Corona Virus ( Covid-19 )
Just to give a reality check perspective on all the statistics flying around out there :
Any percentages you’re seeing are based only on the portion of the population that has been tested for corona , and it is only accurate within that group, not the entire population of a country , a city or the whole world .
To get a truly accurate evaluation , everyone in the world would need to be tested, and frankly , in the medical arena, we don’t have enough supplies for that.
So we’re never going to have the full picture, which could be far more grim or even far less grim, than we currrntly know right now.
Any percentages you’re seeing are based only on the portion of the population that has been tested for corona , and it is only accurate within that group, not the entire population of a country , a city or the whole world .
To get a truly accurate evaluation , everyone in the world would need to be tested, and frankly , in the medical arena, we don’t have enough supplies for that.
So we’re never going to have the full picture, which could be far more grim or even far less grim, than we currrntly know right now.
Anonymous
<< post removed >>
hemihead said:
Again we may have wires crossed. WHO are reporting around the 4% number. To save us both time, perhaps easiest if I share the link to their site, which also includes daily numbers reports, from which you may care to derive the figures yourself....I do it because I’m looking forward to when it moves away from exponential growth....the 4% figure I expect to see climb, as the US, poorer Africa, and India will be hit hard, and their reported cases figures will be lower due to testing constraints.
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019
We don't have our wires crossed. I understand what you are saying; I have the WHO dashboard bookmarked too; but, they seem to lag a bit behind the others ( for whatever reason ). Worldometer seems to be atop the statistics part, while WHO is abreast of the information.
I was simply asking you, because you enjoy calculating, if you could figure out why WHO is reporting 4%, and the calculations on the other two sites equal 4%; however, are reporting 11%.
Again we may have wires crossed. WHO are reporting around the 4% number. To save us both time, perhaps easiest if I share the link to their site, which also includes daily numbers reports, from which you may care to derive the figures yourself....I do it because I’m looking forward to when it moves away from exponential growth....the 4% figure I expect to see climb, as the US, poorer Africa, and India will be hit hard, and their reported cases figures will be lower due to testing constraints.
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019
We don't have our wires crossed. I understand what you are saying; I have the WHO dashboard bookmarked too; but, they seem to lag a bit behind the others ( for whatever reason ). Worldometer seems to be atop the statistics part, while WHO is abreast of the information.
I was simply asking you, because you enjoy calculating, if you could figure out why WHO is reporting 4%, and the calculations on the other two sites equal 4%; however, are reporting 11%.
MadameLavender said:Just to give a reality check perspective on all the statistics flying around out there :
Any percentages you’re seeing are based only on the portion of the population that has been tested for corona , and it is only accurate within that group, not the entire population of a country , a city or the whole world .
To get a truly accurate evaluation , everyone in the world would need to be tested, and frankly , in the medical arena, we don’t have enough supplies for that.
So we’re never going to have the full picture, which could be far more grim or even far less grim, than we currrntly know right now.
100%. Also the definition of “confirmed” varies country by country. We can’t even agree how many people the Spanish flu killed with a higher certainty (depending on which source you use) of 50-100 million!
Any percentages you’re seeing are based only on the portion of the population that has been tested for corona , and it is only accurate within that group, not the entire population of a country , a city or the whole world .
To get a truly accurate evaluation , everyone in the world would need to be tested, and frankly , in the medical arena, we don’t have enough supplies for that.
So we’re never going to have the full picture, which could be far more grim or even far less grim, than we currrntly know right now.
100%. Also the definition of “confirmed” varies country by country. We can’t even agree how many people the Spanish flu killed with a higher certainty (depending on which source you use) of 50-100 million!
MadameLavender said:Just to give a reality check perspective on all the statistics flying around out there :
Any percentages you’re seeing are based only on the portion of the population that has been tested for corona , and it is only accurate within that group, not the entire population of a country , a city or the whole world .
To get a truly accurate evaluation , everyone in the world would need to be tested, and frankly , in the medical arena, we don’t have enough supplies for that.
So we’re never going to have the full picture, which could be far more grim or even far less grim, than we currrntly know right now.
Right, nor how many people in recent weeks may have had COVID-19 vs the flu, because testing wasn't available.
Any percentages you’re seeing are based only on the portion of the population that has been tested for corona , and it is only accurate within that group, not the entire population of a country , a city or the whole world .
To get a truly accurate evaluation , everyone in the world would need to be tested, and frankly , in the medical arena, we don’t have enough supplies for that.
So we’re never going to have the full picture, which could be far more grim or even far less grim, than we currrntly know right now.
Right, nor how many people in recent weeks may have had COVID-19 vs the flu, because testing wasn't available.
Anonymous
<< post removed >>
Ahavati said:
We don't have our wires crossed. I understand what you are saying; I have the WHO dashboard bookmarked too; but, they seem to lag a bit behind the others ( for whatever reason ). Worldometer seems to be atop the statistics part, while WHO is abreast of the information.
I was simply asking you, because you enjoy calculating, if you could figure out why WHO is reporting 4%, and the calculations on the other two sites equal 4%; however, are reporting 11%.
I’d be curious to see where WHO are reporting such a high number. They would realise that puts it in the company of much more serious illnesses.
We don't have our wires crossed. I understand what you are saying; I have the WHO dashboard bookmarked too; but, they seem to lag a bit behind the others ( for whatever reason ). Worldometer seems to be atop the statistics part, while WHO is abreast of the information.
I was simply asking you, because you enjoy calculating, if you could figure out why WHO is reporting 4%, and the calculations on the other two sites equal 4%; however, are reporting 11%.
I’d be curious to see where WHO are reporting such a high number. They would realise that puts it in the company of much more serious illnesses.
hemihead said:
I’d be curious to see where WHO are reporting such a high number. They would realise that puts it in the company of much more serious illnesses.
hemihead said:
WHO report March 20: 234000 reported cases, 9800 deaths = 4.3% mortality.
10% would put it in category of the Spanish flu, which was a far far more dangerous contagion.
Did you do the calculations yourself ( meaning the 4.3% )? Or are they somewhere on the WHO dashboard that I missed?
I’d be curious to see where WHO are reporting such a high number. They would realise that puts it in the company of much more serious illnesses.
hemihead said:
WHO report March 20: 234000 reported cases, 9800 deaths = 4.3% mortality.
10% would put it in category of the Spanish flu, which was a far far more dangerous contagion.
Did you do the calculations yourself ( meaning the 4.3% )? Or are they somewhere on the WHO dashboard that I missed?
Anonymous
<< post removed >>
Ahavati said:
Did you do the calculations yourself ( meaning the 4.3% )? Or are they somewhere on the WHO dashboard that I missed?
I do it myself. They did produce some stats maybe two weeks ago that sat at about 3.5, but they were relying on dubious/politically censored data, and it has gone up since then. I think the head of WHO gave the figure in one of his press speeches also(?).
Italy’s numbers are running higher, to give perspective, based on good testing data, but also swung by an aging population.
(I’m running a second model trying to back-predict true number of cases based on reported cases, but have had to pick only one country to do that, to control the number of variables, as well as make some unproven assumptions about the illness itself....all very loose)
Did you do the calculations yourself ( meaning the 4.3% )? Or are they somewhere on the WHO dashboard that I missed?
I do it myself. They did produce some stats maybe two weeks ago that sat at about 3.5, but they were relying on dubious/politically censored data, and it has gone up since then. I think the head of WHO gave the figure in one of his press speeches also(?).
Italy’s numbers are running higher, to give perspective, based on good testing data, but also swung by an aging population.
(I’m running a second model trying to back-predict true number of cases based on reported cases, but have had to pick only one country to do that, to control the number of variables, as well as make some unproven assumptions about the illness itself....all very loose)
