Corona - PLEASE READ

[LWC]

Shane, thanks for posting that! I've been sharing links to his data but I still don't know how to post images. Would you mind posting Dr. Frank's Global and also his TX models so everyone could follow along? You can wait until he updates them next time with the latest data if you want. He usually updates every day or two.

[S-3 Ranch]

I'm not saying it isn't unbiased. It is biased. So is every news outlet I know of. I hope everyone checks out the sources. It probably isn't 100% true. But if it is close to true, this is very serious. We should all vet as much as we can

I am just anti prison of two ideas And agree a news source
Must be vetted ( to weed out the lunatic fringe)

[JayB]

And yet...if they don't reach the overly exaggerated numbers, they will say the "social distancing" worked.
What really works is washing your hands when you touch unknown/common/public surfaces and STAY HOME if you are sick.

[flywise]

It is remarkable how almost all media, politicians and policy makers have dutifully parroted the worst-case scenario projections without question. As has been noted above there are numerous scientists well-respected in this field who think the odds of widespread disaster - while possible - are quite low. (You just don't hear from them, much like climate scientists who refuse to join the climate alarmism.) It's interesting how many normal citizens, while admitting we aren't scientists have had a gut feel about this since the panic started. I think it is generally because of the way it's been presented and by whom. In all my talks with clients, friends and family members over the last 3-4 weeks I've yet to talk to somebody who doesn't think this thing is overblown at least to some degree. There is still time for us all to be proven wrong I suppose but I'm becoming more convinced that we won't.

When you have 40 years of climate alarm-ism under your belt its real easy to be skeptical of anything the above mentioned scoundrels have to say

I guess there is a chance the worst case happens but im not going to believe it until there can be no doubt.

[Dusty Britches]

I'm not sure what to say. Lots of opinions posted with very little references.

Cuomo said today that 80% of the people tested positive do not need hospitalization but 20% do. Also, NYC doesn't have enough hospital beds to treat this magnitude of respiratory illness.

This is very real but I'm not convinced of the threat to my health. We all want to think it won't get us.

[Shane]

I'm not sure what to say. Lots of opinions posted with very little references.

Cuomo said today that 80% of the people tested positive do not need hospitalization but 20% do. Also, NYC doesn't have enough hospital beds to treat this magnitude of respiratory illness.

This is very real but I'm not convinced of the threat to my health. We all want to think it won't get us.

New York City is a super hot spot. The rest of the state of NY isn't nearly as bad. But NYC is bad. Somewhere close to 2/3 of the entire nation's CV19 cases are in NYC. You can see that in the chart I posted above. The big purple line curve is the national total. The other lines underneath are the other states. The black line that sticks way up above all the other states, just below the national total line is New York. Almost everything in the NY state total is just NYC alone.

[Shane]

Shane, thanks for posting that! I've been sharing links to his data but I still don't know how to post images. Would you mind posting Dr. Frank's Global and also his TX models so everyone could follow along? You can wait until he updates them next time with the latest data if you want. He usually updates every day or two.

Here is his chart on Texas today. You can see the actual numbers of total cases and cases/day (dotted lines) have jumped above the model projections over the last 2 days. But the total death actual numbers are still exactly in line with the model projections. Here is his explanation of why that is....

Covid-19 "Quick Look at Texas"

Just added data. Clearly a testing artifact. We've learned to ignore these for a couple days, then revise the forcast.

Remember, a sudden increase in reported cases will correspond to a sudden increase in deaths, if it is real. Otherwise, the sudden increase in positive test results merely reflects detecting a higher *fraction* of the cases, not a real increase in the number of cases.

In other words, since the number of deaths hasn't jumped over the last couple of days, the increase in the number of cases that shows up on the graph just means that more people are getting tested in Texas now. But the actual number of cases, whether confirmed by testing or not, is still tracking with the model projections. If actual cases of infection had increased dramatically, deaths would have too. They haven't. So, just more testing going on now.

I can't find a world wide chart. Anyone that wants to follow along with him, can do so on facebook though. His personal page is maxed out on friends now, but you can still follow him. https://www.facebook.com/douglas.g.frank

There are also a couple of groups where his posts are shared.....

https://www.facebook.com/groups/158015618707622/

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1RealScientist/?hc_location=group

[mikemorvan]

Interesting stuff. Thanks for all the info.

[sandhillhunter]

But the actual number of cases, whether confirmed by testing or not, is still tracking with the model projections. If actual cases of infection had increased dramatically, deaths would have too. [/QUOTE]

Only if the projected death rate is accurate, and no one knows if it is (truly infected people that die from the disease). The WSJ article questions the accuracy of those estimates.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TCB]

Just started following him....very interesting stuff.

[Shane]

Only if the projected death rate is accurate, and no one knows if it is (truly infected people that die from the disease). The WSJ article questions the accuracy of those estimates.

You're correct about death rate numbers. But the black dotted line on the graph is not a projected death rate. It's a number of actual deaths. Big difference. Actual deaths is a known number. Death rate is a ratio:

# of actual deaths / # of infections

The number of actual deaths is easy to know. But the number of infections is completely a guess, because not everyone has been tested. There's no way to know how many people that have been sick but not tested actually had CV-19. And there's no way to know how many people had such a minor case of it that they didn't even know they were sick, much lest tested to see if they had it. So all of the "death rate" numbers that are thrown around everywhere vary widely, and they're all just WAGs based on estimated numbers of infection.

This guy puts an estimated death rate in the little blue box. 39 deaths in Texas so far divided by 1,300 cases of infection (verified test results) = 3%. But it is inflated, because it doesn't include all the other cases where people had/have the virus but aren't tested and aren't in the official counts.

What his model is looking at though isn't the death rate. He's modeling actual death projections (grey line) and tracking actual deaths (black dotted line). Actual deaths is a real number, not a guess. You don't need a test to see if somebody died or not. Make sense?

[Mjjust]

I have always believed the reaction to this is a hoax meant to destroy our economy. If you followed the logic of shutting down everything to save lives we should have outlawed cars years ago. More than 100 people die every day in car wrecks. After reading those articles and looking at those other projections I’m even more convinced. Hopefully Douglas Frank’s projections hold true and we see a drop soon and can start to work our way back to normal.

[PondPopper]

A story is only as good as the one telling the story. And based on what facts he or she chooses to include OR not to include will dictate how the story is told...
There can be many variations and versions of the same story.. Sadly agendas can dictate the version..

[sandhillhunter]

You're correct about death rate numbers. But the black dotted line on the graph is not a projected death rate. It's a number of actual deaths. Big difference. Actual deaths is a known number. Death rate is a ratio:

# of actual deaths / # of infections

The number of actual deaths is easy to know. Actual deaths is a real number, not a guess. You don't need a test to see if somebody died or not. Make sense?

Not necessarily true.

Someone is dying and they test positive for Corona virus.

Did the virus kill them, or did they have one or multiple other diseases that caused the death?

Heart attack? Concurrent influenza?
Stroke?
Pneumonia?

In a pandemic with significant public panic and media bias, it’s unlikely that’s going to be assessed to any degree of certainty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LWC]

Not necessarily true.

Someone is dying and they test positive for Corona virus.

Did the virus kill them, or did they have one or multiple other diseases that caused the death?

Heart attack? Concurrent influenza?
Stroke?
Pneumonia?

In a pandemic with significant public panic and media bias, it’s unlikely that’s going to be assessed to any degree of certainty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If they test positive for Corona and die it will be considered a Corona death. Would they have died otherwise? Who knows. Could it skew the numbers a tic high? Maybe. Death numbers will be the most accurate data in this whole ordeal. Determining the number of people who actually got infected with the virus will take much more "assuming".