- 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: Some Math for the Karens and Kevins on why this is LESS deadly than flu
Posted on 4/24/20 at 11:04 am to WaydownSouth
Posted on 4/24/20 at 11:04 am to WaydownSouth
It's stupid how this whole time people are screaming about the 5% death rate of Covid and saying the flu is only .02% when those two numbers aren't even calculated the same way.
We assume millions upon millions of flu cases every year to get the number down that low. The Covid number is the straight up deaths from positive tests rate. This year's flu had a deaths from positive tests rate of over 3%.
Antibody testing is showing us it's safe to assume millions upon millions of cases like they do for the flu to get a more accurate death rate for Covid.
We assume millions upon millions of flu cases every year to get the number down that low. The Covid number is the straight up deaths from positive tests rate. This year's flu had a deaths from positive tests rate of over 3%.
Antibody testing is showing us it's safe to assume millions upon millions of cases like they do for the flu to get a more accurate death rate for Covid.
0
Posted on 4/24/20 at 11:05 am to WaydownSouth
25000 antibody tests puts this to bed and answers the question on undetected spread. With 500 randomly selected people per state, you end up with somewhere around a 5% margin of error on the infection level of the population of each state as a whole.
Of course, the devil is in the details. How do you truly get a random sample? If you select random people to ask to undergo an antibody test, will the people who agree to do it introduce some sort of a bias into your sample?
Of course, nobody's going to do this. Because reasons.
Of course, the devil is in the details. How do you truly get a random sample? If you select random people to ask to undergo an antibody test, will the people who agree to do it introduce some sort of a bias into your sample?
Of course, nobody's going to do this. Because reasons.
This post was edited on 4/24/20 at 11:06 am
Posted on 4/24/20 at 11:08 am to WaydownSouth
quote:
Currently in America: . . .
Posted on 4/24/20 at 11:10 am to Volvagia
I'm still questioning the numbers. Notice nobody wants to touch the article I posted.
Posted on 4/24/20 at 11:11 am to Nado Jenkins83
quote:
Notice nobody wants to touch the article I posted.
I did touch it. You ignored my post.
Posted on 4/24/20 at 11:12 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
That's five times deadlier than the flu.
That's fairly meaningless without context. The flu itself might be 100 times deadlier than the common cold, but we are comfortable with the risk. COVID being 5 times deadlier than the flu does mean it's more deadly than the flu, because that's tautological. It doesn't tell you much about what our response to it should be. And it doesn't make it stupid to compare the two.
COVID is much more similar to the flu than it is to Ebola, SARS, and MERS, for example.
Those diseases are deadly enough to a broad enough range of people that you don't have to constantly fear monger in order for people to take it seriously.
Of course the fact that they are so bad means they are somewhat self-limiting. It's probably a safe assumption that this is simply how viruses operate and why humanity has survived so long. The worst viruses end up killing fewer people.
Humanity just deals with the less deadly viruses (which probably includes COVID), because doing what it would take to eradicate them isn't worth the cost.
Posted on 4/24/20 at 11:12 am to Antonio Moss
Nobody replied to the article post. I saw someone reply to another post with words like "likely" that isnt definitive and in my world if something isnt definitive it can used either way. Either it is or isnt.
This post was edited on 4/24/20 at 11:13 am
Posted on 4/24/20 at 11:15 am to Nado Jenkins83
quote:
I’m still questioning the numbers. Notice nobody wants to touch the article I posted
Because it’s not the earth shattering revelation you seem to think it is.
Hell it isn’t even news anymore. It came out a week ago.
Again: it’s no different from the flu approximation treatment.
Posted on 4/24/20 at 11:19 am to uway
quote:
That's fairly meaningless without context.
The context is in comparison to the flu.
Posted on 4/24/20 at 11:20 am to Nado Jenkins83
quote:
I saw someone reply to another post with words like "likely" that isnt definitive and in my world if something isnt definitive it can used either way.
That is one of the dumbest things I've ever read.
Posted on 4/24/20 at 11:21 am to Volvagia
quote:
Because it’s not the earth shattering revelation you seem to think it is.
No kidding.
Medical presumptions have been used since the beginning of practicing medicine.
But the scholars around here read something that says "Presumed COVID" and automatically jump to "they are counting all deaths as caused by COVID."
Posted on 4/24/20 at 11:23 am to DollaChoppa
quote:Because there is no herd immunity. Only 60 million americans get the flu every year. Way more are susceptible to this virus because it's new. Death rate and total deaths should not be compared when talking about 'how deadly' a virus is.
Wait but it’s going to kill more people than the flu does, so can you really say it’s less deadly.
Posted on 4/24/20 at 11:24 am to WaydownSouth
quote:It's Karls not Kevins goddammit
Some Math for the Karens and Kevins on why this is LESS deadly than flu
Posted on 4/24/20 at 11:25 am to Antonio Moss
When you assume.....
Posted on 4/24/20 at 11:26 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
The context is in comparison to the flu.
That's not the entirety of the context. I laid out more of the context for you.
Posted on 4/24/20 at 11:26 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
Medical presumptions have been used since the beginning of practicing medicine.
But the scholars around here read something that says "Presumed COVID" and automatically jump to "they are counting all deaths as caused by COVID."
and then turn around and prop up flu deaths (calculated the same way) in an effort to make a point about COVID's lack of severity
Posted on 4/24/20 at 11:29 am to WaydownSouth
quote:
Currently in America:
828,441 confirmed cases
46,379 Deaths
Simple minded people will have you believe the death rate is 5.5%. This is how they pulled the wool over your little sheep eyes.
The missing number, which was hard to find, is how many total tests we have done. 4,466,000 roughly as of 4/22.
828,441/ 4,466,000 = 18.5% positive rate. Without the widespread testing available and a novel virus that spreads quickly, its safe to say you can attribute that number to 330 Million americans if they/we were all tested. However since most being tested are admitted to the hospital, I’ll be generous and drop it to 12% for the sake of the argument.
330,000,000 x .12 = 39,600,000 that would likely test positive if all Americans were tested
Now you can do real math: 46,379 deaths/ 39,600,000 = roughly 0.12%
Right on par with the seasonal Flu and less than a severe flu season
Posted on 4/24/20 at 11:29 am to TigerstuckinMS
quote:
25000 antibody tests puts this to bed
The antibody tests available are inaccurate. Some are about as accurate as flipping a coin.
quote:
It seems that many tests available now are not accurate enough at identifying people who have had the disease, a property called test sensitivity, and those who haven’t been infected, known as test specificity. A high-quality test should achieve 99% or more sensitivity and specificity, adds Collignon. That means that testing should turn up only about 1 false positive and 1 false negative for every 100 true positive and true negative results.
Posted on 4/24/20 at 11:30 am to WaydownSouth
2000 people die a day from the flu? How many people under 45 do you know that have died from the flu?
Posted on 4/24/20 at 11:33 am to BeepNode
quote:
How many people under 45 do you know that have died from the flu?
Who knows. Why would that be news?
Plenty under 45 died of h1n1.
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News