Started By
Message
locked post

Covid 19: misunderstandings in statistics, ascertainment bias (more testing= more "cases")

Posted on 3/13/20 at 8:46 pm
Posted by ThinePreparedAni
In a sea of cognitive dissonance
Member since Mar 2013
11089 posts
Posted on 3/13/20 at 8:46 pm
For those who believe in math, statistics and shite...

Bias and fear are addressed

https://www.rand.org/blog/2020/03/estimates-of-covid-19s-fatality-rate-might-change-and.html

quote:

COMMENTARY(The RAND Blog)
Estimates of COVID-19's Fatality Rate Might Change. And Then Change Again.

CDC staff support the COVID-19 (novel coronavirus) response in the the CDC Emergency Operations Center in Atlanta, Georgia, March 10, 2020Photo by James Gathany/CDC/Reuters by Raffaele Vardavas, Courtney A. Gidengil, Sarah A. Nowak March 11, 2020


quote:

With infections of the new coronavirus confirmed now in 114 countries or regions, people around the world are following the daily tally of COVID-19 cases, wondering exactly how lethal this new disease is. The truth is, it's hard to know. An important measure of the deadliness of a disease outbreak is the case-fatality rate (CFR). The CFR is the ratio of the number of deaths attributed to a disease to the total number of confirmed cases. For example, a disease with two deaths out of 100 confirmed cases has a CFR of 2 percent. Media outlets often imply that the ratio of current deaths to all current cases is the case-fatality rate, but it's not. The case-fatality rate can only be calculated based on finalized cases in an outbreak—that is, once all patients have either recovered or died. But early in an outbreak, even good estimates of the CFR can be too high—or too low.


The media is peddling fear and a fundamental misunderstanding of math/realty
This is not without precedent (fake news)

quote:

The primary reason why the CFR may overestimate the probability of death is that the number of confirmed diagnosed cases is likely an undercount of the true number of infections. This problem is known as ascertainment bias, which is to say that the medical system is much more likely to confront and diagnose severe cases and deaths than mild ones. Again suppose there were two deaths out of 100 resolved cases (people recovered or died)—but that an additional 50 mild cases have gone undetected. That means that while the CFR is 2 percent, the percent of all cases who have died is 2/150 = 1.3 percent. Early in an outbreak, even good estimates of the case-fatality rate can be too high—or too low. Share on Twitter This is why even as some reports from China say the death rate is 3.4 percent for known cases, medical experts such as Tom Frieden, former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, say that number is “certainly an overestimate” and expect a global rate below 1 percent.


quote:

An initial study from China analyzing COVID-19 cases reported as of Feb. 11 found an estimated case-fatality rate of 2.3 percent. Just a month later, as of March 10, in mainland China there were 3,136 deaths and 80,757 COVID-19 cases, giving an estimated case-fatality rate of 3.8 percent. A variety of factors could have caused the upward change in fatality-rate estimates, but it is likely partially attributable to the deaths of individuals whose cases were previously unresolved. The case-fatality rate was zero in the United States until the first U.S. death was reported on Feb. 29. As of March 11, it was 36 deaths of 1,291 cases, or an estimated CFR of 2.8 percent. But only eight cases are resolved. Still, there's reason to suspect that these rough early CFR calculations are, in fact, overestimating the probability that an individual who contracts COVID-19 will die from it. Reports suggest significant ascertainment bias for COVID-19: Approximately 80 percent of confirmed cases are mild. There may be many cases with very mild symptoms that have gone completely undetected. Regardless of what the final CFR ends up being, the public needs to understand how and why these figures evolve and change over the course of an outbreak. That will enable more transparent reporting on the part of media and policymakers, and ultimately help to avoid erosion of trust.
This post was edited on 7/1/20 at 9:38 am
Posted by PsychTiger
Member since Jul 2004
98862 posts
Posted on 3/13/20 at 8:47 pm to
quote:

math, statistics


Both racist.
Posted by Parmen
Member since Apr 2016
18317 posts
Posted on 3/13/20 at 8:48 pm to
Have more to say later, reserving my spot in the first page.

Posted by gthog61
Irving, TX
Member since Nov 2009
71001 posts
Posted on 3/13/20 at 8:49 pm to
no way these idiots will understand testing error effects
Posted by PsychTiger
Member since Jul 2004
98862 posts
Posted on 3/13/20 at 8:49 pm to
I didn’t read all of that, but does it explain the mysterious deaths in Antarctica?
Posted by cajunangelle
Member since Oct 2012
146638 posts
Posted on 3/13/20 at 8:50 pm to
Posted by cajunangelle
Member since Oct 2012
146638 posts
Posted on 3/13/20 at 8:51 pm to
and I suppose you are a genius?
Posted by PsychTiger
Member since Jul 2004
98862 posts
Posted on 3/13/20 at 8:51 pm to
I’m only borderline genius.
Posted by 9th life
birmingham
Member since Sep 2009
7310 posts
Posted on 3/13/20 at 8:53 pm to
trust sessions, not statistics.
Posted by Parmen
Member since Apr 2016
18317 posts
Posted on 3/13/20 at 8:53 pm to
quote:

I didn’t read all of that, but does it explain the mysterious deaths in Antarctica?


Antarctica is the safe continent right now. Bilderberg won’t allow their safe haven refuge to be tainted. They have seismic devices to create man made earthquakes.
Posted by ThinePreparedAni
In a sea of cognitive dissonance
Member since Mar 2013
11089 posts
Posted on 3/13/20 at 9:00 pm to


It really is pretty simple

Most people with it are minimally symptomatic, never seek help hence they are not tested
These folks are essentially unknowns that do not factor into these calculations (massively skewing the %)

Some fricktard (sadly well credentialed in various spaces) have extrapolated this to influenza data (in which almost every frick with a runny nose gets tested) . The % reflect a truer picture for these folks.

What we have currently are “educated” folks spouting that 2 to 3x people are going to die based off of these faulty premises...
Posted by cameronml
Member since Oct 2007
1909 posts
Posted on 3/13/20 at 9:04 pm to
The problem is that most people today form their views based on Instagram, Twitter, and apocalyptic movies. That's what has led us to the state we are in right now.
Posted by Parmen
Member since Apr 2016
18317 posts
Posted on 3/13/20 at 9:06 pm to
Antarctica will never get it. Bilderberg won’t “shite where they eat.”
Posted by ThinePreparedAni
In a sea of cognitive dissonance
Member since Mar 2013
11089 posts
Posted on 3/16/20 at 12:51 pm to
Pretty balanced info
My position on this is evolving slightly

https://www.realclearscience.com/quick_and_clear_science/2020/03/16/covid-19s_death_rate_why_it_can_be_as_high_as_12_or_as_low_as_025.html

quote:


COVID-19's Death Rate: Why It Can Be as High as 12% or as Low as 0.25%
.
By Ross Pomeroy - RCP StaffMarch 16, 2020



quote:

"Health sector decision-makers and disease modelers probably should consider a broad range of 0.25%–3.0% for COVID-19 case-fatality risk estimates," they wrote. "The higher values could be more appropriate in resource poor settings where the quality of hospital and intensive care might be constrained. Higher values might also be appropriate in high-income countries with limited surge capacity in hospital services because elevated case-fatality risks could be seen at the peak of local epidemics."

In both studies, the scientists acknowledge that fatality rates could be significantly inflated due to both a lack of testing and mild cases that go unreported. We may not know the true overall death rate for months to come, but experts are optimistic that it will be at the low end of estimates – likely less than two, or even one, percent.


https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0320_article

quote:

Volume 26, Number 6—June 2020

Research Letter

Case-Fatality Risk Estimates for COVID-19 Calculated by Using a Lag Time for Fatality

Related Articles
Co-infection with SARS-CoV-2 and Influenza A Virus in Patient with Pneumonia, China
Community Transmission of SARS-CoV-2
COVID-19 in Persons with Mild Respiratory Tract Symptoms
More articles on Coronavirus, COVID-19
Nick WilsonComments to Author , Amanda Kvalsvig, Lucy Telfar Barnard, and Michael G. Baker
Author affiliations: University of Otago Department of Public Health, Wellington, New Zealand
Suggested citation for this article


quote:

Abstract
We estimated the case-fatality risk for 2019 novel coronavirus disease cases in China (3.5%); China, excluding Hubei Province (0.8%); 82 countries, territories, and areas (4.2%); and on a cruise ship (0.6%). Lower estimates might be closest to the true value, but a broad range of 0.25%–3.0% probably should be considered.
Posted by ThinePreparedAni
In a sea of cognitive dissonance
Member since Mar 2013
11089 posts
Posted on 3/17/20 at 7:29 am to
https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/16/lower-coronavirus-death-rate-estimates/

quote:

Lower death rate estimates for coronavirus, especially for non-elderly, provide glimmer of hope
By SHARON BEGLEY @sxbegle MARCH 16, 2020


quote:

In a rare piece of good news about Covid-19, a team of infectious disease experts calculates that the fatality rate in people who have symptoms of the disease caused by the new coronavirus is about 1.4%. Although that estimate applies specifically to Wuhan, the Chinese city where the outbreak began, and is based on data from there, it offers a guide to the rest of the world, where many countries might see even lower death rates.

The new figure is significantly below earlier estimates of 2% or 3% and well below the death rate for China based on simply dividing deaths by cases, which yields almost 4%. While it is still higher than the average 0.1% death rate from seasonal flu, it raises hopes that the worst consequence of the coronavirus will be uncommon.


Expect this % to continue to “improve”...

quote:

The chance of someone with symptomatic Covid-19 dying varied by age, confirming other studies. For those aged 15 to 44, the fatality rate was 0.5%, though it might have been as low as 0.1% or as high as 1.3%. For people 45 to 64, the fatality rate was also 0.5%, with a possible low of 0.2% and a possible high of 1.1%. For those over 64, it was 2.7%, with a low and high estimate of 1.5% and 4.7%. The chance of serious illness from coronavirus infection in younger people was so low, the scientists estimate a fatality rate of zero.


This trend is important...

—-

https://www.wired.com/story/why-the-coronavirus-hit-italy-so-hard/

quote:

SCIENCE03.17.2020 07:00 AM

Why the Coronavirus Hit Italy So Hard The country has the second-oldest population on Earth. Its young tend to mingle more often with elderly loved ones.


quote:

Italy has been hit particularly hard, with some 2,000 deaths thus far. Overwhelmed hospital staffers have had to make devastating decisions about who to treat and who they must let perish. The reason why Italy is suffering so badly, write University of Oxford researchers in a new paper in the journal Demographic Science, may be twofold: The country has the second-oldest population on Earth, and its young tend to mingle more often with the elderly, like their grandparents. Such demographic research will be critical in facing down the threat elsewhere, as more countries grapple with a deadly pandemic that’s just getting started and learn more about how the virus is transmitted within families and communities.


quote:

In Italy, 23 percent of the population is over age 65, compared to the US, where that population is 16 percent. “Extended longevity has played some role in changing the population structure,” says University of Oxford demographer and epidemiologist Jennifer Beam Dowd, lead author of the new paper.


The irony here is that the enlightened may be overlooking cultural diversity as a main player...
This post was edited on 3/17/20 at 7:45 am
Posted by HubbaBubba
F_uck Joe Biden, TX
Member since Oct 2010
45724 posts
Posted on 3/17/20 at 8:35 am to
Posted by ThinePreparedAni
In a sea of cognitive dissonance
Member since Mar 2013
11089 posts
Posted on 3/18/20 at 8:54 pm to
https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/

quote:

A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data

By JOHN P.A. IOANNIDIS MARCH 17, 2020


quote:

The data collected so far on how many people are infected and how the epidemic is evolving are utterly unreliable. Given the limited testing to date, some deaths and probably the vast majority of infections due to SARS-CoV-2 are being missed. We don’t know if we are failing to capture infections by a factor of three or 300. Three months after the outbreak emerged, most countries, including the U.S., lack the ability to test a large number of people and no countries have reliable data on the prevalence of the virus in a representative random sample of the general population.


quote:

That huge range markedly affects how severe the pandemic is and what should be done. A population-wide case fatality rate of 0.05% is lower than seasonal influenza. If that is the true rate, locking down the world with potentially tremendous social and financial consequences may be totally irrational. It’s like an elephant being attacked by a house cat. Frustrated and trying to avoid the cat, the elephant accidentally jumps off a cliff and dies. Could the Covid-19 case fatality rate be that low? No, some say, pointing to the high rate in elderly people. However, even some so-called mild or common-cold-type coronaviruses that have been known for decades can have case fatality rates as high as 8% when they infect elderly people in nursing homes. In fact, such “mild” coronaviruses infect tens of millions of people every year, and account for 3% to 11% of those hospitalized in the U.S. with lower respiratory infections each winter.

These “mild” coronaviruses may be implicated in several thousands of deaths every year worldwide, though the vast majority of them are not documented with precise testing. Instead, they are lost as noise among 60 million deaths from various causes every year.
Posted by ThinePreparedAni
In a sea of cognitive dissonance
Member since Mar 2013
11089 posts
Posted on 3/18/20 at 8:55 pm to
quote:

Stanford’s John P.A. Ioannidis


Y’all know what he is known for?
Calling out group think and bad science...

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/308269/

quote:

Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science Much of what medical researchers conclude in their studies is misleading, exaggerated, or flat-out wrong. So why are doctors—to a striking extent—still drawing upon misinformation in their everyday practice? Dr. John Ioannidis has spent his career challenging his peers by exposing their bad science.
DAVID H. FREEDMAN NOVEMBER 2010 ISSUE


I have linked his work in other places...
Posted by NYNolaguy1
Member since May 2011
20880 posts
Posted on 3/18/20 at 8:57 pm to
I realize this is unpopular here, but 41 people died today, the 5th day in a row of of increasing deaths, well outside the trend line of the exponential rate it had been increasing.
Posted by Argonaut
Member since Nov 2015
2059 posts
Posted on 3/18/20 at 8:59 pm to
quote:

Most people with it are minimally symptomatic, never seek help hence they are not tested
quote:

These folks are essentially unknowns


These statements are contradictory and nothing but baseless speculation.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 3Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram