That order of "You are not allowed to go out for a walk for fresh air" is simply stupid. (Especially when your annoying neighbor with an ugly dog can go.)Coming soon to a sane government near you. — Baden
Actually the US is way down the list in infections per capita. So let's do this, since it's all a game of sorts to you, should the final tally show the US with a lower per capita infection and death rate than The Netherlands, would you be willing to admit to Trump's superiority in handling this crisis to The Netherlands? Or, is it like Trump's age old malaria drug hunch, where we don't need additional proof of what the evidence will be, we already just know?Thanks to Trump, the USA seems to be winning the corona Olympics. Now in third place. — Benkei
Or, is it like Trump's age old malaria drug hunch, where we don't need additional proof of what the evidence will be, we already just know? — Hanover
My friend tested me on that a couple of weeks ago:
Out of 20,338 people tested in Britain for covid-19 164 people have the disease. The test itself is 97% accurate. You take the test and it comes back positive. What's the chance you actually have it based on this single test?
Apparently the answer is something like 21%? — Michael
The main difference is that governments think that they have to act immediately and comprehensively to respond to this threat. If climate change was going to happen in the next six months then they would act to the same degree.Teams of experts could easily be assembled to tell the headless chickens what to do about climate change. What gives one crisis traction and the other none? Covid-19 is not a threat to the vast majority of humans, but the lockdowns affect everyone. Why aren't we this selfless regarding other issues like inequality and climate change?
Yes, there is an innate fear of pandemic, whereas climate change is some distant idea for many people.I think at least part of the answer lies in our myths and fears.
Out of 20,338 people tested in Britain for covid-19 164 people have the disease. The test itself is 97% accurate. You take the test and it comes back positive. What's the chance you actually have it based on this single test?
Apparently the answer is something like 21%? — Michael
The group verified the test in the absence of SARS-CoV-2 isolates or patient samples but confirmed its specificity against 297 clinical samples from patients with various other respiratory infections. This formed the basis of shipments of 250,000 kits, which the World Health Organization (WHO) dispatched to 159 laboratories across the globe in recent weeks. — Nature - Coronavirus and the race to distribute reliable diagnostics
The samples contained the broadest range of respiratory agents possible and reflected the general spectrum of virus concentrations encountered in diagnostic laboratories in these countries (Table 2). In total, this testing yielded no false positive outcomes. — Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR
No harm no foul for Senator Burr either. Just being optimistic with the public while privately telling his friends there was a disaster coming and selling hundreds of thousands of dollars in hotel and other stocks. Politicians like Trump and Burr j — Baden
There is always some time frame in which data fits an exponential growth curve! Or logarithmic. Or linear. Or better yet polynomial — SophistiCat
- it can be made to fit any curve over any time scale. But no scientist in their right mind would propose an exponential growth model just because you can fit an exponential curve to two consecutive points. This is not how scientific modeling works. — SophistiCat
How do they know if a test is a false positive? Wouldn't they need some other, better, test to show that it's positive? — Michael
Given that some people are asymptomatic, you can't look to symptoms as a measure. — Michael
The swine-flu pandemic of 2009 may have killed up to 203,000 people worldwide—10 times higher than the first estimates based on the number of cases confirmed by lab tests, according to a new analysis by an international group of scientists.
The researchers also found almost 20-fold higher rates of respiratory deaths in some countries in the Americas than in Europe. Looking only at deaths from pneumonia that may have been caused by the flu, they found that Mexico, Argentina and Brazil had the highest death rates from the pandemic in the world. The toll was far lower in New Zealand, Australia and most parts of Europe, according to the study, published today (Nov. 26) in the journal PLOS Medicine.
The new estimates are in line with a previous study published last year that used a different statistical strategy to evaluate the impact of the pandemic caused by the H1N1 virus. However, that study, which was done before countries' data on overall death rates in 2009 had become available, found that the majority of deaths occurred in Africa and Southeast Asia.
The new analysis "confirms that the H1N1 virus killed many more people globally than originally believed," said study author Lone Simonsen, a research professor at The George Washington University in Washington, D.C. "We also found that the mortality burden of this pandemic fell most heavily on younger people and those living in certain parts of the Americas."
Maybe an exercise in Bayesian statistics? I.e., a concern with false positives? — tim wood
Out of 20,338 people tested in Britain for covid-19 164 people have the disease. The test itself is 97% accurate. You take the test and it comes back positive. What's the chance you actually have it based on this single test?
Apparently the answer is something like 21%? — Michael
Good point. 97% accuracy isn't great. — Baden
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.