- 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 3/20/20 at 9:21 pm to bfniii
Posted on 3/20/20 at 9:21 pm to bfniii
quote:
we just passed a quarter of a million cases worldwide after 3, possibly 4 months. even if china is grossly misreporting their numbers, this is a very mild outbreak, historically speaking.
It took what, 3+ months to get to 100,000? And then 12 days to get the next 100,000. I don't know what people can't understand about exponential growth. Keep trying to explain it...
edit: and now, less than 3 days later we are 3/4 of the way to the next 100k. Stop comparing totals of outbreaks that are complete to ones that are still underway and experiencing exponential growth. It makes absolutely no sense.
This post was edited on 3/20/20 at 9:26 pm
2
Posted on 3/20/20 at 9:26 pm to bfniii
Probably satellite pics of dead Chinese. What the hell else could it be?
Posted on 3/20/20 at 9:27 pm to frogglet
quote:
I don't know what people can't understand about exponential growth. Keep trying to explain it...
Except testing is growing exponentially as well. So even if the number of infected was a constant, you’d still see an exponential increase in cases. It’s impossible to know anything based purely on number of cases.
Posted on 3/20/20 at 9:28 pm to Mr Sausage
quote:
What the hell else could it be?
Maybe they've seen the studies produced by epidemiologists who estimated what the carnage is going to be?
Posted on 3/20/20 at 9:30 pm to TideCPA
quote:
Except testing is growing exponentially as well. So even if the number of infected was a constant, you’d still see an exponential increase in cases. It’s impossible to know anything based purely on number of cases.
Only if that is a very large constant compared to the number of cases already. Which would then make it even dumber to talk about it only being 275k at the moment.
Posted on 3/20/20 at 9:34 pm to frogglet
quote:
Only if that is a very large constant compared to the number of cases already. Which would then make it even dumber to talk about it only being 275k at the moment.
Exactly my point. The number of cases and the corresponding mortality rate tells us next to nothing at this point except that we’re increasing testing capability.
Posted on 3/20/20 at 9:37 pm to frogglet
What did epidemiologists predict H1N1 would do?
What did epidemiologists predict Ebola would do in 2014?
What did epidemiologists predict Ebola would do in 2014?
Posted on 3/20/20 at 9:37 pm to TideCPA
quote:
Except testing is growing exponentially as well.
Is it? I haven't seen data to indicate that. It is definitely increasing, but assuming its done so at an exponential rate as a default assumption is difficult to prove.
Posted on 3/20/20 at 9:38 pm to NYNolaguy1
If testing wasn’t growing at an exponential rate, we couldn’t have cases growing at an exponential rate.
Posted on 3/20/20 at 9:39 pm to the808bass
quote:
If testing wasn’t growing at an exponential rate, we couldn’t have cases growing at an exponential rate.
Thats not necessarily true. Tests don't correspond to new cases on a 1 to 1 basis.
Eta: not everyone tests positive.
This post was edited on 3/20/20 at 9:40 pm
Posted on 3/20/20 at 9:43 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Tests don't correspond to new cases on a 1 to 1 basis. Eta: not everyone tests positive.
Yeah. It takes more than one test to get a positive. So to get a new confirmed case (which are growing exponentially), you have to have more tests than cases.
I could be looking at this incorrectly. But it seems to be a truism.
Posted on 3/20/20 at 9:43 pm to NYNolaguy1
If test availability was limiting case numbers, you would see linear growth, not exponential.
Posted on 3/20/20 at 9:44 pm to the808bass
quote:
What did epidemiologists predict H1N1 would do?
What did epidemiologists predict Ebola would do in 2014?
Are you under the impression that world leaders were being advised by epidemiologists to lock down their countries for those diseases?
Posted on 3/20/20 at 9:44 pm to TideCPA
I see your point about potential regional oversampling bias due to increased testing, but death doesn't need a test, so I am struggling to follow your point about mortality rate and the relationship to testing.
What is encouraging, in the US at least, compared to Italy.
On March 18th, the US had about 13K cases and 200 deaths. On March 12th, when Italy had a similar number of cases, they had 1000 death, so a mortality rate 5x that of the US. And yes there are potential confounding factors about Italy having an older population and different health care delivery systems, but it does suggest that the US is doing a better job at keeping people alive.
What is encouraging, in the US at least, compared to Italy.
On March 18th, the US had about 13K cases and 200 deaths. On March 12th, when Italy had a similar number of cases, they had 1000 death, so a mortality rate 5x that of the US. And yes there are potential confounding factors about Italy having an older population and different health care delivery systems, but it does suggest that the US is doing a better job at keeping people alive.
Posted on 3/20/20 at 9:46 pm to Tiguar
quote:
If test availability was limiting case numbers, you would see linear growth, not exponential.
Thats true too. I don't doubt that new testing is impacting new cases, theres definitely been a new trend upward on the log graph slope indicating a higer case rate.
Posted on 3/20/20 at 9:46 pm to frogglet
quote:
Are you under the impression that world leaders were being advised by epidemiologists to lock down their countries for those diseases?
For H1N1 they were.
Politicians advocated for travel bans and quarantines for Ebola.
Posted on 3/20/20 at 9:54 pm to the808bass
Here's what I came up with quickly based on the worldometer data just now in terms of COVID deaths per capita. Shows that by and large the outbreaks are really starkly impacting a handful of countries. These are just the worst 23 (to include the US):
Posted on 3/20/20 at 9:59 pm to SmackoverHawg
quote:
90% +. Number pulled from my arse, but this shite is fading quick from what we were seeing months ago but had no testing.
Fading as in what you’re seeing in the clinic??
And if y’all missed it the OT or polo board had a thread saying LA hospital won’t test anymore unless it will determine treatment.
Posted on 3/20/20 at 10:06 pm to the808bass
quote:
Yeah. It takes more than one test to get a positive. So to get a new confirmed case (which are growing exponentially), you have to have more tests than cases
I am not sure that is necessarily correct. If the first 1000 tests had a positive rate of 1% but the next 1000 had a rate of 3% and then the next 1000 had a rate of 10%, that would be logarithmic growth. But if the number of tests goes up without the positive rate going up, then you would be correct, the number of tests being performed is responsible for the increase in cases, if the number of cases is steady or even declining.
So what would be useful information is the number of positive cases/the number of tests performed to really understand what is going on.
Posted on 3/20/20 at 10:09 pm to NorCali
quote:
So what would be useful information is the number of positive cases/the number of tests performed to really understand what is going on.
Exactly. Without that, or until we reach a point at which we are comfortable that tests are being performed somewhat uniformly, it's difficult to glean much from the raw number of cases.
Page 33 of 331
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News