The Coronavirus, not the beer
- Thread starter Runnin
- Start date
[Tw]1244251263686057985[/tw]
New infections per a standard number of tests is the best measure to predict the future.
It's going down because there is a dwindling population of those who have not contracted the disease.
I just hope people understand that the deaths will lag anywhere from 5 to 15 days after infection rates.
New infections per a standard number of tests is the best measure to predict the future.
It's going down because there is a dwindling population of those who have not contracted the disease.
I just hope people understand that the deaths will lag anywhere from 5 to 15 days after infection rates.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
The first time Dr. Robert Redfield heard about the severity of the virus from his Chinese counterparts was around New Year’s Day, when he was on vacation with his family. He spent so much time on the phone that they barely saw him. And what he heard rattled him; in one grim conversation about the virus days later, George F. Gao, the director of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, burst into tears.
From this article in the Times that I linked to yesterday.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/28/...action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage
From this article in the Times that I linked to yesterday.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/28/...action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
It is a good measure, but only if testing practices do not change. Testing practices have changed quite a bit and I would guess will continue to evolve. Interpreting the data on cases is tricky under those circumstances. But a good data scientist should be able to control for changes in testing practices.
It is by far the best data point we have right now. As that number declines more and more we know we are on the other side of 'this' curve. There will be others that have to be monitored and addressed accordinglg.
As the U.S. tops the world in reported infections from the new coronavirus, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases predicts 100,000-200,000 deaths from the outbreak in the U.S.
Wow...who gave that exact range in this thread a week ago?
Wow...who gave that exact range in this thread a week ago?
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
I'm curious what these original estimates are that you keep referring to. Is there a source?
I dont keep an database of them but based on expected death rates and the rate of transmission the expectation was for millions of worldwide deaths and potentially 500k at a minimum in US.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
There probably are some like that. My understanding is that most of the more alarming numbers came from simulations assuming no measures such as social distancing and aggressive testing and tracing. Those simulations served a useful purpose. The woke people up, including our own government, regarding the costs of inaction.
We certainly needed to act but people are being slow to factor in government measures and transmission of the virus.
Models have to be updated.
Still want to mock the 'hunch'?
How about the ridiculous notion that we stopped the flow of new seed infections.
You seriously have the worst trouble reading than anyone I know.
I meant to edit the post. 100k to 200k. Basically exactly what I said 5 days ago.
Care to comment on that?
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Based on China and Italy, with the caution that the data might not be entirely reliable and that Italy might still not be at the peak in terms of death, I offer a couple observations:
1) The peak in daily deaths comes at a point where the ratio between daily deaths and cummulative deaths is 1 to 10. For example, daily deaths peak at 1,000 at which point cummulative deaths is 10,000.
2) The daily distribution of deaths is not quite a bell curve, because the tail on the right hand side is longer. But it is fairly close to a bell curve. One implication of this is you have more deaths after the peak than before. So if you have 10,000 deaths before the peak, you will have something like 15,000 deaths after the peak.
3) The above does not take into account a major secondary outbreak after the initial outbreak is contained.
1) The peak in daily deaths comes at a point where the ratio between daily deaths and cummulative deaths is 1 to 10. For example, daily deaths peak at 1,000 at which point cummulative deaths is 10,000.
2) The daily distribution of deaths is not quite a bell curve, because the tail on the right hand side is longer. But it is fairly close to a bell curve. One implication of this is you have more deaths after the peak than before. So if you have 10,000 deaths before the peak, you will have something like 15,000 deaths after the peak.
3) The above does not take into account a major secondary outbreak after the initial outbreak is contained.
Maybe because Chinese aren't the only people that carried the virus to America.