The Coronavirus Thread...

[L.T. Fan]

They can’t be. How many people have had this and never even coughed or sniffled? How many people have tested positive and been sent home and since recovered?

There’s literally no way to add them to the recovered list, not unless every positive case has been tested again until they test negative.

Im sure I’ll be corrected if I’m out of line, but I assume that recovered numbers are for those people who have been hospitalized and since been released.

It should be utilized to equate to the survival rate otherwise who can say if it is any more deadly than anything else. This is what I question.

 

[jsmith6919]

That is the thing, about 10% have "gone through the cycle" of the virus 55k of 550k. Of that 10%, 6% came out "recovered" while 4% died. If those numbers held up (and I really don't know why they're like that in the US) of the 500k still going 200k would be expected to die.

Where are you getting this number from? Are you just adding recovered and deaths?

 

[Sheik]

That is the thing, about 10% have "gone through the cycle" of the virus 55k of 550k. Of that 10%, 6% came out "recovered" while 4% died. If those numbers held up (and I really don't know why they're like that in the US) of the 500k still going 200k would be expected to die.

The only way deaths come anywhere near that number, imo, is if the virus comes right back after reintroducing people back to society too quickly.

550k cases, how many are hospitalized currently? Does anyone know that number? Unless that number is available, you can’t really make a reasonable guess at how many will die.

 

[jsmith6919]

The only way deaths come anywhere near that number, imo, is if the virus comes right back after reintroducing people back to society too quickly.

550k cases, how many are hospitalized currently? Does anyone know that number? Unless that number is available, you can’t really make a reasonable guess at how many will die.

We Still Don’t Know How Many People Are in the Hospital With COVID-19

Many states report coronavirus cases and COVID-19 hospitalizations differently, and the federal government is way behind on data tracking. Without consistent information, the U.S. won’t be able to properly respond as new coronavirus hot spots emerge.

www.propublica.org

 

[Sheik]

Where are you getting this number from? Are you just adding recovered and deaths?

You can’t lump 550k cases into the equation. That’s not logical. Not unless 550k people have been and are still hospitalized and awaiting their fate on the chart.

 

[jsmith6919]

The only way deaths come anywhere near that number, imo, is if the virus comes right back after reintroducing people back to society too quickly.

We don't have accurate numbers of how many tested positive with mild symptoms and were sent home and recovered either

 

[jsmith6919]

You can’t lump 550k cases into the equation. That’s not logical. Not unless 550k people have been and are still hospitalized and awaiting their fate on the chart.

You can't just add the recovered and deaths and extrapolate that to get a mortality rate either

 

[Sheik]

We don't have accurate numbers of how many tested positive with mild symptoms and were sent home and recovered either

You need more than that, too. You need to know if your recovery number is only counting people hospitalized and discharged.

 

[L.T. Fan]

Nor can anyone say how lethal it is. Yet is being touted as more deadly than other pandemics. It may be but until something sifts out about what is the survival rate or recovery rate it’s an unsubstantiated position. I would like to know how this can be stated with any certainty other than an agenda motivation. Guess we will just have to wait and see.

 

[jsmith6919]

You need more than that, too. You need to know if your recovery number is only counting people hospitalized and discharged.

I agree but I'd bet that's where the recovered number is currently coming from. Though even that number has to be questioned when we don't even have an accurate number for those hospitalized

 

[L.T. Fan]

Nor can anyone say how lethal it is. Yet is being touted as more deadly than other pandemics. It may be but until something sifts out about what is the survival rate or recovery rate it’s an unsubstantiated position. I would like to know how this can be stated with any certainty other than an agenda motivation. Guess we will just have to wait and see.

 

[Sheik]

If it becomes clear that these “recovery numbers” are only taking into account people that have been hospitalized and released, then whoever is putting out these charts is a god damned stupid ass.

That’s totally irresponsible unless you make it clear from the word go.

It’s not hard to add a disclaimer or an asterisk.

 

[Sheik]

If it becomes clear that these “recovery numbers” are only taking into account people that have been hospitalized and released, then whoever is putting out these charts is a god damned stupid ass.

That’s totally irresponsible unless you make it clear from the word go.

It’s not hard to add a disclaimer or an asterisk.

 

[Sheik]

Fuckin double post.

 

[yimyammer]

That is the thing, about 10% have "gone through the cycle" of the virus 55k of 550k. Of that 10%, 6% came out "recovered" while 4% died. If those numbers held up (and I really don't know why they're like that in the US) of the 500k still going 200k would be expected to die.

The problem is I think you're trying to do math with inaccurate numbers. It would seem to be easier and more important to count the fatalities and I am not aware of any process that tracks recoveries accurately (I am assuming this would take time and resources not currently the highest priority to test and report this accurately) So, imho, you cant really draw the conclusion you trying to do accurately and I think the fat we don't have 200K deaths already proves its not a 60/40 proposition that if you get C19 you recovery/die respectively.

According to this site, we currently have:

Tested: 2943853
Tested Positive: 576,923
Died: 23,370

Since 23,370 of 576,923 (4.05%) have died thus far, then the recovery rate is likely far closer to 95.95%+ [1-(23,370/576,923)]. There is some lag in these assumptions as recoveries and deaths don't happen on the same timeline but I'd say the mortality rate is fairly accurate otherwise the number of deaths would be FAR higher thus far.

Also, keep in mind the testing is not occurring randomly. Its being done with people who have exhibited symptoms to the point they felt the need to be tested. So we would expect a higher percentage of those tests to have C19 than if we did a purely random sampling of the US population at large.

Using the figures above, we are currently showing a mortality rate of 4.05% but this has to be overstated since we're not testing everyone and there are surely a large number of people that are asymptomatic and never get tested or have C19 but aren't bothered by the effects enough to get tested.

Plus, how do we know all deaths reported as C19 are the result of C19, for example if someone dies of a heart attack and its discovered the person also had C19, how is the cause of death reported?

Perhaps Lost can elaborate on this ^^ question?

please chime in where my math and/or logic is off

 

[Angrymesscan]

The problem is I think you're trying to do math with inaccurate numbers. It would seem to be easier and more important to count the fatalities and I am not aware of any process that tracks recoveries accurately (I am assuming this would take time and resources not currently the highest priority to test and report this accurately) So, imho, you cant really draw the conclusion you trying to do accurately and I think the fat we don't have 200K deaths already proves its not a 60/40 proposition that if you get C19 you recovery/die respectively.

According to this site, we currently have:

Tested: 2943853
Tested Positive: 576,923
Died: 23,370

Since 23,370 of 576,923 (4.05%) have died thus far, then the recovery rate is likely far closer to 95.95%+ [1-(23,370/576,923)]. There is some lag in these assumptions as recoveries and deaths don't happen on the same timeline but I'd say the mortality rate is fairly accurate otherwise the number of deaths would be FAR higher thus far.

Also, keep in mind the testing is not occurring randomly. Its being done with people who have exhibited symptoms to the point they felt the need to be tested. So we would expect a higher percentage of those tests to have C19 than if we did a purely random sampling of the US population at large.

Using the figures above, we are currently showing a mortality rate of 4.05% but this has to be overstated since we're not testing everyone and there are surely a large number of people that are asymptomatic and never get tested or have C19 but aren't bothered by the effects enough to get tested.

Plus, how do we know all deaths reported as C19 are the result of C19, for example if someone dies of a heart attack and its discovered the person also had C19, how is the cause of death reported?

Perhaps Lost can elaborate on this ^^ question?

please chime in where my math and/or logic is off

Again the number that jumps out at me is the number of recovered vs dead.
Germany who is like #2 in cases has approx 20 cured for every death. Even the hard hit places like Italy, Spain and France have 2-4 cured for every death. Yet the US and even worse UK have 1.5 and 0.1 recovered for every death. I can’t find a logic in this and I would consider those numbers worrisome. That 4.05% is of all the infected, but according to the numbers 500,000 are still sick and it stands to reason that more of those will die. If we could stop right this instant anyone else from getting sick, how many of those 500,000 do you think would die? According to the numbers of those that have recovered and those that have died, it would look very bleak.

 

[L.T. Fan]

Well now you know why I am such a skeptic about this pandemic. By being skeptical I am not saying it isn’t really bad nor am I saying it could be the worst thing that has happened. What I am skeptical about are some of the claims I have heard and some of the responses I have gotten telling me I am all wet about something simply because I question some of the claims that are being made about it.

To me I see no way to tell how some of the conclusions have been reached because there isn’t enough complete data to make the kind of claims or reactions it has gotten from those who can’t actually make those determinations yet. And it bothers me that our country’s economic well being is the apparent whipping boy for this. Who knows? It might be by design.

 

[Sheik]

Again the number that jumps out at me is the number of recovered vs dead.
Germany who is like #2 in cases has approx 20 cured for every death. Even the hard hit places like Italy, Spain and France have 2-4 cured for every death. Yet the US and even worse UK have 1.5 and 0.1 recovered for every death. I can’t find a logic in this and I would consider those numbers worrisome. That 4.05% is of all the infected, but according to the numbers 500,000 are still sick and it stands to reason that more of those will die. If we could stop right this instant anyone else from getting sick, how many of those 500,000 do you think would die? According to the numbers of those that have recovered and those that have died, it would look very bleak.

You can’t be serious?

You think you’re going to see 200k dead in the next 10-14 days in the United States?

 

[NoDak]

The numbers that jump out at me from the USA is basically the same number of “recovered” as deaths...
Most countries have a larger base of recovered than dead, Germany is like 20 recovered for every death.
Probably has to do with the moment of the crisis, but going from those numbers you’d have a 50/50 chance in the USA if you get coronavirus.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

Again the number that jumps out at me is the number of recovered vs dead.
Germany who is like #2 in cases has approx 20 cured for every death. Even the hard hit places like Italy, Spain and France have 2-4 cured for every death. Yet the US and even worse UK have 1.5 and 0.1 recovered for every death. I can’t find a logic in this and I would consider those numbers worrisome. That 4.05% is of all the infected, but according to the numbers 500,000 are still sick and it stands to reason that more of those will die. If we could stop right this instant anyone else from getting sick, how many of those 500,000 do you think would die? According to the numbers of those that have recovered and those that have died, it would look very bleak.

I think you're looking at the numbers wrong. Recovered requires two negative tests after a positivetest. This is nothing but a quirk of the stats process. You're reading way too much into it. 97-98% of those people will be recovered.