« First « Previous Comments 167 - 206 of 376 Next » Last » Search these comments
I guess it does appear to be true that doing the lock down didn't change the future from being what it would have been with the lock down.
These are log based graphs
A year or 2 from now you should get a good fit of this infection history, for example, with a third or fourth order polynomial curve.
These are log based graphs. Fixed exponential growth looks like straight lines. Reduction in the steepness of the slope shows the exponent dropping.
:
Why not fit it to a logistic model. Isn't that what it is ?
Malcolm saysThreeBays saysThree Bays said that, not meThese are log based graphs. Fixed exponential growth looks like straight lines. Reduction in the steepness of the slope shows the exponent dropping.
I'm not sure if reliving calculus class or getting Corona virus would be worse.
:
Yeah, entirely different use of the word. What kind of company do you work for now ?
We did do linear regression, but that was to determine correlations, nothing to do with graphing, per se.
While MSNBC hosts were busy spreading conspiracy theories, the doomsday forecasters were revising their numbers again:
The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) model cited by the White House Coronavirus Task Force lowered its projections for coronavirus deaths in the U.S. by 25 percent from 81,766 to 60,415 early Wednesday morning.
The IHME model has come under withering criticism for vastly overstating projections of regular and ICU hospital beds needed, but its death projections to date have closely tracked with actual data.
Wednesday’s dramatic reverse in the model’s projection of U.S. deaths was made without a press release from IHME explaining the reasons for the reduction. It marks the second reduction in the model’s U.S. deaths projections since April 1, when it forecast 93,765 U.S. fatalities.
On April 5, the death projections were lowered to 81,766.
As of April 8th, the Covid 19 virus has risen to be the single leading daily cause of death in America (note NOT year to date or accumulated, but daily).
https://ritholtz.com/2020/04/leading-daily-cause-of-death/
ThreeBays saysWe haven't seen anywhere near a potential peak dayWe haven’t even seen peak liquor sales yet.
ThreeBays saysWe haven't seen anywhere near a potential peak dayWe haven’t even seen peak liquor sales yet.
mell saysso on peak days easily 500-700 per day, so not that much different
We haven't seen anywhere near a potential peak day for COVID-19 since we're locked down, which has kept most cities very much lower than they could get. Let's stop the charades.
mell saysso on peak days easily 500-700 per day, so not that much different
We haven't seen anywhere near a potential peak day for COVID-19 since we're locked down, which has kept most cities very much lower than they could get. Let's stop the charades.
ThreeBays saysmell saysso on peak days easily 500-700 per day, so not that much different
We haven't seen anywhere near a potential peak day for COVID-19 since we're locked down, which has kept most cities very much lower than they could get. Let's stop the charades.
We’ve been flat on new cases for a week and there’s more and more tests going out.
FuckTheMainstreamMedia saysWe’ve been flat on new cases for a week and there’s more and more tests going out.
Let us know when you figure out how that tells us what a maximum peak without a lock-down would be.
What's the 2nd peak going to be if we stop the lock-down?
mell saysRight you've reached the peak when you have the same amount of new infections as when you had 100k less cases. New cases will stagnate for a while and oscillate within the range of +- 5000 before clearly trending down.
That's the peak of this suppressed wave. What's the 2nd peak going to be if we stop the lock-down?
At some point, there won't be any CRISIS ACTORS! left to hire to pretend to die.
WINNING!
Weak die off. Nature isn’t all that nice.
mell saysAssuming by then 25%-50% have been infected it will be much weaker than the first wave.
25-50% is a baseless assumption. The German serology test puts fatality rate at 0.37% would put USA infections in the area of 1.7%.
Correction, the morons are the ones who can't tell it made a difference. There's data that curves were flattened and the spread was contained. Without slowing it down there's no reason why LA, Chicago, Dallas, etc. all metro areas wouldn't be trending to where NY went.
mell saysTest show 20% already have antibodies. How's that baseless
Where, what towns? Everywhere?
It's beyond clear there's not equal distribution.
The study also makes new statements on the coronavirus mortality rate. So far, the renowned Johns Hopkins University assumes that 1.98 percent of those infected die in Germany. Due to the fact that the Heinsberger study now also includes previously undiscovered infections and the total number of corona sufferers is higher, the death rate for Gangelt is only 0.37 percent.
A total of around 1,000 people took part in the study. The interim results now available come from around half of the subjects.
Coronavirus testing in Iceland determined that half of the citizens who tested positive showed no symptoms.
Iceland has tested 10% of its population for the coronavirus, more than any other country, and the data reveals that roughly half of those who tested positive aren’t showing any symptoms, which is double the Centers for Disease Control’s most recent estimate...
Iceland had more than 1,600 coronavirus infections; as of April 11, seven have ended in deaths.
That test showed only 1.5% of samples turned out positive. Hard to tell much without knowing the specificity (false positive rate) of the antibody test they did. If it's 1% false positive, then you get around the same ballpark fatality rate as the German and Iceland studies. Sounds like false negative rate was 25% so it's a shitty test.
« First « Previous Comments 167 - 206 of 376 Next » Last » Search these comments
Wait, 3 percent of 1 percent?
Yes, 100 times smaller than 3 percent.
Say 100,000 die out of 300M people (actually, the population is even larger than that). That's 0.0003.
So, since 0.0086 of the US dies every year on average, this could bump up the US death rate by 3 / 86 = 3.5% this year.
Except not it wouldn't even be that much, because a large fraction of those who die weren't going to make it through a normal 2020 anyway.
It's still not at all clear that this was worth imploding the economy for. Remember that 81,000 died of the flu in 2018 and no one even blinked.