Agnostic.com

7 9

A comment I made to a post I read on here a short while ago
I'm sorry to say this is not a happy post

The number of deaths is a "lagging" statistic. Corona virus does not kill instantly. Those who die from it today will have caught it at around 10 days ago.
So to calculate the true death rate we need to divide the total number of deaths by the total number of people who were known to be infected as at last week. This gives a much more alarming, but unfortunately more true death rate.
Simply taking the total deaths in the USA as of today, and dividing them by the total number of known US cases just 4 days ago (meaning a pretty rapid death for many sufferers) gives:-
a death rate of at least 3.2%

Petter 9 Mar 31
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

7 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

And you do all realise that even if 1billion of the most selfish ignorant patronising sanctimonious destructive creatures ever to have existed on the earth die, ohh nooo there will only be 6billion left to continue the earths willful destruction, i mean get some perspective, the same people clamouring that we have to save the planet theres too many people etc etc etc are the ones saying ohhh i hope everyone survives this attempt by the earth to save itself!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it is oxymoronic.

We all know that already.
Let's just wipe out the entire populations of India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh and China for a start. Those coumtries all have far too high a population density. Then let's redistribute the slum dwellers of SÃ¥o Paulo to the underpopulated Scottish highlands. That should do the trick!

1

many of the things mentioned in the post don't kill instantly, even if they are lagging by 100% its still not close to the other factors, i mean do you people actually understand numbers????

What a strange comment!

1

yeah just keep fueling the hysteria, which is going to kill more people than any illness in the long run

..... or get people to realise this pandemic is not to be taken lightly.

This all sucks, but better to be over prepared than find out too late one is under prepared. The only real danger of too much excitement here in the USA is that there are lots of militant extremists here looking for any reason to start killing people.

@Observer-Effect That is a very real threat. If people are desperate and starving, yet see an elite who are affluent and well fed, then they will contemplate revolution.
History is littered with examples.

1

The death numbers worldwide are between 3% to 5%!

So far here in the USA it is around 2.5% to 3%, all depends on the numbers given at the time!

Yes, they drown in their own fluids within their own lungs!!!

They is why to stay away from people!!!

Self isolation and shelter at home must be done on your behalf also!!!

Social distancing is too important to not practice!!!

Masks, gloves, and eye protection can save your life, so use it!!!

Using the latest figures, as at 02.00hrs, GMT (9pm, EST) there are 857,299 known cases world wide.
There are 42,114 deaths world wide.
So the world wide death rate is at least 4.9%.
Remember something, though.
In both Italy and Spain isolation is mandatory. There are police patrols. Anyone caught outside their home without a valid (and provable) reason faces a massive fine. Yet infections are still ongoing.

0

the number of people in the US who are getting tested is so skewed, that the percents don't really mean much. right now, the US is testing people who are already so sick that they are in the hospital, people with known exposure to people who have died, people with certain types of travel history, medical personnel, and emergency responders. People who are not sick at all (but may be carriers, or just naturally forming anti bodies) are not getting tested, and people who might or might not just have seasonal crud, are not getting tested. we have no way to know how many of those untested people are infected, so percent stats are pretty useless.

To a great extent. That is why I used the word known

@Petter add that only about 7% of tests meeting those criteeia are positivr, and the death rate is a crap shot. Outside of tge US maybe the stats mean something

0

I do not see how the time lag is relevant to the death rate. Death rate is by definition the number of deaths divided by the number of those who have suffered, this last number being the sum of those who have died and those who have recovered. You appear to be engaging in predicting the death rate. I would suggest you wait until the pandemic is largely over - that way you will be able to get a much more accurate figure.

i was using this method during the early stages of the Covid-19 outbreaks in both Italy and Spain. Initially, it seemed to give an exaggeratedly high figure. Now, even when using present numbers for both, it appears to have been an underestimate.
However, by taking the total number of known cases as at 8 days prior to the actual date, my system tallied very well.
eg.
Italy has now reported 105,892 cases, of whom 12,428 have died. That gives a death rate of 11.7%
Spain has now reported 95,923 cases, of whom 8,464 have died. That gives a death rate of 8.8%

@Petter So the predictors were using substantially incorrect models. That does not surprise me in the slightest.

@anglophone They were downplaying in order not to alarm the public. I suspect the US death rate is also higher, with the caveat that these numbers obviously only apply to known infections.
Many people may get it so mildly, or even be asymptomatic, that they do not ever get tested.
However, even assuming that the number of infected people is twice the number of those actually tested, we still get some nasty death rates, far higher than the government would have you believe.

@Petter And that, my friend, is why I always treat government figures with suspicion unless and until I can get independent verification of the same.

@anglophone Join the club. Here's one of the many sources I use.
[worldometers.info]

0

There's just too much math in this post for me to understand it. 😟

You might wish to read my comment above.

If 1O people eat some kind of fruit, and 2 of them eat apples, then two out of ten people eat apples.
That would be the incidence (or rate) of apple eaters. This can be somplified to saying one in five people eat apples.
Hence, if 100,000 people have an infection, and 3,000 of them die, we can simplify that to saying 3 out of every hundred will die. 3 out of every hundred is 3% (per cent = per hundred)

@anglophone Bear in mind I've always been abysmal at math but wait til it's over then count the bodies then divide than from the number of people infected. That's how I see it.

@Sgt_Spanky That is a fairly good approximation. Moreover, its gets more accurate over time. It's only purists like me that get hung up on the way some people, mostly politicians, misuse statistics.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:478497
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.