Oh.SuburbanFarmer wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2020 6:53 pmAbout the banning. It doesn’t mean a damn thing.
SARS Pt. 2 - Wuhan Boogaloo
-
- Posts: 4150
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:48 am
Re: SARS Pt. 2 - Wuhan Boogaloo
-
- Posts: 38685
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:59 pm
Re: SARS Pt. 2 - Wuhan Boogaloo
Up 73 fatalities in 24 hours from 565 to 638. That's a 12% increase.
About 15% of the diagnosed are in critical condition.
This is definitely not a 2% mortality rate.
The only way I can get anything close to 2% from the numbers is by dividing 73 by yesterday's infected rate (about 28.3k), but that's not really accurate. You need to divide it by the infected rate about 10-14 days ago.
About 15% of the diagnosed are in critical condition.
This is definitely not a 2% mortality rate.
The only way I can get anything close to 2% from the numbers is by dividing 73 by yesterday's infected rate (about 28.3k), but that's not really accurate. You need to divide it by the infected rate about 10-14 days ago.
-
- Posts: 3657
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2016 11:15 am
Re: SARS Pt. 2 - Wuhan Boogaloo
73/28.k is about .2%
You can get to 2% by 638/31,000. Still not a good calculation because it's including newly infected. Plus this is all based on what China is openly telling the rest of the world. They're using existing buildings as warehouses for infected. The new hospitals are basically more warehousing for people. That alone tells us what they know and what have told us are not the same.
You can get to 2% by 638/31,000. Still not a good calculation because it's including newly infected. Plus this is all based on what China is openly telling the rest of the world. They're using existing buildings as warehouses for infected. The new hospitals are basically more warehousing for people. That alone tells us what they know and what have told us are not the same.
-
- Posts: 38685
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:59 pm
Re: SARS Pt. 2 - Wuhan Boogaloo
PartyOf5 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 9:10 am73/28.k is about .2%
You can get to 2% by 638/31,000. Still not a good calculation because it's including newly infected. Plus this is all based on what China is openly telling the rest of the world. They're using existing buildings as warehouses for infected. The new hospitals are basically more warehousing for people. That alone tells us what they know and what have told us are not the same.
You're confounding variables. You need to divide the current fatalities by the total infected case when the current people dying were infected. You fucked up by including population growth of the epidemic into your mortality rate calculation, and it takes between 1-2 weeks after diagnosis for these people to die. Do you see the problem now?
If you did this in the midst of the Spanish Flu pandemic, your calculated mortality rate would be far, far lower than it really was because the flu spread so fast. What you are doing only works after the pandemic is over. That's when you can calculate the true mortality rate. For an estimate right now in the midst of the epidemic in China, you need to factor out population growth.
-
- Posts: 38685
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:59 pm
Re: SARS Pt. 2 - Wuhan Boogaloo
If I am right, and the mortality rate is about 8% minimum, we will pass 2,000 fatalities by the 19th unless somebody develops an effective antibody or China does something drastic to change the game.
And the death rate will grow exponentially. So if 1400 more deaths by the 19th doesn't sound much to you, look at any graph of an exponential growth rate.
Also by March we could be over 500k cases if it keeps growing +15% every day.
And the death rate will grow exponentially. So if 1400 more deaths by the 19th doesn't sound much to you, look at any graph of an exponential growth rate.
Also by March we could be over 500k cases if it keeps growing +15% every day.
-
- Posts: 38685
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:59 pm
Re: SARS Pt. 2 - Wuhan Boogaloo
So.. on the 29th of Jan, NYT reported the number of cases at 5,974.
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article ... 015437.php
It's taking people at least 10 days for people to die (who do die) after they are diagnosed.
So even here, we are only looking back 9 days.
Today the death rate is 638 people.
The people dying were originally from the population that was no more than 5,974 strong. That's a 10.67% mortality rate. I am betting it is closer to 8%, though, but just estimating.
You can't count the people who were infected since then, especially just in the past few days, because they are not yet at the stage where the mortality will even register.
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article ... 015437.php
It's taking people at least 10 days for people to die (who do die) after they are diagnosed.
So even here, we are only looking back 9 days.
Today the death rate is 638 people.
The people dying were originally from the population that was no more than 5,974 strong. That's a 10.67% mortality rate. I am betting it is closer to 8%, though, but just estimating.
You can't count the people who were infected since then, especially just in the past few days, because they are not yet at the stage where the mortality will even register.
-
- Posts: 38685
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:59 pm
Re: SARS Pt. 2 - Wuhan Boogaloo
More weird (but dubious) shit:
-
- Posts: 38685
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:59 pm
Re: SARS Pt. 2 - Wuhan Boogaloo
Finally. This guy gives a good explanation of how the MSM is getting the math wrong.
-
- Posts: 3657
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2016 11:15 am
Re: SARS Pt. 2 - Wuhan Boogaloo
I didn't fuck up. I was stating how most are getting to the 2% number.Speaker to Animals wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 9:14 amYou're confounding variables. You need to divide the current fatalities by the total infected case when the current people dying were infected. You fucked up by including population growth of the epidemic into your mortality rate calculation, and it takes between 1-2 weeks after diagnosis for these people to die. Do you see the problem now?
I also pointed out that what you said:
THAT is .2%, not 2% as you stated.The only way I can get anything close to 2% from the numbers is by dividing 73 by yesterday's infected rate (about 28.3k), but that's not really accurate.
-
- Posts: 38685
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:59 pm
Re: SARS Pt. 2 - Wuhan Boogaloo
You cannot divide the current fatalities by the current infected count. It's a trivial math error.