- 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
Posted on 3/17/20 at 5:38 pm to bfniii
I don't get what is so confusing. Given the long incubation rate and the extremely long time before someone dies on average, what numbers would you expect to see right now for a 1% mortality disease?
The reason why there might not be that many people with the virus yet isn't because it isn't contagious, it's because it has a long incubation time compared to something like the flu. So it just takes a long time to travel through a population of people.
The reason why there might not be that many people with the virus yet isn't because it isn't contagious, it's because it has a long incubation time compared to something like the flu. So it just takes a long time to travel through a population of people.
Posted on 3/17/20 at 5:39 pm to Tecate
quote:
Do the number of cases include recovered?
Yes, it's the total number of all cases in the country.
Posted on 3/17/20 at 5:39 pm to Chromdome35
quote:and even this is misleading. there is a testing bottleneck. as positive tests are logged, those cases were already in the pipeline. there aren't brand new for today or going forward. i know someone who has had symptoms for days and is still waiting on a result. that means those numbers really affect previous days' growth rate %, much like runs charged to a pitcher after he's left the game. that pushes previous days' numbers up and the current day's numbers down which means the downward trend could actually be continuing.
Today's growth rate, wherever it finally ends up, will break the 7 day declining trend
moreover, the number of deaths for today is nearly 50% lower than yesterday, although the day is not over. there is nothing in these numbers to panic over. raise an eyebrow - sure. outright nationwide panic/quarantine, grocery stores gutted, entire industries shuttered - no way. again, i am confused as to why officials are so dire about this.
Posted on 3/17/20 at 5:41 pm to bfniii
quote:
moreover, the number of deaths for today is nearly 50% lower than yesterday, although the day is not over
Currently 2 more deaths today than yesterday, it seems.
LINK
edit: what I mean is right now its 20 deaths today, 18 deaths yesterday
This post was edited on 3/17/20 at 5:48 pm
Posted on 3/17/20 at 5:43 pm to GumboPot
quote:
As many have said the blip today may be a function of testing coming online.
We are probably going to have our largest day of deaths again. So while it’s tempting to view this as a function of testing increases, it’s also partly a function of a spread of the infection.
Posted on 3/17/20 at 5:49 pm to TigerDoc
What did Singapore do right that we didn't?
Posted on 3/17/20 at 5:49 pm to Chromdome35
Am I going my math right? In fourteen days at this growth rate we will have about 125,000 cases?
I don’t have a spreadsheet available and am trying to multiple 1.259 times the cases and then times result 14 times and then 28 times on my phone calculator.
At around 28 days it looks like we would have 4,000,000 cases?
I don’t have a spreadsheet available and am trying to multiple 1.259 times the cases and then times result 14 times and then 28 times on my phone calculator.
At around 28 days it looks like we would have 4,000,000 cases?
This post was edited on 3/17/20 at 5:56 pm
Posted on 3/17/20 at 5:52 pm to the808bass
quote:
We are probably going to have our largest day of deaths again. So while it’s tempting to view this as a function of testing increases, it’s also partly a function of a spread of the infection.
Wouldn’t the number of deaths naturally increase as new cases are confirmed? The question is the death rate which appears to be dropping.
What rate will we need to achieve over what span of time in order to comfortably return to some semblance of normalcy.
Posted on 3/17/20 at 5:52 pm to bfniii
quote:
social
Maybe it's not social but political ...
Posted on 3/17/20 at 5:53 pm to tiger91
Possibly bc it’s balls hot year round. The one time this miserable heat here just might be worth it.
Posted on 3/17/20 at 5:53 pm to dsides
quote:
Wouldn’t the number of deaths naturally increase as new cases are confirmed?
Yes but you can’t claim you’re just catching cases you otherwise wouldn’t have caught if your death count is still rising.
Posted on 3/17/20 at 5:54 pm to frogglet
quote:this question doesn't even make sense. the 2 factors you listed don't affect growth rate %, especially not compared to previous outbreaks. that's what i'm looking at - the response to previous outbreaks. this one, for the last several days, has not shown a trend comparable to previous outbreaks. again, do you think this curve looks like h1n1 with 20mil cases in the first 6 months? i don't. not at all. especially keeping in mind that this virus is suspected to have been around longer than the first reported case 2 months ago.
Given the long incubation rate and the extremely long time before someone dies on average, what numbers would you expect to see right now for a 1% mortality disease?
if you say that many patients are asymptomatic, that just shows that the virus isn't as bad as it is being portrayed. many people infected need no/little medical attention thus, the healthcare system would not be taxed. we've sent kids home which means we artificially reduced the number of clinical staff and this virus doesn't even affect kids greatly. yes, kids can be carriers but, that just means the target demographic needs to stay quarantined, not the entire freaking nation.
quote:those two are not necessarily correlated. the incubation time does not mean the contagiousness is altered. it just means you may be a carrier for some time before you exhibit symptoms but you could still be passing it along. plenty of infected people have testified to that. besides, i understand completely that our knowledge of the number of infections is also greatly affected by the testing results which are lagging. i fully expect the number of cases to go up sharply but again, those cases are not starting when the test result is achieved.
The reason why there might not be that many people with the virus yet isn't because it isn't contagious, it's because it has a long incubation time compared to something like the flu. So it just takes a long time to travel through a population of people.
Posted on 3/17/20 at 5:54 pm to I B Freeman
If there's no slowing down, something like that, yes. But I think even the most pessimistic would expect some decline in growth before then. We've only just recently implemented our most aggressive measures, and it will take several days to see that reflected in the numbers.
Posted on 3/17/20 at 5:55 pm to frogglet
quote:the worldometer numbers have been questionable. op has the number at 9 as of 3:30p. 22 total yesterday. that's a significant drop although i expect that to be exceptional, not a trend.
Currently 2 more deaths today than yesterday, it seems
Posted on 3/17/20 at 5:57 pm to I B Freeman
People want to make 400k sound like a big number in a country of 340 million
Posted on 3/17/20 at 5:58 pm to bfniii
The 2 factors I listed would impact the absolute number of deaths right now, which is what I was assuming you were hung up on. Does it look like h1n1 curve? Yes, it absolutely does. Please, extrapolate ~25% daily growth out and see how long it takes to get to 20 million cases.
If by contagiousness you mean R0, then yeah, you're right, and that is exactly what I was saying. The R0 is high, but because people are significantly less contagious during the incubation period (or not contagious at all) the disease still spreads through a population more slowly than something with a shorter incubation time.
quote:
those two are not necessarily correlated. the incubation time does not mean the contagiousness is altered. it just means you may be a carrier for some time before you exhibit symptoms but you could still be passing it along. plenty of infected people have testified to that.
If by contagiousness you mean R0, then yeah, you're right, and that is exactly what I was saying. The R0 is high, but because people are significantly less contagious during the incubation period (or not contagious at all) the disease still spreads through a population more slowly than something with a shorter incubation time.
Posted on 3/17/20 at 5:59 pm to frogglet
We don’t know what the R0 is.
Posted on 3/17/20 at 5:59 pm to frogglet
lets hope so
I don’t want them to try to completely shut us down
I don’t want them to try to completely shut us down
Posted on 3/17/20 at 6:00 pm to Chromdome35
Why the "total cases" bar graph? It can't possibly go down.
Popular
Back to top


1



