How is this explained?

Prospecting Australia

Help Support Prospecting Australia:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
One thing that concerns me is the apathy that comes with misunderstanding the data. The flu has decades of data behind it, so when they say only a tiny % die, you can be sure that is factually correct - but the coronavirus is in its first season (hopefully its last as well) so there is no final data on how many people die out of those that are infected, all they have is current death and recovery rate ( ~2700 dead and ~ 27000 recovered) and those that are yet to be counted (~50300 out of the ~80000 total infected).

But when people read, for example, ~80000 infected and only ~2700 dead, instead of ~2700 dead vrs only 27000 recovered with ~50300 yet to be counted as they either die or recover, they mistakenly think the death % rate is ~3.375% instead of ~10% and so compare it to the flu.

Not real sure what the most recent number are though as I have not checked the data recently.
 
silver said:
Pandemic..... or population control :D
:cloudy: :cloudy: :cloudy: :cloudy: :cloudy: :cloudy: :cloudy:
:cloudy: :cloudy: :cloudy: :cloudy:
:skull: :skull: :skull:
:fire: :fire: :fire:
Click to expand...

Thought has crossed my mind too. The population has grown exponentially in recent times (talking last 100 years or so).

It took from the beginning of mankind up to 1920 to reach 1.6 Billion people. And then only took a further 100 years to get to 8 Billion.

It took the current version of humans 200,000 years to hit 1.6B and only a further 100 years to grow more than five times that.

That's bloody crazy!!!
 
Frankdonovan121 said:
One thing that concerns me is the apathy that comes with misunderstanding the data. The flu has decades of data behind it, so when they say only a tiny % die, you can be sure that is factually correct - but the coronavirus is in its first season (hopefully its last as well) so there is no final data on how many people die out of those that are infected, all they have is current death and recovery rate ( ~2700 dead and ~ 27000 recovered) and those that are yet to be counted (~50300 out of the ~80000 total infected).

But when people read, for example, ~80000 infected and only ~2700 dead, instead of ~2700 dead vrs only 27000 recovered with ~50300 yet to be counted as they either die or recover, they mistakenly think the death % rate is ~3.375% instead of ~10% and so compare it to the flu.

Not real sure what the most recent number are though as I have not checked the data recently.
Click to expand...
I don't think that reasoning is strictly correct.

Firstly, you say "the flu has decades of data behind it, so when they say only a tiny % die, you can be sure that is factually correct"- well, yes, after a particular type of flu epidemic has passed they can give a %. This epidemic is just one coronavirus, in the same way that any season of flu is dominantly only one influenza. Other coronaviruses are SARS, MERS and the common cold - the second having a very high mortality rate, the third a very low one. Likewise it is not a case of their being "a flu" - there are new ones each year - nor is it a case of each type of flu having the same death rate. Each type of flu can be more or less serious than any other type of flu (Spanish Flu, Asian Flu etc. - which also vary greatly in mortality rates - 30,000 to 50,000 people die each year of flu in the United States - Spanish Flu killed 5 to 10% of those infected, many tens of millions of people). It is generally thought by medical authorities that this coronavirus has a lower death rate than SARS or MERS (around 2%). Early suggestions of around 11% were based on only tens of people at one locality (a Chinese market).

Secondly, your argument about those dead versus those recovered also appears to be incorrect. Every day new cases occur in increasing numbers and add to those infected and not (yet) recovered, and some already infected in the past have not yet recovered (but most will). There is no particular reason to suppose that a much greater proportion of these people will die than those who earlier recovered or died - especially in a situation like this, where the number of daily cases is accelerating and not a constant level. The ratio of those dead to those recovered gives a reasonable estimate when the number of cases is large and a month has passed, as now.

I don't think the concern is so much its death rate, as how infectious it is - it seems to be very infectious (easily transmitted). So if more people catch it, more people die (% death rate is not the only thing controlling the NUMBER of deaths - the number of people who catch it also controls the death rate). That is, 2% deaths in 100 million infected people is 2 million deaths - however a virus with a 10% mortality rate that only infects 1 million people is only 0.1 million (100,000) deaths.

Some types of viral haemorrhagic fever (as is Ebola, Lassa Fever, Marburg disease, Yellow Fever, Dengue fever) have far higher death rates (33% - 90%), hence the recent panic with an Ebola outbreak in the DRC.
 
goldierocks said:
Frankdonovan121 said:
One thing that concerns me is the apathy that comes with misunderstanding the data. The flu has decades of data behind it, so when they say only a tiny % die, you can be sure that is factually correct - but the coronavirus is in its first season (hopefully its last as well) so there is no final data on how many people die out of those that are infected, all they have is current death and recovery rate ( ~2700 dead and ~ 27000 recovered) and those that are yet to be counted (~50300 out of the ~80000 total infected).

But when people read, for example, ~80000 infected and only ~2700 dead, instead of ~2700 dead vrs only 27000 recovered with ~50300 yet to be counted as they either die or recover, they mistakenly think the death % rate is ~3.375% instead of ~10% and so compare it to the flu.

Not real sure what the most recent number are though as I have not checked the data recently.
Click to expand...
I don't think that reasoning is strictly correct.

Firstly, you say "the flu has decades of data behind it, so when they say only a tiny % die, you can be sure that is factually correct"- well, yes, after a particular type of flu epidemic has passed they can give a %. This epidemic is just one coronavirus, in the same way that any season of flu is dominantly only one influenza. Other coronaviruses are SARS, MERS and the common cold - the second having a very high mortality rate, the third a very low one. Likewise it is not a case of their being "a flu" - there are new ones each year - nor is it a case of each type of flu having the same death rate. Each type of flu can be more or less serious than any other type of flu (Spanish Flu, Asian Flu etc. - which also vary greatly in mortality rates - 30,000 to 50,000 people die each year of flu in the United States - Spanish Flu killed 5 to 10% of those infected, many tens of millions of people). It is generally thought by medical authorities that this coronavirus has a lower death rate than SARS or MERS (around 2%). Early suggestions of around 11% were based on only tens of people at one locality (a Chinese market).

Secondly, your argument about those dead versus those recovered also appears to be incorrect. Every day new cases occur in increasing numbers and add to those infected and not (yet) recovered, and some already infected in the past have not yet recovered (but most will). There is no particular reason to suppose that a much greater proportion of these people will die than those who earlier recovered or died - especially in a situation like this, where the number of daily cases is accelerating and not a constant level. The ratio of those dead to those recovered gives a reasonable estimate when the number of cases is large and a month has passed, as now.

I don't think the concern is so much its death rate, as how infectious it is - it seems to be very infectious (easily transmitted). So if more people catch it, more people die (% death rate is not the only thing controlling the NUMBER of deaths - the number of people who catch it also controls the death rate). That is, 2% deaths in 100 million infected people is 2 million deaths - however a virus with a 10% mortality rate that only infects 1 million people is only 0.1 million (100,000) deaths.
Click to expand...

My brevity did not mean I have not or can not read data but your long-windedness did not add to my knowledge, instead it made the process of finding your point take longer than it should have. It is especially frustrating, to me, when my point is about how covid-19 (previously referred to as 'coronavirus' for simplicities sake - thinking no-one would not know what was in the news and need it explained) is usually compared to the normal seasonal flu, in regards to % of people who died and is then further misrepresented to mean it is nothing to be wary about, when it is not the same.
Sure, most of us could add nuance and provide more of the context; like how many of the currently infected are in a critical condition (and therefor more likely to impact the death rate), how many are too newly infected to know what category they should be in, and how many people are going to work or staying home infected while trying to hide their symptoms, but why make those types of points when it should be fairly seen as within the capabilities of most peoples ability to reason, and that in all cases the current recovery rate vrs death rate can not really be disputed - just misrepresented. Which circles back around to why I posted.

Lastly, there are 3 figures provided: total infected = ~80k, recovered = ~27k, and deaths = ~2700. How can you go wrong with the maths as it currently stands? Do I personally think the ratio will be the same after covid-19 has run its course? No, obviously not. Do I think the 30k odd closed cases represent a fair subset of the total infected? Yes.

Currently my favorite quote is "At present, it is tempting to estimate the case fatality rate by dividing the number of known deaths by the number of confirmed cases. The resulting number, however, does not represent the true case fatality rate and might be off by orders of magnitude [...]

A precise estimate of the case fatality rate is therefore impossible at present", because it accurately reflects the misrepresentation of it all, I mean who would fail so badly at maths that "by dividing the number of known deaths by the number of confirmed cases" would provide an accurate number, and who really thinks there is such a thing as "A precise estimate"?
 
"your long-windedness did not add to my knowledge, instead it made the process of finding your point take longer than it should have" - ditto I am afraid, I don't really understand the point you are making above. With around 100,000 cases now, we have enough to make a statistically valid estimate of the death rate. There is no reason to suppose any major difference in ultimate deaths among those infected but not yet cured, compared with the ratio in those already dead or cured. I stand by my own comments (particularly that the rate is not thought to be much different to annual flu, but that the concern is primarily the greater number of people likely to be infected by it). No matter, I don't think we should get into an argument about it, we should just agree to disagree.

And yes, you can have a precise estimate (mathematicians think so) - precision and accuracy are two different things:

https://itsadeliverything.com/accuracy-vs-precision-in-estimation

We could not say that we have a highly accurate figure yet, just a good approximation.

I would be more concerned at the correctness of the figures being released, given that the overwhelming majority of cases so far are being released by a government that is known to cover things up etc. - so we may be arguing the point over meaningless figures. Garbage in, garbage out....
 
As far as I am aware the death rate for the flu is ~2%, but currently the death rate of COVIS-19 is 9-10%, they are obviously not the same.

As for randomly making up any number, related or not, to represent a data set; sure I can see how any number can be a 'more precise estimate' than others in that context, or can even be a precise number used as an estimate, but, the estimate will never be a precise representation of the data set if it is just an estimate because an estimate by its very nature is not precise. The words "precise estimate" are really no different than "carnivorous vegan", or "atheist catholic", or "smoothly rough", or even "accurately inaccurate".
 
Frankdonovan121 said:
As far as I am aware the death rate for the flu is ~2%, but currently the death rate of COVIS-19 is 9-10%, they are obviously not the same.

As for randomly making up any number, related or not, to represent a data set; sure I can see how any number can be a 'more precise estimate' than others in that context, or can even be a precise number used as an estimate, but, the estimate will never be a precise representation of the data set if it is just an estimate because an estimate by its very nature is not precise. The words "precise estimate" are really no different than "carnivorous vegan", or "atheist catholic", or "smoothly rough", or even "accurately inaccurate".
Click to expand...
Frank, it is not quite that simple. Quite different to carnivorous vegan or smoothly rough (something smooth cannot be rough but an estimate can be either precise or imprecise - or even better - accurate. So there is no conflict in definition as there is with the examples you give. Most things in the natural world are estimates after all, and they can be precise or imprecise. Also, something can be precise but inaccurate. A bit of a deviation from the topic anyway, it was simply when I saw the comment that one cannot have a precise estimate that I could not let it pass. The url I sent explains it, but it is not a simple statistical concept I know.

No, the present estimate by most who study it is around 2% - the figure around 10% was a very early estimate based on only the first few tens of cases in a Chinese fish market, we have two thousand times as many cases now to base estimates on.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/wuhan-coronavirus-unnecessary-panic-experts-say-2020-1

However the more I think about it, the more I would be concerned about the source (Chinese officials). We will have to wait and see.
 
Johns Hopkins Map - interactive

https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6

.
.
.
I find it interesting about all our debates,
Clearly China, South Korea, Italy, Iran, North Korea, Hong Kong, Japan... ALL are clamping down in a SERIOUS manner to try to stop the spread.

In plain terms, this is NOT good shite to get for anyone, if you get it the dice are rolling, just hope you are not among the hundreds or thousands
that will need assisted breathing and serious care. If it becomes its own "bushfire" like in China and others now.

An ounce of prevention is better than trying to cure,
so I say YES prepare, because if you dont need it that will be a good thing.
BUT if you have not prepared at all, you may be among the millions worldwide that didnt survive.

I was recently swabbed for it.
SA Pathology are testing for it among FLU A&B and a raft of infectious lung bugs / disorders. I think there were 12 or so in the list.
Clinpath are not testing for Covis-19, go figure that out.
That is from SA Health hotline for Doctors.

About 10 days ago, I was among 30 that were tested in SA, I am negative result, but I have had limited contact with anyone that may have possibly been remotely infected.
My GP still is at a loss to explain my symptoms, as the test results ALL came to negative.
So hopefully it is just smoke inhalation from the bushfires in Vic.
However I now have an insight as to how slow things are getting done when someone presents with possible symptoms - a bit sad really, it has taken 5 weeks
to get to this point.

Recovery and death rates will vary wildly from Country to Country as services are good to 'non existent', or trying to hold on, this will skew the average anyway.
Worry about your home Country and family.

Feel for those where the NGO's are fighting Ebola, Measles, SARS, MERS, Polio, Malaria, AIDS and so many more, all at the same time, with Covis-19 to come,
numbers of dead will be astronomical and difficult to account for as to which bug killed the patient.

This is a serious time even if we dont get smashed by it, nobody right and nobody wrong guys, it is what it is. :/

2c
 
This does not explain how authors decades before today's events were able to put pen to paper writing fiction that has resulted in actual copy text happenings today?
George Orwell's - 1984, written in 1949, how could he possibly pen about CCTV etc?
Hopefully a budding author will write about "world peace" and it will become reality for future generations? :lol:
 
goldierocks said:
Frankdonovan121 said:
As far as I am aware the death rate for the flu is ~2%, but currently the death rate of COVIS-19 is 9-10%, they are obviously not the same.

As for randomly making up any number, related or not, to represent a data set; sure I can see how any number can be a 'more precise estimate' than others in that context, or can even be a precise number used as an estimate, but, the estimate will never be a precise representation of the data set if it is just an estimate because an estimate by its very nature is not precise. The words "precise estimate" are really no different than "carnivorous vegan", or "atheist catholic", or "smoothly rough", or even "accurately inaccurate".
Click to expand...
Frank, it is not quite that simple. Quite different to carnivorous vegan or smoothly rough (something smooth cannot be rough but an estimate can be either precise or imprecise - or even better - accurate. So there is no conflict in definition as there is with the examples you give. Most things in the natural world are estimates after all, and they can be precise or imprecise. Also, something can be precise but inaccurate. A bit of a deviation from the topic anyway, it was simply when I saw the comment that one cannot have a precise estimate that I could not let it pass. The url I sent explains it, but it is not a simple statistical concept I know.

No, the present estimate by most who study it is around 2% - the figure around 10% was a very early estimate based on only the first few tens of cases in a Chinese fish market, we have two thousand times as many cases now to base estimates on.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/wuhan-coronavirus-unnecessary-panic-experts-say-2020-1

However the more I think about it, the more I would be concerned about the source (Chinese officials). We will have to wait and see.
Click to expand...

There is this thing called maths, and in the case of COVID-19, the maths are as follows: 2700 divided by 27000 times 100 equals 10%, not 2%. Your link provided no expert opinions.

Also, if the english language was not full of homonyms, homographs, and phrases that have multiple meanings without changing a single word, then far less people would be stumped when trying to figure out sentence intent. I have very little doubt that you do actually understand both the maths and the english language so it will all 'click' at some stage, even if it is not now.
 
Nightjar said:
This does not explain how authors decades before today's events were able to put pen to paper writing fiction that has resulted in actual copy text happenings today?
George Orwell's - 1984, written in 1949, how could he possibly pen about CCTV etc?
Hopefully a budding author will write about "world peace" and it will become reality for future generations? :lol:
Click to expand...

I personally think it is most likely to be just intelligent reasoning made by people who saw possibilities. I have not read the book so instead have to rely on other peoples quoting of the book, one of them depicts the 'cctv' out of the book as "The voice came from an oblong metal plaque like a dulled mirror which formed part of the surface of the right-hand wall. Winston turned a switch and the voice sank somewhat, though the words were still distinguishable. The instrument could be dimmed, but there was no way of shutting it off completely." which makes it seem not exactly like cctv and entirely probable it is just extrapolation and sound reasoning on mr orwell's part.
 
If he had picked 2003 (SARS) or 2009 (swine flu) instead of 2020 it would still be as relevant. Just luck of the numbers when picking a date.

Then again in 2028 it could be bad enough to make the Spanish flu look mild (50 million dead). But this post will not be here in 2028 and thus the world will never know if I was right or wrong :)
 
Nightjar said:
This does not explain how authors decades before today's events were able to put pen to paper writing fiction that has resulted in actual copy text happenings today?
George Orwell's - 1984, written in 1949, how could he possibly pen about CCTV etc?
Hopefully a budding author will write about "world peace" and it will become reality for future generations? :lol:
Click to expand...
First cctv (crude) was 1927, it was in use by 1942, he wrote the book in 1949. It was launched on a commercial basis in 1949, so was probably being discussed around when he was writing.
 
Frankdonovan121 said:
Deepseeker said:
This site is a wealth of interesting statistics and information- https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
Click to expand...

According to that site the current death rate is 9.7%.
Click to expand...
Here is a screen shot from that worldometer site you quote:

1582665179_corona_deaths.jpg


It has a very good discussion about how death rates are calculated.

The asterisk is simply because it is an estimate during an ongoing epidemic, whereas the others are over and their figures accurate.

The more I read on it, the more the figure seems rubbery. Part of the problem is the way you (versus authorities) define mortality rate (the figure used internationally is cumulative current total deaths / current confirmed cases including recovered). This does seem a bit nave in terms of final outcome, so I guess it is all in the definition. Current figures are current cases 80,423 (including recovered) with 2,712 deaths, around 3.3% (so the official death rate of 2% above is a little low).
 
It won't be over until the fat lady finishes her song.

Stats are just numbers to tell the story you want told.

From a science and public health perspective, the numbers at the moment are all speculation.

Untill large numbers have a serology test to determine if they have had the virus AND the actual numbers of deaths. Then the current ration of infected to deaths is just a rough indication.

Many more may be carriers and not show symptoms and others may get it and recover and never get recorded. Thus until a serology screening test is rolled out and actual infection rates determined. The death rate may well be much much lower.

Unless death rates of climb significantly in those not not getting to hospitals etc. And or are never validated as due the the virus.

Then as per previous historical records, the death rate will be lower due to those that have it, survive and never get recorded. Thus never make it into the infected stats. Some may die and not get recorded as a stat, but a much lower chance of this over all.

Thus actual death rates will never be fully established unless an accurate infected count is available.

I am also aware from a number of sources that many people returning to Australia ( and I assume elsewhere) that travelers are dosing up on meds to ensure they are NOT running a temp. Helps when you are leaving a country or coming in and your temp is being checked.

Significant numbers of empty meds packets being found in aircraft at cleaning time.... as to any other times.
 

Similar threads

E
Find identification.
Replies
6
Views
807
maxwell4
maxwell4

Latest posts

Top