Coronavirus - Is this the killer flu that will wipe us out?
Discussion
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.
Well he was claiming exactly that -> Italy having a 87.5% fatality rate as of yesterday... special italian mutation of covid19 or something.....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.
Graveworm said:
carinatauk said:
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
isaldiri said:
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.
Well he was claiming exactly that -> Italy having a 87.5% fatality rate as of yesterday... special italian mutation of covid19 or something.....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.
At today Italy has 17 deaths to 45 recoveries. What rate is that? Can you do that?
mike74 said:
Don't know if this point has been made but does it nor seem odd given the close links between China and Africa that there doesn't appear to have been any significant number of cases in Africa?
They were saying lack of testing kits but that’s a bit thin now as people will be well into it.V6 Pushfit said:
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 ?
That's exactly my point, it isn't real world we do know the outcome, it's 10 percent will "die" because we set the parameters. 255 are in, or beyond, the 3-5 day period so up to 26 dead. Only one has reached day 10, so probably recovered hence a maximum of 1. Its why their model, as time goes on, becomes more accurate, whilst the death vs recovery figure has to be very skewed and, only accurate, once it has run its course.
isaldiri said:
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.
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.
Just give up will you. Does your ignorance always show as moaning at others while unable to offer anything else? I’ve done updates on the rates regularly but you don’t appear to have been able to find them - best get someone to help maybe? 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.
V6 Pushfit said:
mike74 said:
Don't know if this point has been made but does it nor seem odd given the close links between China and Africa that there doesn't appear to have been any significant number of cases in Africa?
They were saying lack of testing kits but that’s a bit thin now as people will be well into it.I'm thinking it's gonna be a big one.
Graveworm said:
That's exactly my point, it isn't real world we do know the outcome, it's 10 percent will "die" because we set the parameters. 255 are in, or beyond, the 3-5 day period so up to 26 dead. Only one has reached day 10, so probably recovered hence a maximum of 1.
Its why their model, as time goes on, becomes more accurate, whilst the death vs recovery figure has to be very skewed and, only accurate, once it has run its course.
It’s more like the WHO case figure starts off wildly inaccurate and becomes = to the death/recovery figure when the infection is over and cases are zero. Its why their model, as time goes on, becomes more accurate, whilst the death vs recovery figure has to be very skewed and, only accurate, once it has run its course.
Quite handy for them really as it’s all over by then so the precise numbers are known. Staggering what they punt out at this stage though.
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 27th February 18:48
This is potentially a big issue if we get a large scale outbreak:
Wales doesn't have any ECMO beds and Scotland has a limited capability in Aberdeen with 3/4 of patients being sent to England to be treated.
The Guardian said:
England only has 15 available beds for adults to treat the most severe respiratory failure and will struggle to cope if there are more than 28 patients who need them if the number of coronavirus cases rises, according to the government and NHS documents.
Ministers have revealed in parliamentary answers that there are 15 available beds for adult extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) treatment at five centres across England. The government said this could be increased in an emergency. There were 30 such beds in total available during the 2018-19 winter flu season.
Use of ECMO had a very high success rate when used to treat patients with Swine Flu: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-an...Ministers have revealed in parliamentary answers that there are 15 available beds for adult extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) treatment at five centres across England. The government said this could be increased in an emergency. There were 30 such beds in total available during the 2018-19 winter flu season.
Wales doesn't have any ECMO beds and Scotland has a limited capability in Aberdeen with 3/4 of patients being sent to England to be treated.
Captain Smerc said:
This is the calm before the storm
I'm thinking it's gonna be a big one.
Southern hemisphere is warmer, it's hopefully, like seasonal flu, inhibited by warmer weather. This might partially explain why Singapore & Australia appear to have better outcomes etc. I'm thinking it's gonna be a big one.
This is pretty supportive.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-...
V6 Pushfit said:
mike74 said:
Don't know if this point has been made but does it nor seem odd given the close links between China and Africa that there doesn't appear to have been any significant number of cases in Africa?
They were saying lack of testing kits but that’s a bit thin now as people will be well into it.
I hope you’re joking LimslipCan I try this one a second time?
In the last week both the numbers of reported daily deaths and new cases have been decreasing. Worldwide, the number of newly recovered patients has been greater than the number of newly infected every day since Feb. 19 (ie. for the past week). If sustained this would be a very positive development.
It's interesting that these key indicators have decreased over a period during which public (incl PH...) concern/panic levels have clearly gone through the roof.
In the last week both the numbers of reported daily deaths and new cases have been decreasing. Worldwide, the number of newly recovered patients has been greater than the number of newly infected every day since Feb. 19 (ie. for the past week). If sustained this would be a very positive development.
It's interesting that these key indicators have decreased over a period during which public (incl PH...) concern/panic levels have clearly gone through the roof.
Edited by WindyCommon on Thursday 27th February 18:56
Edited by WindyCommon on Thursday 27th February 19:12
Graveworm said:
V6 Pushfit said:
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 ?
That's exactly my point, it isn't real world we do know the outcome, it's 10 percent will "die" because we set the parameters. 255 are in, or beyond, the 3-5 day period so up to 26 dead. Only one has reached day 10, so probably recovered hence a maximum of 1. Its why their model, as time goes on, becomes more accurate, whilst the death vs recovery figure has to be very skewed and, only accurate, once it has run its course.
Currently at less than 8%.
Falling every day, as it becomes more accurate as time and numbers increase.
The greater unknown is the number of never diagnosed.
That's the figure the who will guesstimate using their vast experience.
But they could be wildly wrong in this as a lot is unknown about this virus.
Of course if it mutates then who knows.
So, the above is for the current strain.
All imho.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff