Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums
Mr. Gibson

Covid19 How many in your state or country?

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Black Dog said:

 

I'm saddened by your sadness.

Too much sadness around!

I'm pretty darn happy myself.  😁

Sorry......🙃

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

 

My point is that the conditions that make it favorable for Influenza will also make it favorable for Covid-19.  Getting the Flu shot is a great idea but it won't protect you from Covid.  If people ar e sick with a respiratory infection they should all stay home!!

Correct, but the point is that the more people who don't catch regular flu, the more they will be able to continue going to work as they wont be coughing and sneezing from regular flu and being told to stay home in case it's coved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, brad1 said:

Too much sadness around!

I'm pretty darn happy myself.  😁

Sorry......🙃

 

Me too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider this.

If the unemployment is now 25% in the U.S., that means 75% of us are still working anyhow. And the World hasn't ended. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/20/2020 at 7:37 PM, fortyearspickn said:

 

Not in all of Texas - just in San Antonio and the surrounding county. The city mayor and the county judge have a televised 'news conference' every night - always come up with something 'newsworthy'.    Meanwhile,  in NYC, you can get a $1,000 fine for Not Social Distancing.   And Michigan has raised the restrictions to the level of the absurd:  You can go to Walmart to buy food, but all other departments are cordoned off, and you can't even cut your grass!   Every tin pot  politician is trying to show he is tougher on the virus  than anyone else  - and is getting rewarded by the media with free publicity.   Some mayors have their police using drones to find and charge violators.   

A recent study in LA County, based on the random testing of citizens - concluded 400,000 probably had the virus but didn't know it.  The county currently reports 8,000  tested positive.  So - the death rate is probably 0.0008 and not 0.04.  (IE. not 4%  but 8 thousands of a percent). Or 2% of what we've been told.   

 

Correction:   My last line is off by a decimal  -   it should have read   "Not 4% but 8 HUNDREDTHS of a percent" .   Black Dog posted an article which referred to this Stanford Study.  They rounded my rough math  of  0.0008  up to  0.001.  Which is a tenth of a percent.  Still - an unbelievably big difference to the 5% numbers the states are submitting to the Feds.   And the epediomologist, Neil Ferguson, who the article notes had predicted over 2 million US deaths?    Well, he should be dis-barred or dis-membered or whatever they do to scientists who are full of ..... themselves. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, fortyearspickn said:

  And the epediomologist, Neil Ferguson, who the article notes had predicted over 2 million US deaths?    Well, he should be dis-barred or dis-membered or whatever they do to scientists who are full of ..... themselves. 

 

Yup.  And that model was never peer reviewed, never published in any academic journal and was widely criticized by many other very well known epidemiologists.  But our leaders panicked and went with it anyway.  

Now our leaders are doing things that are not based on any scientific evidence and in fact defy all well known evidence based ways to manage this type of outbreak and we're all supposed to just shut up and go along with it because they know best.  After all, we know that our government officials never get anything wrong so we should just obey them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, fortyearspickn said:

 

Correction:   My last line is off by a decimal  -   it should have read   "Not 4% but 8 HUNDREDTHS of a percent" .   Black Dog posted an article which referred to this Stanford Study.  They rounded my rough math  of  0.0008  up to  0.001.  Which is a tenth of a percent.  Still - an unbelievably big difference to the 5% numbers the states are submitting to the Feds.   And the epediomologist, Neil Ferguson, who the article notes had predicted over 2 million US deaths?    Well, he should be dis-barred or dis-membered or whatever they do to scientists who are full of ..... themselves. 

I still can't understand your numbers or formula.  8000 (known positive) x 5000% = 400,000 (estimated  positive).   The only other number that can be used for your death rate estimate formula is xxxx (known deaths) x 5000% = estimated deaths.  What am i missing?

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, gdecant1 said:

I still can't understand your numbers or formula.  8000 (known positive) x 5000% = 400,000 (estimated  positive).   The only other number that can be used for your death rate estimate formula is xxxx (known deaths) x 5000% = estimated deaths.  What am i missing?

Thanks

You are missing deaths I'd say - looks like it would be 320 (4% of 8000).

12 new cases and 1 death in Oz on Thursday. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think the statistics forums are full of people wildass guessing about how guitars work?

rct

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, rct said:

Do you think the statistics forums are full of people wildass guessing about how guitars work?

rct

 

38.62% of them would be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a good non emotional and also cogent article on the subject. He's neither a scientist nor physician, just a smart successful guy.

I figure one of the hardest things to do is to make make accurate predictions.  If one could have gone back 1,000 years with the knowledge of Guns, Germs, and Steel it would be a vastly different world.

https://www.gatesnotes.com/Health/Pandemic-Innovation?WT.mc_id=20200423060000_Pandemic-Innovation_BG-EM_&WT.tsrc=BGEM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so fast.

For all you historically correct down to the period plastics pick up sniffers, it turns out you've been saying it wrong all along:

   R0 (pronounced “are-nought”)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tman said:

Here is a good non emotional and also cogent article on the subject. He's neither a scientist nor physician, just a smart successful guy.

I figure one of the hardest things to do is to make make accurate predictions.  If one could have gone back 1,000 years with the knowledge of Guns, Germs, and Steel it would be a vastly different world.

https://www.gatesnotes.com/Health/Pandemic-Innovation?WT.mc_id=20200423060000_Pandemic-Innovation_BG-EM_&WT.tsrc=BGEM

 

That was kinda interesting if you wanna know what Bill thinks about this, but it's not any kind of rigorous analysis of anything.   He just declares that the shutdowns are worth it, just take his word for it.   Then he rambles on about vaccines and treatments and other stuff and makes all kinds of speculative statements that are completely unsupported by anything and some that are contradicted by actual historic events and observations.   Meanwhile, Sweden thinks they'll have herd immunity established in a couple weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, gdecant1 said:

I still can't understand your numbers or formula.  8000 (known positive) x 5000% = 400,000 (estimated  positive).   The only other number that can be used for your death rate estimate formula is xxxx (known deaths) x 5000% = estimated deaths.  What am i missing?

Thanks

GDE -   what the study  concluded is  -  the mortality rate being used by the states is significantly overstated because, while it more or less accurately records Deaths related to CV - it does not include as cases those patients who were not tested, but still had CV.     It is being calculated  as deaths/cases of course.   So, if for example you have 4 deaths and 100 cases - you have a mortality or death rate of 0.04 or 4%.    However, if your cases are understated and should be  higher because you're not counting people who have CV or had it, didn't have any symptoms or just mild ones - and  are walking around and weren't tested and entered into the system, your mortality rate is being overstated.  Based on random testing (I think of  a few thousand people) he study concluded that the number of cases reported by LA County should have been 400,000 and not 8,000 - because they were ignoring most of the people who had CV.  So, cases are believed to be 50 times greater.  If, in the example, the 100 cases were actually 5,000 cases - and deaths remained the same (because they are captured more accurately by hospitals, etc.)  then you have 4 deaths and 5,000 cases - or a mortality rate of  0.0008.  If you round it up to 0.001 -  the mortality rate is a tenth of a percent, not 4 percent.     

 

In New York State, a similar study found that based on 3,000 randomly tested people out shopping  that approximately 14%  had contracted CV at some point. In NYC, as many as 21%.   In other words, the study estimated  that  the state probably had 2.7 million people infected, the great majority of whom were not sick enough to have gotten themselves  tested.   This compared to the states reporting system of 264,000 CV cases.   So - they probably had 10x as many actual cases as those that were tested and were positive.  So their mortality rate was 1/10th what they've been reporting.  If they were reporting 0.04 or 4% - it should have been 0.004 or 4 tenths of a percent .       

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, fortyearspickn said:

GDE -   what the study  concluded is  -  the mortality rate being used by the states is significantly overstated because, while it more or less accurately records Deaths related to CV - it does not include as cases those patients who were not tested, but still had CV.     It is being calculated  as deaths/cases of course.   So, if for example you have 4 deaths and 100 cases - you have a mortality or death rate of 0.04 or 4%.    However, if your cases are understated and should be  higher because you're not counting people who have CV or had it, didn't have any symptoms or just mild ones - and  are walking around and weren't tested and entered into the system, your mortality rate is being overstated.  Based on random testing (I think of  a few thousand people) he study concluded that the number of cases reported by LA County should have been 400,000 and not 8,000 - because they were ignoring most of the people who had CV.  So, cases are believed to be 50 times greater.  If, in the example, the 100 cases were actually 5,000 cases - and deaths remained the same (because they are captured more accurately by hospitals, etc.)  then you have 4 deaths and 5,000 cases - or a mortality rate of  0.0008.  If you round it up to 0.001 -  the mortality rate is a tenth of a percent, not 4 percent.  

In New York State, a similar study found that based on 3,000 randomly tested people out shopping  that approximately 14%  had contracted CV at some point. In NYC, as many as 21%.   In other words, the study estimated  that  the state probably had 2.7 million people infected, the great majority of whom were not sick enough to have gotten themselves  tested.   This compared to the states reporting system of 264,000 CV cases.   So - they probably had 10x as many actual cases as those that were tested and were positive.  So their mortality rate was 1/10th what they've been reporting.  If they were reporting 0.04 or 4% - it should have been 0.004 or 4 tenths of a percent .       

 

(Death/cases) x 100 = mortality rate expressed as a percentage of a known quantity. 

Outside of that you have the following:  if, should, should have been, believed, if again, estimated, probably, if again.

No offense, but let's do the same derived math based on studies, to look at a very similar, very concurrent math problem.  And the "you" is the imperial you, not the you you.

Say you are 63 years old and scheduled to retire on May 15 2020.  Fat 401, got your papers together, all is good, you are looking forward to the same life you are living, without going to work.  Sounds great, works out great, all great on paper.  Statistically.  Mathematically.  No ifs, shoulds, could have beens, no believeds, no estimateds, no probablys.

But on March 15 2020 you wake up and find that your 401k has taken a giant, wet, messy, steaming crap all over itself.

You are maybe 18%, 14% down.  Or you were big in the volatile C funds on the stock markets, and you find yourself 28%, 26 or 30% down.  A fatter distribution across the way less volatile but time based solid F and G government and municipal markets WOULD have had you only 6, 8% down, POSSIBLY liveable, but you didn't do that.

I come along and tell you that the markets WOULD have been great, PROBABLY WOULD be spectacular, ESTIMATED to be fantastic on May 15th.  Will you use that derived math and go ahead and retire, dismissing the hurt you are about to take because of the derived math I gave you?

No you are not going to do that.  You are going to ride it out, because you know math and numbers, statistics and figures, and you don't roll with no derived numbers that are essentially vapor, no sir, not when it comes to your math.

At the same time, that portion of the market that is facing ALMOST certain death from a virus, a group that is asking most other people to ride it out, is in a panic.  They are using the only math they have, not derived numbers about things that may, might, could, possibly. potentially possible outcomes.  You are asking them NOT to ride it out, to go ahead and risk the pain and hurt that you yourself won't risk as you ride it out because after all, that's what the smart money does.

And on top of it, they have the same economic hurt that they have to ride it out to get to wherever they were headed for retirement.  Forget that they want to just get back to the medical life they had before this, forget that math right?

If the numbers used were based on everyone, if we tested everyone and came up with a new set then yes, it would no longer be derived math, it would be the math we have not the math we wish for or agree with or think/believe is right.  That's why people are screaming for tests, seems simple enough but apparently isn't for most.

Ride it out.  Same math concepts, same derived outcomes, same future returns based on past performance.  But in America we only do that for ME.

rct

 

Edited by rct
  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Black Dog said:

 

 Sweden thinks they'll have herd immunity established in a couple weeks.

 

I was watching about this last night.

It looks like the mortality rate is going to end up being the same Worldwide, people cowering in fear will just get it later. 

In the U.S., the reason for a lockdown was to stop the hospitals from being overloaded. That's over, there are empty beds and plenty of ventilators. Now it's just about power.

20% of the deaths in the U.S. have been from nursing homes. Most people get over this with zero problems.

Making the sick and vulnerable quarantine is one thing.

Making everyone quarantine is tyranny.

I've worked every day, have never worn a mask, and won't give up my freedom so easily.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, rct said:

 

(Death/cases) x 100 = mortality rate expressed as a percentage of a known quantity. 

Outside of that you have the following:  if, should, should have been, believed, if again, estimated, probably, if again.

No offense, but let's do the same derived math based on studies, to look at a very similar, very concurrent math problem.  And the "you" is the imperial you, not the you you.

Say you are 63 years old and scheduled to retire on May 15 2020.  Fat 401, got your papers together, all is good, you are looking forward to the same life you are living, without going to work.  Sounds great, works out great, all great on paper.  Statistically.  Mathematically.  No ifs, shoulds, could have beens, no believeds, no estimateds, no probablys.

But on March 15 2020 you wake up and find that your 401k has taken a giant, wet, messy, steaming crap all over itself.

You are maybe 18%, 14% down.  Or you were big in the volatile C funds on the stock markets, and you find yourself 28%, 26 or 30% down.  A fatter distribution across the way less volatile but time based solid F and G government and municipal markets WOULD have had you only 6, 8% down, POSSIBLY liveable, but you didn't do that.

I come along and tell you that the markets WOULD have been great, PROBABLY WOULD be spectacular, ESTIMATED to be fantastic on May 15th.  Will you use that derived math and go ahead and retire, dismissing the hurt you are about to take because of the derived math I gave you?

No you are not going to do that.  You are going to ride it out, because you know math and numbers, statistics and figures, and you don't roll with no derived numbers that are essentially vapor, no sir, not when it comes to your math.

At the same time, that portion of the market that is facing ALMOST certain death from a virus, a group that is asking most other people to ride it out, is in a panic.  They are using the only math they have, not derived numbers about things that may, might, could, possibly. potentially possible outcomes.  You are asking them NOT to ride it out, to go ahead and risk the pain and hurt that you yourself won't risk as you ride it out because after all, that's what the smart money does.

And on top of it, they have the same economic hurt that they have to ride it out to get to wherever they were headed for retirement.  Forget that they want to just get back to the medical life they had before this, forget that math right?

If the numbers used were based on everyone, if we tested everyone and came up with a new set then yes, it would no longer be derived math, it would be the math we have not the math we wish for or agree with or think/believe is right.  That's why people are screaming for tests, seems simple enough but apparently isn't for most.

Ride it out.  Same math concepts, same derived outcomes, same future returns based on past performance.  But in America we only do that for ME.

rct

 

Yep.   We're retired and our Retirement Account took a big hit.   Feel like we're  under House Arrest.  20 years ago, all the doctors in CA went on strike for several weeks. The death rate went way down.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Lord Summerisle said:

In many ways, one could argue what has happened in New York and New Jersey validates the approach Ferguson took. I would say, in other instances, the primary issue is the fundamental difference between the United States and the United Kingdom. Consider the severe outbreak in Albany, Georgia - OK, it happened in a city of 75,000 people, apparently brought there by people visiting (ironically enough, for a funeral), but it is a geographically remote city. My point: "one size fits all" distancing may have been vital for the UK, it may have been vital for some huge American cities, and there may have been better (or more flexible) containment strategies for other parts of the US.

What happened in New York and New Jersey is not a mystery.   Try this.  Make a list of international air travel hubs and cross reference it with this list (choose "by state"):

 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-cases.amp.html

See the pattern? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I have been pointing out is that the models were wrong and that the actions taken for containment don't seem to be working and are causing a lot of harm.   Even though the model did not undergo formal peer review it was seriously questioned in real time (and I wasn't calling for peer review, I was just pointing out that it was not done).    When you start to get actual data, not models, that tell you that your mitigation tactics aren't working the way you thought they would then you need to change your tactics, not double down.   Now we know the virus has been in the US for much longer than we thought.  We also are getting data that supports what many public health experts thought, which is that it has been widespread for a long time.  The mortality is at least ten fold less than was thought.  The at risk population for bad outcome is now very well known.  Based on all that information we should be changing our response, not doubling down.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For all those who think "we" are "flattening the curve", consider this:  For many, many years we have known that in the US, the cold/Flu season starts in the fall, peaks somewhere between January-March and then rapidly falls away in April-May.  That's what happens with all respiratory viruses.   The exact same thing is happening with this virus.  What a surprise.  

kuOw6f8l.gif

Edited by Black Dog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Black Dog, for continuing to peel  the onion.  We'll never hear any politician on either side suggest the virus would have lessened just like the flu, without all the LockDowns.    

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

• Some nonessential Georgia businesses — including hair salons, tattoo parlors and bowling alleys — are reopening on Friday, despite a statewide increase in coronavirus deaths.

Since when are bowling alleys considered to be nonessential?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...