Coronavirus Craziness

[vegetariantaxidermy]

How are you gettin' 5%?

Goin' solely with total deaths (ultimately, the only number that really matters), I get: .0008

Take 2 million then. 10% would be 200K. 1% would be 20K. 3% would be 60K. So I suppose it would be about 3%, not 5.
I can't work it out exactly. Forgotten how

I used an on-line percentage calulator. I asked, what percentage of 8 billion is 64,549. The answer is .0008%.

Now, sure we can focus on various (sub)populations, like Italy, and you'll get 3 or 7 or 10%. But that percentage is misleading cuz dumb folks (not you, veg) think it applies across the board (which it doesn't).

In the end, the true global measure of this virus is total (or total current) deaths as a percentage of total population.

The most logical percentage would be percentage of deaths of those infected. Not percentage of the entire world population. That's just silly, unless the whole population has been infected.

[henry quirk]

Take 2 million then. 10% would be 200K. 1% would be 20K. 3% would be 60K. So I suppose it would be about 3%, not 5.
I can't work it out exactly. Forgotten how

I used an on-line percentage calulator. I asked, what percentage of 8 billion is 64,549. The answer is .0008%.

Now, sure we can focus on various (sub)populations, like Italy, and you'll get 3 or 7 or 10%. But that percentage is misleading cuz dumb folks (not you, veg) think it applies across the board (which it doesn't).

In the end, the true global measure of this virus is total (or total current) deaths as a percentage of total population.

The most logical percentage would be percentage of deaths of those infected. Not percentage of the entire world population. That's just silly, unless the whole population has been infected.

Workin' with just deaths among the infected you get 5% but this too is misleading. We don't know how many folks are actually, or were actually, infected. Like Avery sez in his piece...

if we have three deaths and observed ten cases, then the case fatality rate is 30% (3/10=0.3 or 30%). If, however, there were actually 300 cases, and only 10 were observed and reported, ascertainment bias has led us to underestimate the cases and overestimate the case fatality rate, which is actually 1% (3/300=0.01 or 1%).

That's why I say the true global measure of this virus is total (or total current) deaths as a percentage of total population.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Bacterial meningits is far scarier and kills about 170k people per year with at least a 50 % death rate but even those who survive it are often horribly disfigured. But then, it's only children and young people who are most at risk so no one cares all that much. Fuck. No wonder young people hate 'boomers' so much.

[attofishpi]

Take 2 million then. 10% would be 200K. 1% would be 20K. 3% would be 60K. So I suppose it would be about 3%, not 5.
I can't work it out exactly. Forgotten how

I used an on-line percentage calulator. I asked, what percentage of 8 billion is 64,549. The answer is .0008%.

Now, sure we can focus on various (sub)populations, like Italy, and you'll get 3 or 7 or 10%. But that percentage is misleading cuz dumb folks (not you, veg) think it applies across the board (which it doesn't).

In the end, the true global measure of this virus is total (or total current) deaths as a percentage of total population.

The most logical percentage would be percentage of deaths of those infected. Not percentage of the entire world population. That's just silly, unless the whole population has been infected.

The death rate will increase as equipment resources such as ventilators and doctors\nurses start to run out.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I used an on-line percentage calulator. I asked, what percentage of 8 billion is 64,549. The answer is .0008%.

Now, sure we can focus on various (sub)populations, like Italy, and you'll get 3 or 7 or 10%. But that percentage is misleading cuz dumb folks (not you, veg) think it applies across the board (which it doesn't).

In the end, the true global measure of this virus is total (or total current) deaths as a percentage of total population.

The most logical percentage would be percentage of deaths of those infected. Not percentage of the entire world population. That's just silly, unless the whole population has been infected.

The death rate will increase as equipment resources such as ventilators and doctors\nurses start to run out.

There are a few silver linings though; celebrities seem to be particularly miserable
I don't know about elsewhere, but here everything is very calm and peaceful. People are being nice to each other, cooking, sharing recipes online, helping each other, spending time with their children--just living simply. Neo-liberal govts. are turning socialist
Fascinating time in human history. Who knows where it will lead to?

[attofishpi]

The most logical percentage would be percentage of deaths of those infected. Not percentage of the entire world population. That's just silly, unless the whole population has been infected.

The death rate will increase as equipment resources such as ventilators and doctors\nurses start to run out.

There are a few silver linings though; celebrities seem to be particularly miserable
I don't know about elsewhere, but here everything is very calm and peaceful. People are being nice to each other, cooking, sharing recipes online, helping each other, spending time with their children--just living simply. Neo-liberal govts. are turning socialist
Fascinating time in human history. Who knows where it will lead to?

Sure, and Greta Thunberg got her wish - seems Gaia agreed with her.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

The death rate will increase as equipment resources such as ventilators and doctors\nurses start to run out.

There are a few silver linings though; celebrities seem to be particularly miserable
I don't know about elsewhere, but here everything is very calm and peaceful. People are being nice to each other, cooking, sharing recipes online, helping each other, spending time with their children--just living simply. Neo-liberal govts. are turning socialist
Fascinating time in human history. Who knows where it will lead to?

Sure, and Greta Thunberg got her wish - seems Gaia agreed with her.

Early days. It's impossible to predict what could happen. Perhaps it will just fizzle out and things will get right back to the way they were. Who knows?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I used an on-line percentage calulator. I asked, what percentage of 8 billion is 64,549. The answer is .0008%.

Now, sure we can focus on various (sub)populations, like Italy, and you'll get 3 or 7 or 10%. But that percentage is misleading cuz dumb folks (not you, veg) think it applies across the board (which it doesn't).

In the end, the true global measure of this virus is total (or total current) deaths as a percentage of total population.

The most logical percentage would be percentage of deaths of those infected. Not percentage of the entire world population. That's just silly, unless the whole population has been infected.

Workin' with just deaths among the infected you get 5% but this too is misleading. We don't know how many folks are actually, or were actually, infected. Like Avery sez in his piece...

if we have three deaths and observed ten cases, then the case fatality rate is 30% (3/10=0.3 or 30%). If, however, there were actually 300 cases, and only 10 were observed and reported, ascertainment bias has led us to underestimate the cases and overestimate the case fatality rate, which is actually 1% (3/300=0.01 or 1%).

That's why I say the true global measure of this virus is total (or total current) deaths as a percentage of total population.

Overall I think it could end up being less than 1 percent mortality rate. At the moment here it stands at .1 % death rate of those infected (1 elderly person with major heart problems), and .2 per million of the population. There could be many who's symptoms are so mild that they haven't been tested, making the death rate even lower. Will people look back and wonder if it was worth it?

[commonsense]

That's why I say the true global measure of this virus is total (or total current) deaths as a percentage of total population.

Thanks, HQ, for putting the mortality rate into perspective.

Admittedly I had fallen into the trap of starting with the morbidity to determine the mortality. While morbidity will continue to be gr try ossly underestimated until testing catches up, world and national population estimates tend to be accepted as being rather stable.

But it’s an easy trap to be caught up in. The media consistently flashes morbidity numbers instead of population numbers.

[FlashDangerpants]

That's why I say the true global measure of this virus is total (or total current) deaths as a percentage of total population.

Thanks, HQ, for putting the mortality rate into perspective.

That's not the mortality rate for a disease though. By the same analysis AIDS had a mortality rate of nought point nought nough nought something. You should be able to see a problem with Henry's methodology.

[Sculptor]

Hey everyone, don't listen to the experts the virologists\epidemiologists that the virus is most likely to have come from another species of animal - listen to Sculptor - he's all over this shit.
According to Sculptor swine flu didn't come from swine, it mutated within a policeman that lived just around the corner from him.

I'm not saying that.
A man can give a pig virus as much as a pig can give one to a man; rarely.
Cross species transmission has no particular relevance to mutation, since any novel mutations that are successful in a foreign species are not more likely to cross but LESS likely.
Every year the flu virus mutates in humans far more than any cross species transmissions.
It has very little to do with zoonosis that the vaccine is continually chasing new strains.
You could kill all the animals you like; we'd still get colds and flu, and the more we associate and pack ourselves into crowed trains, busses and planes the more we shall spread these viruses the world over.
Blame a pig if you want. But there is no solution here.
It's the human way of life that is principally to blame; mass travel and overcrowding in cities.

Sure we can agree that viruses mutate within the host, but as far as I am aware, completely new viruses within a man - don't just ping into existence within a man

Wrong.
The source of all viruses originate in hosts, as they are modifications of the most DNA/RNA complex. Loose DNA is all around us, and that pretty much make Viruses the most common and numerous "living things". In some respects they do not even classify as living things since they can have no independent life cycle or reproduction without their host or closely genetically similar host.
The fact is that there is nothing at all special about Wuhan meat market. Most viruses are caught whilst packed into public transport, or at the cinema, theatre of restaurant.
Anywhere people congregate there is a chance of infection.
If viruses had to rely on cross species transmission we would be basically disease free most of the time.

[attofishpi]

I'm not saying that.
A man can give a pig virus as much as a pig can give one to a man; rarely.
Cross species transmission has no particular relevance to mutation, since any novel mutations that are successful in a foreign species are not more likely to cross but LESS likely.
Every year the flu virus mutates in humans far more than any cross species transmissions.
It has very little to do with zoonosis that the vaccine is continually chasing new strains.
You could kill all the animals you like; we'd still get colds and flu, and the more we associate and pack ourselves into crowed trains, busses and planes the more we shall spread these viruses the world over.
Blame a pig if you want. But there is no solution here.
It's the human way of life that is principally to blame; mass travel and overcrowding in cities.

Sure we can agree that viruses mutate within the host, but as far as I am aware, completely new viruses within a man - don't just ping into existence within a man

Wrong.
The source of all viruses originate in hosts, as they are modifications of the most DNA/RNA complex. Loose DNA is all around us, and that pretty much make Viruses the most common and numerous "living things". In some respects they do not even classify as living things since they can have no independent life cycle or reproduction without their host or closely genetically similar host.
The fact is that there is nothing at all special about Wuhan meat market. Most viruses are caught whilst packed into public transport, or at the cinema, theatre of restaurant.
Anywhere people congregate there is a chance of infection.
If viruses had to rely on cross species transmission we would be basically disease free most of the time.

You are a muppet.

I am talking about viruses that CAUSE the host species health issues. Viruses don't cause an issue within the host species until they first go zoonotic, modify (possibly by further zoonoses) and are reintroduced to the host species again - it is then that things can get really fucked up.

You are going against ALL EXPERT accounts I have read and seen regarding the likely cause of the covid-19 virus to humans.


WHY did you skip this bit?

Apparently the common cold is likely to have come from birds around 200 years ago:-
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 073115.htm

A virus that causes cold-like symptoms in humans originated in birds and may have crossed the species barrier around 200 years ago, according to a new article published in the Journal of General Virology. Scientists hope their findings will help us understand how potentially deadly viruses emerge in humans.

NOB.

[commonsense]

That's why I say the true global measure of this virus is total (or total current) deaths as a percentage of total population.

Thanks, HQ, for putting the mortality rate into perspective.

That's not the mortality rate for a disease though. By the same analysis AIDS had a mortality rate of nought point nought nough nought something. You should be able to see a problem with Henry's methodology.

The mortality rate for a disease is disease/population expressed per one thousand individuals.

[attofishpi]

Thanks, HQ, for putting the mortality rate into perspective.

That's not the mortality rate for a disease though. By the same analysis AIDS had a mortality rate of nought point nought nough nought something. You should be able to see a problem with Henry's methodology.

The mortality rate for a disease is disease/population expressed per one thousand individuals.

I think you missed a d

[attofishpi]

The covid olympics - I thought the US would do well at this olympics - such an unstructured "democracy"

Confirmed Cases by Country/Region/Sovereignty
324,052 US
130,759 Spain
128,948 Italy
98,765 Germany
90,864 France
82,602 China
58,226 Iran
48,406 United Kingdom
27,069 Turkey
21,100 Switzerland
19,691 Belgium
17,953 Netherlands
14,493 Canada
12,051 Austria
11,278 Portugal