US Covid19 pandemic blowing up...how bad will it get?

[EZM]

Originally Posted by Scott h

A large part of the difference in the CFR is that the CMA has built into their calculation an assumption that only 50% of the cases in the community will be counted. They also tried to account for the covid deaths that will be missed.
For those that feel a CFR of 2% is nothing to worry about, they may not be aware that the CRF for the infamous "Spanish Flu" was 2.5%.

100% chance there are cases of infections that are not captured or diagnosed. Fore sure - but why pull 50% out of the air.

But the assumption is based on what? That's a problem without backing it up, which these "authors" do not do.

If they were to test a large enough population for post infection markers (like the presence of antibodies and/or some other method confirming exposure) and those "positive test" results correlated to the general ratios of infection rates versus the population as a whole, then they would and could claim a result such as they have. That didn't happen here.

Nevertheless interesting. Just not sound science at this point. It's just a guess that isn't substantiated and/or has not been peer reviewed or underwritten by a credible, recognized source like most studies out there that do garner consideration. This one does not.

Still interesting - just not compelling.

[fishnguy]

Originally Posted by EZM

No idea who these "authors" are ......... but they need a math lesson .....

Canada

107,000 cases and 8,800 deaths

That's roughly a 8% death rate in Canada. Source = government's own website.

The same story goes for the US, government's own website would dispute your "authors" as well as virtually every other credible entity but we all love a great story. Good fairy tales require great authors I guess.

Lol. Generally, you have solid posts. I would rethink this one though, lol. You sound like Trump himself.

Authors of the “fairy tale”:

- Elaheh Abdollahi, PhD Student at York University
- David Champredon: David completed his BSc in pure mathematics, followed by an MSc in Applied Mathematics & Finance at the Université Pierre & Marie Curie in France, before obtaining his PhD in Computational Science & Engineering at McMaster. During his doctoral research, David specialized in mathematical and computational epidemiology in application to forecasting infectious disease epidemics.
- Joanne M. Langley, MD: Professor, Departments of Pediatrics and Community Health & Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine; Member, Faculty of Graduate Studies, Dalhousie University. See more at her Dalhousie University page.
- Alison Galvani, PhD: Burnett and Stender Families Professor of Epidemiology (Microbial Diseases); Director of the Center for Infectious Disease Modeling and Analysis (CIDMA). See her page at Yale University.
- Seyed M. Moghadas, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Computational Epidemiology. See his page at York University.

Maybe shoot them an email and educate them that the Government of Canada website or Worldometer shows the CFR of 9 or 11 or whatever percent and should take some math lessons. Lol.

Also, what Scott said.

[Scott h]

Originally Posted by EZM

100% chance there are cases of infections that are not captured or diagnosed. Fore sure - but why pull 50% out of the air.

But the assumption is based on what? That's a problem without backing it up, which these "authors" do not do.

If they were to test a large enough population for post infection markers (like the presence of antibodies and/or some other method confirming exposure) and those "positive test" results correlated to the general ratios of infection rates versus the population as a whole, then they would and could claim a result such as they have. That didn't happen here.

Nevertheless interesting. Just not sound science at this point. It's just a guess that isn't substantiated and/or has not been peer reviewed or underwritten by a credible, recognized source like most studies out there that do garner consideration. This one does not.

Still interesting - just not compelling.

Absolutely assumptions were made, but they are educated/calculated assumptions. Again as those that really understand whats happening keep saying, keep testing so that we can have accurate numbers! The analysis was done before the US numbers went totally off the charts so all bets are off on those numbers. Just take a look at how bad Arizona has handled itself.
If we are going to look at the hard known data (confirmed deaths and confirmed infections).....people are really not going to like the death rate.

[fishnguy]

Originally Posted by EZM

100% chance there are cases of infections that are not captured or diagnosed. Fore sure - but why pull 50% out of the air.

It isn’t out of the air. They have referenced at least two other studies related to this number.

Originally Posted by EZM

Nevertheless interesting. Just not sound science at this point. It's just a guess that isn't substantiated and/or has not been peer reviewed or underwritten by a credible, recognized source like most studies out there that do garner consideration. This one does not.

Lol. All scientific articles start as this one. Then they get read, cited and peer-reviewed. As for the recognized source, lol... The link I posted is to the CMAJ, which stands for the Canadian Medical Association Journal, which is (from their website, highlighting is theirs):

a peer-reviewed general medical journal that publishes original clinical research, commentaries, analyses, and reviews of clinical topics, health news, clinical practice updates and thought-provoking editorials. CMAJ has had substantial impact on health care and the practice of medicine in Canada and around the world.

Common, man.

[EZM]

Originally Posted by fishnguy

It isn’t out of the air. They have referenced at least two other studies related to this number.


Lol. All scientific articles start as this one. Then they get read, cited and peer-reviewed. As for the recognized source, lol... The link I posted is to the CMAJ, which stands for the Canadian Medical Association Journal, which is (from their website, highlighting is theirs):

a peer-reviewed general medical journal that publishes original clinical research, commentaries, analyses, and reviews of clinical topics, health news, clinical practice updates and thought-provoking editorials. CMAJ has had substantial impact on health care and the practice of medicine in Canada and around the world.

Common, man.

Listen, my point was ha-ha sarcastic - and maybe fairy tale was a bit over the top here - because my ha-ha may have been missed and all you got was sarcasm (tough to judge in the written word) and may it came out harsh.

Nevertheless, in all seriousness, considering the math itself here's how/why I think this is plausible, but a real huge stretch to try and apply any figure to it. -

50% means for every one positive case that's confirmed that means there is also one positive case (already resolved).

And, frankly, that's seems impossible to confirm because we haven't tested for antibodies or other markers except in very limited studies and numbers ...

Take the US for example …. (rough numbers just to make my point)

Roughly 1% of the population has been confirm to have been, or are currently infected. That's roughly 3 million.

That means there's another 1% who have not been tested and/or who have been tested for the presence of "post infection markers" (like antibodies). Another 3 million?

Ultimately, and mathematically, we have not tested enough of the population to draw any conclusion to even begin to estimate or nail down a number.

That was my point.

I'm not saying it's not plausible, but to me, it seems we simply don't have enough information to make a claim about what that number really is.

This is to early to be compelling to me.

Maybe I'm wrong, and I'm OK with that. I just am skeptical of very early research.

That's my point I guess.

[EZM]

Originally Posted by fishnguy

Lol. Generally, you have solid posts. I would rethink this one though, lol. You sound like Trump himself.

Authors of the “fairy tale”:

- Elaheh Abdollahi, PhD Student at York University
- David Champredon: David completed his BSc in pure mathematics, followed by an MSc in Applied Mathematics & Finance at the Université Pierre & Marie Curie in France, before obtaining his PhD in Computational Science & Engineering at McMaster. During his doctoral research, David specialized in mathematical and computational epidemiology in application to forecasting infectious disease epidemics.
- Joanne M. Langley, MD: Professor, Departments of Pediatrics and Community Health & Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine; Member, Faculty of Graduate Studies, Dalhousie University. See more at her Dalhousie University page.
- Alison Galvani, PhD: Burnett and Stender Families Professor of Epidemiology (Microbial Diseases); Director of the Center for Infectious Disease Modeling and Analysis (CIDMA). See her page at Yale University.
- Seyed M. Moghadas, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Computational Epidemiology. See his page at York University.

Maybe shoot them an email and educate them that the Government of Canada website or Worldometer shows the CFR of 9 or 11 or whatever percent and should take some math lessons. Lol.

Also, what Scott said.

All of these guys are far ore qualified than I am. No argument there.

See my other post - it's explains a lot.

The publication you posted is a credible source. I have no argument there either. That's not my issue in this case.

[EZM]

Originally Posted by Scott h

Absolutely assumptions were made, but they are educated/calculated assumptions. Again as those that really understand whats happening keep saying, keep testing so that we can have accurate numbers! The analysis was done before the US numbers went totally off the charts so all bets are off on those numbers. Just take a look at how bad Arizona has handled itself.
If we are going to look at the hard known data (confirmed deaths and confirmed infections).....people are really not going to like the death rate.

Yes, the key point to this whole thing is testing and more testing followed by research and development. No argument there.

[EZM]

Wanted to make one more important point about all those people who seem to want to deflect and insinuate how poorly Canada has done compared to the US in terms of their mitigation policies and how this has ultimately impacted the spread of the virus ……

using round figures ...

Yesterday in the US we had over 60,000 new cases in one day (and it's trending up)

Meanwhile in Canada, we had less than 400 new cases in one day (and we are trending down)

Canada's population is roughly 1/8 of the population compared to the US

That means the US's infection rates is at least 20 times higher compared to ours.

Those are facts.

The response we will get, from those who may have had their feeling hurt here by my presentation of this credible and factual information is either crickets ….. or some empty "one liner peanut gallery" response.

Trump's administration blew it. There is absolutely no other conclusion anyone, including his own administration, using the CDC's own numbers, could argue.

But hey, let's keep standing up at the podium and congratulating ourselves on what a great job we are doing. What a total joke. I find it crazy that so many people just drink it in and pump their fists believing anything that administration says ….

[jungleboy]

Originally Posted by EZM

Wanted to make one more important point about all those people who seem to want to deflect and insinuate how poorly Canada has done compared to the US in terms of their mitigation policies and how this has ultimately impacted the spread of the virus ……

using round figures ...

Yesterday in the US we had over 60,000 new cases in one day (and it's trending up)

Meanwhile in Canada, we had less than 400 new cases in one day (and we are trending down)

Canada's population is roughly 1/8 of the population compared to the US

That means the US's infection rates is at least 20 times higher compared to ours.

Those are facts.

The response we will get, from those who may have had their feeling hurt here by my presentation of this credible and factual information is either crickets ….. or some empty "one liner peanut gallery" response.

Trump's administration blew it. There is absolutely no other conclusion anyone, including his own administration, using the CDC's own numbers, could argue.

But hey, let's keep standing up at the podium and congratulating ourselves on what a great job we are doing. What a total joke. I find it crazy that so many people just drink it in and pump their fists believing anything that administration says ….

🥜🥜🥜 don’t forget that Canada’s biggest contributor to the Covid count has decided it is in their best interest to cut back on testing. Viva lay que bec 🥜🥜🥜🙂

[Pathfinder76]

Don’t forget this. From the CDC. EZM?

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.busi...r-2020-6%3famp

[glen moa]

Different places/people have a different idea on what success is.
It’s not right to impose your idea of what success is.

[Rvsask]

EZM, I like how you display your argument with factual data and mathematics. It’s a $h1t storm down there and sadly many Canadian businesses (hunting/fishing) are going to pay for it.
We don’t have to be in love with our own govt and situation to acknowledge that things are messier and uglier there.

[BigJon]

Originally Posted by EZM

Wanted to make one more important point about all those people who seem to want to deflect and insinuate how poorly Canada has done compared to the US in terms of their mitigation policies and how this has ultimately impacted the spread of the virus ……

using round figures ...

Yesterday in the US we had over 60,000 new cases in one day (and it's trending up)

Meanwhile in Canada, we had less than 400 new cases in one day (and we are trending down)

Canada's population is roughly 1/8 of the population compared to the US

That means the US's infection rates is at least 20 times higher compared to ours.

Those are facts.

The response we will get, from those who may have had their feeling hurt here by my presentation of this credible and factual information is either crickets ….. or some empty "one liner peanut gallery" response.

Trump's administration blew it. There is absolutely no other conclusion anyone, including his own administration, using the CDC's own numbers, could argue.

But hey, let's keep standing up at the podium and congratulating ourselves on what a great job we are doing. What a total joke. I find it crazy that so many people just drink it in and pump their fists believing anything that administration says ….

What proportion of the population is being tested, daily in each country?

[Scott h]

Originally Posted by BigJon

What proportion of the population is being tested, daily in each country?

Actually from a scientific/medical point of view the real question is "how many of those tested are positive"?
A low number shows that you are ahead of the game and testing people before they get really sick. A high number and you're behind. 3% or below is generally accepted as doing very well on testing.
Canadas is 1%
Compare that to the US, or individual states for a real comparison.

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/testing/...ual-states/usa

[Pathfinder76]

Here, let me help.

CDC Director Robert Redfield told reporters on Thursday that the number of Americans who had been infected with the novel coronavirus was probably 10 times higher than the official count.
"Our best estimate right now is that for every case that's reported, there actually are 10 other infections," he told reporters.
Redfield's admission echoes what researchers have been saying for months about the likelihood of a higher coronavirus count, particularly in countries with severe outbreaks.

So let’s look at that math.

Cases: 3,170,000 X 10 = 31,700,000

Deaths: 135,000

Death rate: 0.43%

[insomniac]

Originally Posted by chuck

Here, let me help.

CDC Director Robert Redfield told reporters on Thursday that the number of Americans who had been infected with the novel coronavirus was probably 10 times higher than the official count.
"Our best estimate right now is that for every case that's reported, there actually are 10 other infections," he told reporters.
Redfield's admission echoes what researchers have been saying for months about the likelihood of a higher coronavirus count, particularly in countries with severe outbreaks.

So let’s look at that math.

Cases: 3,170,000 X 10 = 31,700,000

Deaths: 135,000

Death rate: 0.43%

The exact death rate is certainly difficult to pinpoint but nobody should doubt that the U.S. is getting close to being in even bigger trouble. You should check out the ICU occupancy stats in some of the hot spots.

Florida is getting closer and closer to reaching capacity already for ICU spaces (at 84% capacity earlier this week)... Check out some of the other states in the South too -- pretty scary stuff...

[Scott h]

Originally Posted by insomniac

The exact death rate is certainly difficult to pinpoint but nobody should doubt that the U.S. is getting close to being in even bigger trouble. You should check out the ICU occupancy stats in some of the hot spots.

Florida is getting closer and closer to reaching capacity already for ICU spaces (at 84% capacity earlier this week)... Check out some of the other states in the South too -- pretty scary stuff...

Those occupancy rates fail to show that many of those hospitals have stopped doing elective procedures (cardiac, cancer,etc) and are still full to the rafters. A lot of Americans love to go on about their rights not to wear masks or otherwise be told what to do. They are however not that happy when the end result of that is that they can't have the angioplasty or surgery done.
Again many still fixate on the death rate but fail to understand how the massive volume of sick patients will impact their lives.

[fishnguy]

Originally Posted by BigJon

What proportion of the population is being tested, daily in each country?

US:




Canada:



82,422 per million with the population of roughly 38M gives us about 3.1M tests in total in Canada. Adjusted for size of the population, that equates to roughly 27M tests in the US (I used a factor of 8.6). In turn, that means that the Americans perform about 1.5 tests more per capita than we do, on average. Given the numbers above, 400 and 60,000, adjusted for population, makes it roughly 3,500 vs 60,000. In other words, their one day jump in cases was more than 17 times as high as ours, meaning we would report about 6,800 in Canada yesterday instead of 400 if we were in their shoes (I don’t think we ever reached 3,000 for a daily spike). Note, however, that the average testing rate was used in this calculation vs the marginal rate used for daily cases.

More appropriately, adjusted for population size, the total detected COVID cases in Canada equate to 920,000 vs 3.6M in the US and the difference is growing rapidly, obviously. It’s not really a rocket science, so I don’t get the confusion. Our reported COVID deaths equate to roughly 75,000 American deaths vs 136,000 they have there. This difference will also grow rapidly.

The key is the positive tests rate though (you can see both, theirs and ours, above), as well as hospitalizations (you can find recent reports on that situation).

[Pathfinder76]

Testing negative today doesn’t make me test negative tomorrow.

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by Scott h

Actually from a scientific/medical point of view the real question is "how many of those tested are positive"?
A low number shows that you are ahead of the game and testing people before they get really sick. A high number and you're behind. 3% or below is generally accepted as doing very well on testing.

Would be far more accurate if testing was random. But it's not.

[EZM]

Originally Posted by chuck

Don’t forget this. From the CDC. EZM?

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.busi...r-2020-6%3famp

Saw that, this article, and that interview pertained to a CDC official commenting about the global counts, not only that of the US - but admittedly, every country is going to have some undetected/unconfirmed cases and deaths - that's normal.

I'm also 99% sure China underreported. Brazil likely as well.

Either way, that's crazy. The good news is we may be farther along than we thought ….. which is positive at least.

[EZM]

Originally Posted by BigJon

What proportion of the population is being tested, daily in each country?

It should be pretty easy to ascertain, at least here in Canada where we have congruency in reporting. It's a little tougher south of the border as each jurisdiction reports a little differently …. but if you have that data post it up.

To further underpin my point, maybe this is ultimate measurement and comparison ….

DEATHS ….yesterday

Canada had 12

US had 874

I think the bottom line is quite clear.

[Scott h]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

Would be far more accurate if testing was random. But it's not.

Absolutely. Many places have started doing just that, but for places such as the US that are so far behind, is not possible at this time.
I know Canada currently has a large random study, as well as Germany and Japan.

https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20200616_24/

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/corona...nity-1.4961439

[EZM]

Originally Posted by fishnguy

. It’s not really a rocket science, so I don’t get the confusion.

100% spot on. Best comment on this entire thread.

[Pathfinder76]

This is worth a watch. Scott, what are your thoughts?

https://youtu.be/_1z664H7EiA

[270person]

Originally Posted by chuck

This is worth a watch. Scott, what are your thoughts?

I'd say He's not quite the expert he portrays himself to be.


I'd say He's not quite the expert he thinks he is.


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...cFypiuff0H6fek

[Pathfinder76]

So who do we believe?

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by 270person

I'd say He's not quite the expert he portrays himself to be.


I'd say He's not quite the expert he thinks he is.

Which poster(s) are you referring to?

[Sundancefisher]

https://www.tmc.edu/coronavirus-upda...pitalizations/

[270person]

Originally Posted by chuck

So who do we believe?

I don't think there's a left or right here chuck, or that we'll ever know all there is to know about this thing. Maybe we don't want to. Covid isn't going to end the human race but It's highly likely there are viruses coming that might.

We don't have much of a say in how this will play out so the best we can all do is take precautions to keep ourselves and others around us safe. I don't think wearing a mask in public is the be all and end all, or avoiding large gatherings is an automatic free pass, but do they help? Sure. All we can really do is recognize how easily it spreads, which should be pretty obvious to all now, and do what we can to avoid catching it while trying to live some form of a normal life. Whatever normal is now.

All of us are po'd over the inconveniences we've gone through the past few months. Some make sense and some seem to make none at all. Business closures and people losing their jobs are tragic and far more than inconveniences when they end up affecting people's sanity, destroying family units, etc. Humans succumbing to non covid issues while we're too highly focused on IT is tragic. Sometimes the fallout is far greater than the disease itself.

Maybe the only benefit is learning from the experience so we can better deal with the next one. Finding a balance point between doing nothing at all and overreactive fear mongering . Trusting "any" government to get it right isn't going to be high on my agenda and I think that's what we're seeing out there now. People are losing their trust and respect for all aspects of authority from police to politicians and want change. There's very little unity on what changes should occur but covid has most definitely reinforced people's desire for it.