That rate of 2-3% is correct as far as the way it is calculated. However like the mean of a model run, it's heavily skewed by one or two members. In this case it's the people over 60 and mostly over 70 that skews the mean.
-
Hello, please take a minute to check out our awesome content, contributed by the wonderful members of our community. We hope you'll add your own thoughts and opinions by making a free account!
Coronavirus (Stay on Topic)
- Thread starter GaWx
- Start date
- Status
That rate of 2-3% is correct as far as the way it is calculated. However like the mean of a model run, it's heavily skewed by one or two members. In this case it's the people over 60 and mostly over 70 that skews the mean.
Downeastnc
Member
They are still going to work and businesses are open etc.....the government just strongly suggest only absolutely essential travel be done locally and requires proof of need for travel outside of your local area. They also suggest no contact between people and only single members of families going to stores etc. Any businesses that can shut down or streamline are asked to do so....its not like they are all confined to their homes. Though if you had the means to be a home body for a couple of weeks its a good idea.
YetAnotherRDUGuy
Member
Alright. So you and I are agreed that 2-3% is probably too high. (I think)
And my .5% mortality rate for the adult population was too high?
If so, what do you think the true mortality rate might be, and why do you think .5% is too high?
Anyone with any reliable statistics on the number of cases that most likely go unreported? Like 3X, 5X, or 10X the reported cases? Just curious...
Downeastnc
Member
Found this on one of the Reddit threads about Italy this is basically were most nations in Europe and probably the US are headed over the next few weeks, though to be really effective they should do it now...people can still go to work and grocery stores are still open in Italy but they are not suppose to travel outside of their town/state not sure which, without permission though it would be impossible to enforce this.....so really this relies on the people to do what is right and realize that not doing these measures could result in the deaths of thousands of fellow citizens in a short amount of time. They are also saying that once hospitals ICU are full that people will die from other causes as well as there wont be ICU rooms available for heart problems, strokes, other illnesses, etc....
"The decree provides for banning all public events, closing cinemas, theatres, gyms, discos and pubs, funerals, weddings and all sport events, including Serie A matches. All schools and universities will remain closed until 3 April."
"The decree provides for banning all public events, closing cinemas, theatres, gyms, discos and pubs, funerals, weddings and all sport events, including Serie A matches. All schools and universities will remain closed until 3 April."
Last edited:
I think it could vary widely. If it gets into a very elderly populated country such as with Italy it could be 4-5%, but if it gets into a country where it mainly affects people under 50, it may be less than 0.1%. The ability to keep those over 60 years old out of public places and away from grandkids until this all blows over the better off we will be.
I know onboard the cruise ship 60% were asymptomatic. There was also a town in Italy that showed the same numbers. A post I've read about the 1000 member church were the outbreak started in SK had like a 30% asymptomatic rate. Whether or not that number continues to the general public, I haven't seen anything proving anything.
YetAnotherRDUGuy
Member
I hope you're right.
But right now it's .4% for those between 40-49. It doesn't get below .1% until ages 0-9.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/
Last edited:
That is from China. I haven't seen if it was updated, but a day or so ago Italy was reporting 0 deaths under 50 and SK was close, but I think there was a few deaths under 50. There may be some from other countries not named Iran, but I don't know.
YetAnotherRDUGuy
Member
Can you give a link to the data you're looking at, just to make sure you and I are comparing the same numbers?
Webberweather53
Meteorologist
Did the media whip Italy up into a frenzy and cause them to lock down the country? China? Others?
Webberweather53
Meteorologist
You do realize that countries like China and South Korea with declining numbers or rates of increase in coronavirus cases had to basically shut down most of or the entire country just to contain the spread of the virus? That's most certainly not just hype or mass hysteria...
Denial is a powerful and dangerous coping mechanism.
I have come to the conclusion that people either view this is potentially disruptive virus or they think it's overblown. And there's really not going to be a way to move people off of their positions.
Personally, I don't care how people are reacting or how the media is reacting. What I care about is the data that shows the potential for rapid spread and the fact that it is a new virus. And I care about how governments around the world are reacting in places where it is spreading rapidly.
Those things are all red flags and all indicate the potential for significant disruptions to daily life here. There are also significant economic issues that are developing. Those are real, not whipped up fiction. So, if folks want to shrug those things off as overblown and no big deal, that's fine, as everyone has the right to feel how they feel.
I guess when school systems close and neighborhoods and communities get locked down for a time and products are unavailable while supply chains are down, maybe there will start to be concern. Because there's a lot more going on than just the mortality rate.
Personally, I don't care how people are reacting or how the media is reacting. What I care about is the data that shows the potential for rapid spread and the fact that it is a new virus. And I care about how governments around the world are reacting in places where it is spreading rapidly.
Those things are all red flags and all indicate the potential for significant disruptions to daily life here. There are also significant economic issues that are developing. Those are real, not whipped up fiction. So, if folks want to shrug those things off as overblown and no big deal, that's fine, as everyone has the right to feel how they feel.
I guess when school systems close and neighborhoods and communities get locked down for a time and products are unavailable while supply chains are down, maybe there will start to be concern. Because there's a lot more going on than just the mortality rate.
Look, I respect all of you and your opinions and approach this. I apologize if I seem snarky. I don't mean to be. I'm not going to post my views on this anymore because it's pointless and because I am not trying to ruffle feathers. Hopefully, it stops spreading here and hopefully it won't be a big deal. I pray that is the case.
Jon
Member
Everyone trying to figure out the mortality data, it’s futile right now.
We need more data.
We need more data not skewed by one nursing home (with advanced age or very old patients) getting impacted.
We need more testing!
For instance, taking away the US nursing home deaths in Washington (just say taking away Washington deaths for ease)
702 cases
27 deaths (-23 Washington)
4 deaths out of 702 cases.
0.56%
Is this a hint that the true mortality rate will be lower than the near 4% rate in the US? Maybe. But that’s all you can use it for, a hint. We still need thousands of cases to figure out how this goes. Using the nursing home numbers skews the data, but without them it also skews the data. So we can’t say “the real mortality rate is 0.56%” because we are ignoring important data. What if every nursing home is affected?
So my advice is it’s likely lower, but we simply don’t know and that’s all you can take away from it. It’s likely lower, but likely not extremely lower (say <0.1%).. 0.9% is still 9x more mortality than the average flu rates.
We need more data.
We need more data not skewed by one nursing home (with advanced age or very old patients) getting impacted.
We need more testing!
For instance, taking away the US nursing home deaths in Washington (just say taking away Washington deaths for ease)
702 cases
27 deaths (-23 Washington)
4 deaths out of 702 cases.
0.56%
Is this a hint that the true mortality rate will be lower than the near 4% rate in the US? Maybe. But that’s all you can use it for, a hint. We still need thousands of cases to figure out how this goes. Using the nursing home numbers skews the data, but without them it also skews the data. So we can’t say “the real mortality rate is 0.56%” because we are ignoring important data. What if every nursing home is affected?
So my advice is it’s likely lower, but we simply don’t know and that’s all you can take away from it. It’s likely lower, but likely not extremely lower (say <0.1%).. 0.9% is still 9x more mortality than the average flu rates.
Webberweather53
Meteorologist
iT iS jUsT liKe tHe fLu
Jon
Member
We have a huge head start on Italy and I fear our government simply isn’t doing enough. Where will we be in 11 days?
Source:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Webberweather53
Meteorologist
Not good bob.
- Status