new coronavirus outbreak China, Korea, USA - mod warnings in OP (updated 24/02/20)

Mic 1972 wrote: »

3 cases in the philippines? you think that is enough data to run stats?
you need to look at large samples, that's how you look at data

It’s enough if it suits his argument

DrumSteve wrote: »

Well the Phillipines has had 3 cases so far, 2 people recovered and 1 died; thats a 33% mortality rate.

Japan has had 146 cases with 23 recovered and 1 dead. Thats about .5% off the top of my head mortality rate overall but of the cases closed gives a 4% mortality rate.

So geography and localised issues will play into it too.

The stats dont tell the full story though; at the moment it's eastist just to look at the headline figures of:

Coronavirus Cases:
79,729
Deaths:
2,627
Recovered:
25,279


So for overall recovered/died there are 27906 cases; that gives us a 9.41% mortality rate overall.

True. It would be a similar mortality rate to the Spanish Flu of 1918 to 1921.
15%. Both viruses attacked the immune system in a similar manner and both had no vaccine available. So I would presume there would be similar figures.
Both the hospital director and the doctor who discovered the virus are dead from the virus. This suggests, that there is very little you can do if it takes hold.

Are we back to arguing the math that a mod told us to not argue about? This thread is like Groundhog day sometimes. Folks arrive in 500 pages late and restart the old arguments. The position on the math is that nobody is right, we can only work off of bare figures and facts we know. Trying to figure out how serious or not this virus is cannot be accomplished by looking multiple ways at the same set of figures. You can only really adjudge from the second order effects, like the steps being taken by governments.

fritzelly wrote: »

So this is convenient, cannot declare a pandemic if you have no criteria to declare one

https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1231919662167941123

BanditLuke wrote: »

Some good news for China

https://twitter.com/jamesvgingerich/status/1231933042635108352

Mother nature fights back.

Mic 1972 wrote: »

We can asses mortality rate based on a sample of 27K people who have had an outcome
That sample is contained inside an 80K sample of people who will eventually have an outcome, so we can also observe how such mortality rate will evolve
Form a statistical stand point this is good data

Sure, you can assess how the 80k are getting on; you can’t extrapolate further than that 80k and into the general population (with any degree of accuracy).

Another death in Italy - cancer sufferer again - total 6 now

givyjoe wrote: »

A number of posters have literally just dismissed the stats we have of confirmed cases.. are you picking and choosing which posts you read in full?

Are you on a piss take? You literally calculated infection rates based upon the total population of China, compared to current infection rates and don't see why that's being dismissed? The virus has only been around for 2.5/3 months, half of which the breakout zones have been under quarantine.

Also, I didn't estimate the 1 million infected in Ireland. You might want to take a that up with the professor in Beaumont.

You should really provide that list of what end-points the data is sufficient to draw conclusions on, and what it’s not sufficient for. I’ll get you started based on your previous views; please amend as appropriate:

Good for:
No of deaths in Ireland
No of ICU beds needed

Not good for:
No of cases in Ireland

What mcconkey said was that IF 1m people got infected in Ireland, the following might happen; how do you think that supports anything you have to say?

Deleted User wrote: »

Just posting this as you are lying again. As it says nowhere in the article you linked that 20% of people would need critical care. Why do some posters feel the need to lie?

Right, I've had enough of this crap. Go back and check my post and re read it, then you can come back to apologise. The article states that 5% of cases of FLU cases were critical (in feb 2019), which is exactly what I stated. The 20% of critical cases comes from the actual stats of current critical cases of covid19, which is... ~20%. Id suggest you read things twice before falsely accusing people of lying. It's absolutely pathetic.

There is a lad on Lifeline who thinks he has Coronavirus because someone who worked in the college he visited last week in South Korea now has it.

First reaction is phone Joe!

Edit: it turns out he phoned the HSE this morning and they said he had nothing to worry about so now he is onto Joe because the HSE didn't quarantine him.

Mic 1972 wrote: »

3 cases in the philippines? you think that is enough data to run stats?
you need to look at large samples, that's how you look at data

all about the mane wrote: »

3 confirmed cases

all about the mane wrote: »

It’s enough if it suits his argument

Lads, did you read my full post.

Mic 1972 wrote: »

80K is decently sized sample

But you don’t know much or anything about how representative that 80k is if the total of people who get covid.

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

This is Waterford Whispers type stuff.

Next we’ll have the death toll drop because the WHO want to redefine what ‘death’ is.

We’ve already seen it a few times with ‘infected cases’.

Ha, was only chatting to a friend this morning about this, explained the WHO were taking the advice of Stats/infectious disease experts, and we were waiting to see the result of that today.
But I said, 'i guess they are figuring out how to say 'pandemic' without actually saying it.'

Not fit for purpose, that organisation. They are there to protect PEOPLE not economies..