ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 104 of 405
« First < 45494100101102103104 105106107108114154204 > Last »
Washington DC and The Holy Land>China quarantines Wuhan, a city the size of NYC
banyon 10:52 AM 01-23-2020


Updated info:

WORLD

There are currently 3,950,798 confirmed cases and 271,809 deaths from the coronavirus COVID-19 outbreak as of May 8, 2020 15:03 GMT




U.S. Coronavirus Cases

As of May 8, 2020 at 14:58 GMT, there have been 1,295,101 confirmed cases and 77,059 deaths due to coronavirus COVID-19 in the United States.

AL-9,048 (371 deaths)
AK-374 (10 deaths)
AZ-9,945 (450 deaths, 1 recovered)
AR-3,694 (88 deaths)
CA - 62,477 (2,545 deaths, 6 recovered)
CO-18,371 (944 deaths)
CT- 31,784 (2,797 deaths)
DE-5,939 (202 deaths)
DC- 5,654 (285 deaths)
FL-38,828 (1,600 deaths)
GA - 31,679 (1,353 deaths)
HI- 629 (17 deaths)
ID-2,178 (67 deaths)
IL-70,873 (3,111 deaths, 2 recovered)
IN-22,503 (1,414 deaths)
IA-11,457 (243 deaths)
KS-6,359 (168 deaths)
KY- 6,128 (294 deaths, 2 recovered)
LA-30,652 (2,208 deaths)
ME-1,330 (62 deaths)
MD-30,485 (1,560 deaths, 4 recovered)
MA-73,721(4,552 deaths, 1 recovered)
MI-45,646 (4,343 deaths)
MN-9,365 (508 deaths, 24 recovered)
MS-8,686 (396 deaths)
MO-9,561 (454 deaths)
MT-457 (16 deaths)
NE-7,190 (90 deaths)
NV-5,766 (293 deaths)
NH-2,843 (114 deaths)
NJ- 135,106 (8,834 deaths)
NM-4,493 (172 deaths)
NY-337,421 (26,365 deaths)
NC-13,954 (529 deaths)
ND-1,371 (31 deaths)
OH-22,134 (1,274 deaths)
OK-4,330 (260 deaths, 1 recovered)
OR-2,989 (121 deaths)
PA-56,002 (3,592 deaths)
RI-10,779 (399 deaths)
SC-7,142 (316 deaths)
SD-2,905 (31 deaths, 6 recovered)
TN-14,096 (239 deaths)
TX-36,606 (1,030 deaths, 11 recovered)
UT-5,724 (61 deaths)
VT-919 (53 deaths)
VA-22,342 (812 deaths, 1 recovered)
WA-16,943 (904 deaths, 124 recovered)
WV-1,310 (51 deaths)
WI- 9,215 (374 deaths, 1 recovered)
WY-635 (7 deaths)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn...ate/index.html

US recovered :148,291
[Reply]
Coyote 08:59 AM 03-08-2020
Amir is an anthropologist in the psychology department.

https://www.dorsaamir.com

These women may be correct but this virus is not in their chosen fields of study.

Kinda like renting any PHD that supports your position and is against the CDC. At this point it seems to be a policy fight cloaked in science for many.

“More school closings requiring paid sick leave vs industry bailouts”
Senator Murphy this morning.


Never let a crisis go to waste.
[Reply]
Donger 09:00 AM 03-08-2020

[Reply]
Bowser 09:01 AM 03-08-2020
Originally Posted by Donger:
Looks like oaklandhater's dream virus.
[Reply]
Donger 09:02 AM 03-08-2020
Originally Posted by Bowser:
Looks like oaklandhater's dream virus.
:-)
[Reply]
SupDock 09:04 AM 03-08-2020
Originally Posted by Coyote:
Amir is an anthropologist in the psychology department.

https://www.dorsaamir.com

These women may be correct but this virus is not in their chosen fields of study.

Kinda like renting any PHD that supports your position and is against the CDC. At this point it seems to be a policy fight cloaked in science for many.

“More school closings requiring paid sick leave vs industry bailouts”
Senator Murphy this morning.


Never let a crisis go to waste.
What is your point? The person didn't collect the data, they just tweeted about it.

Original data below. They are trying to correct for underreporting of mild cases.

https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.e...ed-using-stan/

Do you think that anyone concerned about Covid-19 has a political agenda?
[Reply]
Marcellus 09:04 AM 03-08-2020
Originally Posted by SupDock:
There is no way you could know that. Influenza kills young and healthy people every year. This data is all-comers. If you start selecting for people with coexisting conditions the numbers would be higher.

A 0.18 fatality rate at age 30-39 is frightening.
1/250 dying at age 40-49 is hard to imagine
We know the data from the US and other developed countries, why would it be different statistically in other countries? No previously healthy person in the US has died from coronavirus.
[Reply]
Coyote 09:16 AM 03-08-2020
“1) We use a mechanistic model for the transmission of and the mortality associated with COVID-19 that is a direct translation of the data-generating mechanisms leading to the biased observations of the number of deaths (because of right-censoring) and of cases (because of surveillance bias).” https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.e...ed-using-stan/

From the linked paper to show the CDC is wrong, I guess. Policy arguments cloaked in science for some is my point.


For the third time in this thread:

Coronavirus is bad.
Fear mongering is bad. Cheerleading for either/both is bad.
[Reply]
SupDock 09:25 AM 03-08-2020
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
We know the data from the US and other developed countries, why would it be different statistically in other countries? No previously healthy person in the US has died from coronavirus.
The large CDC study showed a 0.9 percent case fatality rate in healthy individuals. It did not differentiate between ages in the data of healthy people dying.

We know that influence that kills healthy young people every year.
There is no data to support your supposition that no young healthy people have died.
[Reply]
SupDock 09:28 AM 03-08-2020
Originally Posted by Coyote:
“1) We use a mechanistic model for the transmission of and the mortality associated with COVID-19 that is a direct translation of the data-generating mechanisms leading to the biased observations of the number of deaths (because of right-censoring) and of cases (because of surveillance bias).” https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.e...ed-using-stan/

From the linked paper to show the CDC is wrong, I guess. Policy arguments cloaked in science for some is my point.


For the third time in this thread:

Coronavirus is bad.
Fear mongering is bad. Cheerleading for either/both is bad.
I'm still not sure what you are saying. Are you concerned about the word "right censoring"? I assure you that is not a political definition.

I hate to use the word triggered, but . . .


---------------------------
Censoring*is a form of missing data problem in which time to event is not observed for reasons such as termination of study before all recruited subjects have shown the event of interest or the subject has left the study prior to experiencing an event. Censoring is common in survival analysis.

If only the lower limit*l*for the true event time*T*is known such that*T*>*l, this is called*right censoring. Right censoring will occur, for example, for those subjects whose birth date is known but who are still alive when they are*lost to follow-up*or when the study ends. We generally encounter right-censored data.

If the event of interest has already happened before the subject is included in the study but it is not known when it occurred, the data is said to be*left-censored.[3]*When it can only be said that the event happened between two observations or examinations, this is*interval censoring.

Left censoring occurs for example when a permanent tooth has already emerged prior to the start of a dental study that aims to estimate its emergence distribution. In the same study, an emergence time is interval-censored when the permanent tooth is present in the mouth at the current examination but not yet at the previous examination. Interval censoring often occurs in HIV/AIDS studies. Indeed, time to HIV seroconversion can be determined only by a laboratory assessment which is usually initiated after a visit to the physician. Then one can only conclude that HIV seroconversion has happened between two examinations. The same is true for the diagnosis of AIDS, which is based on clinical symptoms and needs to be confirmed by a medical examination.
[Reply]
GloryDayz 09:29 AM 03-08-2020
Originally Posted by Pissed Off Fat Elvis:
You're so full of it. You don't have any "info." You have no idea what you are talking about. I've been in several briefings over Covid-19 (I'm a policy analyst in the healthcare/disability field) the past few weeks. The CDC isn't really going to have a firm grasp on prevalence in the US for about another week when there is anticipation that the number of cases in the US will explode. It is still early enough in the outbreak that we don't have solid numbers on the virus (further complicated by a lack of testing). That said, it will *not* be business as usual....
Remain calm....
[Reply]
banyon 09:38 AM 03-08-2020
Originally Posted by MagicHef:
No she isn't. In fact, she never even uses the term "r0" in her thread. She ends the thread with:

"This is not some hypothetical, fear-mongering, worst-case scenario. This is reality, as far as anyone can tell with the current available data."

So again, why are her predictions so vastly different from what happened in China?
Because China is imposing medieval measures that no one else seems even willing to consider? Democracies may not be able to weld people into their homes.


Also... China may not have been completely honest about their numbers. Just look to the articles where they are ordering empty factors to open to consume electricity to manipulate the perception of economic activity.

But she is not saying the growth curve can’t be affected, she is advocating people not be complacent so we can impact the growth curve (whether she uses the term “r0” or not).

But I have no reason to think they’ll be orders-of-magnitude wrong. Even if your personal risk of death is very, very low, don’t mock decisions like canceling events or closing workplaces as undue “panic”. 26/n

— Liz Specht (@LizSpecht) March 7, 2020

[Reply]
Coyote 09:39 AM 03-08-2020
I’m saying again:

Coronavirus is bad.
Fear mongering is bad.
Cheerleading for either/both is bad.
[Reply]
banyon 09:46 AM 03-08-2020
Originally Posted by Coyote:
I’m saying again:

Coronavirus is bad.
Fear mongering is bad.
Cheerleading for either/both is bad.
Who’s cheerleading? You seem to keep repeating this as if it’s some kind of brilliant insight.
[Reply]
SupDock 09:49 AM 03-08-2020
Originally Posted by Coyote:
I’m saying again:

Coronavirus is bad.
Fear mongering is bad.
Cheerleading for either/both is bad.
You were concerned because you saw the word "right-censoring" in a scientific paper and thought it was a political statement. It wasn't.
[Reply]
banyon 09:55 AM 03-08-2020
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
Until it mutates to effect healthy adults and children seriously I don't see how it will ever be a huge issue.

Maybe its natures way of clearing out the older and unhealthy. Not being a dick but that appears to be the only people who should be concerned.
Why do people have this view? It seems crazy to me. Eh, so a bunch of old people and people with conditions get wiped out, no biggie.

Do you not have parents? Aunts/uncles? Is this Sparta now? WTF?
[Reply]
Page 104 of 405
« First < 45494100101102103104 105106107108114154204 > Last »
Up