new coronavirus outbreak China, Korea, USA - mod warnings in OP (updated 24/02/20)

all about the mane

drkpower wrote: »

So, we need more information to assess infection rates.

But we can assess mortality rates / icu rates now based on the information we have SO FAR?

You can’t assess mortality rates without knowing infection rates

Call Me Jimmy

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Acknowledging that the data is incomplete and should be regarded with a pinch of salt isn't dismissing the data.

There's a trend in this thread that any data indicating things won't be too bad is scoffed at while any data that indicates something much worse is going on is taken as gospel. The reality is we just don't know. It's a developing situation.

What data indicating things won't be too bad though? We can't conclude?

In fact I assume the data is only an extremely coarse indicator and in no way would say the death rate is X etc. even if it is statistically true because I don't think they are representative yet. But most people are posting the same numbers that news outlets report and being straightforward about any calculations. There are things outside the clinical data that are pretty strong indicators there's something serious going on. Governments (in affected areas) and all the leading health bodies are using pretty strong language and acting in extraordinary ways. The economic logistical issues cannot be underestimated imo.

But on the other side, the people who are unworried (I'm actually unworried but more fascinated by what's going on) have told us that there's "No chance it will take hold here" and that the death rate is not going to be more than 1% guaranteed and weeks ago were attacking news article where health bodies were saying a global outbreak was likely etc. but then argue the data is useless or we can't conclude...?

No problem with putting both sides of an argument, but everything is expected to be peer reviewed on one side and the other side are happy to just make pronouncements and slag people adding information to the thread. Before ye say it, there has been a miniscule % of fake stuff in the thread given it's size and the fact it's a globally breaking story.

givyjoe

drkpower wrote: »

So, we need more information to assess infection rates.

But we can assess mortality rates / icu rates now based on the information we have SO FAR?

For the love of God, there's 80k cases. How many cases do you need before they become statistically significant?

Mic 1972

all about the mane wrote: »

You can’t assess mortality rates without knowing infection rates

err.. no
you can easy calculate the rate of deaths out of all cases that that have had an outcome until now.

We have already 27K people who either recovered or died, that's a good sample size to start with

SusanC10

* Edit *
Have found a thread in Travel Forum so will post this there instead.

********

So, the DFA are advising against all travel to the affected areas in Italy. Does this mean the areas on lockdown or all of the Region eg all of Lombardy and Veneto etc ??

My friend and her family are planning to fly to Venice for Easter. Staying on coast near Venice. (Just talking to her on the phone this am)
We ourselves are planning to fly to Verona in June (obviously wait and see for ourselves)

But, just in general, will Travel Insurance cover this ? As there is a Travel Advisory and providing still in force for relevant dates. Everything booked in 2019.

all about the mane

Mic 1972 wrote: »

err.. no
you can easy calculate the rate of deaths out of all cases that that have had an outcome until now.

We have already 27K people who either recovered or died, that's a good sample size to start with

Err no. To know the mortality rate you’d have to know the numbers infected

drkpower

givyjoe wrote: »

For the love of God, there's 80k cases. How many cases do you need before they become statistically significant?

Who said they weren’t statistically significant?

The issue is of what significance.

They weren’t significant enough for you to accept my assessment of Irish cases. But they are for other purposes?

You might give us a list of what the data is sufficient to draw conclusions on, and what they are insufficient for. It would be a helpful exercise for everyone I think.

Doctor Jimbob

givyjoe wrote: »

For the love of God, there's 80k cases. How many cases do you need before they become statistically significant?

80k known cases. We simply have no idea how many people (if any) are only suffering from mild symptoms and have gone undetected. If that number is small, the current stats are going to be accurate. If that number is large, it would drastically change the stats.

Mic 1972

drkpower wrote: »

But we can assess mortality rates / icu rates now based on the information we have SO FAR?

We can asses mortality rate based on a sample of 27K people who have had an outcome
That sample is contained inside an 80K sample of people who will eventually have an outcome, so we can also observe how such mortality rate will evolve
Form a statistical stand point this is good data

Mic 1972

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

80k known cases. We simply have no idea how many people (if any) are only suffering from mild symptoms and have gone undetected. If that number is small, the current stats are going to be accurate. If that number is large, it would drastically change the stats.

we also have no idea how many deaths were related to unconfirmed cases.
The logic applies to both outcomes, mild symptoms or fatality

Blud

givyjoe wrote: »

For the love of God, there's 80k cases. How many cases do you need before they become statistically significant?

Ok, so they are statistically significant? Can we assume your agreement on that based on this post?

If so, then the other poster makes the good point that 77k infected in China with a population of 1bn means, taking a population of say 5m in Ireland, we should expect 385 cases in Ireland. 3% mortality means we will have 11 and a half dead.

So no real panic then, right?

Or is this conclusion meaningless given the data available? And similarly, your conclusions based on the same data equally meaningless?

wadacrack

Mic 1972 wrote: »

We can asses mortality rate based on a sample of 27K people who have had an outcome
That sample is contained inside an 80K sample of people who will eventually have an outcome, so we can also observe how such mortality rate will evolve
Form a statistical stand point this is good data

It will only be good data when their accurate testing procedures and a whole country/region is tested for it. Their is way too much room for error at the moment.

Mic 1972

all about the mane wrote: »

Err no. To know the mortality rate you’d have to know the numbers infected

We know the number of reported cases
Mortality rate is based on actual data, no imaginary numbers are added to the totals
The sample is large, it's much larger than sars or mers.

The rates are showing consistent trends which is a sing of normal data as opposite to abnormal distribution
We are looking a good data here

VinLieger

SusanC10 wrote: »

Ok so, the DFA are advising against all travel to the affected areas in Italy. Does this mean the areas on lockdown or all of the Region eg all of Lombardy and Veneto etc ??

My friend and her family are planning to fly to Venice for Easter. Staying on coast near Venice. (Just talking to her on the phone this am)
We ourselves are planning to fly to Verona in June (obviously wait and see for ourselves)

But, just in general, will Travel Insurance cover this ? As there is a Travel Advisory and providing still in force for relevant dates. Everything booked in 2019.

Id start expecting to not be going, its taken Hubei a full month of lockdown to start plateuing new cases, the Italy outbreak is going to get worse before it gets better not to mwntion the likely possibility that we suddenly dont start discoverin hidden clusters which i think us and the rest of europe will probably begin to soon.

Check your travel insurance docs for an answer because different providers and levels likely have different answers to that question so no way to definitively answer.

all about the mane

Mic 1972 wrote: »

We know the number of reported cases
Mortality rate is based on actual data, no imaginary numbers are added to the totals
The sample is large, it's much larger than sars or mers.

The rates are showing consistent trends which is a sing of normal data as opposite to abnormal distribution
We are looking a good data here

You can’t get the mortality rate without knowing the infection rate.

Once an epidemic has ended, it is calculated with the formula: deaths / cases.

But while an epidemic is still ongoing, as it is the case with the current novel coronavirus outbreak, this formula is, at the very least, "naïve" and can be "misleading if, at the time of analysis, the outcome is unknown for a non negligible proportion of patients."

Mic 1972

wadacrack wrote: »

It will only be good data when their accurate testing procedures and a whole country/region is tested for it. Their is way too much room for error at the moment.

I'm seeing a lot of denial

givyjoe

drkpower wrote: »

Who said they weren’t statistically significant?

The issue is of what significance.

They weren’t significant enough for you to accept my assessment of Irish cases. But they are for other purposes?

You might give us a list of what the data is sufficient to draw conclusions on, and what they are insufficient for. It would be a helpful exercise for everyone I think.

A number of posters have literally just dismissed the stats we have of confirmed cases.. are you picking and choosing which posts you read in full?

Are you on a piss take? You literally calculated infection rates based upon the total population of China, compared to current infection rates and don't see why that's being dismissed? The virus has only been around for 2.5/3 months, half of which the breakout zones have been under quarantine.

Also, I didn't estimate the 1 million infected in Ireland. You might want to take a that up with the professor in Beaumont.

DrumSteve

Well the Phillipines has had 3 cases so far, 2 people recovered and 1 died; thats a 33% mortality rate.

Japan has had 146 cases with 23 recovered and 1 dead. Thats about .5% off the top of my head mortality rate overall but of the cases closed gives a 4% mortality rate.

So geography and localised issues will play into it too.

The stats dont tell the full story though; at the moment it's eastist just to look at the headline figures of:

Coronavirus Cases:
79,729
Deaths:
2,627
Recovered:
25,279


So for overall recovered/died there are 27906 cases; that gives us a 9.41% mortality rate overall.

Mic 1972

all about the mane wrote: »

You can’t get the mortality rate without knowing the infection rate.

infection rate = probability to get infected
fatality rate = probability to die


not the same thing, not related

Mic 1972

DrumSteve wrote: »

Well the Phillipines has had 3 cases so far, 2 people recovered and 1 died; thats a 33% mortality rate.

Japan has had 146 cases with 23 recovered and 1 dead. Thats about .5% off the top of my head mortality rate.

So geography and localised issues will play into it too.

The stats dont tell the full story though; at the moment it's eastist just to look at the headline figures of:

Coronavirus Cases:
79,729
Deaths:
2,627
Recovered:
25,279


So for overall recovered/died there are 27906 cases; that gives us a 9.41% mortality rate overall.

3 cases in the philippines? you think that is enough data to run stats?
you need to look at large samples, that's how you look at data

BorneTobyWilde

Ireland plan if virus makes it here ( discover it's already here)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2PZ_3NWplc

all about the mane

DrumSteve wrote: »

Well the Phillipines has had 3 cases so far, 2 people recovered and 1 died; thats a 33% mortality rate.

Japan has had 146 cases with 23 recovered and 1 dead. Thats about .5% off the top of my head mortality rate overall but of the cases closed gives a 4% mortality rate.

So geography and localised issues will play into it too.

The stats dont tell the full story though; at the moment it's eastist just to look at the headline figures of:

Coronavirus Cases:
79,729
Deaths:
2,627
Recovered:
25,279


So for overall recovered/died there are 27906 cases; that gives us a 9.41% mortality rate overall.

3 confirmed cases

BanditLuke

BanditLuke wrote: »

You where caught out saying our health service isn't a mess. It is and you know it.

Please stop saying i am posting up lies as that in inaccurate. Iv'e been consistent from day one on this thread that my biggest concern is that our health service will collapse under the pressure of this virus as we have very little capacity built in for something of this scale. I say again we haven't the ability to do what China has done and that is obvious.

Well, I can tell you if 20000 people end up needing to be in critical care. Very few of them will be getting into an ICU.
In relation to healthcare:

access to medications?
Life expectancy?
Doctors/ capita?
nurses/ capita?

Who do you think has better figures? Ireland or China?

all about the mane

Mic 1972 wrote: »

3 cases in the philippines? you think that is enough data to run stats?
you need to look at large samples, that's how you look at data

It’s enough if it suits his argument

fritzelly

So this is convenient, cannot declare a pandemic if you have no criteria to declare one

https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1231919662167941123

10000maniacs

DrumSteve wrote: »

Well the Phillipines has had 3 cases so far, 2 people recovered and 1 died; thats a 33% mortality rate.

Japan has had 146 cases with 23 recovered and 1 dead. Thats about .5% off the top of my head mortality rate overall but of the cases closed gives a 4% mortality rate.

So geography and localised issues will play into it too.

The stats dont tell the full story though; at the moment it's eastist just to look at the headline figures of:

Coronavirus Cases:
79,729
Deaths:
2,627
Recovered:
25,279


So for overall recovered/died there are 27906 cases; that gives us a 9.41% mortality rate overall.

True. It would be a similar mortality rate to the Spanish Flu of 1918 to 1921.
15%. Both viruses attacked the immune system in a similar manner and both had no vaccine available. So I would presume there would be similar figures.
Both the hospital director and the doctor who discovered the virus are dead from the virus. This suggests, that there is very little you can do if it takes hold.

BanditLuke

Some good news for China

https://twitter.com/jamesvgingerich/status/1231933042635108352

Doctor Jimbob

Mic 1972 wrote: »

we also have no idea how many deaths were related to unconfirmed cases.
The logic applies to both outcomes, mild symptoms or fatality

Right, that's true. Personally I think it's much more likely that mild cases will bring the fatality rate down significantly when all is said and done. I accept that I have no way of knowing that for certain at the moment though.

Nijmegen

Are we back to arguing the math that a mod told us to not argue about? This thread is like Groundhog day sometimes. Folks arrive in 500 pages late and restart the old arguments. The position on the math is that nobody is right, we can only work off of bare figures and facts we know. Trying to figure out how serious or not this virus is cannot be accomplished by looking multiple ways at the same set of figures. You can only really adjudge from the second order effects, like the steps being taken by governments.

BanditLuke

fritzelly wrote: »

So this is convenient, cannot declare a pandemic if you have no criteria to declare one

https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1231919662167941123

Rough translation = We've been told not to declare one by the power brokers or else our funding will be cut.