Latest COVID-19 Math

Pelican45

Freshman
Joined
Jan 29, 2020
Messages
168
I agree that the key metric at this point is the death rate but a number that Dr. Birx shared yesterday that stood out to me was that 90% of those tested were negative. As testing has ramped up, it'll be interesting to see if that number holds true.
True. In Florida, it is running about 90% negative. They are (supposedly) recommending testing for those who are symptomatic or among the most vulnerable, I'd say that's pretty encouraging.
 
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
17,408
I agree that the key metric at this point is the death rate but a number that Dr. Birx shared yesterday that stood out to me was that 90% of those tested were negative. As testing has ramped up, it'll be interesting to see if that number holds true.
Based strictly on what I’m picking up for media reports and some health department numbers, more of the symptomatic patients and the more ill are being tested now which would lead one to believe that the 90% number would increase as testing continues

Just based on my speculation, as testing continues and expands we’re going to get a lot more positives but the percentage of positives is going to go way down
 

tcgrad1014

All-ACC
Joined
Nov 5, 2011
Messages
10,961
I agree that the key metric at this point is the death rate but a number that Dr. Birx shared yesterday that stood out to me was that 90% of those tested were negative. As testing has ramped up, it'll be interesting to see if that number holds true.
I would argue that the key stat is the number of severe cases. That's where our public health system gets stretched.
 

tcgrad1014

All-ACC
Joined
Nov 5, 2011
Messages
10,961
Based strictly on what I’m picking up for media reports and some health department numbers, more of the symptomatic patients and the more ill are being tested now which would lead one to believe that the 90% number would increase as testing continues

Just based on my speculation, as testing continues and expands we’re going to get a lot more positives but the percentage of positives is going to go way down
Probably true, but also pretty irrelevant when over 97% of the positive cases will be like the flu or even less. If they said tomorrow that 10 million Americans had Covid19, but a manageable number are severe cases, we can turn the page on this.
 
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
17,408
Probably true, but also pretty irrelevant when over 97% of the positive cases will be like the flu or even less. If they said tomorrow that 10 million Americans had Covid19, but a manageable number are severe cases, we can turn the page on this.
The number of positives and negatives is relevant in determining the death rate. I think when it’s all said and done, death rate is going to be well under 1% in the United States. It might even approach influenza death rate levels. Time will tell
 
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
17,408
The biggest problem is not knowing how bad it could get. As we get more data, it will be more evident. Those Oxford figures are encouraging.
They are. At the end of the day right now we’re dealing with projections. Which are just basically data driven educated guesses with very few historical presidents. Imperial College says one thing, Oxford university says another. Both respected. Which projections to use as the basis for making health and economic policy?
 

Mnhurricane

Benchwarmer Poster
Joined
Jul 30, 2017
Messages
1,512
Some of that is not factual. You really have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to how a health system manages "room, supply, and man/woman power." Are you aware one of the largest public health systems in the country is sending some employees home on forced Personal Leave? Does that jive with your claim of "lack of man/woman power?" And, I've acknowledged there will be (are) issues with lack of equipment, but not at all for the reasons you list. Health systems are pretty well compartmentalized. Especially in major metro areas. As it relates to your clearly inexperienced views on health care operations, this might really be a time to read and learn rather than keep writing "facts."

You don't think the death rate numbers are important? What should we focus on? The total people who get mild symptoms? How is that helpful?
You’re absolutely correct. Many clinics and sub-clinics are cutting hours and sending people away both in fear and in dwindling numbers.

We are trying to shift largely to telehealth here in MN but for now my clinic is damn near empty most days. The manpower in general is there but the specific supplies required (ventilators, ppe, etc) and even beds are not and that’s what is potentially scary.

Wish I knew where people are getting the death rates from. Removing Italy and China as outliers from the data paints a much clearer picture as to the death rate we will experience here and in most other first world countries. Guess it doesn’t fit the doom and gloom crowd though
 

NJshoreCane

Senior
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
3,773
The numbers, percentage wise, seem to be consistent with what we've been hearing.
The problem is the problem areas, like NYC.
The system is overwhelmed.

A family friend, Dr Taryn Webb at Mt Sinai, said she is now forced to make some tough decisions in deciding who gets critical care.
This wasn't a plea through the media to get more ventilators. This was what she told her parents last night.
 

JD08

Evidence based and data driven
Joined
Dec 19, 2014
Messages
7,108
You’re absolutely correct. Many clinics and sub-clinics are cutting hours and sending people away both in fear and in dwindling numbers.

We are trying to shift largely to telehealth here in MN but for now my clinic is damn near empty most days. The manpower in general is there but the specific supplies required (ventilators, ppe, etc) and even beds are not and that’s what is potentially scary.

Wish I knew where people are getting the death rates from. Removing Italy and China as outliers from the data paints a much clearer picture as to the death rate we will experience here and in most other first world countries. Guess it doesn’t fit the doom and gloom crowd though
Which leads to a secondary problem. How many people are ignoring health concerns for fear of going to a medical facility?
 

Mnhurricane

Benchwarmer Poster
Joined
Jul 30, 2017
Messages
1,512
Which leads to a secondary problem. How many people are ignoring health concerns for fear of going to a medical facility?
It would appear most, unfortunately. Both acute and chronic needs are being unmet and many clinics are closing doors on people with a cough or a fever. Tough time to get any other type of illness
 

mirvin88

All-ACC
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
10,921
You're arguing with the same ****stain who said there's no exponential growth.


Empirouette Cane will dance in circles grasping at straws and conflating stats to suit his narrative. He's an irresponsible troll who doesn't understand how perilous the virus is for hospitals and thus the population at large.
The same relative percentage (10% or so) of positive tests are coming back. We're just testing more. The infection is not spreading exponentially, otherwise an increasing number of positives (percentage wise) would be returning.
 

HighSeas

Sophomore
Joined
Feb 4, 2013
Messages
3,609
um...um...exactly when did I say there is no exponential growth?
My bad it was @Canes1968 ...hard to keep track of which buffoon says what. But I was wrong so apologies for that.


The same relative percentage (10% or so) of positive tests are coming back. We're just testing more. The infection is not spreading exponentially, otherwise an increasing number of positives (percentage wise) would be returning.
Exponential growth of cases, not infection rate.
 

423Hurricane

Recruit
Joined
Feb 1, 2018
Messages
3,600
Based strictly on what I’m picking up for media reports and some health department numbers, more of the symptomatic patients and the more ill are being tested now which would lead one to believe that the 90% number would increase as testing continues

Just based on my speculation, as testing continues and expands we’re going to get a lot more positives but the percentage of positives is going to go way down
With ONLY a 10% infection rate - and that's a good thing - it really doesn't give us enough data yet to come to any resolute conclusions. It shows trends and with the accelerated testing we will hopefully get more concrete conclusions sooner rather than later.
 

b caned

Recruit
Joined
Jan 30, 2012
Messages
95
Lots of speculation and numbers flying around here.

1. If the Chinese reported case numbers is a lie by a factor of 10, we can't believe their fatality numbers either. But reported cases are a result of testing. No way has China tested enough people to confirm 700,000 cases. The Oxford study that just came out finds that over 50% of England has/had Covid19 already and herd immunity is increasing, but confirming that by testing everybody is impossible.

2. Somebody posted about "exponential growth rate" of cases in the U.S. No no no! We have an exponential growth rate in TESTING of Covid19. If half of Americans have/had it by now, the entire picture changes. Because rich people and athletes apparently can get tested whenever they want, we already know that 25% of a couple of NBA teams tested positive. It's safe to assume that the 60k number (or whatever we're up to now) is far too low. But the severe case number count is probably pretty solid because the vast majority of those cases are getting tested.

3. Somebody posted about a 3-5% fatality rate. That's just absurd.

4. Somebody posted that 80% of cases are mild. That's wrong too. It's over 97% in the U.S.. And that 97% misses the vast majority of asymptomatic cases (people who will never have a confirmed case).
Bruhhhh. Don’t apply logic. It’s 2020. Logic isn’t allowed in today’s world apparently.

I have been echoing this and what empirical initially said. The ends simply don’t justify the means.

Choosing economical suicide is something I thought I’d never see. It’s as if certain “experts” and know it alls are trying to tell us there’s a radioactive cloud over the entire world and if you open your door, you’re dead.

It’s mind blowing how easy it is for media hysteria to literally scare people to their core. Again... it’s not radioactive material in the air people.
 

1LuvCane

Senior
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
4,195
Highly selective use of statistics my friend. One assumption after another. You need to use documented cases not hypothetical cases my friend. You apparently did not even pass a simple Stat class. What a clown and you call yourself "Emprical Cane", LOL.
When you have no facts try defaming the other person to deflect . You're a well trained Marxist....
 

1LuvCane

Senior
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
4,195
Some of that is not factual. You really have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to how a health system manages "room, supply, and man/woman power." Are you aware one of the largest public health systems in the country is sending some employees home on forced Personal Leave? Does that jive with your claim of "lack of man/woman power?" And, I've acknowledged there will be (are) issues with lack of equipment, but not at all for the reasons you list. Health systems are pretty well compartmentalized. Especially in major metro areas. As it relates to your clearly inexperienced views on health care operations, this might really be a time to read and learn rather than keep writing "facts."

You don't think the death rate numbers are important? What should we focus on? The total people who get mild symptoms? How is that helpful?
The guy is a jobless non-profit employee. His intellectual prowess is a kin to low hanging fruit.
 
Top