BULLSHIT MAINSTREAM CALCULATION: The mainstream has been propping up the idea that we should calculate the mortality rate for COVID-19 by dividing the number of those who died from COVID by the number of confirmed cases. For instance, Italy has 9134 deaths, and 86498 cases. This would put their Confirmed Mortality Rate at around 11.6%.
Everyone knows that this is a nonsensical way to determine the mortality rate: many people who tested positive for the virus may have only had it for three to five days, and it takes a patient, on average, 18.5 days to die after the onset of the illness. This means that deaths will always lag significantly behind new cases, making the Confirmed Mortality Rate look much smaller than it should.
PROPER CALCULATION: We should instead calculate Confirmed Mortality Rate by dividing the current number of deaths by the number of confirmed cases 10 days ago. For Italy, the current number of dead is 9134, and the number of cases 10 days ago was 31506. This means their Confirmed Mortality Rate is 28.9% (9134/31506).
Why calculate like this? The infected take 3-6 days to develop symptoms. It then takes 2 days for their positive results to be registered. This means that out of that 18.5 days from onset to death, they have already used up 8 days by the time they are a confirmed case. This leaves them with 10ish days left until death. So, you look at # of deaths at the current moment, and you divide it by # of cases 10 days ago to get the true Confirmed Mortality Rate.
Confirmed Mortality Rate is different than Actual Mortality Rate. Confirmed just has to do with the cases that we know about. Obviously there are way more cases that never get confirmed.
Kayden Wright
WRONG
Mortality rate is ALWAYS calculated from dead/infected.
You cannot calculate an UNKNOWN. (who might be, what we think are, etc). Because they you would be calculating PROBABILITIES, you dumb fuck.
NOW, if you can show that the number of recovered vs. DEAD, are running in parallel and not deviating, THEN you would have something. Stupid Leaf.
Now show the DATA which supports RECOVERED and DEAD both running parallel in a consistent manner, and you could plot of THAT data and make a case from THAT data.
Jayden Wood
This. Fucking doomer happening fags get the rope first.
Based. fuck doomer happening fags who want their life to be exciting and mean something for once.
Alexander Murphy
I really like how they havn't been testing people who are asymptomatic so how the fuck would anyone know that there is a massive percent of asymptomatic carriers. They are only testing people who have severe symptoms and show up on an x-ray. Use your brain, where the fuck are all these scientifically proven asymptomatic carriers.
Gabriel Evans
Yeah but that doesn't give an accurate picture of how lethal the virus is until after its run has finished. It's a perfect way to calculate mortality after the fact, but it doesn't give us information about lethality during the exponential growth in spread.
Jaxon Russell
mortality rate is about 0.5%-1% in the case of non collapsed medical systems
Luke Ramirez
If its as deadly as you fuckers say it is I don't care.
Eli Walker
>Yeah but that doesn't give an accurate picture of how lethal the virus is until after its run has finished. It's a perfect way to calculate mortality after the fact, but it doesn't give us information about lethality during the exponential growth in spread.
Jesus Christ you DUMBASS, you're speaking of PROBABILITY. You can't calculate a known RATE with data that you don't HAVE.
Alexander Johnson
I want to punch in your stupid fucking face right now
Alexander Peterson
It's funny. People are pretty quick to point the finger at Donald Trump for, well, that asteroid that will hit us in a few months.
But realistically, his "leadership" is simply the natural consequence of a culture that is self-indulgent, fragile, narcissistic and easily distracted. This is our fault. All of us.
I find it astonishing that any journalist working right now would think that they have the moral authority to denounce Trump - they're all part of the system that created him. And they're all complicit.
It would be like running a fairly clever raccoon for office. Journalists would pretend to be alarmed by the circumstances (how could we be here?), but would jump right on the bandwagon of turmoil because that's their bread and butter, writing the same thing over and over: warning that the raccoon might start stealing jewelry and tipping over garbage cans - and THEN would write what they thought were sufficiently convincing denouncements of everything the raccoon got its claws into. But secretly they want to see what the raccoon will do next.
Inevitablism on my part? Sure.
In my mind, though, this is entirely a systemic issue that can't simply be "blamed" on one person or one party. If opponents of Trump are really that concerned, they should blow up some mailboxes or do something more productive than whining and hurling around rape accusations. Instead they're just feigning incredulity when they know they're every bit as much a part of the problem.
>The mainstream has been propping up the idea that we should calculate the mortality rate for COVID-19 by dividing the number of those who died from COVID by the number of confirmed cases. For instance, Italy has 9134 deaths, and 86498 cases. This would put their Confirmed Mortality Rate at around 11.6%. That is the correct way to calculate mortality rate. britannica.com/science/case-fatality-rate
>We should instead calculate Confirmed Mortality Rate by dividing the current number of deaths by the number of confirmed cases 10 days ago. As long as you only divide the dead for a period, against the number of diagnoses -that were made during that period- you still have a Case Fatality Rate. You just have the rate for a smaller period.
Ackshilly, the correct mortality rate is deaths/completed cases. So deaths/(deaths+recoveries). Which, I am guessing is closer to 20%. Feel free to let us know.
Further, the correct mortality rate should be calculated based only on those who have received no medical treatment. While this is impossible, it will become the reality if the disease is not put in check. I suspect the real numbers from China and the numbers from Africa will show us this correct mortality rate.
Screenshot this post. >Epstein didn't kill himself
As an approximation it still gets way closer to the lethality of the virus than the mainstream calculation. I don't have data proving the sun will rise tomorrow, but given a lot of other fucking evidence I can say its quite probable. Similarly, I can't prove that the window from the time someone is infected to the time they are a confirmed case is on average 8 days. But it's a reasonable number, and is actually fairly conservative.
Are you saying we should apply any probabilistic thinking to this virus, its spread, and its impact, and should just sit back and wait for it to finish before we start trying to understand it?
Levi Adams
Ok but you didn't account for unconfirmed cases of covid-19.
Dylan Hughes
Shut up leaf.
Luke Adams
Go to sleep 12 year old
Brody Price
See Calculating case fatality rate against anything but all diagnosis fish tails your rate from one inaccurate number to another.
That number isn't really useful to the individual who only cares about the chance of dying if they themselves get infected; I hope you aren't running around telling people they have a 29% chance of dying if they get infected, that is retarded.
Easton Harris
The information is important for perception, which is all important when you're dealing with societal collapse. When this continually gets worse for weeks, what could happen?
What is the point of this place anymore huh, real happenings abound and it's shit conversation, people ruined the board, then generals ruined the piece of shit it became.
Juan Rogers
Case Fatality Rate is also inaccurate because recovery takes longer than death. This calculation makes the mortality rate way higher than it should be.
Christopher Carter
No, that is what is known as Case Outcome Rate. It is completely different from mortality rate.
Jaxson Thomas
Case fatality rate is quite literally simply case, fatality, and rate. It is number of dead divided by number of diagnoses in a given period. There is no other way to determine how a virus has performed over all.
Jose Fisher
It depends on what question you're asking, if I want to know what percent chance I have of dying from the virus, the CFR at any given moment in time during an outbreak isn't very informative
Xavier Turner
exactly
Jonathan Carter
There is no evidence those people exist. It's wishful thinking.
We know the deal with Italy, that region basically consists of a bunch of old folk many of whom have been life long smokers
Nicholas Cook
Right, what it really means is that given a case severe enough for hospitalization the likelihood you die is the ratio of that death-rate:case-number-delay from OP post. It's not important?
Chase Taylor
wtf, any videos from portugal?
Landon Roberts
It's not important if we don't know the true number of infected, and we won't learn that.
lol
Josiah Rivera
>It's not important?
It doesn't really answer any questions that anyone is really asking, and it's especially not useful during the outbreak itself. A few weeks ago, the CFR for the Phillipines was 90%, USA was 20%, China was 3%, Italy was 50%, etc... you get my point, these numbers are practically meaningless.
Adrian Gonzalez
No it's dead/closed cases=dead/dead+recovered you dumb spic fuck.
Carter Taylor
>It depends on what question you're asking And if the question is how severe an illness is knowing how many people have died versus how many people have been diagnosed is the only way we can determine that. >if I want to know what percent chance I have of dying from the virus Then we need to look at your age, race, sex, and priors.
Austin Brown
South Korea was testing everybody and the mortality rate was still high.
Dead(closed cases*X)+recovered(diagnoses*Y^2) - X*dead = Y.
Lucas Wood
Our mortality rate never topped 1%.
Landon Gray
I remember it was 1,7%.
John Stewart
>Wrong. Case fatality rate is recognized as bullshit. Do some fucking research before opening your bitch mouth. >I'm going to post a link that talks about how the CDC uses Case Fatality Rate in everything from disease to murders. Neat. Now I have a new citation I can use.
If we used the normal metric that we had data for, we would say the mortality rate here is 0.002%. After all, there are 1000000 cases and only 20 deaths. However, if you look at the actual number, 100% of the cases who had the virus for 6 months died, so that mortality rate would not give us any useful information about how lethal the Jewvirus was.
>Imagine Jewvirus Yes. Talking to you, it's very easy to imagine that.
Never the less using case outcome rate or an abbreviated case fatality rate is completely useless. Here is the updated chart from SK.
As you can see, Outcome Rate flips around all over the place, and an abbreviated CFR from anywhere in there would not give you a useful picture at all.
Outcome rate is only a useful statistic for South Korea because your number of cases isn't still rising exponentially. CFR for Italy with current numbers is 47%. I can't see why you'd think that is more predictive and useful simply because it's hard data.
Ryder Cruz
My bad I didn't read closely enough. So you don't think there is any more useful predictive way of figuring out how many people coronachan will kill? We just have to wait until we have a rounded out CFR a year from now?
Jacob Walker
>So you don't think there is any more useful predictive way of figuring out how many people coronachan will kill?
No, we use the CFR numbers from countries that have huge numbers of testing, have the most number of mature cases, and isn't named China. You don't pull and OP and just divide two numbers and conclude that 29% of infected people will die.
Hudson Wilson
> herp derp > people with corona virus die bc of it > these were healthy young individuals at avg age of 85 years but I'm sure > yes 99% had one or more other deadly preconditions but I'm sure > I'm sure because the media told me
Carter Cooper
>I can't see why you'd think that is more predictive and useful See above where I explain why it's more predictive and useful using an example. >CFR for Italy with current numbers is 10.5%
Ian Jones
Recovered numbers are bullshit anyway, you need a long time to get an accurate figure. Most of the numbers coming out at the moment are pure propaganda.
Eli Jones
That isn't guaranteed, but it could definitely happen. The circumstances of WWI made the lethal strain of Spanish flu the most 'fit'. It started off killing the elder and the old, but somewhere along the line a new version came up and then RIP. In our interconnected world, that would utterly demolish everything.
David King
The question I'm asking is out of 100 confirmed cases in Italy, how many end up dying on average. Tell me a better way to determine that than my Original Post.
Jose Lee
Why do they use confirmed cases to calculate the death rate. Shouldn't they use number of recovered vs. died?
If you put it in the context of people browsing Amazon, who will buy something, who will not... Why would you use people still browsing as a reflection of the probability they will buy something as opposed to people who have finished?
If that makes any sense.
Jordan Green
Of your tying to be proper you would know it’s foolish to calculate mortality rate for a new Virus
Christian Davis
CFR determines how severe an illness is. That's it's only job. It's not a mathematical percentage chance to die because that's not how people work. Literally it is "This percentage of people have died of the disease during this period." And that's it.
Samuel Anderson
Confirmed cases depends on testing protocols, which depends on government, which is not what we are measuring here.
Robert Jones
The issue with this is that it takes longer to recover than it does to die. So using this metric will skew the death rate too high. But you're right, using the CFR skews the death rate too low. My OP is a mediation between these two poles.
Andrew Peterson
>The question I'm asking is out of 100 confirmed cases in Italy >confirmed cases
Well you're technically correct, but my argument has been that that is a dumb question to ask because it's not the question anyone wants to know the answer to. People want to know how many people will die, in total, and what are their chances of dying from Corona, I guarantee you it's not going to be 29%.
Jace Sullivan
What about the dead that were never tested? Surely there are those too?
James Walker
>let's find the best way of framing these numbers to misrepresent the data >hurdur, 30% death rate guys! Fucking nigger.
Eli Cox
You low iq people in this thread don't seem to get it:
Italy counts every death with corona as dying of corona
Germany only puts corona as reason if they don't have any other diseases. Only reason these numbers are so different.
And you are talking about "only testing symptomatic cases" kek. YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE WRONG FATALITY NUMBERS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
