Win uses cookies necessary for site functionality, as well as for personalization. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies as described in our Privacy Policy.
The author of the piece doesn't understand that what they are talking about is closed case fatality rate. They furthermore don't consider that someone who has tested positive for the disease, may get a 2nd or 3rd test (or even more) in the process of trying to determine when they are clear of it. This muddies the figures even more.
I haven’t looked at the case fatality rate for New York recently.
I’ve looked at case fatality rates all over the world. It ranges from one to four percent. The data is influenced by the amount of testing. More testing, lower CFR.
But no one has matched New York’s ability to kill people in nursing homes.
Of course this would be to assume we have caught and identified every single positive case, both symptomatic and asymptomatic. This would be preposterous to assume for something that's literally invisible to the naked eye. Couple that with false positives, false negatives, retests, and the questionable process of the way this virus is tested vs past viruses, and you have nothing but a guess, at best.
According to CDC, all cases have an outcome within 10 day of the onset of symptoms, so you can divide Deaths by cases. Actually, you should divide deaths by cases as of three weeks ago, because that’s the average lag between onset and death.
I mean, technically they are right, if only because the current cases are still there. Technically, somebody who has it in those active cases could still die from it.
It's akin to.... Spending money that is currently pending.
But, that's a bitch argument that tries to manipulate data by showing a small picture instead of the reality
Truth be told there is not a correct calculation besides doing a basic deaths divided by total cases which will give you a 3% is number. This can be seen as the absolute peak value. Since there is no way of knowing how many total infected there are due to symptomatic cases this number could be 10 or 100 fold smaller.
And the best LOL of that entire thing is that 39M people did not get the Flu.
It's ESTIMATED that 39M got the flu, there were only like 250k CONFIRMED cases.
Source: CDC MOTHER FUCKER
and that is WITH a vaccine
Can the mods blur out the attached image? It is harmful. I am dumber after reading it
The point of the image is to highlight the stupidity of the posting entity. There are numerous forms of math that show this peak stupidity.
I understand i just want to mitigate other users' brain cells deciding to an hero
Should I provide amplifying information for the masses or assume that people understand my header was in a rhetorical tone?
Don't be an hero.
The author of the piece doesn't understand that what they are talking about is closed case fatality rate. They furthermore don't consider that someone who has tested positive for the disease, may get a 2nd or 3rd test (or even more) in the process of trying to determine when they are clear of it. This muddies the figures even more.
One other, really important thing:
Since New York stopped sending sick people to nursing homes, the death rate has plummeted.
The useful number is not the April rate, but the August rate.
The current USA rate is about two percent.
But that’s two percent of confirmed cases, and there are at least ten times that many who have no symptoms and never get reported.
So that’s a true death rate of 0.2 percent, if you get it.
And nearly all deaths are in people over 60, so if you are young and healthy, there’s almost no chance of dying.
One more thing. Not more than one person in five has had it, so divide 0.2 percent by five.
The death rate for the population is 0.04 percent. That’s four people in ten thousand.
The death rate for NY hasn't stopped completely, but it's come to a grinding halt compared to what it used to be.
Last I looked it averaged six deaths per day.
I haven’t looked at the case fatality rate for New York recently.
I’ve looked at case fatality rates all over the world. It ranges from one to four percent. The data is influenced by the amount of testing. More testing, lower CFR.
But no one has matched New York’s ability to kill people in nursing homes.
Of course this would be to assume we have caught and identified every single positive case, both symptomatic and asymptomatic. This would be preposterous to assume for something that's literally invisible to the naked eye. Couple that with false positives, false negatives, retests, and the questionable process of the way this virus is tested vs past viruses, and you have nothing but a guess, at best.
GARBAGE IN = GARBAGE OUT
The problem isn't the math, it's the garbage used to do the math.
According to CDC, all cases have an outcome within 10 day of the onset of symptoms, so you can divide Deaths by cases. Actually, you should divide deaths by cases as of three weeks ago, because that’s the average lag between onset and death.
In an ironic way, he proved everyone else's point regarding the skepticism regarding the "official" cases and deaths.
I mean, technically they are right, if only because the current cases are still there. Technically, somebody who has it in those active cases could still die from it.
It's akin to.... Spending money that is currently pending.
But, that's a bitch argument that tries to manipulate data by showing a small picture instead of the reality
So what is the correct calculation using those numbers?
Truth be told there is not a correct calculation besides doing a basic deaths divided by total cases which will give you a 3% is number. This can be seen as the absolute peak value. Since there is no way of knowing how many total infected there are due to symptomatic cases this number could be 10 or 100 fold smaller.