On 3/30/2020 2:51 PM, Justan Ohlphart wrote:
On 3/29/2020 12:14 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/29/2020 10:23 AM, Justan Ohlphart wrote:
On 3/29/2020 9:09 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/29/2020 8:52 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 3/29/20 8:36 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/29/2020 8:08 AM, John wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 07:01:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Here's a great website for both general world
wide statistics and those related specifically
to the coronavirus pandemic.

https://www.worldometers.info/

That's where the comparisons of deaths per 1M population came from:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Note that we're still doing better than those countries with the
spectacular
health systems, according to our resident liberal.


I am still bothered with all the emphasis placed on the percentage
of deaths per population though.

It's a simple, mathematical statistical measurement that "feels good"
but meanwhile the virus is spreading across the country.

I suppose it's a reflection of a superior healthcare system
in that fewer people die as a percentage of the population
but meanwhile the "experts" are saying that NY won't "peak"
for another 3 to 4 weeks.Â* How they get that estimate is
beyond me and it doesn't reflect other parts of the country
that are targets for the virus but haven't even begun to
see the exponential rates of increase.

Last night, using the historical data from the website you
provided a couple of weeks ago, I created a spreadsheet
of the number of confirmed cases and deaths in Massachusetts
for the month of March, starting with March 1st and ending
with March 28th.Â* I then generated a chart for the fun of
it.Â* It reflected the same exponential rate that the
national CDC graphs show.Â* It was discouraging, so I
deleted it.

Unless a proven and effective treatment is found (not a vaccine)
I fear we are in for the long, long haul with this.




Until the testing is near-universal, the value of knowing the
"number of confirmed cases" is virtually nothing, especially in
comparison to other countries or previous confirmed cases of
earlier flu-like diseases.

How many tests per state would one need to know the extent of the
spread of the virus? Would you want to consider the number of tests
per 1000 persons in a state? What are your parameters?

This morning I saw a chart that stated there were 121,000+ known
cases in the USA, based upon an unstated number of tests. How many
"unknown" cases? Who knows? No one knows. How available are the
tests in every community? Who knows? No one knows. Et cetera.


All true but again, what does it matter?Â* The testing produces a
number used to determine percentages of deaths.Â* That's all it does.

Thus far, testing has done absolutely *nothing* to control the spread
of the virus.

I think doc Fauci has it right.Â* He says we should assume that
*everyone* is infected and to act accordingly.




I hate to disagree with you but how else can you measure the success
or failure of measures to isolate, control, treat, or prevent the virus.



By the number of peopleÂ* getting sick and the rate at which
they do so.Â* Testing for the sake of testing
does nothin

Identifying carriers who have no symptoms and culling them from the herd
might be a significant benefit to the city of New York and other places
that have high population density.


I see your point. My problem with the emphasis on testing before was
because it was an inefficient method and took too long to get results
in the middle of a virus growing exponentially. As a result they were
limiting testing to only those who *had* symptoms.

With the recent announcement of fast testing, like the Abbott Labs
system that can be used in a doctor's office or at the hospital
and results are known in 5-15 minutes, mass testing makes more
sense.

In the meantime, everyone should all assume they are infected and
act accordingly.




--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com