You might want to do some research on this subject more recent than early March.
General How will you react to the ‘new normal’
- Thread starter FINGERS
- Start date
M
member 3289
Guest
You might want to back up your bullshit if you're gonna make retarded estimates
No it wasn't. It was estimated to be 0.5-1% of the overall population if nothing was done. The 10% was the number of over 65s that would die.
As it sits right now Italy has 228k confirmed cases and 32k deaths. Math's not my strongest subject, what's the overall mortality rate on that?
Like this article about the CDC changing guidelines yesterday?
The CDC says coronavirus 'does not spread easily' on surfaces or objects. Here's what we know.
p.s. not an estimate, just a different example of "bullshit".
move the decimal one space for a 10th and two spaces for 100th
10% of 228k is 22.8k
1% of 228k is 2.28k
32k is about 1.5 times 22.8k
or 1.5 times 10%
italy is somewhere around 15%
seems higher than most, probably due to less testing
| # | Country, | Total | Total | Mortality |
| Other | Cases | Deaths | Rate | |
| World | 5,165,913 | 332,825 | 6.4% | |
1 | USA | 1,614,100 | 96,037 | 5.9% |
2 | Russia | 317,554 | 3,099 | 1.0% |
3 | Brazil | 296,113 | 19,156 | 6.5% |
4 | Spain | 280,117 | 27,940 | 10.0% |
5 | UK | 250,908 | 36,042 | 14.4% |
6 | Italy | 228,006 | 32,486 | 14.2% |
7 | France | 181,826 | 28,215 | 15.5% |
8 | Germany | 178,925 | 8,284 | 4.6% |
9 | Turkey | 153,548 | 4,249 | 2.8% |
10 | Iran | 129,341 | 7,249 | 5.6% |
11 | India | 118,226 | 3,584 | 3.0% |
12 | Peru | 108,769 | 3,148 | 2.9% |
13 | China | 82,967 | 4,634 | 5.6% |
14 | Canada | 81,279 | 6,145 | 7.6% |
15 | Saudi Arabia | 65,077 | 351 | 0.5% |
16 | Chile | 57,581 | 589 | 1.0% |
17 | Mexico | 56,594 | 6,090 | 10.8% |
18 | Belgium | 56,235 | 9,186 | 16.3% |
19 | Pakistan | 48,091 | 1,017 | 2.1% |
20 | Netherlands | 44,700 | 5,775 | 12.9% |
21 | Qatar | 38,651 | 17 | 0.0% |
22 | Ecuador | 35,306 | 2,939 | 8.3% |
23 | Belarus | 33,371 | 185 | 0.6% |
24 | Sweden | 32,172 | 3,871 | 12.0% |
25 | Switzerland | 30,694 | 1,898 | 6.2% |
26 | Portugal | 29,912 | 1,277 | 4.3% |
27 | Singapore | 29,812 | 23 | 0.1% |
28 | Bangladesh | 28,511 | 408 | 1.4% |
29 | UAE | 26,898 | 237 | 0.9% |
30 | Ireland | 24,391 | 1,583 | 6.5% |
31 | Indonesia | 20,162 | 1,278 | 6.3% |
32 | Poland | 20,143 | 972 | 4.8% |
33 | Ukraine | 19,706 | 579 | 2.9% |
34 | South Africa | 19,137 | 369 | 1.9% |
35 | Kuwait | 18,609 | 129 | 0.7% |
36 | Colombia | 17,687 | 630 | 3.6% |
37 | Romania | 17,585 | 1,156 | 6.6% |
38 | Israel | 16,683 | 279 | 1.7% |
39 | Austria | 16,404 | 633 | 3.9% |
40 | Japan | 16,385 | 771 | 4.7% |
41 | Egypt | 15,003 | 696 | 4.6% |
42 | Dominican Republic | 13,657 | 448 | 3.3% |
43 | Philippines | 13,434 | 846 | 6.3% |
44 | Denmark | 11,182 | 561 | 5.0% |
45 | S. Korea | 11,122 | 264 | 2.4% |
46 | Serbia | 10,919 | 237 | 2.2% |
47 | Panama | 9,977 | 287 | 2.9% |
48 | Argentina | 9,283 | 404 | 4.4% |
49 | Czechia | 8,743 | 306 | 3.5% |
50 | Afghanistan | 8,676 | 193 | 2.2% |
51 | Norway | 8,301 | 235 | 2.8% |
52 | Bahrain | 8,174 | 12 | 0.1% |
53 | Algeria | 7,728 | 575 | 7.4% |
54 | Kazakhstan | 7,234 | 35 | 0.5% |
55 | Morocco | 7,211 | 196 | 2.7% |
56 | Australia | 7,081 | 100 | 1.4% |
57 | Malaysia | 7,059 | 114 | 1.6% |
58 | Moldova | 6,704 | 233 | 3.5% |
59 | Nigeria | 6,677 | 202 | 3.0% |
60 | Finland | 6,493 | 306 | 4.7% |
61 | Oman | 6,370 | 30 | 0.5% |
62 | Ghana | 6,269 | 31 | 0.5% |
63 | Armenia | 5,606 | 70 | 1.2% |
64 | Bolivia | 4,919 | 199 | 4.0% |
65 | Luxembourg | 3,980 | 109 | 2.7% |
66 | Iraq | 3,877 | 140 | 3.6% |
67 | Azerbaijan | 3,749 | 44 | 1.2% |
68 | Cameroon | 3,733 | 146 | 3.9% |
69 | Hungary | 3,641 | 473 | 13.0% |
70 | Sudan | 3,138 | 121 | 3.9% |
71 | Honduras | 3,100 | 151 | 4.9% |
72 | Thailand | 3,037 | 56 | 1.8% |
73 | Uzbekistan | 2,964 | 13 | 0.4% |
74 | Guinea | 2,863 | 18 | 0.6% |
75 | Greece | 2,853 | 168 | 5.9% |
76 | Senegal | 2,812 | 32 | 1.1% |
77 | Bosnia and Herzegovina | 2,350 | 140 | 6.0% |
78 | Tajikistan | 2,350 | 44 | 1.9% |
79 | Bulgaria | 2,331 | 120 | 5.1% |
80 | Guatemala | 2,265 | 45 | 2.0% |
81 | Croatia | 2,237 | 97 | 4.3% |
82 | Ivory Coast | 2,231 | 29 | 1.3% |
83 | Djibouti | 2,047 | 10 | 0.5% |
84 | Cuba | 1,908 | 80 | 4.2% |
85 | North Macedonia | 1,898 | 111 | 5.8% |
86 | DRC | 1,835 | 61 | 3.3% |
87 | Iceland | 1,803 | 10 | 0.6% |
88 | Estonia | 1,800 | 64 | 3.6% |
89 | El Salvador | 1,640 | 32 | 2.0% |
90 | Lithuania | 1,593 | 61 | 3.8% |
91 | Somalia | 1,573 | 61 | 3.9% |
92 | Gabon | 1,567 | 12 | 0.8% |
93 | New Zealand | 1,503 | 21 | 1.4% |
94 | Slovakia | 1,502 | 28 | 1.9% |
95 | Mayotte | 1,475 | 19 | 1.3% |
96 | Slovenia | 1,468 | 106 | 7.2% |
97 | Kyrgyzstan | 1,313 | 14 | 1.1% |
98 | Maldives | 1,216 | 4 | 0.3% |
99 | Kenya | 1,109 | 50 | 4.5% |
100 | Guinea-Bissau | 1,089 | 6 | 0.6% |
101 | Hong Kong | 1,064 | 4 | 0.4% |
102 | Sri Lanka | 1,048 | 9 | 0.9% |
103 | Tunisia | 1,045 | 47 | 4.5% |
104 | Latvia | 1,025 | 22 | 2.1% |
105 | Lebanon | 1,024 | 26 | 2.5% |
106 | Albania | 969 | 31 | 3.2% |
107 | Mali | 931 | 55 | 5.9% |
108 | Niger | 924 | 60 | 6.5% |
109 | Cyprus | 923 | 17 | 1.8% |
110 | Costa Rica | 903 | 10 | 1.1% |
111 | Equatorial Guinea | 903 | 10 | 1.1% |
112 | Zambia | 866 | 7 | 0.8% |
113 | Paraguay | 836 | 11 | 1.3% |
114 | Venezuela | 824 | 10 | 1.2% |
115 | Burkina Faso | 812 | 52 | 6.4% |
116 | Andorra | 762 | 51 | 6.7% |
117 | Uruguay | 746 | 20 | 2.7% |
118 | Georgia | 721 | 12 | 1.7% |
119 | Diamond Princess | 712 | 13 | 1.8% |
120 | Jordan | 684 | 9 | 1.3% |
121 | Haiti | 663 | 22 | 3.3% |
122 | San Marino | 658 | 41 | 6.2% |
123 | Malta | 599 | 6 | 1.0% |
124 | Chad | 588 | 58 | 9.9% |
125 | Sierra Leone | 570 | 34 | 6.0% |
126 | Channel Islands | 558 | 45 | 8.1% |
127 | Jamaica | 529 | 9 | 1.7% |
128 | Tanzania | 509 | 21 | 4.1% |
129 | South Sudan | 481 | 4 | 0.8% |
130 | Congo | 469 | 16 | 3.4% |
131 | Nepal | 457 | 3 | 0.7% |
132 | Réunion | 449 | 1 | 0.2% |
133 | Taiwan | 441 | 7 | 1.6% |
134 | CAR | 436 | 0.0% | |
135 | Palestine | 423 | 2 | 0.5% |
136 | Madagascar | 405 | 2 | 0.5% |
137 | Ethiopia | 399 | 5 | 1.3% |
138 | Cabo Verde | 356 | 3 | 0.8% |
139 | Togo | 354 | 12 | 3.4% |
140 | Isle of Man | 336 | 24 | 7.1% |
141 | Mauritius | 332 | 10 | 3.0% |
142 | Montenegro | 324 | 9 | 2.8% |
143 | Vietnam | 324 | 0.0% | |
144 | Rwanda | 320 | 0.0% | |
145 | Nicaragua | 279 | 17 | 6.1% |
146 | Sao Tome and Principe | 251 | 8 | 3.2% |
147 | Liberia | 240 | 23 | 9.6% |
148 | French Guiana | 237 | 1 | 0.4% |
149 | Eswatini | 220 | 2 | 0.9% |
150 | Myanmar | 199 | 6 | 3.0% |
151 | Yemen | 197 | 33 | 16.8% |
152 | Martinique | 192 | 14 | 7.3% |
153 | Faeroe Islands | 187 | 0.0% | |
154 | Mauritania | 173 | 4 | 2.3% |
155 | Mozambique | 162 | 0.0% | |
156 | Guadeloupe | 155 | 13 | 8.4% |
157 | Gibraltar | 151 | 0.0% | |
158 | Uganda | 145 | 0.0% | |
159 | Brunei | 141 | 1 | 0.7% |
160 | Mongolia | 140 | 0.0% | |
161 | Benin | 135 | 3 | 2.2% |
162 | Guyana | 125 | 10 | 8.0% |
163 | Bermuda | 125 | 9 | 7.2% |
164 | Cambodia | 123 | 0.0% | |
165 | Trinidad and Tobago | 116 | 8 | 6.9% |
166 | Cayman Islands | 111 | 1 | 0.9% |
167 | Aruba | 101 | 3 | 3.0% |
168 | Bahamas | 97 | 11 | 11.3% |
169 | Monaco | 97 | 4 | 4.1% |
170 | Barbados | 90 | 7 | 7.8% |
171 | Liechtenstein | 82 | 1 | 1.2% |
172 | Sint Maarten | 77 | 15 | 19.5% |
173 | Malawi | 72 | 3 | 4.2% |
174 | Libya | 71 | 3 | 4.2% |
175 | French Polynesia | 60 | 0.0% | |
176 | Angola | 58 | 3 | 5.2% |
177 | Syria | 58 | 3 | 5.2% |
178 | Zimbabwe | 48 | 4 | 8.3% |
179 | Macao | 45 | 0.0% | |
180 | Burundi | 42 | 1 | 2.4% |
181 | Saint Martin | 40 | 3 | 7.5% |
182 | Eritrea | 39 | 0.0% | |
183 | Comoros | 34 | 1 | 2.9% |
184 | Botswana | 29 | 1 | 3.4% |
185 | Antigua and Barbuda | 25 | 3 | 12.0% |
186 | Gambia | 24 | 1 | 4.2% |
187 | Timor-Leste | 24 | 0.0% | |
188 | Grenada | 22 | 0.0% | |
189 | Bhutan | 21 | 0.0% | |
190 | Laos | 19 | 0.0% | |
191 | Belize | 18 | 2 | 11.1% |
192 | Fiji | 18 | 0.0% | |
193 | Namibia | 18 | 0.0% | |
194 | New Caledonia | 18 | 0.0% | |
195 | Saint Lucia | 18 | 0.0% | |
196 | St. Vincent Grenadines | 18 | 0.0% | |
197 | Curaçao | 16 | 1 | 6.3% |
198 | Dominica | 16 | 0.0% | |
199 | Saint Kitts and Nevis | 15 | 0.0% | |
200 | Falkland Islands | 13 | 0.0% | |
201 | Turks and Caicos | 12 | 1 | 8.3% |
202 | Vatican City | 12 | 0.0% | |
203 | Montserrat | 11 | 1 | 9.1% |
204 | Suriname | 11 | 1 | 9.1% |
205 | Greenland | 11 | 0.0% | |
206 | Seychelles | 11 | 0.0% | |
207 | MS Zaandam | 9 | 2 | 22.2% |
208 | British Virgin Islands | 8 | 1 | 12.5% |
209 | Papua New Guinea | 8 | 0.0% | |
210 | Caribbean Netherlands | 6 | 0.0% | |
211 | St. Barth | 6 | 0.0% | |
212 | Western Sahara | 6 | 0.0% | |
213 | Anguilla | 3 | 0.0% | |
214 | Lesotho | 1 | 0.0% | |
215 | Saint Pierre Miquelon | 1 | 0.0% |
I was simply posting those statistics to remind you that Italy has an absurd mortality rate, and we were working off that when we shut everything down. Well, at least in North America, Boris wanted to roll the dice.
sorted lowest to highest mortality rate (filtered for countries with >1000 deaths)
| # | Country, | Total | Total | Mortality |
| Other | Cases | Deaths | Rate | |
| World | 5,165,913 | 332,825 | 6.4% | |
2 | Russia | 317,554 | 3,099 | 1.0% |
19 | Pakistan | 48,091 | 1,017 | 2.1% |
9 | Turkey | 153,548 | 4,249 | 2.8% |
12 | Peru | 108,769 | 3,148 | 2.9% |
11 | India | 118,226 | 3,584 | 3.0% |
26 | Portugal | 29,912 | 1,277 | 4.3% |
8 | Germany | 178,925 | 8,284 | 4.6% |
13 | China | 82,967 | 4,634 | 5.6% |
10 | Iran | 129,341 | 7,249 | 5.6% |
1 | USA | 1,614,100 | 96,037 | 5.9% |
25 | Switzerland | 30,694 | 1,898 | 6.2% |
31 | Indonesia | 20,162 | 1,278 | 6.3% |
3 | Brazil | 296,113 | 19,156 | 6.5% |
30 | Ireland | 24,391 | 1,583 | 6.5% |
37 | Romania | 17,585 | 1,156 | 6.6% |
14 | Canada | 81,279 | 6,145 | 7.6% |
22 | Ecuador | 35,306 | 2,939 | 8.3% |
4 | Spain | 280,117 | 27,940 | 10.0% |
17 | Mexico | 56,594 | 6,090 | 10.8% |
24 | Sweden | 32,172 | 3,871 | 12.0% |
20 | Netherlands | 44,700 | 5,775 | 12.9% |
6 | Italy | 228,006 | 32,486 | 14.2% |
5 | UK | 250,908 | 36,042 | 14.4% |
7 | France | 181,826 | 28,215 | 15.5% |
18 | Belgium | 56,235 | 9,186 | 16.3% |
No they worked off modelling taken from studies of different areas. It wasn't Italy's mortality rate.
It's impossible to take anything from this without knowing testing rates, when the testing took place in the lifetime of the virus, and accounting for environmental factors.
94 motherfuckers! And things are getting back to normal
it is information. certainly not accurate information. but there are definitely uses of this, albeit limited
as an example, you can infer testing per capita differences among nations
and you can see upper limits of mortality rate for the disease
M
member 3289
Guest
You said 1 in 1000.
If you had never said that Donald Cerrone was a better striker than Conor McGregor, this would be the dumbest thing you've ever said.
and in March those areas consisted of....
You feeling okay? Your performance in this thread today has been even worse than your performance in the Jones thread yesterday. It's sad to see the wheels fall off like this.
The cynical part of me thinks the lack of testing is deliberate. If we don't test we can make up whatever bullshit models we want to.
M
member 3289
Guest
Friends, if I may suggest something, it is to back off from armchair statistical analysis as regards this virus. For 3 reasons:
1) In many parts of the world, testing has been woefully inadequate. It's getting better in some places as criteria are being loosened for who may be tested, but we know the underlying data is very incomplete because of this failure of testing as well as due to various local level non-uniform classification changes. Statistical analysis is only as good as the underlying data that supports it and when counts, of both the living and the dead, have a significant error rate due to improper sampling, your finding will be muddled at best.
2) There is something ghoulish about writing off hundreds or even tens of thousands of preventable deaths as minimal, but trying to reason in terms of numbers like this almost forces you to. People will rationalize deaths as if they were everyday occurrences like car accidents or draw comparisons to the flu when neither are apt. I've watched people I know deal with the devastation of losing loved ones due to this. I've seen people I knew as young as 31 simply blink out of existence just for going to work. Putting that into the acceptable, unavoidable death column is not only morally hazardous, but functionally incorrect. A more robust, comprehensive testing, tracing and safety program until there is either a reliable treatment or a vaccine could help prevent those deaths. Counting death rates is useful for epidemiological reasons, but not cost/benefit analysis.
3) This quantitative reasoning often puts the emphasis on death when there is also the fact of debilitation. The virus can run through some people's system like a light cold and for others it can be crippling. There are too many unknowns to say who will experience what with a high degree of certainty. Also, as I've chronicled, it can come in waves that vary from hour to hour, much less day to day. This could put people in increasingly compromising situations if they're trying to resume normalcy where their safety will be at greater risk. The more it spreads, the more people will suffer, and the more they will spread it in turn, exposing others to potentially lethal consequences. Dying of COVID is awful, but I can personally tell you, living with it is no picnic either. Over-focus on calculation obscures this dynamic.
Because the consequences for everyone not personally dealing with it are economic, it's only logical that people think in terms of numbers and statistical reasoning. It makes it easier to rationalize your own hardship and pain against someone else's. But beneath all of this we have to acknowledge that many nations had and have the power to mitigate both sets of losses and they've either chosen not to use it or bungled it. More useful is calculating the cost and process of keeping everyone safe and well fed because the gaps in knowledge make this situation beyond the scope of being able to meaningfully assess the risk and then look out for yourself.
1) In many parts of the world, testing has been woefully inadequate. It's getting better in some places as criteria are being loosened for who may be tested, but we know the underlying data is very incomplete because of this failure of testing as well as due to various local level non-uniform classification changes. Statistical analysis is only as good as the underlying data that supports it and when counts, of both the living and the dead, have a significant error rate due to improper sampling, your finding will be muddled at best.
2) There is something ghoulish about writing off hundreds or even tens of thousands of preventable deaths as minimal, but trying to reason in terms of numbers like this almost forces you to. People will rationalize deaths as if they were everyday occurrences like car accidents or draw comparisons to the flu when neither are apt. I've watched people I know deal with the devastation of losing loved ones due to this. I've seen people I knew as young as 31 simply blink out of existence just for going to work. Putting that into the acceptable, unavoidable death column is not only morally hazardous, but functionally incorrect. A more robust, comprehensive testing, tracing and safety program until there is either a reliable treatment or a vaccine could help prevent those deaths. Counting death rates is useful for epidemiological reasons, but not cost/benefit analysis.
3) This quantitative reasoning often puts the emphasis on death when there is also the fact of debilitation. The virus can run through some people's system like a light cold and for others it can be crippling. There are too many unknowns to say who will experience what with a high degree of certainty. Also, as I've chronicled, it can come in waves that vary from hour to hour, much less day to day. This could put people in increasingly compromising situations if they're trying to resume normalcy where their safety will be at greater risk. The more it spreads, the more people will suffer, and the more they will spread it in turn, exposing others to potentially lethal consequences. Dying of COVID is awful, but I can personally tell you, living with it is no picnic either. Over-focus on calculation obscures this dynamic.
Because the consequences for everyone not personally dealing with it are economic, it's only logical that people think in terms of numbers and statistical reasoning. It makes it easier to rationalize your own hardship and pain against someone else's. But beneath all of this we have to acknowledge that many nations had and have the power to mitigate both sets of losses and they've either chosen not to use it or bungled it. More useful is calculating the cost and process of keeping everyone safe and well fed because the gaps in knowledge make this situation beyond the scope of being able to meaningfully assess the risk and then look out for yourself.
just adapt?
it sux things being this way but it's not the end of the world.
there are actually a LOOOOT of people in the world who have it waaaaay worse than just having to wear a mask or keep a distance when shopping. you know? like no food or drinking water...
whatever the situation is, there's nothing else to do but adapt, and if you don't want to, just deal with the consequences, or not
it sux things being this way but it's not the end of the world.
there are actually a LOOOOT of people in the world who have it waaaaay worse than just having to wear a mask or keep a distance when shopping. you know? like no food or drinking water...
whatever the situation is, there's nothing else to do but adapt, and if you don't want to, just deal with the consequences, or not
Not as effective as I'd like.How effective are Vaccines for the Flu?
Study: Getting flu shot 2 years in a row may lower protection
www.cidrap.umn.edu
Vaccines are a part of reaching herd immunity.
That's what I was getting at, are vaccines (if we even find one) going to be enough?
On lockdown, I'm somewhere in the middle. On wearing a mask in public (for now), I'm all for it.
Like
@ConorMcGregorsBeard said, it doesn't have to be completely one way or the other. Compromises that aren't going to affect your livelihood or survival for a few months isn't too much to ask imo.
And that number was fake?
I am fine with all that.Not as effective as I'd like.
Vaccines are a part of reaching herd immunity.
That's what I was getting at, are vaccines (if we even find one) going to be enough?
On lockdown, I'm somewhere in the middle. On wearing a mask in public (for now), I'm all for it.
Like
I am not going to wear a mask just because another part of the country is having an issue though, that doesn't make much sense.
Obviously that there are areas that are having issues, there may also be contributing environmental factors in those areas.
IMO decisions should be made region to region.
Holding our breath for a vaccine and rooting for it to be forced upon the masses isn't something I am interested in.