General Discussion

mr_lebowski

(33,643 posts)

29. Okay ... so, you're pulling a number out of thin air to enter into your calculations ...

Sun Apr 12, 2020, 12:48 PM

Apr 2020

To whit, essentially 'hundreds of millions of Europeans actually would test positive for CV if we had only already tested them' ... and asserting that the 40% must be wrong because of what the number of dead would be based upon that WAG.

Look, I don't believe anywhere near 40% for a second, and I've argued as to why it's wrong above, so I'm not disagreeing with you about the outcome in that regard.

But we don't actually KNOW that a single person who's not been tested actually has CV. However, such a number can be estimated statistically, but the proper methodology for coming up with than number should be adhered to (it would involve looking at % of negative tests and various adjustments derived from that) ... one shouldn't just make up a number offhand when one does that.

The numbers used by the OP are based on 'known cases' and the argument against it should also be based on known cases. Or more specifically, in this instance, the reason(s) why the 'recovered' numbers are much lower now than what they will eventually turn out to be.

MHO

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

41 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Explain to me why I am wrong, please. [View all] StTimofEdenRoc Apr 2020 OP

the total cases in the US are MASSIVELY undercounted, so your death rate of 40% Celerity Apr 2020 #1

Well that is what I have been telling myself but .... StTimofEdenRoc Apr 2020 #5

Not everyone is testing at the same rate, so there's no accurate OnDoutside Apr 2020 #2

Trump wants to keep the numbers low so we're not testing uponit7771 Apr 2020 #3

The "recovered" number will come from people infected earlier than the deaths muriel_volestrangler Apr 2020 #4

This, plus they probably only count 'recovered' that they can prove are recovered ... mr_lebowski Apr 2020 #6

We are not tracking the tested positives ? StTimofEdenRoc Apr 2020 #8

Didn't say we're not tracking them, I'm not sure either way ... mr_lebowski Apr 2020 #14

the numbers are cumulative so this is based on weeks of data. StTimofEdenRoc Apr 2020 #7

millions of people will get it and never even know they had it until they are antibody tested Celerity Apr 2020 #9

True, but they are not members of the tested positive population the numbers are based on. StTimofEdenRoc Apr 2020 #10

if the lethality were 40%, you would potentially have tens of millions of deaths here in the EU, Celerity Apr 2020 #13

Okay so if I look at the world numbers StTimofEdenRoc Apr 2020 #16

because of a profound lack of testing Celerity Apr 2020 #22

WHO rate does not look accurate StTimofEdenRoc Apr 2020 #24

I fail to see what you are attempting to find out. I can but say one thing for certain. Celerity Apr 2020 #25

Been mr_lebowski Apr 2020 #17

I did have 'been' in there, but I cleaned up the sentence Celerity Apr 2020 #19

That was a DU glitch ... I used an improper character in teh title (less than sign) mr_lebowski Apr 2020 #20

because the vast majority of cases globally are not being tested at all, and when you take the Celerity Apr 2020 #23

Okay ... so, you're pulling a number out of thin air to enter into your calculations ... mr_lebowski Apr 2020 #29

Not out of thin air, I am showing what the 40% lethality figure of the OP Celerity Apr 2020 #30

Oh no ... you did not show the numbers, and that is my issue. mr_lebowski Apr 2020 #31

no, you are wrong, I was showing the absurdity of a 40% lethality rate when viral spread was Celerity Apr 2020 #33

You are taking what I said out of context ... mr_lebowski Apr 2020 #34

my last reply, because you are still missing the entire point, the huge numbers were based off a Celerity Apr 2020 #35

No offense, but it's you that's missing my point ... mr_lebowski Apr 2020 #36

oki, I see what you are saying, I should have said potentially, not already, I give you that point Celerity Apr 2020 #37

Thank you ... had you said 'eventually' rather than 'already' ... mr_lebowski Apr 2020 #40

I am also exhausted as well, I have been multitasking all day and night as it is downtime in the Celerity Apr 2020 #41

it was in the subject line, that is why I never noticed it, many misspeakings I have made on DU Celerity Apr 2020 #39

Yes, but it's different weeks muriel_volestrangler Apr 2020 #11

So there are more future recoveries then future deaths hiding in the time-lag. I hope you are right. StTimofEdenRoc Apr 2020 #12

If you look at the recovery numbers for other countries, or work them out for states muriel_volestrangler Apr 2020 #15

Exactly ... one country (or even state or county) might say you're 'recovered' if you're still alive mr_lebowski Apr 2020 #18

Thank you all, maybe now I can sleep. StTimofEdenRoc Apr 2020 #21

bottom line we have NO accurate data on who is infected and who has died from it anywhere in beachbumbob Apr 2020 #26

Bad dental hygiene? Wrong shoes? FBaggins Apr 2020 #27

People who are not tested are not part of the OP's calculations whatsoever ... mr_lebowski Apr 2020 #32

The OP claimed "The mild condition population contributes to the recovered count." FBaggins Apr 2020 #38

This message was self-deleted by its author FBaggins Apr 2020 #28