Record Number of New Cases Today

[Thoreau72]

2000 people per day died from Tornadoes? Please link to that.

I didn't say 2000 people a day died in tornados, you did. :mrgreen:

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

My opinion is that the actual rate of infection is extremely high, even as the death rate is quite low.

If you include all the "undetected" and/or "sub-clinical" infections, you could well be right.

Of course, if you were to do that for COVID-19 you'd also have to do that for "The Flu" in order to have a meaningful statistical comparison because the data for "The Flu" DOES NOT include all the "undetected" and/or "sub-clinical" infections.

What the COVID-19 statistics do include is the “probable” and “confirmed” cases and deaths.

What "The Flu" statistics do include is the “probable” and “confirmed” cases and deaths.

That means that it is possible to have a meaningful statistical comparison between the two sets of data.

 

[Thoreau72]

A long time ago for me, too much emphasis on statistics is very much like mental masturbation.

 

[GreatNews2night]

I didn't say 2000 people a day died in tornados, you did. :mrgreen:

Don't worry, Thoreau72. People are so unfair; they misunderstand you, right? I empathize. You're absolutely right in your dismissal of the risks of COVID-19, because I'm sure that this is just a little flu. Actually a little common cold. The so-called deaths are fake or at least they only concern the old and infirm who would be dying anyway. Reports of permanent lung damage and clot disorders with fatal strokes in young people status post-COVID-19 = fake news. This fake virus can't be causing those things because it is well know that it's just a common cold. It's a George Soros conspiracy against Trump (kind of hard to pull it off given that in 209 out of the 210 countries in the world that are dealing with this, some having an even harder time than ours, there is no Donald J. Trump, but hey, that Soros is clever, man; he must have pulled it off somehow).

Do us a favor, please. Help debunking this hoax by going to your local emergency room and asking some people there waiting to be seen to sneeze and cough on your unprotected face. Make sure you take a good gulp of air when they do; open your mouth too, to get their droplets. Then go lick the door knobs and door bars that those patients touch. You should be fine; at worst you'll catch this farce of a common cold.

Then go home and for good measure, inject yourself with Chlorox, Lysol, or both (you can get one in each arm). Get one of those long UV lights and stick it up your you-know-what. In the unlikely event that you actually catch something from the ER waiting room patients, this cleansing should take care of it, in one minute! Stuff yourself full of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin too; it's a miracle cure and a game changer!!! Don't bother getting a doctor to check your heart's QTc before you take this combination of drugs; after all, doctors don't know anything (instead, we love the uneducated, right?); these drugs have been around for 70 years, right? There is no risk; Dr. Donald J. Trump has said "you have nothing to lose; take it!"

After you do all of the above, please make sure that you post your Darwin Award here for us to admire. Oh wait... dead people don't post. Never mind, forget this last line. Or else, maybe you can still indirectly do it: please add a line to your will; say that in case you collect a posthumous Darwin Award (it's actually the only kind) you want one of your left-behind family members to post a pic of it here. They are so beautiful! They are much prettier than the participation trophies all the leftist snowflakes are used to getting. Darwin Awards are for macho men, not for wimps who are terrified of a little common cold and stay home!!!

Come on, do it! Go get them, tiger! Show these ******s how macho you are!!!

 

[maxparrish]

Again, I see no indication that Our World in Data is right and Worldometer is wrong. Their data appear to be hugely different. But if you multiply the number of Test per 1 million listed on Worldometer by the population of each country, you indeed get to the number of tests for that country, so a simple math verification makes it look like the Worldometer numbers are internally coherent.

So far, I'm betting on Worldometer. They seem to have it right in every other aspect; why would they be off regarding testing?

Again, I see no indication that Worldometer is right and Our World in Data is wrong. I use Worldometer for my charting as well, and am well aware of their strengths and weaknesses.

So until such time as someone makes sense of the cascade of contradictory information and often thin analysis (of which WoM offers almost none) then I won't be so foolish to claim an absolute such as the US being 40th in testing.

 

[maxparrish]

On the basis of "tests/million" the US (at 16,257/1,000,000) ranks 42[sup]nd[/sup] (which is, admittedly, lower than Italy's 29,071/1,000,000 which is 18[sup]th[/sup]).

And yet on tests per thousand it clearly does not rank so low, particularly when comparted to major nation-states. See my prior post using World in Data.

Reconcile those facts and I'll award you a bippy point.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

And yet on tests per thousand it clearly does not rank so low, particularly when comparted to major nation-states. See my prior post using World in Data.

Reconcile those facts and I'll award you a bippy point.

Differing conclusions based on different data sets which were analyzed using differing methodologies.

Happens all the time in statistics.

 

[GreatNews2night]

Again, I see no indication that Worldometer is right and Our World in Data is wrong. I use Worldometer for my charting as well, and am well aware of their strengths and weaknesses.

So until such time as someone makes sense of the cascade of contradictory information and often thin analysis (of which WoM does almost none) then I won't be so foolish to claim an absolute such as the US being 40th in testing.

Thanks for calling me foolish, although in your latest assertion you forgot to include this very essential part:

40th in testing per million of population.

First in absolute number of tests.

Both pieces of info appear to be very accurate as reported by Worldometer as they are consistent with what we see on the field (including in my hospital): about 20% of the tests we perform come back positive. So, we have about 1 million confirmed cases and 5 million tests as per Worldometer; sounds right on target to me, and when you compare that to the population of the USA, it gives you the exact number that they quote. I fail to see how they are wrong about it.

It's a good thing that they don't do analysis. Accurately reporting raw data is a powerful thing. When you start the analyses done by sites that are not made of professional epidemiologists, that's when bias and poor use of statistics can get in the way. I'd rather see a site compiling accurate data, and leaving the analysis to epidemiologists.

 

[GreatNews2night]

And yet on tests per thousand it clearly does not rank so low, particularly when comparted to major nation-states. See my prior post using World in Data.

Reconcile those facts and I'll award you a bippy point.

Ranking by tests per thousand and tests per million shouldn't yield different rankings, just different decimal scales but the ranking should still be in the same order if the numbers are accurate. Like I said, given Worldometer's reporting of about 20% of the testing done in the US coming back positive (again, they report about 1 million cases which is what Johns Hopkins reports too, and about 5,000,000 tests), which is absolutely the rate we've been seing in my hospital, I'm prepared to bet that they are the ones who are right.

 

[Torus34]

4-24, states are lifting their stay at home orders, and the US hit a new high: 37,960 new cases. That's 5000 more than the previous high on April 4.


United States Coronavirus: 924,262 Cases and 52,176 Deaths - Worldometer

At this rate, we'll hit a million by Sunday.

Based upon the rate of increase of 4.4%, the prediction's numerically sound. We've experienced far higher rates, as a percent of the previous day's results, in the past. At present we've averaging about a 4% daily increase.

Regards, stay safe and remain well.

 

[GreatNews2night]

Again, I see no indication that Worldometer is right and Our World in Data is wrong. I use Worldometer for my charting as well, and am well aware of their strengths and weaknesses.

So until such time as someone makes sense of the cascade of contradictory information and often thin analysis (of which WoM offers almost none) then I won't be so foolish to claim an absolute such as the US being 40th in testing.

You might want to seriously revise what you've just said about foolishness... especially when implying an accusation of foolishness towards others.

I explored your Our World in Data, and easily figured out why the United States doesn't figure low and down the list of tests per population in your figures... simply because you failed to select enough countries and you just accepted their default, which only compares a small sub-set of countries, failing to include all the others that Worldometer does include by default and that have tested far more per capita than the US.

Please observe that they offer a drop box in which you can select the number of countries you want displayed in your graph.

When you select all the countries that have tested more than the US, then, of course, we drop down the list...

LOL, too funny.

:lamo

And also, the discrepancy regarding Italy is easily explained, if you were to pay attention. Both Italy and the United States have two boxes to click: one for number of patients tested, and another one for number of tests. If you just look at number of tests, the same patient is typically tested at least twice (a preliminary one, and a confirmatory one; often even more when a patient is being followed to certify recovery). So you have to click on the similar box to compare a similar set of data.

Also see post #209 and try hard to understand that saying tests per thousand and tests per million of the population shouldn't change the ranking. You seem to believe that it would, LOL.

If you can't operate the features of your own source, maybe you should refrain from implying that others here are foolish.

Oh, until the time when someone can make sense of the data, you say? Well... I just did. You didn't seem to be able to. You're welcome.

 

[Outlook]

“I’ve a grad degree and classes in population demographics” I don’t think so.

 

[noonereal]

New York's Temporary Overflow Hospitals Remain Underused Despite COVID-19 Crisis : NPR

There ya go. Ouch!

more twisted crap

 

[Bodi]

Current death rate is at 5% of reported cases

The generally accepted death rate of the flu is around 0.1 %

Not so low when it is 50 times that of the flu

This needs to be repeated for the slow learners out there ^^^^

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

You might want to seriously revise what you've just said about foolishness... especially when implying an accusation of foolishness towards others.

I explored your Our World in Data, and easily figured out why the United States doesn't figure low and down the list of tests per population in your figures... simply because you failed to select enough countries and you just accepted their default, which only compares a small sub-set of countries, failing to include all the others that Worldometer does include by default and that have tested far more per capita than the US.

Please observe that they offer a drop box in which you can select the number of countries you want displayed in your graph.

When you select all the countries that have tested more than the US, then, of course, we drop down the list...

LOL, too funny.

:lamo

And also, the discrepancy regarding Italy is easily explained, if you were to pay attention. Both Italy and the United States have two boxes to click: one for number of patients tested, and another one for number of tests. If you just look at number of tests, the same patient is typically tested at least twice (a preliminary one, and a confirmatory one; often even more when a patient is being followed to certify recovery). So you have to click on the similar box to compare a similar set of data.

Also see post #209 and try hard to understand that saying tests per thousand and tests per million of the population shouldn't change the ranking. You seem to believe that it would, LOL.

If you can't operate the features of your own source, maybe you should refrain from implying that others here are foolish.

Oh, until the time when someone can make sense of the data, you say? Well... I just did. You didn't seem to be able to. You're welcome.

It's very easy to come up with numbers that will prove whatever point you want to prove - all you have to do is ignore the data that doesn't prove what you want to prove (or not know that the "source" you are citing is not paying attention to all of the available data).

Thanks for the explanation of why "Our World In Data" SEEMS to differ from "Worldometers".

I believe that my "different data sets and different methodologies" proposition fits nicely into what you have found out.

 

[poweRob]

Current death rate is at 5% of reported cases

The generally accepted death rate of the flu is around 0.1 %

Not so low when it is 50 times that of the flu

And in a shorter time frame than the flu as well.

 

[GreatNews2night]

It's very easy to come up with numbers that will prove whatever point you want to prove - all you have to do is ignore the data that doesn't prove what you want to prove (or not know that the "source" you are citing is not paying attention to all of the available data).

Thanks for the explanation of why "Our World In Data" SEEMS to differ from "Worldometers".

I believe that my "different data sets and different methodologies" proposition fits nicely into what you have found out.

Yep, it does! The other user was arrogantly implying that we were foolish... because he couldn't figure out how his own source was displaying the data. Too funny!

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

And in a shorter time frame than the flu as well.

Since "Flu Season" runs from Fall to Spring, and since there was no COVID-19 during the Fall, you simply cannot say that there is a shorter time frame involved. You will have to wait until COVID-19 and "The Flu" have had a chance to operate throughout THE SAME time period before you can reach any conclusions as to whether or not there is any difference in severity between the two.

[The above form of "Internet Rebuttal" has been specifically and officially approved and endorsed by "Devoted Online Lovers of Trump" Inc. (a non-partisan, independent, research and analysis organization exempt from federal taxation that is dedicated to bringing you the true truth and not the false truth that anyone who doesn't believe 100% of what Donald Trump says tries to tell you the so-called "facts" are), "Pro-Life United Gun Enthusiasts and Manufacturers for Jesus", and “"The ‘First Amendment Rights Trust’ Foundation”. VALIDITY OF STATISTICAL ARGUMENT VERIFIED BY the polling firm of Wieselwort, du Plicité, Poco-Escrupuloso, Flerd, and Corrotto LLP.]

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Yep, it does! The other user was arrogantly implying that we were foolish... because he couldn't figure out how his own source was displaying the data. Too funny!

I find that there are very few people on the internet who "don't know what they are talking about". The number of people who don't know what what they are saying ACTUALLY MEANS is "slightly" higher.

 

[Mashmont]

more twisted crap

You don't like NPR? Cool.

 

[Mashmont]

Link?

He wiped it.

 

[Mashmont]

You got a credible link confirming that 5% mortality rate?

I guess when you report every single death as a COVID death, you can achieve a mythical figure like 5% for this scam.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I guess when you report every single death as a COVID death, you can achieve a mythical figure like 5% for this scam.

Your statistics would indicate that you spend approximately 7 hours per day posting here.

Get a life.

 

[Mashmont]

Your statistics would indicate that you spend approximately 7 hours per day posting here.

Get a life.

said the guy with twice as many posts as me. lolol.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

said the guy with twice as many posts as me. lolol.

Three minor points here:

1. My daily average is less than yours is;
   
   
2. I don't brag about it;
   
   and
   
   
3. It's a hobby that I indulge in while I'm sucking up enough coffee and nicotine to start my motor.