Coronavirus - Is this the killer flu that will wipe us out?
Discussion
V6 Pushfit said:
I have been quite clear on the details, reasoning, and outcome. Are you saying you still don't understand ? If so then I feel very very sorry for you.
We all get the maths. It's just that people want to know what the likely CFR will be when it infects the 99.999% of people that don't currently have it.As I said earlier there's a reason why nobody believed the 30% figure (despite the name calling), and it's a good job policy makers didn't believe it either. The methods to try and contain a virulent pathogen with a 30% CFR rate would have killed many 10s of thousands of people, possibly millions as the world economy collapsed. Thankfully nobody took those figures as real. As the situation evolves the CFR will continue to edge down. I don't know where it will finish up, but just like 30% doesn't describe reality I don't think 7.7% does either.
emperorburger said:
Munter said:
V6 Pushfit said:
emperorburger said:
V6 Pushfit said:
Maybe that's the answer - the WHO figure is completely meaningless as a risk of death. And expressly so to a point.
Its been misconstrued as a R.O.D by everyone and in the absence of anything else in the news its been latched onto.
Anyway I'm fed up with this now. I've made it clear and if anyone wants to find a smaller figure than the current 7.7% ish please feel free. Hopefully it will still come down.
I thought V6 statistics had been universally discounted here other than a couple of outliers/disciples of doom/mutated alts. Its been misconstrued as a R.O.D by everyone and in the absence of anything else in the news its been latched onto.
Anyway I'm fed up with this now. I've made it clear and if anyone wants to find a smaller figure than the current 7.7% ish please feel free. Hopefully it will still come down.
V6 Pushfit said:
Anyway I'm fed up with this now.
Didn't turn out to be true. I'm stunned and shocked.
RTB said:
V6 Pushfit said:
I have been quite clear on the details, reasoning, and outcome. Are you saying you still don't understand ? If so then I feel very very sorry for you.
We all get the maths. It's just that people want to know what the likely CFR will be when it infects the 99.999% of people that don't currently have it.As I said earlier there's a reason why nobody believed the 30% figure (despite the name calling), and it's a good job policy makers didn't believe it either. The methods to try and contain a virulent pathogen with a 30% CFR rate would have killed many 10s of thousands of people, possibly millions as the world economy collapsed. Thankfully nobody took those figures as real. As the situation evolves the CFR will continue to edge down. I don't know where it will finish up, but just like 30% doesn't describe reality I don't think 7.7% does either.
As posted previously:
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/195217/coronavirus...
V6 Pushfit said:
I don't know why they bother with the methodology as the answer is misleading if read as a 'risk of death'.
But that's fine with me you stroll on chap.
It makes more sense, when you factor in how the increase in rate of infection, means the numbers who are in the early stages, are exponentially greater than those far enough in to be classified as recovered. Fatal could often be much earlier in the disease cycle. This is coupled with the most serious cases presenting first. Looking at the best estimate as to how long before, statistically, they can assume it isn't fatal can give a better estimate. But that's fine with me you stroll on chap.
Illustrative non real world example.
Lets say 10 percent are going to die. It is fatal within 3-5 days and takes 10 days to recover.
If day 1 there is one case, day 2, 2 new cases, making 3, 4 in day 3 making 7 etc by day 10 you will have 1023 cases. 102 are going to die. 921 will survive.
But a maximum of 1 person will have recovered, whereas 26 could have died. 2 days later still only 6 or seven recovered and all 102 could be dead.
That would give a near 100 percent CFR by your method.
Edited by Graveworm on Thursday 27th February 17:31
RTB said:
We all get the maths. It's just that people want to know what the likely CFR will be when it infects the 99.999% of people that don't currently have it.
As I said earlier there's a reason why nobody believed the 30% figure (despite the name calling), and it's a good job policy makers didn't believe it either. The methods to try and contain a virulent pathogen with a 30% CFR rate would have killed many 10s of thousands of people, possibly millions as the world economy collapsed. Thankfully nobody took those figures as real. As the situation evolves the CFR will continue to edge down. I don't know where it will finish up, but just like 30% doesn't describe reality I don't think 7.7% does either.
Oh dear. As I said earlier there's a reason why nobody believed the 30% figure (despite the name calling), and it's a good job policy makers didn't believe it either. The methods to try and contain a virulent pathogen with a 30% CFR rate would have killed many 10s of thousands of people, possibly millions as the world economy collapsed. Thankfully nobody took those figures as real. As the situation evolves the CFR will continue to edge down. I don't know where it will finish up, but just like 30% doesn't describe reality I don't think 7.7% does either.
turbobloke said:
It's unlikely that the Prof Ferguson / Imperial College early doors figure (1% CFR) will be far off the mark once the dust has settled. IIRC the WHO get a very similar result.
As posted previously:
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/195217/coronavirus...
A key measure of severity of any outbreak is the case fatality ratio (CFR) - the proportion of people with a disease who will eventually die as a result of infectionAs posted previously:
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/195217/coronavirus...
Can you see what is wrong with this? Probably the 'key measure' bit. The way of calculating makes the result meaningless as a risk of death figure until the outbreak is over.
V6 Pushfit said:
turbobloke said:
It's unlikely that the Prof Ferguson / Imperial College early doors figure (1% CFR) will be far off the mark once the dust has settled. IIRC the WHO get a very similar result.
As posted previously:
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/195217/coronavirus...
A key measure of severity of any outbreak is the case fatality ratio (CFR) - the proportion of people with a disease who will eventually die as a result of infectionAs posted previously:
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/195217/coronavirus...
Can you see what is wrong with this? Probably the 'key measure' bit. The way of calculating makes the result meaningless as a risk of death figure until the outbreak is over.
Feel free to define your own HFR (hospitalised fatality ratio) and crack on!
Why oh why do we have to go through the basis of the maths every f
king 2 pages?
Anyway, the overall figures are worthless until we believe the CCP [SARs etc for example] and Iran's figures are accurate. The rest are too "new" to consider of true value. Everything is therefore an estimation.
Relying on the WHO's figures is as bad as some of these figures on here. They haven't even been into the Wuhan area as yet, so they are being guided by reliance on information from the CCP. And of course let's not forget they are also guided by governments.
I sincerely hope that countries are in control of this and not hiding facts, as I feel uncomfortable about the numbers being banded around vs the extreme actions being taken by some countries
king 2 pages?Anyway, the overall figures are worthless until we believe the CCP [SARs etc for example] and Iran's figures are accurate. The rest are too "new" to consider of true value. Everything is therefore an estimation.
Relying on the WHO's figures is as bad as some of these figures on here. They haven't even been into the Wuhan area as yet, so they are being guided by reliance on information from the CCP. And of course let's not forget they are also guided by governments.
I sincerely hope that countries are in control of this and not hiding facts, as I feel uncomfortable about the numbers being banded around vs the extreme actions being taken by some countries
carinatauk said:
Why oh why do we have to go through the basis of the maths every fking 2 pages?
Anyway, the overall figures are worthless until we believe the CCP [SARs etc for example] and Iran's figures are accurate. The rest are too "new" to consider of true value. Everything is therefore an estimation.
Relying on the WHO's figures is as bad as some of these figures on here.<snip>
We don't have to, but it happens because some people contributing to the thread are interested in it. You're not, others aren't, but that's no basis not to post.king 2 pages?Anyway, the overall figures are worthless until we believe the CCP [SARs etc for example] and Iran's figures are accurate. The rest are too "new" to consider of true value. Everything is therefore an estimation.
Relying on the WHO's figures is as bad as some of these figures on here.<snip>
The Imperial / Prof Ferguson value isn't a guess and it's not worthless.
As to WHO figures being good or bad, the comparison you gave isn't a good one...
V6 Pushfit said:
Oh dear.
I'm trying to have a discussion. I understand the maths but the maths has to have some utility in describing where we're going to end up with this. You can't calculate CFR whilst an outbreak is ongoing you can only model and make predictions (which you don't agree with - fair enough, write a paper addressing the various model shortcomings and get it peer reviewed)I don't know if the final CFR will be 1% 2% 7.7% or 30% and neither does anyone else at this point in time.
RTB said:
V6 Pushfit said:
Oh dear.
I'm trying to have a discussion. I understand the maths but the maths has to have some utility in describing where we're going to end up with this. You can't calculate CFR whilst an outbreak is ongoing you can only model and make predictions (which you don't agree with - fair enough, write a paper addressing the various model shortcomings and get it peer reviewed)I don't know if the final CFR will be 1% 2% 7.7% or 30% and neither does anyone else at this point in time.
I've noted that the CFR numbers are provisional via comments such as seeing what's what 'when the dust settles' and as yet it hasn't settled. That doesn't mean that the Ferguson / Imperial College 1% is worthless.
ETA I'd go for a final value <1% with my shilling on the side.
Edited by turbobloke on Thursday 27th February 17:48
Graveworm said:
It makes more sense, when you factor in how the increase in rate of infection, means the numbers who are in the early stages, are exponentially greater than those far enough in to be classified as recovered. Fatal could often be much earlier in the disease cycle. This is coupled with the most serious cases presenting first. Looking at the best estimate as to how long before, statistically, they can assume it isn't fatal can give a better estimate.
Illustrative non real world example.
Lets say 10 percent are going to die. It is fatal within 3-5 days and takes 10 days to recover.
If day 1 there is one case, day 2, 2 new cases, making 3, 4 in day 3 making 7 etc by day 10 you will have 1023 cases. 102 are going to die. 921 will survive.
But a maximum of 1 person will have recovered, whereas 26 could have died. 2 days later still only 6 or seven recovered and all 102 could be dead.
That would give a near 100 percent CFR by your method.
I get where you're coming from although with your exponential increase 512 have entered on day 10, 256 on day 9 etc so given those figures 992 wont have finished their 3-5 day period for death, ie 97% wont have an outcome known by the 10th day ? Illustrative non real world example.
Lets say 10 percent are going to die. It is fatal within 3-5 days and takes 10 days to recover.
If day 1 there is one case, day 2, 2 new cases, making 3, 4 in day 3 making 7 etc by day 10 you will have 1023 cases. 102 are going to die. 921 will survive.
But a maximum of 1 person will have recovered, whereas 26 could have died. 2 days later still only 6 or seven recovered and all 102 could be dead.
That would give a near 100 percent CFR by your method.
Wuhan has hard output figures so I think as the % has been falling it will continue to do so as it takes into account any delays between recovery and death , (particularly as the input has slowed), to reach a 'stable' level of less than 7.7%
It would be more impressive if WHO said their modelling was done in this sort of way using both output figures together with the mean duration to recovery/death rather than 'cases' which just make it a joke figure.
Monsterlime said:
I work for one of those companies. Not much internal info on it that I have seen, just the notification to go home and when test results come back we will let you know.
Have you heard anything as I too am regularly there with one of my clients. I’ve not heard anything yet.RTB said:
I'm trying to have a discussion. I understand the maths but the maths has to have some utility in describing where we're going to end up with this. You can't calculate CFR whilst an outbreak is ongoing you can only model and make predictions (which you don't agree with - fair enough, write a paper addressing the various model shortcomings and get it peer reviewed)
I don't know if the final CFR will be 1% 2% 7.7% or 30% and neither does anyone else at this point in time.
Given how one poster is convinced that everyone else (university professors included) hasn't a clue on how to estimate this other than him, he should easily be able to win a nobel prize once he releases that paper detailing how things should be done.I don't know if the final CFR will be 1% 2% 7.7% or 30% and neither does anyone else at this point in time.
Back in the real world with hopefully a larger number of rational people, as you said just as well no one in any kind of decision making process used such an utterly meaningless and useless estimate to decide on what actually needed to be done 2-3 weeks ago as the consequences of the government deciding to do something about a fairly easily transmissive disease that they thought had a 30% fatality rate would be absolutely massive. There's just possibly a rather good reason why no one anywhere other than PH uses that number as the 'true' cfr.
croyde said:
Blumming heck, how many schools do trips to Italy for skiing?
I'm at my son's school now for a choose your GCSEs evening and everyone is talking about the school down the road that has sent pupils home that went on the trip.
This is SW London.
My secondary had one. Was about £700 18 odd years ago. No chance my parents could afford it unfortunately. I'm at my son's school now for a choose your GCSEs evening and everyone is talking about the school down the road that has sent pupils home that went on the trip.
This is SW London.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff