next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
>> towards those s --000000000000c63f5605a4958ae4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thank you, Stephen. I have been trying to get a grasp of the actual death rate. This site provides a way of calculating (estimating) the death rate while an epidemic is still ongoing, pointing out that the formula "deaths/cases" is misleading; so you have to use a "Case Fatality Rate" instead: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-rate/#compariso= n Obviously we need more data. Shouldn't the overall death rate be broken down giving the age range and underlying conditions as well, to be really meaningful? This site does not do that. I think the doctors' video was pulled from YouTube because it went viral - so perhaps considered too influential in the politicized atmosphere in the U.S. Nancy On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 8:55 PM Stephen Shaw <srshaw@dal.ca> wrote: > Hi Nancy, > Strange?=E2=80=94 no. You must have missed Rick Whitman=E2=80=99s reply = to David, and > David=E2=80=99s response acknowledging that Rick was correct in pinpointi= ng the > fatal flaw in the banned video talk. The =E2=80=9Canalysis=E2=80=9D the = guy in the video > gives is nonsense, but he sounds slick enough -- he presumably is > deliberately intending to mislead the audience, us: that is, he has a > hidden agenda to push. The argument the guy gives may sound convincing b= ut > it is not, so perhaps numbers may help. > > Say that epidemiologists round up 100 people whom they have good reason > think probably have (or have had) covid-19, test them and find that 99 > actually do have covid. On video logic, they'd want to say, extrapolatin= g, > that 99 percent of the larger population must have been infected, a huge > number, 39 million folk in California. If a relatively low number of peop= le > in CA have died (~1200 they said) it sounds as if a only tiny fraction of > those infected have died, so the death rate must be extremely low =E2=80= =94 heck, > it=E2=80=99s no worse than flu. This is a totally biased, bogus and wron= g > conclusion because it=E2=80=99s not based on random sampling. It doesn= =E2=80=99t matter > if they calculate a 12% rate not 99%, it is just as phoney an analysis an= d > wrong. > > If the surveyors instead round up 10,000 people randomly from the > population (with no prior knowledge of whether they are or are not > infected), test this larger number and find that the same 99 people are > infected, they will estimate correctly that only about 1 percent of the > larger population is actually infected, now very small proportion (99 out > of 10,000 =3D 0.99% =E2=89=88 1%). Since this number is way lower than = the bogus > video estimate while the number of dead stays the same, 1200, the actual > death rate must be much higher than the bogus video estimates claim. > > To know the true current infection rate would be really useful, but needs > random sampling and is not going to happen widely in present circumstance= s, > if at all. As you saw from the local front-line doctor=E2=80=99s touchi= ng e-mail > here recently, she and colleagues are working flat out already, and it is > also clear from TV reports that medics are pushed to find test and PPE > materials both here and in USA. If you perform random tests on 10,000 > people and find that most are not infected, those tests are not useful in > the sense that they do not help diagnose those patients who actually are > infected, and are actually harmful in taking time, money and supplies awa= y > from already overworked heath care personal. Not going to happen in the > current situation. > > It would be useful, though, to have non-bogus estimates to see what the > current infection rate really is, to gauge whether countries are heading > upwards towards 80% of the population infected as suggested by earlier UK > modeling, should no lock-down precautions be taken. Or are we now headin= g > to an 80% overall infection anyway with a flattened curve, just much more > slowly and integrated over a much longer time scale? > > ------------------------------------------------------- > On Apr 30, 2020, at 4:56 PM, N Robinson <nrobbyn@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thank you, David, for finding this video that was banned by YouTube - ver= y > strange... > > I find these doctors very responsible, finally someone putting the gross > numbers into perspective; i.e. looking at per capita rates and death rate= s > compared to other illnesses. I have not heard any news reports since the > beginning of this pandemic telling us how many people die every day of ma= ny > causes. It is as if without Covid 19, nobody dies. The doctors' > extrapolations to the wider population should be examined more closely. = I > notice, however, that they mentioned increased domestic violence, etc. as= a > side effect of the shutdown, but gave no numbers. Nor did the reporters > ask how many, within what time frame and how many more than "usual". > > My take on the pandemic has been that Mother Earth said "Enough is enough= " > and found a way to shut the whole world down. Brilliant! > > I do hope that this pause in our lives will actually raise awareness of > the wasteful way we live, increase our sensitivity to the natural world a= nd > force us to deal with our contribution to climate change. These doctors = do > not address that. They mention vaccines as a solution, at least in part, > but do not mention anything about people improving their lifestyles, > especially their diets, which would go a long way to mitigating the effec= ts > of the virus on individuals as well as on society as a whole. > > Nancy > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 1:58 PM <dschlosb-g@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote: > >> Another aspect of this video that concerns me is the side effects of the >> virus. I didn=E2=80=99t listen all the way to the end, but I understand= there are >> considerable possibilities of damage to lungs, heart, and other organs, >> which can be long-lasting. They didn=E2=80=99t seem to be taking this i= nto account. >> >> Also, they seemed to be suggesting that our natural immunity will be >> compromised by staying at home for a couple of months; but is that reall= y >> true? >> >> I, like many people I know, are at least a tiny bit hopeful that when th= e >> economy does start up again, people will be more respectful of the >> environment, now that we=E2=80=99ve seen the possibility that our earth = can recover >> from human depredation. Pipe dream? >> >> Jane >> >> >> >> *From:* naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca *On Behalf Of *Rick Whitman >> *Sent:* April 30, 2020 11:57 AM >