Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Neat.
Danfromsquirrelhill has an opinion and a Wordpress page.
Not far off from the paper released by 2 Stanford virologists last week... But I don't think they used Iceland as a comparison.. The Stanford people DID use other countries tho to arrive at a MUCH lower mortality rate..
Oh, they're virologists?
I already posted a thread about them:This should drive the hysteria mongers crazy. How are they going to generate hysteria about a disease that is less serious than the flu?
It’s possible that the number of people in the U.S. who are infected with COVID-19 is much bigger than the number that is being currently reported, but many of those people haven’t gotten substantially sick, and so haven’t gotten tested.The death rate is calculated by dividing the number of people who die by the number who get infected.But while we do have accurate information about the numerator, we really have no idea what the denominator is. It’s possible that the real denominator is magnitudes bigger than what is being reported, because most infected people have either no symptoms or minor symptoms, and thus, don’t get tested. If this is indeed the case, then it’s possible that the real death rate is far, far lower than the one that is being reported.As of this writing (early March 30, 2020), in the U.S., 142,735 people have tested positive for COVID-19, and of those, 2,489 have died from it. (I got those numbers from this link, which is continuously being updated.)Based on these numbers, the fatality rate in the U.S. is 1.744%Meanwhile, Iceland tested a large segment of its population, including people with no symptoms, and found that 6.3% of them have COVID-19.The U.S. has 328 million people. If we extrapolate Iceland’s figure of 6.3% to the U.S., it would suggest that more than 20 million people in the U.S. have COVID-19. (I realize that extrapolating Iceland’s test results to the U.S. is not the ideal way to determine the rate of infection in the U.S. But given the absence of this particular type of widespread testing in the U.S., it’s probably the most accurate guess that we can make at this point in time. Hopefully, such widespread testing will be done in the U.S., and we will then have a more accurate number.)So for the U.S., the real denominator may be 140 times bigger than the one that is being reported.Which, if true, would indicate that the estimated real death rate in the U.S. is more than two magnitudes smaller than what is being reported.And, if true, would mean that the estimated real death rate in the U.S. is 0.01246%
You're on the right track here.. The denominator IS always bigger then the # of diagnosed/reported cases.. This is because A LOT of people having it are asymptomic and don't seek medical aide, or so MILD that a Dr misdiagnoses it, etc...
So the CDC WAS using last week a factor of TWO (as an educated guess) to multiply the denominator.. That's takes the RAW calculation (without the "fudge factor" from like 1.7% to 0.8%...
You should check a white paper issued from 2 virologists from Stanford last week that made LOTS of news.. They were thinking along the lines of your OPost.. THEY thought the multiplier should be more like 40 to 80 --- instead of 2... Go search for Stanford and COVID mortality.. Or look on USMB in Current events.. THere were 2 or 3 threads on that "opinion"....
Is Coronavirus less fatal than early predictions suggested? Two Stanford medical professors suggest that current mortality estimates are way too high.
Neat.
Danfromsquirrelhill has an opinion and a Wordpress page.
Not far off from the paper released by 2 Stanford virologists last week... But I don't think they used Iceland as a comparison.. The Stanford people DID use other countries tho to arrive at a MUCH lower mortality rate..
Oh, they're virologists?
Read more carefully what I said.. The opinion in this OP is similar to 2 Stanford virologists who pushed a white paper last week... VERY similar and it got a lot of coverage that APPARENTLY , Morning Joe and Mikka did not give you... So that "blog site" is not very far off from what experts OUTSIDE the CDC are claiming...
GOT IT? Good -- now tune to Don Da Lemon for how many people Trump killed today....
I asked you if they (the Stanford professors) are virologists. You obviously misunderstood a basic question and then decided to get all bent out of shape because apparently English comprehension es no bueno with you.
I asked you if they (the Stanford professors) are virologists. You obviously misunderstood a basic question and then decided to get all bent out of shape because apparently English comprehension es no bueno with you.
I WROTE what their specialty was.. And NOBODY went out of their way to find it... YOU went out of YOUR WAY to ignore it... Was ALL over the REAL news... You know the crap that Dem Underground DOESN'T reprint...
They are not the ONLY ONES... EVERYONE is guessing at what number to use to GUESS at the actual infection rate... INCLUDING the CDC.... SO the way the science thingy works is adult discussion about differing opinions.. At least until the panic ends and the random studies can be done on antibodies in those who DID contract it..
www.cnn.com
They tested only about 3½% of their population. 3½% is your idea testing "everyone?"Because in Iceland they test everyone, so the denominator is known. In Italy they don't know how many people are actually infected.Unlike TDS morons, he can do simple math.Neat.
Danfromsquirrelhill has an opinion and a Wordpress page.
He picked a single country (Iceland) to compare to the US population to determine the COVID-19 mortality rate. Why Iceland? Why not Italy?
Neat.
Danfromsquirrelhill has an opinion and a Wordpress page.
Not far off from the paper released by 2 Stanford virologists last week... But I don't think they used Iceland as a comparison.. The Stanford people DID use other countries tho to arrive at a MUCH lower mortality rate..
Oh, they're virologists?
Read more carefully what I said.. The opinion in this OP is similar to 2 Stanford virologists who pushed a white paper last week... VERY similar and it got a lot of coverage that APPARENTLY , Morning Joe and Mikka did not give you... So that "blog site" is not very far off from what experts OUTSIDE the CDC are claiming...
GOT IT? Good -- now tune to Don Da Lemon for how many people Trump killed today....
I asked you if they (the Stanford professors) are virologists. You obviously misunderstood a basic question and then decided to get all bent out of shape because apparently English comprehension es no bueno with you.
I WROTE what their specialty was.. And NOBODY went out of their way to find it... YOU went out of YOUR WAY to ignore it... Was ALL over the REAL news... You know the crap that Dem Underground DOESN'T reprint...
They are not the ONLY ONES... EVERYONE is guessing at what number to use to GUESS at the actual infection rate... INCLUDING the CDC.... SO the way the science thingy works is adult discussion about differing opinions.. At least until the panic ends and the random studies can be done on antibodies in those who DID contract it..
They aren't virologists.
Anyway, is Democratic Underground still around? The first I heard of the Stanford study was not from here.
Here is CNN reporting on it and I don't think you're going to appreciate the message of what the guy is saying. "We don't know". Which is a valid statement. But you want to ignore middle of the road projections such as 100k-200k dead.
Why calculating the coronavirus death rate is complicated | CNN
CNN's Michael Smerconish discusses the complicated process of calculating the novel coronavirus death rate with Stanford professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya.
I find it interesting (and not in a good way) that the more we test the higher the mortality rate is in the United States. It was around 1.3%, it's now around 1.8%. That may change, I hope it changes but the trend isn't great.
stanfordhealthcare.org
That's more a function of time than of the inherent properties of the virus. Death cases resolve more quickly than complete recoveries.I find it interesting (and not in a good way) that the more we test the higher the mortality rate is in the United States.
False. Their specialty is their degree and their current work.I KNOW that before they went into practice -- they BOTH did graduate work as VIROLOGISTS... So THAT is their ACADEMIC specialty
I asked you if they (the Stanford professors) are virologists. You obviously misunderstood a basic question and then decided to get all bent out of shape because apparently English comprehension es no bueno with you.
I WROTE what their specialty was.. And NOBODY went out of their way to find it... YOU went out of YOUR WAY to ignore it... Was ALL over the REAL news... You know the crap that Dem Underground DOESN'T reprint...
They are not the ONLY ONES... EVERYONE is guessing at what number to use to GUESS at the actual infection rate... INCLUDING the CDC.... SO the way the science thingy works is adult discussion about differing opinions.. At least until the panic ends and the random studies can be done on antibodies in those who DID contract it..
They aren't virologists.
Anyway, is Democratic Underground still around? The first I heard of the Stanford study was not from here.
Here is CNN reporting on it and I don't think you're going to appreciate the message of what the guy is saying. "We don't know". Which is a valid statement. But you want to ignore middle of the road projections such as 100k-200k dead.
Why calculating the coronavirus death rate is complicated | CNN
CNN's Michael Smerconish discusses the complicated process of calculating the novel coronavirus death rate with Stanford professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya.
I find it interesting (and not in a good way) that the more we test the higher the mortality rate is in the United States. It was around 1.3%, it's now around 1.8%. That may change, I hope it changes but the trend isn't great.
This is why I generally ignore you... I DONT CARE what CNN called these guys.. I KNOW that before they went into practice -- they BOTH did graduate work as VIROLOGISTS... So THAT is their ACADEMIC specialty and their "practice" speciality might be some generic thing like Internal Medicine.. There's NO one smart enough or dilligerent enough at the Clown College Network to worry about that -- but their paper was posted in the WSJ and it was noted there that they BOTH had Infectious Disease research papers in their portfolios..
If you GET your news from the Clown College Network -- pretty soon you'll be THINKING AND ACTING like a clown yourself..
Eran Bendavid
Dr. Eran Bendavid is an internal medicine doctor at Stanford Health Care.
False. Their specialty is their degree and their current work.I KNOW that before they went into practice -- they BOTH did graduate work as VIROLOGISTS... So THAT is their ACADEMIC specialty
Furthermore, another poster provided a link to an interview with one of them. So you might want to head on over to CNN to get informed.
Third, what they published was an opinion piece in the WSJ, not a research paper.
Since I KNOW you're not understand or read the link, here's what this Dr. researches and writes about..
Fellowship: Stanford University Infectious Disease Fellowships (2009) CA
Residency: Stanford University Internal Medicine Residency (2005) CA
My work broadly investigates the drivers of population health improvements in developing countries. I study how economic, political, and natural environments affect population health. I use a mix of experimental, econometric, qualitative, modeling, and demographic tools to produce insights and strategies for improving health. A sample of current projects address the following questions:
•What role does US foreign aid play in reducing mortality and improving equity in developing countries?
•What forms of engagement in health improvements - social marketing, public health interventions, or community empowerment, for example - work, and which do not?
•What effect do malaria control programs have on child mortality?
•What combination of prevention strategies are most cost-effective for Africa’s HIV epidemic?
•What is the evidence that foreign aid for health is good diplomacy?
•Which populations are most vulnerable to the effects of climate conditions on the availability of food?
So, not virologists. If you had gotten it right the first time, nobody would have to correct you, and you wouldn't have to engage in this ALL CAPS tantrum.What they PRACTICE is "infectious disease control" at an ACADEMIC level..
They don't track and model contagious diseases.
Since I KNOW you're not understand or read the link, here's what this Dr. researches and writes about..
Fellowship: Stanford University Infectious Disease Fellowships (2009) CA
Residency: Stanford University Internal Medicine Residency (2005) CA
My work broadly investigates the drivers of population health improvements in developing countries. I study how economic, political, and natural environments affect population health. I use a mix of experimental, econometric, qualitative, modeling, and demographic tools to produce insights and strategies for improving health. A sample of current projects address the following questions:
•What role does US foreign aid play in reducing mortality and improving equity in developing countries?
•What forms of engagement in health improvements - social marketing, public health interventions, or community empowerment, for example - work, and which do not?
•What effect do malaria control programs have on child mortality?
•What combination of prevention strategies are most cost-effective for Africa’s HIV epidemic?
•What is the evidence that foreign aid for health is good diplomacy?
•Which populations are most vulnerable to the effects of climate conditions on the availability of food?
Great, doesn't look like he focuses on contagious diseases other than a bullet point for AIDS. It's a single study out of many and even they say to take this seriously.
And the other people who are ACTUAL virologists and epidemiologists...do they how to estimate it, too? In your expert estimation, that is.Pretty sure the man knows HOW to estimate an epidemic "death rate"...
They don't track and model contagious diseases.
DID YOU READ THE INFO FROM THE LINK? What does that guy say about his CURRENT work and papers??
•What role does US foreign aid play in reducing mortality and improving equity in developing countries?
•What forms of engagement in health improvements - social marketing, public health interventions, or community empowerment, for example - work, and which do not?
•What effect do malaria control programs have on child mortality?
•What combination of prevention strategies are most cost-effective for Africa’s HIV epidemic?
•What is the evidence that foreign aid for health is good diplomacy?
•Which populations are most vulnerable to the effects of climate conditions on the availability of food?
Does that sound like ANY "internal medicine" practitioner that worked on YOU????? Moron....
