More here, focusing on the 2009 influenza pandemichttps://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b2840 …
-
-
Prikaži ovu nitHvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
I made simple simulation to show people how useless is CFR=deaths/cases value for an exponentially growing epidemic. In this model every 'case' us dying with 30% probability. CFR makes sense only for ending/ended epidemic. Pure and basic math.pic.twitter.com/RbCtJ4cyrb
- Još 2 druga odgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
True but its starting to look a bit informative that the only non-China death (since we don't trust China numbers) is a man who reportedly had multiple comorbidities. That's out of 100+ China cases, with 23 of those over a week old. Still too early but another week may tell.
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
Could we take it as "semi-retrospective cohorts"? (Excuse my rusty language. Also, I don't even know what I'm trying to express.) Something along the lines of selecting good (semi)finished cases? Look at survival X days after onset to give a sense of what's going on?
#cluelessHvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
Adam, could you please explain one thing to me. Everyone is talking about death rate of new virus but they are quoting 2% CFR. My simple understanding of "true" death rate is that we should take deaths and divide them by sum of death and recoveries (as people who are still sick=>
-
=>are still "in the woods" and may die). How is this value called? It is not mortality, right? Does it have a name? Thank you for your answer ;)
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.