When a vaccine arrives

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pattylt
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LeafByNiggle said:
Buffalo is referring to the questionable video that no one wants to watch.
Click to expand...
Forget the video. Common sense statistics need some starting point. t=0 is first actual day virus was present in the USA. The graphs you see presented to the government starts when testing for covid. Bottom line - we do not know. But redraw the graphs starting in Nov, Dec, Jan and Feb.

Denominator - the equation they are using and present to you daily is # of confirmed covid positive deaths / Covid positive.

At the beginning the only testing was done to people who were already quite sick and tested upon entry into the hospital. This alone skews the real data.

Denominator - to calculate the real death rate the numerator should be covid positive deaths without padding/ #of known cases and #of unknown cases.

Since they do not know the correct denominator the death rate is presented to you as being higher than it is,

Let’s take an example.

#of deaths 42,000 / # of confirmed cases 782,000 = or 5.7% death rate.

Now take:

42,000 / 782000 + 109,000,000 infections = .00038%

Where did I come up with 109,000,000 infections you will ask? If it is true that 1/3 of the people have been infected already in a country of 330,000,000 * .33 = 109 million

Say it is half that

42000 / 54,000,000 = .0007%

Say it is 1/4 of that:

42,000 / 27,000,000 = .001%

Once again - what is the real denominator?
When was t=0?

redraw the graphs…
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
Once again - what is the real denominator?
When was t=0?
Click to expand...
That’s not the topic of this thread. It’s not up to us to do the math so stop with your false equations.

As evil as you think the government maybe the fact they are worried, doctors are worried, everyone in a hot spot is terrified.

When all these people agree I’ll listen to the person in a lab coat.

Not buffalo on the internet.
MrZoom said:
Your math is off. That is 5.37%.
Click to expand...
Funny, lay person does math, it’s wrong and posts it on the internet.

I rest my case.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
We don’t know that.

For medical information I go to the CDC.
Click to expand...
Good.

When will vaccine be available?

Look at the CDC graph and where they put t=0 - around March 10. Do you believe it was not here before? (remember their chart shows after testing began. - do you see the problem?
 
Anrakyr said:
When all these people agree I’ll listen to the person in a lab coat.
Click to expand...
Do you believe Dr Zalenko’s results using hydrochoroquine, Zpac and Zinc? He is a lab coat guy… 1400 cases treated and 2 deaths?
 
MrZoom said:
Your math is off. That is 5.37%.
Click to expand...
Correct. I have corrected. That was the point I was making. the 5.7% is scary, but it is not the reality and magnitudes off in reality. That is why they did the lockdowns.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
Do you believe Dr Zalenko’s results using hydrochoroquine, Zpac and Zinc? He is a lab coat guy… 1400 cases treated and 2 deaths?
Click to expand...
What I see is you can’t even get your math right.
Good spot @MrZoom
 
Typo is geettting too many or too few letters or letyers near the ones you want.

You were off by 2 decimals which is huge.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
Forget the video. Common sense statistics need some starting point. t=0 is first actual day virus was present in the USA. The graphs you see presented to the government starts when testing for covid. Bottom line - we do not know. But redraw the graphs starting in Nov, Dec, Jan and Feb.
Click to expand...
At the early stages of a contagion, virus spread with an exponential function. This is well known. So until limiting of some sort happens, the number of infected is going to be

n = K * e^(r*t)

where K and r are unknown. But those unknowns can be determined by empirical data, and then we can extrapolate backwards to when n = 1.

But what does it matter as far as policy goes? How you define the death rate does indeed depend on the denominator. But how you use and interpret and apply that rate to policy decisions also depends on that same denominator. As long as those who are applying the statistics are not applying them incorrectly or inconsistently, it does not matter which denominator we use.
At the beginning the only testing was done to people who were already quite sick and tested upon entry into the hospital. This alone skews the real data.
Click to expand...
It does not “skew” the data. It just provides a different measure to the data. As long as that measure is understood, there is no problem in using it that way.
42,000 / 782000 + 109,000,000 infections = .00038%

Where did I come up with 109,000,000 infections you will ask? If it is true that 1/3 of the people have been infected already in a country of 330,000,000 * .33 = 109 million
Click to expand...
Irrelevant statistic. Unless we know that the antibody tests are really measuring the inability to be infected again, we cannot assume we are actually close to gaining herd immunity.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
Irrelevant statistic. Unless we know that the antibody tests are really measuring the inability to be infected again, we cannot assume we are actually close to gaining herd immunity.
Click to expand...
Dr Fauci said it pretty clearly. I will bet you won’t get reinfected…(paraphrasing)
 
buffalo said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
We don’t know that.

For medical information I go to the CDC.
Click to expand...
Good.

When will vaccine be available?
Click to expand...
Nobody knows. Why do you think I must know the answer to that question based on what I have posted?
Look at the CDC graph and where they put t=0 - around March 10. Do you believe it was not here before? (remember their chart shows after testing began. - do you see the problem?
Click to expand...
No. What difference does it make to projections going forward whether it was March 10 or March 9?
 
buffalo said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Irrelevant statistic. Unless we know that the antibody tests are really measuring the inability to be infected again, we cannot assume we are actually close to gaining herd immunity.
Click to expand...
Dr Fauci said it pretty clearly. I will bet you won’t get reinfected…(paraphrasing)
Click to expand...
He was not referring to the antibody tests. He was referring to people who had verified infections. It is even questioned whether or not a very mild case offers any protection at all to future infections.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
No. What difference does it make to projections going forward whether it was March 10 or March 9?
Click to expand...
It makes a huge difference if t=0 was in December.
Click to expand...
Such a t=0 would be inconsistent with what we know about virus spread. You don’t actually have to identify patient zero. You can extrapolated backwards from existing empirical data, which we have plenty of right now.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
It is even questioned whether or not a very mild case offers any protection at all to future infections.
Click to expand...
Generally, even if re-infected symptoms are even milder than first time.

You do realize that 97% of infected people have no symptoms or are mild, stay home, and recover. It is now being realized people of brown color have a higher incidence and co-morbidity is an issue. People dying may have died from their conditions whether or not they have covid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top