Confusing. I can't get out of that what you got.
-
-
When the disease has run its course, a person is either dead or cured, right? If they are still sick, we just don't know how they'll turn out. Mr. Zhao reports 5 cured for every 1 death. That's a mortality rate of 1 in 6 cases. That's 16.7777%. I rounded up.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Rklawton @ScottAdamsSays and
Oh, one other thing. The Chinese switched their counting methodology in the last few days. Before the switch, the mortality rate was 25%. The new methodology requires only a clinical diagnosis. Before that, they tested for the virus itself.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Doesn't that ignore all the not-yet-cureds? I don't see how you can calculate anything useful from just the cured and fatals in the short run. (Long run, yes.)
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
It definitely ignores the not-yets. And that's because we don't know how they'll go. Some will live, some won't. Of those who have gone through the process to either death or recovery, we know that 1 in 6 die, and 5 in 6 live. If we knew more about when people died...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Rklawton @ScottAdamsSays and
... e.g. everyone who dies, dies on day two, then we could extend the calculations to the group of sick people, too (assuming we knew how long they'd been sick). However, we don't have that information. We do, though, know how many have completed the process and their rates.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
That sounds no better than a guess. The variable that is missing is not optional to the calculation.
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
What variable is missing?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
The outcome of the currently sick, or the average number of days to death or cure.
7 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
The outcome of the currently sick would give us a solid number. When we don't know the distribution of days from diagnosis to death, we can reasonably start with the assumption of a uniform distribution and work from there. We'll at least be in the ballpark.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Does that assumption work when evaluating a (possibly) never-before situation?
-
-
Yes. Take the opposite example. If patients were dropping dead in the first few days, then this would have made the news - same as if most patients lingered for several weeks before dying. If WuFlu was exceptional, we'd see reports. A flatter distribution is reasonable.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.