Let's be real!

[PlayerRep]

By the way, it was not unnoticed that we went from disparaging my choice in profession to asking me relevant questions. I appreciate the relevant questions and am always willing to be wrong. Here though, I am simply giving a descriptive result based on other descriptive metrics. By no means am I an expert in this field. Thus I stay to the descriptive statistics rather than the inferential statistics. There is no projection to the future. I realize this metric has flaws. I also realize these flaws will get smaller as the sample size increases. Thus, I appreciate non fearful, educational questions here.

Your metric is irrelevant and silly. No country in. world has 14.8% death rate.

 

[goatcreekgriz]

By the way, it was not unnoticed that we went from disparaging my choice in profession to asking me relevant questions. I appreciate the relevant questions and am always willing to be wrong. Here though, I am simply giving a descriptive result based on other descriptive metrics. By no means am I an expert in this field. Thus I stay to the descriptive statistics rather than the inferential statistics. There is no projection to the future. I realize this metric has flaws. I also realize these flaws will get smaller as the sample size increases. Thus, I appreciate non fearful, educational questions here.

Your metric is irrelevant and silly.

Unfortunately, this sort of approach at times masquerades as academic research.

 

[grizpsych]

Here is the same metric for Montana. (of course larger samples are better!) 38 known cases have come to a conclusion. Out of those 38 cases that have come to a conclusion (recovered versus died), six have died. Thus, (6/38)*100 = 15.8% of Montanans diagnosed with COVID-19 and have reached a conclusion have died. Doing the same thing for the entire world, we get 21%. It's the first metric on the right of the screen here. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Kudos for Montana being below current average. Note. I still realize the factors that skew this metric. But, this metric is important because it is not a projection. It is based on current descriptive statistics--as flawed as they might be.

Interesting statistics and thanks for sharing. Compare that death rate with influenza, which has a vaccine. Not pretty. I personally don’t let my politics influence scientific based phenomenon. Thankfully some governors took the situation seriously and that clearly reduced the death rate. I don’t give a damn if you watch Faux News or the Communist News Network. Treating this situation with a cavalier attitude is moronic. Visit an ICU with a few patients on ventilators and maybe some on this board can pull their head out of their arses. My hope is they develop a vaccine quickly or an aggressive antibody treatment regime. Now back to football. Keep social distancing in place and get the transmission issue under control. There won’t be a football season if not. Might not be anyway unfortunately.

And I guess that is the thing that made me post. Influenza types have been around for ever and we have so much data that you could use either metric I mentioned previously and get near the same result. Eventually they will become the same due to the Central Limit Theorem. We don't have that sample size now. So, we use projections. All I'm posting is the data without projections.

 

[grizpsych]

Your metric is irrelevant and silly.

Unfortunately, this sort of approach at times masquerades as academic research.

Funny, both of you simply cast my metric aside without a valid reason for why it should be discarded. Typical of shallow thinkers. Please give me an argument that I have not already stated for diminishing the relevance of my statistic.

 

[CatGrad-UMGradStu]

Your metric is irrelevant and silly.

Unfortunately, this sort of approach at times masquerades as academic research.

Serious question: are replication "studies" truly academic research (as most humanities "studies" are in fact replication studies) or are they little more than publish or perish bullshit? I believe most journal editors laugh at the humanities, especially from our various and assorted pillars of academic excellence with great enrollment trends...

 

[PlayerRep]

Unfortunately, this sort of approach at times masquerades as academic research.

Funny, both of you simply cast my metric aside without a valid reason for why it should be discarded. Typical of shallow thinkers. Please give me an argument that I have not already stated for diminishing the relevance of my statistic.

My understanding is that the number of people who have recovered is not really being tracked, or not fully tracked. Thus, the size denominator of your formula is understated.

Current stats in your formula, or again the denominator part, are not accurate, because general identification of cases was not as accurate as it is now, and still isn't accurate.

Your denominator isn't accurate (and is low), because many people apparently have no symptoms or few symptoms, and don't get identified or tested. With more testing capability, your denominator is getting higher and more of those identified people will recover. A lower percentage of the people being identified and tested are having the identification and testing in the hospital when they are already very sick.

The percentage of people dying is going to decrease as the currently identified cases come to fruition.

MT's hospitalization rate is still fairly low, and most people who die are in the hospital. Everyone in the hospital doesn't die.

From looking at the projections for the need for ventilators, it looks like MT's need is very low. A high percentage of people who need ventilators don't make it. While I don't know, I assume that most people who die are on a ventilator.

MT's death stats seemed to be a bit skewed because it looks like one half of the deaths came from one old folks home, and one came from a 77 year old guy who got the virus on the West Coast. Thus, 2/3 of the 6 cases could be argued to be unusual, or at least a portion of the nursing home cases could be discounted.

MT's new cases peaked at 35, so far, and since then have ranged from 25 to 13 in the past 12 days, with the last 3 days being 13, 19, 13.

At least in the bigger counties in MT, the number of cases over age 59 are very low. Thus, I would expect more of the younger crowd to recover. For example, Missoula has 3 between 60-69, and 2 over 69.

I see that MT is now up to 31 hospitalizations. Had been hanging at 24 for a few days.

I see that death to recovered is now 6 to 135. A much lower percentage than when you calculated your percentage. This trend validates what I have said above.

I probably missed or goofed up some of this, because I'm not stats trained, but I know some of these things are valid.

Edit: The current reporting of deaths is very accurate, if not inflated, because everyone who has tested positive is being counted as a Covid death, whether that is the cause or not. This, according to the task force people.

 

['68griz]

Not all of us live where there is delivery service. I wanted to order a meal from a restaurant last night, but all the delivery services said we were "outside of delivery range." So, we had leftovers...

Thank you for your immense sacrifice to keep yourself healthy. It is brave septuagenarians like your self who are willing to give up a meal from you favorite Resteraunt that makes it easier to explain to that high school senior, the first in his family to graduate from high school, that giving up his senior year in high school with his friends and missing senior prom and graduation ceremonies in front of his family is worth it. Sure if he got the flu he might have a headache for a week, but his sacrifice to keep the at risk safe pales in comparison to the septuagenarians missing out on their favorite meal.

Bravo '68, if only all people in the at risk category could follow your example.

I am curious why you chose to attack me. I wasn't feeling sorry for myself at all -- the leftovers were darned good. I was simply noting that what one person offers as a solution doesn't always work for the next one. And, we rarely go out to dinner. I wanted to order a meal so we could help a restaurant stay in business.
And as for the seniors missing out on the traditional experiences and rituals, I certainly do feel for them. I have a niece who is spending the last semester of her senior year in college at home, finishing classes on line and knowing she will have no graduation ceremony. But she is a wise and mature young woman who admits it's not the way she'd have chosen for her college career to end; however, she rejoices in the great three and a half years she experienced, and looks forward to what the future may bring. She notes that "a couple hours of ceremony" probably won't be missed 10 years from now -- and that she would rather be alive then than take unnecessary risks now.

 

[kemajic]

Thank you for your immense sacrifice to keep yourself healthy. It is brave septuagenarians like your self who are willing to give up a meal from you favorite Resteraunt that makes it easier to explain to that high school senior, the first in his family to graduate from high school, that giving up his senior year in high school with his friends and missing senior prom and graduation ceremonies in front of his family is worth it. Sure if he got the flu he might have a headache for a week, but his sacrifice to keep the at risk safe pales in comparison to the septuagenarians missing out on their favorite meal.

Bravo '68, if only all people in the at risk category could follow your example.

I am curious why you chose to attack me.

He was being a dickhead; just what we need in these times.

 

['68griz]

I am curious why you chose to attack me.

He was being a dickhead; just what we need in these times.

Thanks, Kem.

 

[Grizbeer]

He was being a dickhead; just what we need in these times.

Thanks, Kem.

‘68 when this first started PR (I beleive) posted something about governments overreacting and taking unnecessary precautions and you stated you were fine with that happening to keep people safe. I pointed out at the time that the over reaction was going to have severe repercussions on people

Then I point out that elderly at risk people are taking unnecessary risks by going to the grocery store every day or week and you feel compelled to respond you couldn’t get dinner from your favorite place. I am merely pointing out that we are all in this together, but some apparently are willing or being forced to make large sacrifices while others are not at all.

As far as being a dick head, sure Kem I will own that one. But since you are the king of arrogant dick heads, and have been since you joined the board, consider it a compliment.

 

[kemajic]

Thanks, Kem.

‘68 when this first started PR (I beleive) posted something about governments overreacting and taking unnecessary precautions and you stated you were fine with that happening to keep people safe. I pointed out at the time that the over reaction was going to have severe repercussions on people

Then I point out that elderly at risk people are taking unnecessary risks by going to the grocery store every day or week and you feel compelled to respond you couldn’t get dinner from your favorite place. I am merely pointing out that we are all in this together, but some apparently are willing or being forced to make large sacrifices while others are not at all.

As far as being a dick head, sure Kem I will own that one. But since you are the king of arrogant dick heads, and have been since you joined the board, consider it a compliment.

Actually, I still get mixed reviews so I have more work to do to get there.

 

[goatcreekgriz]

Unfortunately, this sort of approach at times masquerades as academic research.

Serious question: are replication "studies" truly academic research (as most humanities "studies" are in fact replication studies) or are they little more than publish or perish bullshit? I believe most journal editors laugh at the humanities, especially from our various and assorted pillars of academic excellence with great enrollment trends...

Serious answer: I don't know. I do believe the publish or perish academia paradigm is a disservice to students who deserve to have quality teachers instead of academic strivers who are more interested in publishing articles than actually teaching.

 

[goatcreekgriz]

Unfortunately, this sort of approach at times masquerades as academic research.

Funny, both of you simply cast my metric aside without a valid reason for why it should be discarded. Typical of shallow thinkers. Please give me an argument that I have not already stated for diminishing the relevance of my statistic.

First, you get a gold star for being the first person who ever has accused me of being a shallow thinker, or at least intimated rather strongly that I am a shallow thinker. Bravo. As a failed Taoist, I think that means I am making progress, as long as I don't think too hard about it.

Second, I am not going to read back through your arguments and I did not propose that you were engaged in academic research. The point I was trying to suggest was your approach was facile.

Third, the reason I believed your approach was facile is the same as PR's analysis. Because of a lack of testing and the known fact that many untested infected persons have had mild symptoms then fully recover, your dataset is flawed. The only viable conclusion you can draw from your dataset is that you need more data in order to arrive at a valid substantive conclusion. If that's shallow thinking, then I am comfortable in that space.

 

[grizpsych]

Funny, both of you simply cast my metric aside without a valid reason for why it should be discarded. Typical of shallow thinkers. Please give me an argument that I have not already stated for diminishing the relevance of my statistic.

My understanding is that the number of people who have recovered is not really being tracked, or not fully tracked. Thus, the size denominator of your formula is understated.

Current stats in your formula, or again the denominator part, are not accurate, because general identification of cases was not as accurate as it is now, and still isn't accurate.

Your denominator isn't accurate (and is low), because many people apparently have no symptoms or few symptoms, and don't get identified or tested. With more testing capability, your denominator is getting higher and more of those identified people will recover. A lower percentage of the people being identified and tested are having the identification and testing in the hospital when they are already very sick.

The percentage of people dying is going to decrease as the currently identified cases come to fruition.

MT's hospitalization rate is still fairly low, and most people who die are in the hospital. Everyone in the hospital doesn't die.

From looking at the projections for the need for ventilators, it looks like MT's need is very low. A high percentage of people who need ventilators don't make it. While I don't know, I assume that most people who die are on a ventilator.

MT's death stats seemed to be a bit skewed because it looks like one half of the deaths came from one old folks home, and one came from a 77 year old guy who got the virus on the West Coast. Thus, 2/3 of the 6 cases could be argued to be unusual, or at least a portion of the nursing home cases could be discounted.

MT's new cases peaked at 35, so far, and since then have ranged from 25 to 13 in the past 12 days, with the last 3 days being 13, 19, 13.

At least in the bigger counties in MT, the number of cases over age 59 are very low. Thus, I would expect more of the younger crowd to recover. For example, Missoula has 3 between 60-69, and 2 over 69.

I see that MT is now up to 31 hospitalizations. Had been hanging at 24 for a few days.

I see that death to recovered is now 6 to 135. A much lower percentage than when you calculated your percentage. This trend validates what I have said above.

I probably missed or goofed up some of this, because I'm not stats trained, but I know some of these things are valid.

Edit: The current reporting of deaths is very accurate, if not inflated, because everyone who has tested positive is being counted as a Covid death, whether that is the cause or not. This, according to the task force people.

I fully agree with every point you have made here. I would add that the number of deaths recorded are also low because they have run out of antigen tests that they were using on people that died at home. A few days ago this underestimation was assumed to be about 200 deaths in New York City alone.

For all the reasons you pointed out and the one above, these are still the recorded data. And, my statistic is based on the recorded data without projections. I never made another claim. Yet, some here a) read way more into this statistic than should be done and b) used that to write pages of attacks on me. Awesome.

Edit: Here is a link about underestimation of COVID-19 deaths in NYC. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-fdny/at-home-covid-19-deaths-may-be-significantly-undercounted-in-new-york-city-idUSKBN21P3KF

 

[grizpsych]

Funny, both of you simply cast my metric aside without a valid reason for why it should be discarded. Typical of shallow thinkers. Please give me an argument that I have not already stated for diminishing the relevance of my statistic.

First, you get a gold star for being the first person who ever has accused me of being a shallow thinker, or at least intimated rather strongly that I am a shallow thinker. Bravo. As a failed Taoist, I think that means I am making progress, as long as I don't think too hard about it.

Second, I am not going to read back through your arguments and I did not propose that you were engaged in academic research. The point I was trying to suggest was your approach was facile.

Third, the reason I believed your approach was facile is the same as PR's analysis. Because of a lack of testing and the known fact that many untested infected persons have had mild symptoms then fully recover, your dataset is flawed. The only viable conclusion you can draw from your dataset is that you need more data in order to arrive at a valid substantive conclusion. If that's shallow thinking, then I am comfortable in that space.

Regarding point 1, I apologize. I wrote that drunk when I should have stepped away.

Point 2, My only argument is (and always was) these are the recorded data without projections. I'm unsure what academic research you are referring to.

Point 3, I really don't know how to respond here. All I originally presented was a statistical result of recorded data. I made no conclusion about that result. Indeed, I've mostly been trying to get [people to understand what the metric for the result is and then the difference between descriptive and inferential statistics. I personally do not have variability data in which to provide any confidence intervals at all.

 

[PlayerRep]

My understanding is that the number of people who have recovered is not really being tracked, or not fully tracked. Thus, the size denominator of your formula is understated.

Current stats in your formula, or again the denominator part, are not accurate, because general identification of cases was not as accurate as it is now, and still isn't accurate.

Your denominator isn't accurate (and is low), because many people apparently have no symptoms or few symptoms, and don't get identified or tested. With more testing capability, your denominator is getting higher and more of those identified people will recover. A lower percentage of the people being identified and tested are having the identification and testing in the hospital when they are already very sick.

The percentage of people dying is going to decrease as the currently identified cases come to fruition.

MT's hospitalization rate is still fairly low, and most people who die are in the hospital. Everyone in the hospital doesn't die.

From looking at the projections for the need for ventilators, it looks like MT's need is very low. A high percentage of people who need ventilators don't make it. While I don't know, I assume that most people who die are on a ventilator.

MT's death stats seemed to be a bit skewed because it looks like one half of the deaths came from one old folks home, and one came from a 77 year old guy who got the virus on the West Coast. Thus, 2/3 of the 6 cases could be argued to be unusual, or at least a portion of the nursing home cases could be discounted.

MT's new cases peaked at 35, so far, and since then have ranged from 25 to 13 in the past 12 days, with the last 3 days being 13, 19, 13.

At least in the bigger counties in MT, the number of cases over age 59 are very low. Thus, I would expect more of the younger crowd to recover. For example, Missoula has 3 between 60-69, and 2 over 69.

I see that MT is now up to 31 hospitalizations. Had been hanging at 24 for a few days.

I see that death to recovered is now 6 to 135. A much lower percentage than when you calculated your percentage. This trend validates what I have said above.

I probably missed or goofed up some of this, because I'm not stats trained, but I know some of these things are valid.

Edit: The current reporting of deaths is very accurate, if not inflated, because everyone who has tested positive is being counted as a Covid death, whether that is the cause or not. This, according to the task force people.

I fully agree with every point you have made here. I would add that the number of deaths recorded are also low because they have run out of antigen tests that they were using on people that died at home. A few days ago this underestimation was assumed to be about 200 deaths in New York City alone.

For all the reasons you pointed out and the one above, these are still the recorded data. And, my statistic is based on the recorded data without projections. I never made another claim. Yet, some here a) read way more into this statistic than should be done and b) used that to write pages of attacks on me. Awesome.

Edit: Here is a link about underestimation of COVID-19 deaths in NYC. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-fdny/at-home-covid-19-deaths-may-be-significantly-undercounted-in-new-york-city-idUSKBN21P3KF

Even if the number of unrecorded home deaths in NYC were 200, that number is presumably much lower than the number of others deaths being recorded as caused by the virus, when in fact it was probably caused by something else, is my understanding. Also, 200 compared to the number of deaths in NYC is not that large. "A full 87,028 of those cases and 4,260 deaths are in New York City. (City-level data is sometimes less up to date than state-level data.)

200 compared to 4260, when many of the 4260 are probably due to things other than the virus. My thought.

"The federal government is classifying the deaths of patients infected with the coronavirus as COVID-19 deaths, regardless of any underlying health issues that could have contributed to the loss of someone’s life.

Dr. Deborah Birx, the response coordinator for the White House coronavirus task force, said the federal government is continuing to count the suspected COVID-19 deaths, despite other nations doing the opposite.

“There are other countries that if you had a pre-existing condition, and let’s say the virus caused you to go to the ICU [intensive care unit] and then have a heart or kidney problem,” she said during a Tuesday news briefing at the White House. “Some countries are recording that as a heart issue or a kidney issue and not a COVID-19 death.

“The intent is … if someone dies with COVID-19, we are counting that,” she added."

[I'm not arguing that the count is overstated, just that it probably isn't being understated. Birx and Fauci have been inconsistent in what they have said on this subject, in my view. Also, whether the official count is a bit high or bit low, isn't a big deal to me.]

https://nypost.com/2020/04/07/feds-classify-all-coronavirus-patient-deaths-as-covid-19-deaths/

 

[grizpsych]

So, it has been over one week since I posted. Regression towards the mean must have taken place (look it up). Would any of you like to know the metric I originally gave? I have it for the USA and the world.

 

[grizpsych]

USA

WORLD

This is data from https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

 

[HookedonGriz]

‘68 when this first started PR (I beleive) posted something about governments overreacting and taking unnecessary precautions and you stated you were fine with that happening to keep people safe. I pointed out at the time that the over reaction was going to have severe repercussions on people

Then I point out that elderly at risk people are taking unnecessary risks by going to the grocery store every day or week and you feel compelled to respond you couldn’t get dinner from your favorite place. I am merely pointing out that we are all in this together, but some apparently are willing or being forced to make large sacrifices while others are not at all.

As far as being a dick head, sure Kem I will own that one. But since you are the king of arrogant dick heads, and have been since you joined the board, consider it a compliment.

Actually, I still get mixed reviews so I have more work to do to get there.

This is an underrated post hahahahah