This message was self-deleted by its author

[OhNo-Really]

This message was self-deleted by its author (OhNo-Really) on Sat Dec 10, 2022, 08:40 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[Botany]

1. Italy's #s as of today

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/live-blog/coronavirus-updates-live-u-s-europe-brace-infection-spread-italy-n1153801

The coronavirus outbreak has continued to rattle Italy, which extended the containment measures already in place in northern regions to the entire country, which has confirmed more than 10,140 cases. The death toll in the country stands at more than 630 people.

630/10,140 = .0621 or 6.2% Now we don't know about the age and or health of the populations that got
the disease and what kind of medical help they got or ????

[Jarqui]

2. There was an Italian doctor talking about how the young seemed to get off

light but now, they're starting to see them come in. He described it like the younger immune systems were just taking longer to break down. So maybe that is what is driving it up to 17% ??

Maybe it's mutated again.

Who knows?

[OhNo-Really]

4. Yes. I linked his report above.

Thank goodness Italy 🇮🇹 is sharing the truth.

[euphorb]

3. A lot depends on what the death rate is a percentage of.

Is it percentage of people infected, percentage of people hospitalized, or percentage of people admitted to intensive care? Unless you know what basis a report is based on (and different places may sue different methodologies), it's hard to draw conclusions. And it also depends on the pace of testing. If a lot of people who are infected, but are not sick enough to seek medical help, the death rate (at least as a percentage of people infected) will seem to be higher than it actually is.

[OhNo-Really]

7. I think it is number of cases "reported"

Which I think would mean tested positive

You are right though. We just can’t seem to get a clear picture for many reasons.

People in Italy with comorbidity aren’t being treated and left to die because health care systems are overwhelmed according to an Italian doctor’s report

Heart breaking really

[Jim__]

5. My first question would be are the new cases able to get treatment from Italy's overwhelmed ...

... hospitals.

[coti]

6. No, dividing new deaths by new cases is improper, you're not getting the number

you think you are with that.

[OhNo-Really]

8. Will you teach us how you do the math pls?

Thank you

[coti]

9. Just leave it at total confirmed deaths divided by total confirmed cases,

which is about 6% at the moment, in Italy. That does seem a high outlier and implies they're not able to count all of their cases, or some other confounding variable making a higher percentage of deaths there.

[PSPS]

10. Sorry, wrong.

"Total confirmed cases" is not the same as "total cases." Far too few people have been tested to get any kind of accurate mortality rate.

[coti]

11. OK, you can also add in the cases we don't know about, then. nt

[PSPS]

13. Exactly. Is it 1,000? 10,000? 100,000? We don't know but all would give a smaller mortality rate

[Turin_C3PO]

14. It might be lower

than it currently is but every expert I trust is insisting it will be much higher than the flu. And more people could get it because it appears to be more contagious. It’s possible but not likely that we could see a million dead in this country before all is said and done.

[PSPS]

17. LOL

"It might be lower than it currently is"

That's right. We just don't know yet.

"but every expert I trust is insisting it will be much higher than the flu."

That's ridiculous. Anyone who "insists" anything right now is a charlatan.

"It’s possible but not likely that we could see a million dead in this country before all is said and done."

That was the LOL-inducing off-the-rails statement. Why say such a crazy thing? That's pure unbridled hyperbole. One could even say, "It's possible but not likely that we could see 100 million dead!!111!!!" I suppose anything is "possible," so why not?

[Turin_C3PO]

18. Sorry, I trust experts on this

and not some random internet poster.

[PSPS]

20. Me too.

I'm the first to admit that I'm a "random internet poster" and also encourage you and everyone to "trust the experts." However, I have to say that anyone who is breathlessly tweeting something that is misleading, like our esteemed "nutrition doctor," or someone else who says "it’s possible but not likely that we could see a million dead in this country before all is said and done" is no expert in epidemics.

[Dem2]

23. Here is an experts opinion

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-infection-outbreak-worldwide-virus-expert-warning-today-2020-03-02/

Parsing his words, one could estimate perhaps 330k - 1.1M deaths in the US. Agree?

[PSPS]

24. No.

"Whatever the number is, it's gonna take a toll. If it really does spread as widely as that projection says, and that's what I think is likely to happen, then there are gonna be millions of people dying." Where do you interpret that as "in the US?" He never says that anywhere in the interview.

Here's the way this works: When there's a new epidemic that can spread rapidly, you rush to contain/quarantine it not so much to keep it from spreading (which is usually impossible,) but to slow down its spread as much as possible. Otherwise, you have this rapidly rising bubble of demand on healthcare infrastructure (doctors, nurses, hospital beds, etc.,) which will overwhelm it. Instead, you want to flatten out that bubble of demand as much as possible so it doesn't rise so sharply and so high. The demand will last longer but it is less likely to overwhelm the healthcare infrastructure or, at least, make it a little less overwhelming.

Finally, if there are, say, a million deaths from this over the next few years worldwide, that would mean about 40,000 in the US statistically. So, while it's no trivial matter to be sure, there's a difference between 40,000 deaths and a million.

[Dem2]

25. I was extracting math from his words.

40-70%, 50% show symptoms and thus are tested, 1-2% death rate in those tested, 330,000,000 people in USA.

.40*(330000000/2)*.005 (.5% conservative low death rate) = 330,000. How is that not a conservative estimate from his interview?

[PSPS]

27. The key phrase is "in those tested"

We are way behind in testing compared to other countries. South Korea has performed many more tests and, thus, has a lower mortality rate due to that fact alone. This is the way all epidemics play out.

Anyway, I'm done with this. You seem intent to promote a wildly-inflated mortality rate for some reason. There's a lot of that these days. I've said what I have to say.

Good luck to you, my friend, and be sure to wash your hands!! I want you in the denominator, not the numerator!

[Dem2]

28. Just trying to keep my elderly mom alive

In a family full of denialist idiots.

[tandem5]

12. Focus on the countries that have the best testing per capita and that

are demographically diverse. The more ubiquity of testing the more quality the reported case mortality rate. Do not mix stats between countries or average out percentages with equal weighting. 3+% mortality in the US where 5 people are tested per one million is not comparable to South Korea's 0.8% mortality where 3700 people are tested per one million. Finally a fatality is harder to miss versus confirming cases so early reports are more likely to be biased toward reporting higher mortality than what is actually the case.

[OhNo-Really]

16. Excellent information! Thank you!

[Crunchy Frog]

15. I think it's from the overwhelmed hospital system.

When people need hospital care and can't get it, they die.

[sarisataka]

19. Ok- crunched numbers

US. 28 deaths/804 cases= 3.4% death rate

Italy. 631 deaths/10,149 cases= 6.2% death rate

Iran 291 deaths/8042 cases= 3.6% death rate

World. 4262 deaths/118,100 cases= 3.6% death rate

[PSPS]

21. More misleading statistics.

Those aren't "cases." They are "known cases." Only those who already have severe symptoms are the ones being tested and even those aren't all being tested.

[sarisataka]

22. In which case

The death rates would be lower.

I am not claiming these are the be all/end all statistics (I won't even claim they are statistics. Just math from a given set of numbers) . They do show that much higher death rate claims are likely inaccurate.

[Chemisse]

29. Thanks for your efforts.

It's unfortunate that we don't have better numbers to work from.

[OhZone]

26. OhNOES! Indeed!

[Dennis Donovan]

30. I just read Italy's death rate is higher because of an older population (compared to S Korea):

Link to tweet

Link to tweet