|
Jörgen Andersson wrote: That's not how statistics work
Au contraire, that's exactly how they work -- and are used and abused by all and sundry.
I've just used a pure Maths approach, and calculated the figures somewhat less than holistically (mathématiques avec des frontieres).
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm.
I don't see the issue you have with this. The numbers are actually very simple. Granted, using regional borders might not be the best way of slicing up the pie, but, given the country-on-country differences, it is serious food for thought.
Yes, you can factor in all manner of cr@p, to try and pinpoint the whys and wherefores of the national differences, but that will mostly end up as just finger-pointing.
The simple fact is that if 10 people get the disease, it runs its course, and they all die, that is a 100% mortality rate.
Adding in things like the-number-of-people-infected is nonsense. The mortality rate is how many survived:how many died.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
I've just thrown that table into a spreadsheet, and you get interesting numbers. Some of it's going to be down to testing / confirmation rates (which we have no idea about but it's probably very, very low in some countries)
But ... the overall figure there is 4.21% mortality - worse than the WHO estimate of 3.5%
Italy ... 9.01% ... and they have a good modern health system ...
China ... 4.02% May be low due to extreme action on lockdown, may be bad reporting, maybe the release of lockdown is going to bite them in the ass; I dunno.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
It isn't that easy.
The big problem is as you mention the missing statistics, not everyone is tested.
Italy for example has tested five people for every sick found, and compare that to South Korea that has tested 37 people for every sick found.
You can easily assume that the Korean statistics are better, because they have also found most of the people that wasn't very sick and needed to go to hospital.
Their figures are suggesting a mortality rate closer to 0.7%. China outside of Wuhan has similar numbers. (0.8%)
The similarity between Italy and Wuhan isn't only that they haven't had the possibility to test everyone, but also that in both cases the healthcare system was overwhelmed. More people have died because they haven't received adequate care.
This isn't the case, yet, in most other countries. So here we are rather seeing the problem with poor testing.
BTW. If you want some pre crunched data of better quality I can recommend this page: Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) – Statistics and Research - Our World in Data[^]
The most interesting part being this diagram[^]
The US Trajectory is really scary, they have really missed the train.
|
|
|
|
|
Jörgen Andersson wrote: It isn't that easy.
Of course it isn't.
A final figure will not be available until the disease has run its course, and truly accurate figures are unlikely to ever exist, because people might get the disease and recover without being counted, and some people whose cause of death has been put down as flu might actually have died of corvid-19 (with the former likely to be higher number than the latter).
Snapshot figures can be taken at any time, though, as long as it's made clear to those who see them that they are probably wildly inaccurate.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Italy ... 9.01% ... and they have a good modern health system ...
But (as in Spain) not big enough to cover all the cases coming in the top part of the bell.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Switzerland (where I'm living)
Confirmed: 7.104
Deaths: 80
Recovered: 131
Active: 6.893
Not sure wheter they use only integer value to calculate the rate
It does not solve my Problem, but it answers my question
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Why not move to Syria, where they have no cases? NO CASES AT ALL!
(And if you believe that, can I interest you in a bridge with a lovely view of Brooklyn?)
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
No confirmed cases. The UK has a figure of 5027 cases, but since we're told to stay at home and take paracetamol if we think we have it, we will never know the actual number of cases. Another (big) reason why these stats don't really show anything at all. Maybe if you look at number of deaths (which hopefully will be more accurately recorded) as a percentage of total population, you'll see which countries have suffered worst...
|
|
|
|
|
I make it a 4.2% mortality rate in the Netherlands; 180 (deaths) out of 4216 (cases). Where'd you get 100% mortality from??
Not sure how much - if anything - you can glean about healthcare from these stats. Clearly, the closer died+recovered = total cases, then the closer that country is to eliminating it, For China, they seem to be pretty close; for Netherlands, still at the start of things. But even when this is over, you can't directly compare stats and say the difference is down to the health service. What's the health of the population to start with?
|
|
|
|
|
DerekT-P wrote: What's the health of the population to start with?
The life expectancy in Italy, until now that is, was the highest in Europe. So you can assume that has a bit to do with it.
|
|
|
|
|
Infected people are Schroedinger-esque (in that they're both/neither dead and/or recovered until they're either put in a box van to be taken home, or put into another box to be sent elsewhere), so they can't be counted as either.
You might as well use the number of people who have never been infected as the number for who are still infected; it would make the results just as nonsensical.
To calculate the actual mortality rate, you have to use only the Deaths and Recovered figures. Add them together to get the total "no longer in a Schroedinger box" figure, and calculate the mortality and recovery percentages from there.
e.g. no-one in NL has recovered, but some have died, so it is a 100% mortality rate.
If the Dutch doctors manage to cure a few people, the percentages will change, obviously -- but I haven't got my hopes up; my own GP nearly killed me (literally! The incorrect medication he gave me had me sh1tting blood, and I could have dropped dead at any instant), when all I had was tennis elbow.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Well I'm glad to hear that you survived the great tennis elbow pandemic (must have been pretty scary though - my commiserations). The thing is that deaths are "absolute", recoveries are not... at what time can you be sure someone's not going to relapse? And if they survive, their lungs may be so damaged that a future mild infection may kill them, but will that be counted as a C19 death?
I like you "Schroedinger" analogy, grim though it is. But since "recoveries" can be counted only against those tested and confirmed to have C19, again it's fairly meaningless until 100% of the population are counted 100% of the time. Maybe the Dutch are only hospitalising (and testing) people who are almost on their last breath. That's (one reason) why inter-country comparisons are both meaningless and useless.
Finally, I don't think any doctors anywhere are curing people of this, but simply managing to keep them alive long enough that they recover. The common cold is a coronavirus, but even so all we've achieved so far with that is symptom control.
Stay safe and good luck! 
|
|
|
|
|
DerekT-P wrote: "recoveries" can be counted only against those tested and confirmed to have C19, again it's fairly meaningless until 100% of the population are counted 100% of the time. Maybe the Dutch are only hospitalising (and testing) people who are almost on their last breath. That's (one reason) why inter-country comparisons are both meaningless and useless.
This is true. They're currently only testing some of the people who show symptoms or have been in close contact with confirmed cases, so it skews the figures a lot.
Hopefully, people like me, by promoting the "100% mortality rate!" thing, will encourage them to test more.
The same thing shows up very clearly in US testing -- just over 100,000 tested; about 30,000 confirmed infections. If people in the US start shouting about a 30% infection rate, a bit more effort might go into testing a little more.
A high level of testing appears to be the most successful weapon against the spread: Chinese and South Korean medics have been going door-to-door, testing people in the worst zones, then dragging infected people off to quarantine, if necessary; and their figures (while they show a high infection rate, because of the extensive testing) are improving, while the rest of the world's are getting worse.
Never be afraid to make the kind of noise that politicians don't want to hear.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
If "the quality of the health service" was the only factor affecting these figures, you might draw the conclusions you suggest.
But there are a lot of factors outside of the health system - most of all: The politicians. Which decisions they make to try to control the spread of the virus. The structure of society can greatly affect the spreading, too: An rural society where noone (or very few) are traveling very much, and each farming family essentially stays on the farm, maybe bringing their products to the local market once a week where they meet a few others that live in a similar way is not going to lead to a rapid spread.
Most of those dying from the virus are old people, many having other diseases as well. Remember that many "new" causes of death the last generation or two has to do with people living much longer. In the old days, people simply didn't live long enough to suffer these new diseases. In a non-Western culture, where people do not live much longer that we did a hundred years ago, maybe (note: maybe!) you won't have as many deaths, even though their health service may be rather primitive.
There are so many factors to take into consideration that I am sure that you have to be an expert in pandemics to think of even half of them. Putting just a handful simple figures into a spreadsheet and pretend that we can draw any valuable conclusion from that has no value whatsoever - except possibly as entertainment. Like playing Monopoly, which certainly can tell you nothing about how to handle the economic crisis.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 7989122 wrote: except possibly as entertainment
Bingo!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
In the long term, the mortality rate is always 100% - corona or not.
|
|
|
|
|
"The only way to win is not to play the game"?
Might be tricky to implement.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Ask some religious guy. They are convinced that they will win.
|
|
|
|
|
If they cancel the Tokyo olypics and there is no trrack and field events, is that to stop all the racists? If so what about the swimming competitions and all the relays?
BTW I was nevre fast enough to be a racist or racer.
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr.PhD P. E.
Comport Computing
Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
|
|
|
|
|
you'd think the Japanese would build robots to replace the athletes,
I mean they got robots for pretty much everything else over there.
heck, they could even build robot audiences too
...except for English football audiences - even robots have limits to nastiness and profanity inventiveness.
pestilence [ pes-tl-uh ns ] noun
1. a deadly or virulent epidemic disease. especially bubonic plague.
2. something that is considered harmful, destructive, or evil.
Synonyms: pest, plague, people
|
|
|
|
|
lopatir wrote: even robots have limits to nastiness and profanity inventiveness
and can't get drunk 
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
lopatir wrote: I mean they got robots for pretty much everything else over there.
Are you thinking of the biological kind?
|
|
|
|
|
up-vote this post if you don't like up-voting.
pestilence [ pes-tl-uh ns ] noun
1. a deadly or virulent epidemic disease. especially bubonic plague.
2. something that is considered harmful, destructive, or evil.
Synonyms: pest, plague, people
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
