Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickCommenter View Post
Your math may be way off.
Right now, using your figures but not your solution: 140,000 deaths divided by 3,600,000 cases yields a .38% (not 3.8%)
BTW I think you would need to have have 35,000,000 cases (not 350,000,000) with 145,000 deaths to yield .04% (CDC once said that just 1 in 10 cases were being detected so this led to this sort of calculation).
(FWIW, I just divide the number of deaths by the number of known cases ...and then move the decimal one place to the right to get a percentage)
I know. The math is pretty simple but the poster I corrected somehow completely screwed it up:
“100 people in a community are diagnosed with the same disease; subsequently 9 of them die from the effects of the disease. The CFR at this point in time, therefore, would be 9%.”
So, 9 divided by 100 = .09 Move the decimal over one to the right and you’ve got 9%
Move the decimal one place over and you have .9%. You need to move the decimal two places over (hundreds) to get 9%. Your math is wrong. 140,000 is 3.89% of 3,600,000.
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickCommenter View Post
Your math may be way off.
Right now, using your figures but not your solution: 140,000 deaths divided by 3,600,000 cases yields a .38% (not 3.8%)
BTW I think you would need to have have 35,000,000 cases (not 350,000,000) with 145,000 deaths to yield .04% (CDC once said that just 1 in 10 cases were being detected so this led to this sort of calculation).
(FWIW, I just divide the number of deaths by the number of known cases ...and then move the decimal one place to the right to get a percentage)
I know. The math is pretty simple but the poster I corrected somehow completely screwed it up:
“100 people in a community are diagnosed with the same disease; subsequently 9 of them die from the effects of the disease. The CFR at this point in time, therefore, would be 9%.”
So, 9 divided by 100 = .09 Move the decimal over one to the right and you’ve got 9%
The article I read was factoring Covid deaths without underlying conditions and under 65 yo.
Either way just keep wearing a mask and wash your hands! But also don’t live life like it’s a death sentence if you get it.
Out of curiosity do you have link to said article? While no question someones chances of dying are much greater if they are older and/or have no underlying conditions, I haven't seen anything measuring deaths form COVID for those under 65 with no underlying conditions to cases from COVID under 65 with no underlying conditions.
The irony is that while the CFR is indeed around 3.8%, the IFR could be around .38% if you assume no unaccounted for deaths due to Covid-19 and that 10x as many people have been affected but were asymptomatic or didn't get tested.
Out of curiosity do you have link to said article? While no question someones chances of dying are much greater if they are older and/or have no underlying conditions, I haven't seen anything measuring deaths form COVID for those under 65 with no underlying conditions to cases from COVID under 65 with no underlying conditions.
Whoever is reporting near 100% positive is reporting it the way they have been instructed to, by someone for some reason. We'd have to find out who told them to do it that way or why they thought they were supposed to do it that way. Speculation could range from malicious to benign. While there could be some trying to misrepresent data to further an agenda, my guess is that reporting involves more than simply counting positive or negative and some places just have resource constraints. If a lab just doesn't have the manpower to keep up with entering data on 1000 cases per day, they might be forced to focus only on the 100 cases per day that are positive.
Oh, got it. Must be some kind of Deep State operation. Of course they're lousy at it because such obviously incorrect numbers jump off the page screaming "mistake' to anyone with even the most minimal understanding of the subject.
Oh, got it. Must be some kind of Deep State operation. Of course they're lousy at it because such obviously incorrect numbers jump off the page screaming "mistake' to anyone with even the most minimal understanding of the subject.
Deep State? When I clearly said my guess it is simply under-resourced labs trying to get the job done as best they can? Anything to attack, I guess...
While the demographics have changed and are now skewing younger, one thing is certain regardless on how you view this virus. Yesterday there were 77,000 new cases diagnosed. Looking at the daily cases of influenza for the '19 - '20 flu season there were 13 weeks of over 60K cases. Weekly chart attached. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weekl...regt_cl27.html.
Yesterday alone there were 77K cases and that number is DAILY, not weekly.
The transmission of the virus is much greater than the flu and by extension the greater the chance for infection of others.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
