March Madness and Covid-19

[sheepdogs1]

It means they are taking this way more seriously than you are, and way more seriously than they were 6 days ago. Btw, what were the errors in the data in the link I posted?

Could and will are two different concepts and we know this. We really won't know til after the smoke has been inhaled. When people claim they are cancer free after receiving treatment it is their belief it will always be that way, understandably so, but they really do not know. Things need to be tempered and understood for what it is versus what we want it to be. Generally speaking, "no one wants to die" yet it is inevitable for all of us. Wanting has its place and that place needs to be found by all.

 

[MJSooner]

Huge pile of data? lol, get out of here. We have less than 3 months of data, and that data is spotty, government influenced (not just the US), and incomplete.

How can you calculate mortality rates when we have NO idea how many un-diagnosed infected people we have? Guess? Even an educated guess is still a guess. With the numbers as low as they are, if we're off even a little bit that could have a HUGE affect on calculation. I guarantee a year from now, or 5 years from now, if this thing is still around, we'll have a much better idea of the true mortality rate, and it'll be substantially different than what is being reported now. Heck, what is being reported now varies largely from source to source.

I've stated in this thread and elsewhere, I do anticipate our mortality rates wil come down as more tests are conducted. However, I don't agree that the stats aren't accurate just because it is short term.

Tying it into sports, if you look at an entire season or career for a player, there stats might be different on a longer term basis, but it doesn't mean the shorter time period is false. If I said that Buddy sucked at 3PT shooting his freshman year, that is a true statement as he shot 24%. He did improve throughout his career. But just because he shot 46% as a senior, doesn't make my statement about his freshman year false, it just improves his overall percentage for his career as you average it out.

It's the same way with the virus. The numbers today are accurate. Today. They may change over a longer period of time, but doesn't make the current numbers false and still shows the seriousness of the virus. They may or may not improve dramatically. Improvement may happen, but it is not going to change the base case. Back to the sports analogy, Rashad Odomes might improve in free throws, but he isn't going to be Hollis Price. He might go from 45% to 65%, but he will never be a 91% shooter his senior year. He will still be a less than average shooter.

I also don't buy the line of the assumption I have seen repeatedly that you can't give accurate stats because we have no idea how many people may have this and haven't been tested or go to the doctor, but state the flu statistics are accurate. You think every person that gets flu symptoms goes to the doctor and gets a flu test? They do not.

 

[MJSooner]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...IyGf61_ujNVNWhgxeujt1dUmsgWOWva1gU0NoQXylov7Y

The Surgeon General has spoken.

Lol, I see he has lots of supporting data. He’s simply not telling the truth, the data has spoken.

This "broad" statement actually has some truth to it. His problem is in his quote or in the story, there is no data or specifics to back it up.

What is a "young adult"? Is it 15 yrs, 19 yrs, 24 yrs old? The statistics from the CDC, which I may have cited much earlier in this thread, show the data supports that children under 10 have a MUCH lower contraction and death rate to COVID-19 than common influenza. For those 10-19 it is about equal or slightly less, and the total number of cases for those under 19 is only 2.4% of the global cases.

But again, I thought it was stated the data isn't accurate or you can't say any numbers are real because it is only three months? It is okay to disagree with something or have an opinion and means more with consistency. I don't always agree with sheepdogs or steve and we have debated those opinions, but I know their stance because they are consistent.

 

[steverocks35]

I've stated in this thread and elsewhere, I do anticipate our mortality rates wil come down as more tests are conducted. However, I don't agree that the stats aren't accurate just because it is short term.

Tying it into sports, if you look at an entire season or career for a player, there stats might be different on a longer term basis, but it doesn't mean the shorter time period is false. If I said that Buddy sucked at 3PT shooting his freshman year, that is a true statement as he shot 24%. He did improve throughout his career. But just because he shot 46% as a senior, doesn't make my statement about his freshman year false, it just improves his overall percentage for his career as you average it out.

It's the same way with the virus. The numbers today are accurate. Today. They may change over a longer period of time, but doesn't make the current numbers false and still shows the seriousness of the virus. They may or may not improve dramatically. Improvement may happen, but it is not going to change the base case. Back to the sports analogy, Rashad Odomes might improve in free throws, but he isn't going to be Hollis Price. He might go from 45% to 65%, but he will never be a 91% shooter his senior year. He will still be a less than average shooter.

I also don't buy the line of the assumption I have seen repeatedly that you can't give accurate stats because we have no idea how many people may have this and haven't been tested or go to the doctor, but state the flu statistics are accurate. You think every person that gets flu symptoms goes to the doctor and gets a flu test? They do not.

It doesn’t even have to do with timeframe, it has to do with statistically significant numbers. If you get those numbers in 5 minutes or 5 years, as long as you have a large enough data set, you can make statistical calculations.

 

[MJSooner]

It doesn’t even have to do with timeframe, it has to do with statistically significant numbers. If you get those numbers in 5 minutes or 5 years, as long as you have a large enough data set, you can make statistical calculations.

True and good point.

 

[WTSooner]

But again, I thought it was stated the data isn't accurate or you can't say any numbers are real because it is only three months? It is okay to disagree with something or have an opinion and means more with consistency. I don't always agree with sheepdogs or steve and we have debated those opinions, but I know their stance because they are consistent.

I haven't said every number is wrong. I'm basically talking about the mortality rate. Number of deaths? Accurate. Number of confirmed cases? Probably accurate. But I think it's WAY too early to know how many infected we have. If the number of infected goes up, and the number of deaths does not, or doesn't increase at the same rate, the mortality rate starts dropping. And when you are dealing with numbers as small as we are, it doesn't take much of a chance in the number of infected, without a change in deaths, to start seeing a HUGE drop in that percentage. It's math. Basic math even. I'm arguing that we don't have an accurate number for the denominator.

 

[sheepdogs1]

It doesn’t even have to do with timeframe, it has to do with statistically significant numbers. If you get those numbers in 5 minutes or 5 years, as long as you have a large enough data set, you can make statistical calculations.

A question to be asked is the data set representative though. Representation doesn't necessarily follow a timeline.

 

[steverocks35]

A question to be asked is the data set representative though. Representation doesn't necessarily follow a timeline.

It’s the same virus all over the world, there are a few variables, the main one being “how flat is the curve?” and so far our curve is very much not flat, it looks like Italy’s curve, so yeah it’s representative.

 

[sheepdogs1]

It’s the same virus all over the world, there are a few variables, the main one being “how flat is the curve?” and so far our curve is very much not flat, it looks like Italy’s curve, so yeah it’s representative.

But each country shows no "flat curve." Even South Korea, for example, had a bell curve, so the outcome has yet to be determined which country's bell curve will be of a prolonged widespread nature versus which one will be a tight spread.

 

[MJSooner]

I haven't said every number is wrong. I'm basically talking about the mortality rate. Number of deaths? Accurate. Number of confirmed cases? Probably accurate. But I think it's WAY too early to know how many infected we have. If the number of infected goes up, and the number of deaths does not, or doesn't increase at the same rate, the mortality rate starts dropping. And when you are dealing with numbers as small as we are, it doesn't take much of a chance in the number of infected, without a change in deaths, to start seeing a HUGE drop in that percentage. It's math. Basic math even. I'm arguing that we don't have an accurate number for the denominator.

I actually think you are both correct.

Steve is right in the fact we have data, a large sampling, and the numbers accurate.

I also agree with you our mortality rates will go down as we get more tests conducted and we see more cases.

By the way, our mortality rates are some of the lowest globally for countries with significant cases at 1.74%. That is much lower than the global rate of 3.9%.

 

[MJSooner]

It’s the same virus all over the world, there are a few variables, the main one being “how flat is the curve?” and so far our curve is very much not flat, it looks like Italy’s curve, so yeah it’s representative.

It resembles Italy's in the number of cases, not deaths.

As you know, that is also what has the crisis team worried. If it continues the same trajectory as Italy, it will overload the healthcare system. As Dr. Fauci said today, our actions today won't be accurately impactful to the numbers until a couple of weeks in the future.

 

[sheepdogs1]

I actually think you are both correct.

Steve is right in the fact we have data, a large sampling, and the numbers accurate.

I also agree with you our mortality rates will go down as we get more tests conducted and we see more cases.

By the way, our mortality rates are some of the lowest globally for countries with significant cases at 1.74%. That is much lower than the global rate of 3.9%.

And since the number of deaths is more widely known than the number of people infected the rate has to be lower. We just do not know what it is. We do not know. You have tried to make this apparent times over.

 

[steverocks35]

A question to be asked is the data set representative though. Representation doesn't necessarily follow a timeline.

And since the number of deaths is more widely known than the number of people infected the rate has to be lower. We just do not know what it is. We do not know. You have tried to make this apparent times over.

The link I posted addressed this, you should check it out.

 

[sheepdogs1]

The link I posted addressed this, you should check it out.

Link pusher! What i really need is tasty waves and some cool buds. You could forget the waves. I'm not a big fan of saltwater up the nasal passages.

 

[sheepdogs1]

Now WHO is stating that airborne transmission is to be something of concern. Seems like another entity which believes sneezing and coughing is the primary concern as compared to breathing the air around us, but now the virus can possibly stay in the air for a period of time such that direct inhaling of an another's cough and sneeze is not the only airborne culprit.

And a novel idea to treat a novel virus.

https://www.sciencealert.com/a-clas...-help-protect-against-coronavirus-experts-say

 

[coolm]

the CDC guy who went on national TV last night said that a 6 foot "plume" wasn't large enough. I think that 6 foot is based on aerosol dispersion of water droplets and is a matter of physics so not sure why he said it wasn't far enough.

 

[steverocks35]

the CDC guy who went on national TV last night said that a 6 foot "plume" wasn't large enough. I think that 6 foot is based on aerosol dispersion of water droplets and is a matter of physics so not sure why he said it wasn't far enough.

Probably because they now think it could be airborne

 

[BoulderSooner]

But you’re assuming that we aren’t really at risk when we know that this virus is at minimum 8 times more lethal than seasonal flu for even healthy people. And it’s impossible to “build a wall” around all people with underlying issues. It’s just not possible.

this is simply not true

 

[BoulderSooner]

We have a really good idea of the mortality rates because we already have a huge pile of data. The sample size is plenty large enough because there have been thousands of cases around the world. In fact, we can use the mortality rate to estimate the number of cases in a region. Now, if you don’t believe the data, let us know why you don’t believe it. Did you find errors in the link I posted? If so, please point the errors out.

the huge majority of those tested globally are those that are sick or very sick

 

[BoulderSooner]

Probably because they now think it could be airborne

in which case the social distance thing is basicly pointless .. as long as most are still going to work buying food /gas ect ..