Latest COVID-19 Math

For_The_U

All ACC
Joined
Feb 21, 2018
Messages
5,181
A Doctor in NY (who previously had EBOLA) fears COVID-19 more than EBOLA. Digest that for a minute.
By referencing the fact he had Ebola, the inference is that he is saying he would be more afraid to contract coronavirus than he would ebola; not that he is more concerned about the global impact. Considering Ebola's mortality rate ranged from 25% at its lowest to as high as 90% in some of the outbreaks, it is this kind of sensationalism I absolutely cannot stand.
 

For_The_U

All ACC
Joined
Feb 21, 2018
Messages
5,181
Those are a ton of words without any references to back up the enormous prediction of 3-5%. Do you have any US numbers you can share that make you believe in the likelihood of a 3-5% mortality rate?

A few anecdotes and a polite warning may or may not be helpful. You seem like a thoughtful poster. Just really trying to understand how we get to those 3-5% death rate numbers continuously thrown around.

We can all concede this thing is massively contagious and tens of thousands (or more) of people will test positive. The rate is my focus.
Well said, Lu. The Oxford study yesterday concluded that less than 1 in 1000 people who contract coronavirus will even require hospitalization. Now, I'm not saying that report is the word of god, by any means; rather, I reference it to show that stating 3-5% mortality rate for those who contract it as if it's fact is absolutely asinine! Even on the lower end of that range, that would be 30x the amount of people dying that Oxford concluded would even require hospitalization.

The point being we dont know. So it's irresponsible to state things like that as if they are fact, when the whole purpose is to use it to forecast scenarios.
 

tcgrad1014

All-ACC
Joined
Nov 5, 2011
Messages
11,066
Well said, Lu. The Oxford study yesterday concluded that less than 1 in 1000 people who contract coronavirus will even require hospitalization. Now, I'm not saying that report is the word of god, by any means; rather, I reference it to show that stating 3-5% mortality rate for those who contract it as if it's fact is absolutely asinine! Even on the lower end of that range, that would be 30x the amount of people dying that Oxford concluded would even require hospitalization.

The point being we dont know. So it's irresponsible to state things like that as if they are fact, when the whole purpose is to use it to forecast scenarios.
The most important thing the Oxford study showed me is that policy makers should not be taking the Imperial College study as fact.
 

thisu

Recruit
Joined
Jun 28, 2012
Messages
135
👆absolute latest data from Johns Hopkins (hardly a conservative or right leaning institution)


👆PRE-RELEASE and PRE-PEER REVIEW research study calling for the revision upwards of China's infected from 81,591 to 700,000...(from YALE and NYC's Mount Sinai btw...well known right wing crank and conservative hotbed of thought)

so...

3,281/700,000 = .005 mortality rate

Lets says they were doing blow off hooker's titties and drunk and got it half wrong...

3,281/350,000 = .009 mortality rate

And again, as if blow and drinking wasn't enough to party (keep it real Duke) they were mainlining the Horse and got it half wrong still more so...

3,281/175,000 = .019 mortality rate

Not a great look for the "but...but...but the death rate is so much higher than the flu!" crowd.

By no means is any of the above definitive, but the TREND is a plummeting death rate when actuals are becoming more refined each day.

Now, according to the CDC, 30,000,000 have diabetes, 35,000,000 have lung disease, and 10,000,000 have immunocompromised issues in the US. Not even counting that a large number have diabetes and/or lung disease and/or immunocompromised issues, let's just take 75,000,000 as a raw baseline.

4% mortality rate x 75,000,000 = 3,000,000 EXPECTED US deaths

2.5% mortality rate x 75,000,000 = 1,875,000 EXPECTED US deaths

.019% mortality rate x 75,000,000 = 1,425,000 EXPECTED US deaths

.009% mortality rate x 75,000,000 = 675,000 EXPECTED US deaths

.005% mortality rate x 75,000,000 = 375,000 EXPECTED US deaths


ACTUAL US DEATHS as of 24 Mar = 720

Funny how in math, 1 + 1 still must equal 2.
Now just think of all those with underlying conditions stay in quarantine until there is a vaccine, while the rest of us work instead of getting free gubment cheese!
 

JD08

Evidence based and data driven
Joined
Dec 19, 2014
Messages
7,475
By referencing the fact he had Ebola, the inference is that he is saying he would be more afraid to contract coronavirus than he would ebola; not that he is more concerned about the global impact. Considering Ebola's mortality rate ranged from 25% at its lowest to as high as 90% in some of the outbreaks, it is this kind of sensationalism I absolutely cannot stand.
If I have to die from a disease, I'd rather it be in a medically induced coma on a ventilator, than from a hemorrhagic fever while my insides liquefy.
 

No_Fly_Zone

Sophomore
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
3,300
👆absolute latest data from Johns Hopkins (hardly a conservative or right leaning institution)


👆PRE-RELEASE and PRE-PEER REVIEW research study calling for the revision upwards of China's infected from 81,591 to 700,000...(from YALE and NYC's Mount Sinai btw...well known right wing crank and conservative hotbed of thought)

so...

3,281/700,000 = .005 mortality rate

Lets says they were doing blow off hooker's titties and drunk and got it half wrong...

3,281/350,000 = .009 mortality rate

And again, as if blow and drinking wasn't enough to party (keep it real Duke) they were mainlining the Horse and got it half wrong still more so...

3,281/175,000 = .019 mortality rate

Not a great look for the "but...but...but the death rate is so much higher than the flu!" crowd.

By no means is any of the above definitive, but the TREND is a plummeting death rate when actuals are becoming more refined each day.

Now, according to the CDC, 30,000,000 have diabetes, 35,000,000 have lung disease, and 10,000,000 have immunocompromised issues in the US. Not even counting that a large number have diabetes and/or lung disease and/or immunocompromised issues, let's just take 75,000,000 as a raw baseline.

4% mortality rate x 75,000,000 = 3,000,000 EXPECTED US deaths

2.5% mortality rate x 75,000,000 = 1,875,000 EXPECTED US deaths

.019% mortality rate x 75,000,000 = 1,425,000 EXPECTED US deaths

.009% mortality rate x 75,000,000 = 675,000 EXPECTED US deaths

.005% mortality rate x 75,000,000 = 375,000 EXPECTED US deaths


ACTUAL US DEATHS as of 24 Mar = 720

Funny how in math, 1 + 1 still must equal 2.
Can you explain why you multiplied the mortality rates provided by the 75 million Americans that appear to be at a higher risk of developing? It seems to me whatever the overall mortality rate is, it is not statistically appropriate to attribute it only to higher risk individual (as surely individuals not at high risk have contracted coronavirus and have not died, thereby affecting the mortality rate). Whatever mortality rate you choose, it seems the more appropriate math would be: Mortality Rate x % of Americans Expected to Contract Virus x US Population.

The problem, of course, is that as difficult it is to come up with a solid mortality rate, it is just as hard to come up with a solid contagion rate. About 4 weeks ago the CDC was saying 40% to 70% infection rate, globally, and a 1-3% mortality rate. According to more recent news from the BBC, the UK is now estimating a mortality rate between .5% and 1%. And apparently news is that Florida is finding about a 10% infection rate in tested individuals.

Using some of the numbers above (from worst case to best case):

1% mortality rate x 70% infection rate x 360,000,000 Americans = 2.52 Million expected US deaths

1% mortality rate x 40% infection rate x 360,000,000 Americans = 1.44 Million expected US deaths

.5% mortality rate x 70% infection rate x 360,000,000 Americans = 1.26 Million expected US deaths

.5% mortality rate x 40% infection rate x 360,000,000 Americans = 720K expected US deaths

1% mortality rate x 10% infection rate x 360,000,000 Americans = 360K expected US deaths

.5% mortality rate x 10% infection rate x 360,000,000 Americans = 180K expected US deaths

There's a huge variance there, owing largely to the difficulty in discerning a rate of infection at this stage. All the more reason why a lot more research and data is needed to inform governance.

For the sake of comparison to the seasonal flu (which I believe is relevant to for policy determinations), per the CDC, from 10/1/2019 through 3/14/2020, between 23,000 – 59,000 American have died from the flu.
 

Empirical Cane

We are what we repeatedly do.
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Messages
6,167
Can you explain why you multiplied the mortality rates provided by the 75 million Americans that appear to be at a higher risk of developing? It seems to me whatever the overall mortality rate is, it is not statistically appropriate to attribute it only to higher risk individual (as surely individuals not at high risk have contracted coronavirus and have not died, thereby affecting the mortality rate). Whatever mortality rate you choose, it seems the more appropriate math would be: Mortality Rate x % of Americans Expected to Contract Virus x US Population.

The problem, of course, is that as difficult it is to come up with a solid mortality rate, it is just as hard to come up with a solid contagion rate. About 4 weeks ago the CDC was saying 40% to 70% infection rate, globally, and a 1-3% mortality rate. According to more recent news from the BBC, the UK is now estimating a mortality rate between .5% and 1%. And apparently news is that Florida is finding about a 10% infection rate in tested individuals.

Using some of the numbers above (from worst case to best case):

1% mortality rate x 70% infection rate x 360,000,000 Americans = 2.52 Million expected US deaths

1% mortality rate x 40% infection rate x 360,000,000 Americans = 1.44 Million expected US deaths

.5% mortality rate x 70% infection rate x 360,000,000 Americans = 1.26 Million expected US deaths

.5% mortality rate x 40% infection rate x 360,000,000 Americans = 720K expected US deaths

1% mortality rate x 10% infection rate x 360,000,000 Americans = 360K expected US deaths

.5% mortality rate x 10% infection rate x 360,000,000 Americans = 180K expected US deaths

There's a huge variance there, owing largely to the difficulty in discerning a rate of infection at this stage. All the more reason why a lot more research and data is needed to inform governance.

For the sake of comparison to the seasonal flu (which I believe is relevant to for policy determinations), per the CDC, from 10/1/2019 through 3/14/2020, between 23,000 – 59,000 American have died from the flu.
I used a listing of "the most vulnerable" just a rough order illustration. Healthy specimens aren't meaningful to date because, well, they aren't dying in any appreciable numbers.

Just using the rough estimate I provided in the orginal post, US mortalities should be already well into the tens of thousands considering the virus HAD TO ALREADY BE within major US airport cities before or at least by the "closing" of travel with China.

Based on even the slightest rate, today's count of 833 is massively off pace to come anywhere close to any of the death estimates offered in my post or your above.

Also today, with testing GOING UP, reported cases FELL today by a small amount.

Blip in data? Maybe. But at this stage, if the hysterics are to be believed, the Walking Dead wod at least be in major international airport cities by now.

The math just doesn't support it currently.
 

Empirical Cane

We are what we repeatedly do.
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Messages
6,167
If I have to die from a disease, I'd rather it be in a medically induced coma on a ventilator, than from a hemorrhagic fever while my insides liquefy.
TRUST ME. you don't want hemorraghic fever.

BAD, BAD, BAD way to die.
 

Canegrad89

Recruit
Joined
Oct 15, 2017
Messages
521
The 3-5% number seems to come from the current death rate for world cases from the WHO which is right now 4%. Of course, that number is skewed by outliers like Italy, Iran, and Spain. Even so, that death rate has been trending lower (as expected) as total cases keep rising.
Yes, China reported a 3.0% mortality rate but anyone that believes the Chinese reported that accurately is incredibly gullible. The mortality rate was very likely much higher than that. That is the largest sample size to draw from (and they had tremendous built-up knowledge from dealing with SARS). It is fairly safe to assume that the global mortality rate will be at least 3.0% on that basis.
 

Salt

"It's All About The Roo"
Joined
Jan 2, 2015
Messages
3,583
Yes, China reported a 3.0% mortality rate but anyone that believes the Chinese reported that accurately is incredibly gullible. The mortality rate was very likely much higher than that. That is the largest sample size to draw from (and they had tremendous built-up knowledge from dealing with SARS). It is fairly safe to assume that the global mortality rate will be at least 3.0% on that basis.
Don't think it's even that high. If about 80% show mild to no symptoms they are probably not running out to be tested in most cases.
 
Top