Men's and Women's NCAA tourneys without fans

The place for news, information and discussion of athletics at "other" schools.

Moderators: kmax, SonomaCat, rtb

91catAlum
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 7064
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2010 4:41 pm
Location: Clancy, MT

Re: Men's and Women's NCAA tourneys without fans

Post by 91catAlum » Thu Mar 12, 2020 10:50 am

Here's a bit more info about what I mentioned above:
The World Health Organization reported a global death rate of 3.4% by dividing the number of reported deaths over the number of reported cases.
Multiple experts told us that the number of coronavirus cases not just in China but worldwide has probably been undercounted because many people with the infection do not suffer serious symptoms and may not seek medical treatment.
Until the case definition is expanded to include people clinicians think may have COVID-19 but who were not tested for it, they said, the total estimated number of cases will remain lower than the likely reality. But, if the number of cases widens to include those with mild symptoms who have not been tested, then the mortality rate will go down.


Image
24-17
31-23
29-25
48-14

User avatar
Cledus
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 4508
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 3:18 pm
Location: Billings Heights

Re: Men's and Women's NCAA tourneys without fans

Post by Cledus » Thu Mar 12, 2020 10:57 am

91catAlum wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 8:04 am
:cry:

And what about all the people who have symptoms so mild that they don't even go to the doctor or get tested, and thus aren't counted in those numbers??

Your 5.8 number is way overstated and simply not accurate, according to what doctors, scientists, and WHO officials are telling the media. And will only serve to add to the panic and hysteria already happening.
It's accurate based on the numbers we have available. And yes I know that the final case fatality rate won't be known for a year or two when this thing has fully run its course, but it is a good approximation. The numbers coming out of Italy and Iran are so vastly different from everywhere else that there is probably an even more deadly strain that has mutated and evolved.

When the entire city of Wuhan, a city of 11 million people, was quarantined by the military that should have gotten your attention. When people in China were being welded shut inside their homes, that should have gotten your attention. When inbound flights to the US from China were halted several weeks ago, that should have gotten your attention. When China is building hospitals in ten days, that should get your attention.

If you're upset or alarmed by the facts, the problem isn't with the facts.

As Schopenhauer once noted, all truth passes through three stages. First, it is mocked and ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed. Lastly, it is accepted as being self evident.


UM is the university equivalent of Axe Body Spray and essential oils.

User avatar
PapaG
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 6379
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 11:44 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Men's and Women's NCAA tourneys without fans

Post by PapaG » Thu Mar 12, 2020 11:11 am

Cledus wrote:
Wed Mar 11, 2020 4:57 pm
PapaG wrote:
Wed Mar 11, 2020 4:00 pm
wbtfg wrote:
Wed Mar 11, 2020 3:51 pm
I wonder if all games are going to be played in their original scheduled locations. Theoretically, you could put 4 courts in a military airplane hanger and have all the games there.
I’m just wondering why I can’t drive to attend basketball games in Spokane next week, yet there is zero disruption to the public transit here in Portland with a metro population of over 2.5 million people. If you’ve ever been on a bus or the MAX here, it’s basically a moving germ mobile.
Germs don't have an R0 (R-naught) of 6.7, an incubation period of 14 days, or a case fatality rate of 5.8%.

This spectator ban places a higher value over human life than short-term pleasure, gain, economic activity, etc. It's a sensible precaution.
That doesn’t answer my question why public transit is still fully operational. At. All.


Greg K.

User avatar
Cledus
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 4508
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 3:18 pm
Location: Billings Heights

Re: Men's and Women's NCAA tourneys without fans

Post by Cledus » Thu Mar 12, 2020 11:54 am

PapaG wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 11:11 am
Cledus wrote:
Wed Mar 11, 2020 4:57 pm
PapaG wrote:
Wed Mar 11, 2020 4:00 pm
wbtfg wrote:
Wed Mar 11, 2020 3:51 pm
I wonder if all games are going to be played in their original scheduled locations. Theoretically, you could put 4 courts in a military airplane hanger and have all the games there.
I’m just wondering why I can’t drive to attend basketball games in Spokane next week, yet there is zero disruption to the public transit here in Portland with a metro population of over 2.5 million people. If you’ve ever been on a bus or the MAX here, it’s basically a moving germ mobile.
Germs don't have an R0 (R-naught) of 6.7, an incubation period of 14 days, or a case fatality rate of 5.8%.

This spectator ban places a higher value over human life than short-term pleasure, gain, economic activity, etc. It's a sensible precaution.
That doesn’t answer my question why public transit is still fully operational. At. All.
How about because public transportation are run by municipalities and not by the NCAA. Does that answer your question? At? All? Did you really need someone to explain that to you?


UM is the university equivalent of Axe Body Spray and essential oils.

User avatar
PapaG
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 6379
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 11:44 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Men's and Women's NCAA tourneys without fans

Post by PapaG » Thu Mar 12, 2020 12:14 pm

Cledus wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 11:54 am
PapaG wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 11:11 am
Cledus wrote:
Wed Mar 11, 2020 4:57 pm
PapaG wrote:
Wed Mar 11, 2020 4:00 pm
wbtfg wrote:
Wed Mar 11, 2020 3:51 pm
I wonder if all games are going to be played in their original scheduled locations. Theoretically, you could put 4 courts in a military airplane hanger and have all the games there.
I’m just wondering why I can’t drive to attend basketball games in Spokane next week, yet there is zero disruption to the public transit here in Portland with a metro population of over 2.5 million people. If you’ve ever been on a bus or the MAX here, it’s basically a moving germ mobile.
Germs don't have an R0 (R-naught) of 6.7, an incubation period of 14 days, or a case fatality rate of 5.8%.

This spectator ban places a higher value over human life than short-term pleasure, gain, economic activity, etc. It's a sensible precaution.
That doesn’t answer my question why public transit is still fully operational. At. All.
How about because public transportation are run by municipalities and not by the NCAA. Does that answer your question? At? All? Did you really need someone to explain that to you?
This makes zero sense. Schools are being shut down at the local level, yet I am sitting here in Portland watching full beers and trains go by and wondering why anyone is on them. What’s your point? Where do you live?


Greg K.

RationalGriz
BobcatNation Team Captain
Posts: 559
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 9:39 pm

Re: Men's and Women's NCAA tourneys without fans

Post by RationalGriz » Thu Mar 12, 2020 12:19 pm

PapaG wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 12:14 pm
Cledus wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 11:54 am
PapaG wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 11:11 am
Cledus wrote:
Wed Mar 11, 2020 4:57 pm
PapaG wrote:
Wed Mar 11, 2020 4:00 pm
wbtfg wrote:
Wed Mar 11, 2020 3:51 pm
I wonder if all games are going to be played in their original scheduled locations. Theoretically, you could put 4 courts in a military airplane hanger and have all the games there.
I’m just wondering why I can’t drive to attend basketball games in Spokane next week, yet there is zero disruption to the public transit here in Portland with a metro population of over 2.5 million people. If you’ve ever been on a bus or the MAX here, it’s basically a moving germ mobile.
Germs don't have an R0 (R-naught) of 6.7, an incubation period of 14 days, or a case fatality rate of 5.8%.

This spectator ban places a higher value over human life than short-term pleasure, gain, economic activity, etc. It's a sensible precaution.
That doesn’t answer my question why public transit is still fully operational. At. All.
How about because public transportation are run by municipalities and not by the NCAA. Does that answer your question? At? All? Did you really need someone to explain that to you?
This makes zero sense. Schools are being shut down at the local level, yet I am sitting here in Portland watching full beers and trains go by and wondering why anyone is on them. What’s your point? Where do you live?
People still got to work, shop, get to medical appointments,etc. and for most, public transportation is the only way. Much different than a sports tournament. They could eventually shutdown mass transit, but they aren't there yet.



91catAlum
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 7064
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2010 4:41 pm
Location: Clancy, MT

Re: Men's and Women's NCAA tourneys without fans

Post by 91catAlum » Thu Mar 12, 2020 1:14 pm

Cledus wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 10:57 am
91catAlum wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 8:04 am
:cry:

And what about all the people who have symptoms so mild that they don't even go to the doctor or get tested, and thus aren't counted in those numbers??

Your 5.8 number is way overstated and simply not accurate, according to what doctors, scientists, and WHO officials are telling the media. And will only serve to add to the panic and hysteria already happening.
It's accurate based on the numbers we have available. And yes I know that the final case fatality rate won't be known for a year or two when this thing has fully run its course, but it is a good approximation. The numbers coming out of Italy and Iran are so vastly different from everywhere else that there is probably an even more deadly strain that has mutated and evolved.

When the entire city of Wuhan, a city of 11 million people, was quarantined by the military that should have gotten your attention. When people in China were being welded shut inside their homes, that should have gotten your attention. When inbound flights to the US from China were halted several weeks ago, that should have gotten your attention. When China is building hospitals in ten days, that should get your attention.

If you're upset or alarmed by the facts, the problem isn't with the facts.

As Schopenhauer once noted, all truth passes through three stages. First, it is mocked and ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed. Lastly, it is accepted as being self evident.
I don't have a problem with facts. But when Cledus's "facts" don't agree with the WHO's facts then I'll go with WHO.

I agree it's a serious situation, but saying the mortality rate is almost 6% is irresponsible. That's the only thing you said that I'm arguing with, but you keep deflecting to things that "should get my attention".


Image
24-17
31-23
29-25
48-14

Mtcatfan
BobcatNation Letterman
Posts: 307
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 8:46 pm
Location: Great Falls MT

Re: Men's and Women's NCAA tourneys without fans

Post by Mtcatfan » Thu Mar 12, 2020 2:56 pm

Both tourneys have been cancelled. Not really surprised.



User avatar
Cledus
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 4508
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 3:18 pm
Location: Billings Heights

Re: Men's and Women's NCAA tourneys without fans

Post by Cledus » Thu Mar 12, 2020 6:03 pm

91catAlum wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 1:14 pm
Cledus wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 10:57 am
91catAlum wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 8:04 am
:cry:

And what about all the people who have symptoms so mild that they don't even go to the doctor or get tested, and thus aren't counted in those numbers??

Your 5.8 number is way overstated and simply not accurate, according to what doctors, scientists, and WHO officials are telling the media. And will only serve to add to the panic and hysteria already happening.
It's accurate based on the numbers we have available. And yes I know that the final case fatality rate won't be known for a year or two when this thing has fully run its course, but it is a good approximation. The numbers coming out of Italy and Iran are so vastly different from everywhere else that there is probably an even more deadly strain that has mutated and evolved.

When the entire city of Wuhan, a city of 11 million people, was quarantined by the military that should have gotten your attention. When people in China were being welded shut inside their homes, that should have gotten your attention. When inbound flights to the US from China were halted several weeks ago, that should have gotten your attention. When China is building hospitals in ten days, that should get your attention.

If you're upset or alarmed by the facts, the problem isn't with the facts.

As Schopenhauer once noted, all truth passes through three stages. First, it is mocked and ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed. Lastly, it is accepted as being self evident.
I don't have a problem with facts. But when Cledus's "facts" don't agree with the WHO's facts then I'll go with WHO.

I agree it's a serious situation, but saying the mortality rate is almost 6% is irresponsible. That's the only thing you said that I'm arguing with, but you keep deflecting to things that "should get my attention".
I was ready to shrug this off and let it go. Then I decided to check where the Worldometers site I've been using is getting their info. Their number one source is the WHO. :lol: :lol: (Go to the page and hit the "End" button on your keyboard and the sources are at the bottom of the page)

The cognitive dissonance is quite strong in you. I made some claims and then linked the information because you expressed what seemed to be at the time some interest in the matter. Then I walked you step by step through the high school math I used. Your response was "that can't be right!"

You're also relying on these logical fallacies in your failed attempt to discredit me:
1. Personal incredulity - Because you found something difficult to understand, or are unaware of how it works, you made out like it's probably not true.
2. Appeal to authority - You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.
3. Genetic - You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came.

Even if I'm wrong and the case fatality rate is half what I've calculated, this coronavirus would still be 29x more deadly than the flu. Maybe instead of trying to win an internet argument you should use this information to develop a plan to protect yourself and the people you love. All I was trying to do was sound the alarm.


UM is the university equivalent of Axe Body Spray and essential oils.

Cataholic
Member # Retired
Posts: 2516
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2014 10:09 pm

Re: Men's and Women's NCAA tourneys without fans

Post by Cataholic » Thu Mar 12, 2020 6:44 pm

I think the mortality rate is significantly lower than stated above. It is because the US is focused on testing the most susceptible to serious illness versus testing everyone who exhibits signs. Here is an article from Time.

https://time.com/5798168/coronavirus-mortality-rate/

From the article:

“Countries that have tested significant numbers of people are generally reporting lower mortality rates than those, like the U.S., that have tested in far lower numbers and with a stronger focus on severe cases. This suggests that when testing networks are broadened to catch people with less serious illnesses, and case counts then reflect this range of severity, mortality rates go down.

The mortality rate in South Korea, where more than 1,100 tests have been administered per million residents, comes out to just 0.6%, for example. In the U.S., where only seven tests have been administered per million residents, the mortality rate is above 5%.”



User avatar
Cledus
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 4508
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 3:18 pm
Location: Billings Heights

Re: Men's and Women's NCAA tourneys without fans

Post by Cledus » Thu Mar 12, 2020 7:04 pm

Cataholic wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 6:44 pm
I think the mortality rate is significantly lower than stated above. It is because the US is focused on testing the most susceptible to serious illness versus testing everyone who exhibits signs. Here is an article from Time.

https://time.com/5798168/coronavirus-mortality-rate/

From the article:

“Countries that have tested significant numbers of people are generally reporting lower mortality rates than those, like the U.S., that have tested in far lower numbers and with a stronger focus on severe cases. This suggests that when testing networks are broadened to catch people with less serious illnesses, and case counts then reflect this range of severity, mortality rates go down.

The mortality rate in South Korea, where more than 1,100 tests have been administered per million residents, comes out to just 0.6%, for example. In the U.S., where only seven tests have been administered per million residents, the mortality rate is above 5%.”
Here is the data that is being pulled from the WHO: Worldometers: South Korea

Scroll down to the Closed Cases box.

You cannot include active cases in the case fatality rate calculation because the outcome is not known. There are only two outcomes: patients recover or they die. This is directly out of the mouth of a qualified, credentialed, and trained pathologist, Chris Martinson. Given that, the case fatality rate right now in South Korea is 14.2%. 66 deaths / (66 deaths + 399 cases that had an outcome)

So even though S Korea has tested 1,100 people, only 399 patients have an outcome. That means we're still waiting on 701 people who have been tested to see if they survive or die.

This country would not be on lock down over a .6 percent case fatality rate. We haven't even had an active case that's originated in Montana and Governor Bullock has declared a state of emergency. When you look around at how institutions are responding that should tell you there is significant incongruity and this disease is significantly more deadly than what is being reported.

I might be wrong. I concede that. We won't know for at least a year or two. But my math is right and so is my methodology.


UM is the university equivalent of Axe Body Spray and essential oils.

91catAlum
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 7064
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2010 4:41 pm
Location: Clancy, MT

Re: Men's and Women's NCAA tourneys without fans

Post by 91catAlum » Thu Mar 12, 2020 8:32 pm

Cledus wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 6:03 pm
91catAlum wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 1:14 pm
Cledus wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 10:57 am
91catAlum wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 8:04 am
:cry:

And what about all the people who have symptoms so mild that they don't even go to the doctor or get tested, and thus aren't counted in those numbers??

Your 5.8 number is way overstated and simply not accurate, according to what doctors, scientists, and WHO officials are telling the media. And will only serve to add to the panic and hysteria already happening.
It's accurate based on the numbers we have available. And yes I know that the final case fatality rate won't be known for a year or two when this thing has fully run its course, but it is a good approximation. The numbers coming out of Italy and Iran are so vastly different from everywhere else that there is probably an even more deadly strain that has mutated and evolved.

When the entire city of Wuhan, a city of 11 million people, was quarantined by the military that should have gotten your attention. When people in China were being welded shut inside their homes, that should have gotten your attention. When inbound flights to the US from China were halted several weeks ago, that should have gotten your attention. When China is building hospitals in ten days, that should get your attention.

If you're upset or alarmed by the facts, the problem isn't with the facts.

As Schopenhauer once noted, all truth passes through three stages. First, it is mocked and ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed. Lastly, it is accepted as being self evident.
I don't have a problem with facts. But when Cledus's "facts" don't agree with the WHO's facts then I'll go with WHO.

I agree it's a serious situation, but saying the mortality rate is almost 6% is irresponsible. That's the only thing you said that I'm arguing with, but you keep deflecting to things that "should get my attention".
I was ready to shrug this off and let it go. Then I decided to check where the Worldometers site I've been using is getting their info. Their number one source is the WHO. :lol: :lol: (Go to the page and hit the "End" button on your keyboard and the sources are at the bottom of the page)

The cognitive dissonance is quite strong in you. I made some claims and then linked the information because you expressed what seemed to be at the time some interest in the matter. Then I walked you step by step through the high school math I used. Your response was "that can't be right!"

You're also relying on these logical fallacies in your failed attempt to discredit me:
1. Personal incredulity - Because you found something difficult to understand, or are unaware of how it works, you made out like it's probably not true.
2. Appeal to authority - You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.
3. Genetic - You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came.

Even if I'm wrong and the case fatality rate is half what I've calculated, this coronavirus would still be 29x more deadly than the flu. Maybe instead of trying to win an internet argument you should use this information to develop a plan to protect yourself and the people you love. All I was trying to do was sound the alarm.
And you are completely ignoring the quotes and links I provided to you earlier in several posts from several different reputable media sources, including a direct quote from the WHO that states 3.4% at this time.
So I give up at this point. Stay safe.


Image
24-17
31-23
29-25
48-14

Cataholic
Member # Retired
Posts: 2516
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2014 10:09 pm

Re: Men's and Women's NCAA tourneys without fans

Post by Cataholic » Thu Mar 12, 2020 9:51 pm

Cledus wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 7:04 pm
Cataholic wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 6:44 pm
I think the mortality rate is significantly lower than stated above. It is because the US is focused on testing the most susceptible to serious illness versus testing everyone who exhibits signs. Here is an article from Time.

https://time.com/5798168/coronavirus-mortality-rate/

From the article:

“Countries that have tested significant numbers of people are generally reporting lower mortality rates than those, like the U.S., that have tested in far lower numbers and with a stronger focus on severe cases. This suggests that when testing networks are broadened to catch people with less serious illnesses, and case counts then reflect this range of severity, mortality rates go down.

The mortality rate in South Korea, where more than 1,100 tests have been administered per million residents, comes out to just 0.6%, for example. In the U.S., where only seven tests have been administered per million residents, the mortality rate is above 5%.”
Here is the data that is being pulled from the WHO: Worldometers: South Korea

Scroll down to the Closed Cases box.

You cannot include active cases in the case fatality rate calculation because the outcome is not known. There are only two outcomes: patients recover or they die. This is directly out of the mouth of a qualified, credentialed, and trained pathologist, Chris Martinson. Given that, the case fatality rate right now in South Korea is 14.2%. 66 deaths / (66 deaths + 399 cases that had an outcome)

So even though S Korea has tested 1,100 people, only 399 patients have an outcome. That means we're still waiting on 701 people who have been tested to see if they survive or die.

This country would not be on lock down over a .6 percent case fatality rate. We haven't even had an active case that's originated in Montana and Governor Bullock has declared a state of emergency. When you look around at how institutions are responding that should tell you there is significant incongruity and this disease is significantly more deadly than what is being reported.

I might be wrong. I concede that. We won't know for at least a year or two. But my math is right and so is my methodology.
I think you are misinterpreting the data. South Korea has tested 1,100 people per 1 million in population. The US has tested 7 people per 1 million in population. The difference is that South Korea is testing people of all ages and health conditions. The US is testing only those who are immune suppressed. Obviously the death rate will be higher if you only test people who are at high risk and have health conditions. If the US tested everyone like South Korea, the mortality rate would be similar to South Korea at 0.6%.

I am not saying that this is not dangerous. If you are a older or have health issues, it is life threatening just like the flu. It spreads easier than the flu and is putting our elderly population at risk. Hopefully a vaccine or medicine similar to Flumadine (for the flu) is developed soon.



User avatar
Cledus
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 4508
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 3:18 pm
Location: Billings Heights

Re: Men's and Women's NCAA tourneys without fans

Post by Cledus » Fri Mar 13, 2020 5:55 am

Cataholic wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 9:51 pm
Cledus wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 7:04 pm
Cataholic wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 6:44 pm
I think the mortality rate is significantly lower than stated above. It is because the US is focused on testing the most susceptible to serious illness versus testing everyone who exhibits signs. Here is an article from Time.

https://time.com/5798168/coronavirus-mortality-rate/

From the article:

“Countries that have tested significant numbers of people are generally reporting lower mortality rates than those, like the U.S., that have tested in far lower numbers and with a stronger focus on severe cases. This suggests that when testing networks are broadened to catch people with less serious illnesses, and case counts then reflect this range of severity, mortality rates go down.

The mortality rate in South Korea, where more than 1,100 tests have been administered per million residents, comes out to just 0.6%, for example. In the U.S., where only seven tests have been administered per million residents, the mortality rate is above 5%.”
Here is the data that is being pulled from the WHO: Worldometers: South Korea

Scroll down to the Closed Cases box.

You cannot include active cases in the case fatality rate calculation because the outcome is not known. There are only two outcomes: patients recover or they die. This is directly out of the mouth of a qualified, credentialed, and trained pathologist, Chris Martinson. Given that, the case fatality rate right now in South Korea is 14.2%. 66 deaths / (66 deaths + 399 cases that had an outcome)

So even though S Korea has tested 1,100 people, only 399 patients have an outcome. That means we're still waiting on 701 people who have been tested to see if they survive or die.

This country would not be on lock down over a .6 percent case fatality rate. We haven't even had an active case that's originated in Montana and Governor Bullock has declared a state of emergency. When you look around at how institutions are responding that should tell you there is significant incongruity and this disease is significantly more deadly than what is being reported.

I might be wrong. I concede that. We won't know for at least a year or two. But my math is right and so is my methodology.
I think you are misinterpreting the data. South Korea has tested 1,100 people per 1 million in population. The US has tested 7 people per 1 million in population. The difference is that South Korea is testing people of all ages and health conditions. The US is testing only those who are immune suppressed. Obviously the death rate will be higher if you only test people who are at high risk and have health conditions. If the US tested everyone like South Korea, the mortality rate would be similar to South Korea at 0.6%.

I am not saying that this is not dangerous. If you are a older or have health issues, it is life threatening just like the flu. It spreads easier than the flu and is putting our elderly population at risk. Hopefully a vaccine or medicine similar to Flumadine (for the flu) is developed soon.
The mortality rate and the case fatality rate are not the same thing. You and 91catalum are conflating mortality rate with case fatality rate. I have been consistent with my usage and calculations of case fatality rate. If anything, my calculations have been a skosh on the low side.

I couldn’t sleep, so I read up on it and the page explicitly stated that the mortality rate is something entirely different from the case fatality rate.

Case Fatality Rate

I am guilty of not correcting the both of you earlier, which would have stamped out any misunderstanding right off the bat.

And yes, I did not read your post carefully about the rate of testing but it doesn’t have any impact on the case fatality rate.


UM is the university equivalent of Axe Body Spray and essential oils.

iaafan
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 5204
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 12:44 pm

Re: Men's and Women's NCAA tourneys without fans

Post by iaafan » Fri Mar 13, 2020 7:12 am

From what I’ve read, it’s at least 10x more likely to kill someone* than the flu.

*people that aren’t healthy (heart disease, diabetes) and the elderly(?), like with the flu, skew that data for both the corona virus and flu greatly. If you’re healthy and not elderly, it’s very unlikely to kill you. If you’re not healthy and/or elderly it’s a lot more likely to kill you. Some experts (AHCA president Mark Parkinson) are calling it a “perfect killing machine” for the elderly.

The USA (327 million population) is currently only testing 1,000 per day compared to South Korea (51.5 million population), which is at 10,000. To be on pace with them we’d need to test 60,000/daily.



Cataholic
Member # Retired
Posts: 2516
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2014 10:09 pm

Re: Men's and Women's NCAA tourneys without fans

Post by Cataholic » Fri Mar 13, 2020 7:53 am

I just saw the Ohio Governor and their top medical official estimate that at least 100,000 people in Ohio are infected. That is despite only a small number of people being tested. The key point being is that most people don’t get tested because they think they have a cold. Ohio still shut down schools for 3 weeks to slow the speed of the spread for the explicit reason of taking some pressure off of health care facilities.

Case mortality rate tells us nothing. It excludes the vast majority of our population falsely inflating a mortality rate. To be helpful, the demographics of the cases used for mortality must be evaluated. If every person in the cases evaluated were 60 years old, we could determine the mortality rate for 60 year old individuals.

At this point, it seems that the spread of the disease is inevitable. I saw a report where the expert believes that 50% of the country will have coronavirus by the end of the year. He stated that 20% of the US population actually contracted H1N1 during that outbreak. The vast majority of our population will be okay, but individuals with weak immune systems can get very sick.



User avatar
Cledus
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 4508
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 3:18 pm
Location: Billings Heights

Re: Men's and Women's NCAA tourneys without fans

Post by Cledus » Fri Mar 13, 2020 7:57 am

iaafan wrote:
Fri Mar 13, 2020 7:12 am
From what I’ve read, it’s at least 10x more likely to kill someone* than the flu.

*people that aren’t healthy (heart disease, diabetes) and the elderly(?), like with the flu, skew that data for both the corona virus and flu greatly. If you’re healthy and not elderly, it’s very unlikely to kill you. If you’re not healthy and/or elderly it’s a lot more likely to kill you. Some experts (AHCA president Mark Parkinson) are calling it a “perfect killing machine” for the elderly.

The USA (327 million population) is currently only testing 1,000 per day compared to South Korea (51.5 million population), which is at 10,000. To be on pace with them we’d need to test 60,000/daily.
Just to dovetail off that, South Korea gets a gold star for how they've handled the outbreak, along with Hong Kong and Taiwan. They won't be able to stop the spread, but they've effectively managed the outbreak and slowed it down so that their healthcare system won't be overwhelmed.

The US gets an F for how we've handled it to date, though we're showing signs of starting to take it seriously. Our healthcare system will be overwhelmed. This is a mathematical fact whether anyone chooses to believe it or not.

We only have about 100,000 ICU beds in the entire country and at any given moment about 60% are being used. So we really only have about 40,000 beds available to handle serious cases. This means that within a matter of weeks our healthcare system will be overwhelmed and triage will go into effect.


UM is the university equivalent of Axe Body Spray and essential oils.

User avatar
Cledus
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 4508
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 3:18 pm
Location: Billings Heights

Re: Men's and Women's NCAA tourneys without fans

Post by Cledus » Fri Mar 13, 2020 8:25 am

Cataholic wrote:
Fri Mar 13, 2020 7:53 am
I just saw the Ohio Governor and their top medical official estimate that at least 100,000 people in Ohio are infected. That is despite only a small number of people being tested. The key point being is that most people don’t get tested because they think they have a cold. Ohio still shut down schools for 3 weeks to slow the speed of the spread for the explicit reason of taking some pressure off of health care facilities.

Case mortality rate tells us nothing. It excludes the vast majority of our population falsely inflating a mortality rate. To be helpful, the demographics of the cases used for mortality must be evaluated. If every person in the cases evaluated were 60 years old, we could determine the mortality rate for 60 year old individuals.

At this point, it seems that the spread of the disease is inevitable. I saw a report where the expert believes that 50% of the country will have coronavirus by the end of the year. He stated that 20% of the US population actually contracted H1N1 during that outbreak. The vast majority of our population will be okay, but individuals with weak immune systems can get very sick.
Really? Nothing at all?

The case fatality rate for last year's flu season was .0962%, as in 9.62 x 10^-4. That means this coronavirus is AT LEAST 60x more deadly to anyone who becomes infected than the annual flu.

Here's where I got my numbers since you'll ask: CDC 2018-2019 Flu Season

"CDC estimates that the burden of illness during the 2018–2019 season included an estimated 35.5 million people getting sick with influenza, 16.5 million people going to a health care provider for their illness, 490,600 hospitalizations, and 34,200 deaths from influenza (Table 1). The number of influenza-associated illnesses that occurred last season was similar to the estimated number of influenza-associated illnesses during the 2012–2013 influenza season when an estimated 34 million people had symptomatic influenza illness"


UM is the university equivalent of Axe Body Spray and essential oils.

Cataholic
Member # Retired
Posts: 2516
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2014 10:09 pm

Re: Men's and Women's NCAA tourneys without fans

Post by Cataholic » Fri Mar 13, 2020 9:23 am

Cledus wrote:
Fri Mar 13, 2020 8:25 am
Cataholic wrote:
Fri Mar 13, 2020 7:53 am
I just saw the Ohio Governor and their top medical official estimate that at least 100,000 people in Ohio are infected. That is despite only a small number of people being tested. The key point being is that most people don’t get tested because they think they have a cold. Ohio still shut down schools for 3 weeks to slow the speed of the spread for the explicit reason of taking some pressure off of health care facilities.

Case mortality rate tells us nothing. It excludes the vast majority of our population falsely inflating a mortality rate. To be helpful, the demographics of the cases used for mortality must be evaluated. If every person in the cases evaluated were 60 years old, we could determine the mortality rate for 60 year old individuals.

At this point, it seems that the spread of the disease is inevitable. I saw a report where the expert believes that 50% of the country will have coronavirus by the end of the year. He stated that 20% of the US population actually contracted H1N1 during that outbreak. The vast majority of our population will be okay, but individuals with weak immune systems can get very sick.
Really? Nothing at all?

The case fatality rate for last year's flu season was .0962%, as in 9.62 x 10^-4. That means this coronavirus is AT LEAST 60x more deadly to anyone who becomes infected than the annual flu.

Here's where I got my numbers since you'll ask: CDC 2018-2019 Flu Season

"CDC estimates that the burden of illness during the 2018–2019 season included an estimated 35.5 million people getting sick with influenza, 16.5 million people going to a health care provider for their illness, 490,600 hospitalizations, and 34,200 deaths from influenza (Table 1). The number of influenza-associated illnesses that occurred last season was similar to the estimated number of influenza-associated illnesses during the 2012–2013 influenza season when an estimated 34 million people had symptomatic influenza illness"
I am not trying to be argumentative, but you are not seeing the critical flaw in the case mortality rates you quote for coronavirus. The problem is the sample size and test pool. Only people considered with immune deficiencies are getting tested - primarily the elderly. A large portion of the general population exhibits nothing more than a bad cold and they don’t get tested (see 100,000 estimated infected in Ohio).

CDC shows only 1 to 5 officially recognized positive cases in
Ohio:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... in-us.html

The Ohio state department chief states that over 100,000 people have already been infected:
https://www.daytondailynews.com/news/lo ... WnR9yNoxH/


It should be evident that many people are not getting tested because they are either not in the “at risk category” or they don’t feel sick. This limits the case test pool which you are basing a mortality rate. The case mortality rate only tells you what is happening in the test pool. If the test pool is only limited to elderly, it will only provide you a mortality rate for the elderly - not the general population.



User avatar
Cledus
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 4508
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 3:18 pm
Location: Billings Heights

Re: Men's and Women's NCAA tourneys without fans

Post by Cledus » Fri Mar 13, 2020 10:14 am

Cataholic wrote:
Fri Mar 13, 2020 9:23 am
Cledus wrote:
Fri Mar 13, 2020 8:25 am
Cataholic wrote:
Fri Mar 13, 2020 7:53 am
I just saw the Ohio Governor and their top medical official estimate that at least 100,000 people in Ohio are infected. That is despite only a small number of people being tested. The key point being is that most people don’t get tested because they think they have a cold. Ohio still shut down schools for 3 weeks to slow the speed of the spread for the explicit reason of taking some pressure off of health care facilities.

Case mortality rate tells us nothing. It excludes the vast majority of our population falsely inflating a mortality rate. To be helpful, the demographics of the cases used for mortality must be evaluated. If every person in the cases evaluated were 60 years old, we could determine the mortality rate for 60 year old individuals.

At this point, it seems that the spread of the disease is inevitable. I saw a report where the expert believes that 50% of the country will have coronavirus by the end of the year. He stated that 20% of the US population actually contracted H1N1 during that outbreak. The vast majority of our population will be okay, but individuals with weak immune systems can get very sick.
Really? Nothing at all?

The case fatality rate for last year's flu season was .0962%, as in 9.62 x 10^-4. That means this coronavirus is AT LEAST 60x more deadly to anyone who becomes infected than the annual flu.

Here's where I got my numbers since you'll ask: CDC 2018-2019 Flu Season

"CDC estimates that the burden of illness during the 2018–2019 season included an estimated 35.5 million people getting sick with influenza, 16.5 million people going to a health care provider for their illness, 490,600 hospitalizations, and 34,200 deaths from influenza (Table 1). The number of influenza-associated illnesses that occurred last season was similar to the estimated number of influenza-associated illnesses during the 2012–2013 influenza season when an estimated 34 million people had symptomatic influenza illness"
I am not trying to be argumentative, but you are not seeing the critical flaw in the case mortality rates you quote for coronavirus. The problem is the sample size and test pool. Only people considered with immune deficiencies are getting tested - primarily the elderly. A large portion of the general population exhibits nothing more than a bad cold and they don’t get tested (see 100,000 estimated infected in Ohio).

CDC shows only 1 to 5 officially recognized positive cases in
Ohio:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... in-us.html

The Ohio state department chief states that over 100,000 people have already been infected:
https://www.daytondailynews.com/news/lo ... WnR9yNoxH/


It should be evident that many people are not getting tested because they are either not in the “at risk category” or they don’t feel sick. This limits the case test pool which you are basing a mortality rate. The case mortality rate only tells you what is happening in the test pool. If the test pool is only limited to elderly, it will only provide you a mortality rate for the elderly - not the general population.
The objections you've raised are already cooked into my calculations because I'm using global numbers. The gold star countries - S Korea, Hong Kong, and Taiwan - that have done a crapload more testing still have very high case fatality rates and are several weeks ahead of us here in the USA. Thus, all the variance you've noted (age, race, ethnicity, general level of health, etc) have already been cooked in and smoothed out the variance to an extent.

We simply have to look at the countries that have a several week head start on us. We can look at them and know EXACTLY how it will play out here. We also have to note that the data coming out of Italy and Iran are so vastly different from every other country that there is probably a new and more deadly strain that will crowd out the current strain and propagate like a noxious weed.

But I accept your premise that the number of diagnoses are understated and there will be some regression towards the mean because of undersampling. By how much? Let's say I'm overstating the case fatality rate by exactly 100%. Not because of anything I've done incorrectly, but because of sampling.

As of this exact moment, the case fatality rate is 6.32% and so the adjusted for 100% error would actually be 3.16%. That is still 34x higher than the case fatality rate for last year's flu. I've been tracking the case fatality rate for 1.5 weeks now. It started at 5.4% last Monday and right now it's 6.32%. And that's with even more testing that you say is the flaw in my position. So, it's growing and there are no indications it's getting better even with more tests being conducted.

If 70% of this country contracts the disease (the upper end of the range of estimates), there will be AT LEAST 19 million people dead. And that's just in the USA.

If you're willing to hang your hat and the safety of yourself and the people you love on this disease not being deadly because of undersampling, then all I have to say is God bless you and I really hope things work out.


UM is the university equivalent of Axe Body Spray and essential oils.

Post Reply