breathing heavily, all touching the same ball, licking their hands, etc. If covid-19 is as contagious as claimed, a ton of players, staff, and their families should test positive. We need this data, tbh.
Durant tests positive
I hope some creative minds get together and instead of just sending 1k checks - think of implementing a plan-
for example:
Sundays - ALL businesses closed
mon/wed/fri = all businesses - named A thru L - open for drive thrus, delivery, to go orders
tues/thur/sat = all businesses named - M thru Z - open while above close
instead of a bunch of bankruptcies and layoffs- just lower profits or breakeven
instead of employees losing jobs- they just hang on and ride it out
Nope. In the ideal study you want total randomization, you don't want any selection bias.
That's the thing is that cruises don't really offer a representative sample of the wider population, even of elderly.
Wider population of the elderly includes a lot of people who might not be healthy enough to go on a cruise, for example. Cruises also indicate a certain amount of affluence, another factor in overall health.
The article you posted alluded to as much.
Not to mention that cruise was all people getting it very early so that hospitals could accommodate them.
Ideally, but the NBA player data would show transmissibility in the worst case scenario. Whatever their rate is, the actual value should be lower.
As of a few days ago they had tested around .3% of their population. It's really hard to know how many people are asymptomatic but we know for sure from Americans in qt that just had one or two days of mild symptoms and then were carriers for a month. Someday we'll get a study of the general population testing for antibodies (not the virus) and then they'll be able to figure out a more accurate mortality rate.
The thing about this virus is just how freakin contagious it is. It could have a very low mortality rate but the fact that it infects so many people so fast would make it appear as if it was more lethal. Especially if there are a large number of people with little to no symptoms that are completely unaccounted for.
There are no ideal representative samples yet. We have to work with what we have, for now.
The fact that South Korea's death rate has gone up from 0.7% to 1.0% in a week has to be troubling considering how much they have been testing. One of the things I worried about with that 0.7% number was that it might have been heavily biased towards people who had just developed enough viral load to test positive and that it could increase as that wave of positives had some time for symptoms to worsen. I hope it stabilizes at 1.0% and doesn't increase further from the same phenomenon.
Sometimes it takes people awhile to die.
What do you make of Korea's death rate increasing from 0.7% to 1.0% in about a week? Is their hospital system starting to go under? I would have guessed the most at risk groups would have been the ones testing first so that death rates might go down or at least stay pretty stable as the testing skewed less and less from the highest risk groups. But that 0.7% rate seemed a little premature and I was concerned it was hugely oversampling people who just developed enough viral load to be detectable (eg more recent infections) and that it could increase as that population had time for the infection to advance. Tough to know what the is going on with this thing. It would be great if that death number was as low as the paper claims though and it went through most of the population so we could get away with only 2-3 months of city lockdowns and expensive ass UBI payments.
looks like West’s strategy of self quarantining at home is a losing strategy
in china 80% of infections occurred through family
ideally you would remove the suspected infected and take them somewhere. good luck convincing americans to that
USA is gonna go through some very rough time compared to china
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
