- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Daily COVID Updated as of 11/2/20 8:00 PM
Posted on 4/10/20 at 11:23 am to uppermidwestbama
Posted on 4/10/20 at 11:23 am to uppermidwestbama
hmmmmm....
Posted on 4/10/20 at 11:32 am to omegaman66
What do you think it means?
Posted on 4/10/20 at 11:50 am to Chromdome35
quote:
What do you think it means?
Lagging indicator would naturally show that trend right? You’re getting less cases in the midst of peaking deaths?
Posted on 4/10/20 at 11:56 am to Chromdome35
I posted the death rate is falsely inflated. He posted the first graphic disputing my claim.
The second graph is the death rate.
And that is what we were seeing. But as you can tell from the graph at some point for some reason the death rate started to increase again. (death RATE, not number of deaths)
This is not going to be the case when more minor cases are being added to the the list of people with CV.
So either you must believe that the virus has started to be more deadly despite effective treatments being brought online at an increasing rate OR the numbers are incorrect.
The Death rate should have never increased if more minor cases are being tested. So that increase is bogus.
Rate was approaching 1%. If it rises to 2% it is a legit assumption that half of that 2% figure is of falsely inflated deaths attributed to CV.
The second graph is the death rate.
quote:Test less severe cases... death rate drops.
The amount of testing being done helps bring down the official death rate because people are being tested more frequently that have less severe cases of CV than in the early stage.
And that is what we were seeing. But as you can tell from the graph at some point for some reason the death rate started to increase again. (death RATE, not number of deaths)
This is not going to be the case when more minor cases are being added to the the list of people with CV.
So either you must believe that the virus has started to be more deadly despite effective treatments being brought online at an increasing rate OR the numbers are incorrect.
The Death rate should have never increased if more minor cases are being tested. So that increase is bogus.
Rate was approaching 1%. If it rises to 2% it is a legit assumption that half of that 2% figure is of falsely inflated deaths attributed to CV.
Posted on 4/10/20 at 11:57 am to TeLeFaWx
quote:
You’re getting less cases in the midst of peaking deaths?
Nope. Number of cases is not relevant to % of the death rate.
100 cases. 1 dies. 1%
1000 cases 10 die. 1%
This post was edited on 4/10/20 at 12:00 pm
Posted on 4/10/20 at 11:58 am to omegaman66
quote:
So either you must believe that the virus has started to be more deadly despite effective treatments being brought online at an increasing rate OR the numbers are incorrect.
You’re dumb.
Posted on 4/10/20 at 12:00 pm to the808bass
quote:
You’re dumb.
Well there you have it folks. He has totally destroyed my assertion. I retract everything I have said.
Posted on 4/10/20 at 12:02 pm to omegaman66
quote:
He has totally destroyed my assertion.
Not yet.
If you go two weeks to the right from the trough of the CFR graph, you’ll find the likely peak.
Now I destroyed your argument.
Posted on 4/10/20 at 12:02 pm to omegaman66
quote:
Nope. Number of cases is not relevant to % of the death rate.
100 cases. 1 dies. 1%
1000 cases 10 die. 1%
It takes time to die from the virus.
Posted on 4/10/20 at 12:04 pm to the808bass
quote:
Not yet.
If you go two weeks to the right from the trough of the CFR graph, you’ll find the likely peak.
Now I destroyed your argument.
No you haven't. You have proven you don't know what you are talking about.
Posted on 4/10/20 at 12:05 pm to omegaman66
quote:
No you haven't. You have proven you don't know what you are talking about.
And you just proved you don’t know what you’re talking about. Good talk.
Posted on 4/10/20 at 12:11 pm to the808bass
We are testing more and more people. Your evidence that I am wrong actually suggest that the death rate due to lag should drive the death rate down not up. The increase in testing has not slowed down.
Posted on 4/10/20 at 12:18 pm to omegaman66
None of that had anything to do with my point.
The lag from a positive test (or more accurately, from symptoms) to death is fourteen days. We are almost exactly two weeks from the trough of CFR, so we are likely seeing the peak of the published CFR. And the published CFR is only connected to the actual CFR by the degree to which we have/haven’t identified asymptomatic patients.
The lag from a positive test (or more accurately, from symptoms) to death is fourteen days. We are almost exactly two weeks from the trough of CFR, so we are likely seeing the peak of the published CFR. And the published CFR is only connected to the actual CFR by the degree to which we have/haven’t identified asymptomatic patients.
This post was edited on 4/10/20 at 12:22 pm
Posted on 4/10/20 at 12:20 pm to omegaman66
quote:
No you haven't. You have proven you don't know what you are talking about.
Sorry, Omega. You’re clearly wrong here.
Posted on 4/10/20 at 12:25 pm to TeLeFaWx
Explain to me how if we test more and more how that won't have the effect of temporarily driving the death rate down?
Posted on 4/10/20 at 12:34 pm to omegaman66
I tend to agree with you Omega; however, I'm possibly wrong. The thing is, it's all just supposition right now, we don't know why it's going up, all we can make are assumptions at this point.
I do think there is a chance that 808 and others are correct, we should know soon. If we're truly approaching the peak, it will show up in the numbers.
That's my whole goal with my tracking, to try to stay informed about what's happening without having to rely on Fox, CNN, or any other biased media outlet telling me what to think.
Is there a bias in how the numbers are being recorded and reported, we'll only know that in the coming months/years as they crunch the numbers.
I do think there is a chance that 808 and others are correct, we should know soon. If we're truly approaching the peak, it will show up in the numbers.
That's my whole goal with my tracking, to try to stay informed about what's happening without having to rely on Fox, CNN, or any other biased media outlet telling me what to think.
Is there a bias in how the numbers are being recorded and reported, we'll only know that in the coming months/years as they crunch the numbers.
Posted on 4/10/20 at 12:40 pm to omegaman66
quote:
Explain to me how if we test more and more how that won't have the effect of temporarily driving the death rate down?
It would only drive down the CFR to the rate that we are capturing asymptomatic cases. So if we’re still only (mostly) testing symptomatic cases, it won’t have the effect of driving down the CFR. Because you’re still capturing the more serious cases only. So your testing is just keeping up with the spread of virus. Not finding people who wouldn’t have otherwise been tested.
Posted on 4/10/20 at 12:41 pm to Chromdome35
FYI I'm going to be away from the keyboard for a while this afternoon. The wife and I are going for a drive to get out of the damn house for a while.
Posted on 4/10/20 at 1:00 pm to the808bass
quote:
It would only drive down the CFR to the rate that we are capturing asymptomatic cases. So if we’re still only (mostly) testing symptomatic cases, it won’t have the effect of driving down the CFR. Because you’re still capturing the more serious cases only. So your testing is just keeping up with the spread of virus. Not finding people who wouldn’t have otherwise been tested.
I see what you are saying there. And I do not disagree with how what you are pointing out will affect the numbers.
However, what I am saying still applies. I believe my wife and I both had CV. I don't know for sure because I was never tested. In the very very first days of this there was not test. Then there we limited test.
In the beginning most of the people tested were in ICU. That then expanded to those hospitalized. Then that expanded to those visiting doctors and then to some that just wanted to check. Over simplified I know but still true in general.
As has been pointed out the death rate of will lag behind those that are tested because it takes time to die. The USA has been increasing testing.
An increase in testing today will drive the rate down simply due to lag. More importantly in the grand scheme of things our increase in testing should also lead to an end result of a lower death rate because this increase in testing is picking up people with symptoms that were at one point turned away from testing because there symptoms were not severe enough to waste a test on them.
If you only test people on ventilators the death rate will be about 80%.
If you include people in icu that death rate will drop to something like 15%.
If you include people that are simply sent home unless it gets worse the death rate will be about 4%.
Theoretically if you include people that never go to the doctor but had it anyway like myself possible the number would go down even more. Obviously possible to include this group since they were never tested. But I add it to illustrate my point.
Point: If you test people that have less and less severe symptoms at an increasing rate the death rate will continue to drop.
I assert this is what has been going on with respect to testing and the death rate has not followed it logical course.
Posted on 4/10/20 at 1:02 pm to omegaman66
quote:
An increase in testing today will drive the rate down simply due to lag. More importantly in the grand scheme of things our increase in testing should also lead to an end result of a lower death rate because this increase in testing is picking up people with symptoms that were at one point turned away from testing because there symptoms were not severe enough to waste a test on them.
This assumes that you’re not just keeping up with the spread of the virus in your increased testing, though.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News