Math geeks needed

Commodity Marketing

Tools

Math geeks needed

wd9
Mar 24, 2020 | 14:37 1 You all know i love math, but this is pretty real math.

Ok, the numbers are this today. (roughly). The number of cases today are kind of irrelevant since they haven't had an outcome.

There are 126,000 cases that have had an outcome. 108,000 recovered and 18,500 have died.

That is around 15% of the cases resulted in someone dying. So, um, uh, if dying from Covid 19 on average is 15% and in order to make that 15% average with young people hardly affected, it would seem older people are at extreme risk.

What am i missing other then conclude this thing is pretty dangerous for the majority of farmers given the average age. Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2020 | 14:44 2 India has shut down for 21 days.They said if people do not comply the country will go backwards 21 years. Reply With Quote
wd9
Mar 24, 2020 | 14:48 3 Further to that, the USA had 1000 cases with an outcome, 680 died and 370 lived.

Does the death rate mean 66%? Holy crapperooni that is high. What am i missing?

Edit: Source: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
Last edited by wd9; Mar 24, 2020 at 14:51.
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2020 | 14:58 4 The biggest thing you’re missing is that most of the lower risk people never got sick enough to be tested and recovered at home without being accounted for in the numbers. I would guess that out of the total stats 70-80% of those are “at risk” people in the first place Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • wd9
    Mar 24, 2020 | 15:13 5
    Quote Originally Posted by dalek View Post
    The biggest thing you’re missing is that most of the lower risk people never got sick enough to be tested and recovered at home without being accounted for in the numbers. I would guess that out of the total stats 70-80% of those are “at risk” people in the first place
    Really good point, but do we know that number? I guess it would be really hard to determine even remotely accurate. Reply With Quote
    Mar 24, 2020 | 15:22 6
    Quote Originally Posted by wd9 View Post
    Really good point, but do we know that number? I guess it would be really hard to determine even remotely accurate.
    No I don’t think we’ll ever know how many people get it. I know the local health unit here says they have 50-60 probable cases but only 3 have been tested and they don’t seem to be in a hurry to test anyone that doesn’t end up in a hospital. I would think that there are probably 10 people who didn’t get tested for every one that did Reply With Quote
    wd9
    Mar 24, 2020 | 15:31 7 I suppose using numbers from the US would be even more complicated as some would rather almost die before going to the hospital then get stuck with a $50,000 medical bill. Reply With Quote
    Mar 24, 2020 | 15:50 8
    Quote Originally Posted by wd9 View Post
    I suppose using numbers from the US would be even more complicated as some would rather almost die before going to the hospital then get stuck with a $50,000 medical bill.
    In some states it’s still $2-3000 just for the test so if you’d have to feel pretty rough to get tested if you don’t have coverage Reply With Quote
    Mar 24, 2020 | 15:56 9
    Quote Originally Posted by wd9 View Post
    Further to that, the USA had 1000 cases with an outcome, 680 died and 370 lived.

    Does the death rate mean 66%? Holy crapperooni that is high. What am i missing?

    Edit: Source: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
    A case isn't concluded or considered recovered until they are have tested negative, between recovery time and lag in testing. i heard that can take up to 30 days, so there is a lag. 3.5% death rate is most common assumption over 80 years of age is something like 18%. higher in North America because they are only testing people showing symptoms. Thousands go untested because they are not serious.

    The numbers get real ugly once we run out of hospital capacity. Italy Death rate almost 10% and anyone over 65 doesn't get treatment because they don't have enough ventilators. up to 13% of all cases need oxegen or ventilators. last i heard is in Sask we have 180 ventilators. We get to over 3000 active cases here in Sask and doctors could have to start making tough decisions. Reply With Quote
    wd9
    Mar 24, 2020 | 16:04 10 Webinar today for AHUS patients. Was pretty interesting to hear from Doctors all over the world discuss this subject in many areas of medicine. Currently they know of almost 300 mutations already, but fortunately the overall structure from the bat remains detectable with only about 20% of that structure changing. So so far one test catches them all, for now. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • wd9
    Mar 24, 2020 | 16:07 11
    Quote Originally Posted by mbratrud View Post
    A case isn't concluded or considered recovered until they are have tested negative, between recovery time and lag in testing. i heard that can take up to 30 days, so there is a lag. 3.5% death rate is most common assumption over 80 years of age is something like 18%. higher in North America because they are only testing people showing symptoms. Thousands go untested because they are not serious.

    The numbers get real ugly once we run out of hospital capacity. Italy Death rate almost 10% and anyone over 65 doesn't get treatment because they don't have enough ventilators. up to 13% of all cases need oxegen or ventilators. last i heard is in Sask we have 180 ventilators. We get to over 3000 active cases here in Sask and doctors could have to start making tough decisions.
    Spoke with a former colleague in Edmonton in biomedical eng, all the old vents are pulled out of mothball status and being put in service, but that is only around 14 i think. Given the numbers of potential infections, 14 additional looks pretty small, but it could be someone's parents, or spouse, or.... Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Mar 24, 2020 | 16:14 12
    Quote Originally Posted by dalek View Post
    The biggest thing you’re missing is that most of the lower risk people never got sick enough to be tested and recovered at home without being accounted for in the numbers. I would guess that out of the total stats 70-80% of those are “at risk” people in the first place
    99% of those in Italy had underlying health problems, a full half of them had 3 or more underlying issues. More people over 90 than under 60 died in Italy. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Mar 24, 2020 | 16:19 13 It’s not just old people. And even if so
    You’re basically saying they’re worthless?
    Oh ya ok that’s what Fox News said rhen
    Trump watches it then he said it. So I guess
    It’s good rhey all die off because if that loser
    Opens up venues too early rhey all will and
    More Reply With Quote
    Mar 24, 2020 | 16:31 14 Incomplete datasets can skew the result. They will have to test till they can't test no more to get best data for deducing ratios and lethality.

    In lands where the disease has taken off at a terrible rate, only those susceptible and actually not feeling well are likely being tested. Doesn't minimize the chances of a poor outcome once you have it as highlighted by your numbers but it does skew the numbers and thus they cannot be used to apply across the total population of a nation.
    You are indeed correct on age being a complicating factor.
    Based on a partial data set from Italy:
    Under 30 chances of death are negligible
    30-39 extremely low
    40-49 1.5X as high as the 30-39 age group
    50-59 2.0X as high as the 40-49 age group
    60-69 4.0X as high as the 50-59 age group
    70-79 3.1X as high as the 60-69 age group
    80-89 1.5X as high as the 70-79 age group
    90+ 1.1X as high as the 80-89 age group

    the lethality for someone over 90+ is 64 times that of a 30-39 year old

    Based on the premise of equal opportunity for exposure from males and females, females are less likely to get the disease and less likely to die from it if the get it.

    Most at risk age groups are 60-79 year old males, followed by 70-79 year old females and then 80-89 year old males.

    The concept of equal opportunity for infection is important. Anything that can be done to lower your risk is going to change your prospects for contracting the virus. Once you have it the outcome is much more definitely known. Interesting that fewer of the oldest of Italy's population have tested positive. Only reason I can think of is they haven't been exposed. They are not out in the streets and common areas and buildings.
    Another obvious difference is the lethality rate when comparing nations. Different variants of the virus?
    Greater resistance in a certain population? Lower exposure? Better health care? Reply With Quote
    Mar 24, 2020 | 16:33 15
    Quote Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
    More people over 90 than under 60 died in Italy.
    I did not see stats on that. Reference? Reply With Quote
    wd9
    Mar 24, 2020 | 16:47 16
    Quote Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
    99% of those in Italy had underlying health problems, a full half of them had 3 or more underlying issues. More people over 90 than under 60 died in Italy.
    I have that too, am immuno-compromised, guess its ok if i just die as well. Just trying to calculate my odds of living, so humour me. The bigger issue is the collapse of the medical system there, they couldn't save them even if they could.

    In Bergamo they have a 48 ventilated bed facility with a 4300 patient caseload in just Covid. Many come in and are just ushered straight to palliative care to die. They can only the save the ones with the highest odds of living, not because the rest can't be medically saved, there is just too many. Remember, just because you have a pandemic, doesn't mean you stop all the other diseases, influenza, heart attacks, pneumonia, cancer, blood disease, leukemia, and a million other things. The deaths would have been far less if they just listened.

    This is what is trying to be prevented in Canada. Reply With Quote
    Mar 24, 2020 | 16:54 17 I try not to watch the world numbers so much because we just get data from the media.

    I have been watching VanCong fairly close and to this point most of the dead come out of one nursing home.

    Yesterday I think they were reporting 6 long term care homes had infection.

    Bigger numbers to come there, but not "general population" picking it up at work.

    I think Alberta also reports a long term care case in ICU.

    Certainly seniors dying is a crisis, but can we not do better at keeping that group better protected rather than just shotgun the whole population? Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Mar 24, 2020 | 16:58 18
    Quote Originally Posted by farming101 View Post
    I did not see stats on that. Reference?
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/03/24/the-italian-connection/

    Name:  Italian-COVID-Deaths-by-Age.jpg
Views: 538
Size:  10.0 KB Reply With Quote
    Mar 24, 2020 | 17:02 19 Thanks, I'll have a look.

    A good article.
    Couple things. The findings were based on 355 out of 2003 cases.

    His article might lead the reader to think that it's kind of expected because people with hypertension, diabetes and atrial fibrillation are sick already. These three maladies can be controlled to some extent. People can live with these conditions.

    Also he leaves the reader to assume that every one who died in the group were in a hospital and contracted the virus there and then died for other reasons. Huh? I don't think the study revealed any of that info. Maybe I'm missing something
    Last edited by farming101; Mar 24, 2020 at 17:28.
    Reply With Quote
    Mar 24, 2020 | 17:06 20
    Quote Originally Posted by wd9 View Post
    I suppose using numbers from the US would be even more complicated as some would rather almost die before going to the hospital then get stuck with a $50,000 medical bill.
    Two indirectly related deaths near here - 1 with appendicitis, 1 with twisted bowel. Both refused to go to hospital for help because of risk of exposure. No reported cases in that city.

    Poor choice? Reply With Quote
    Mar 24, 2020 | 17:06 21 Let me give you some other math. 57M people die every year from all cause mortality across the globe.

    Now lets track one horrible portion of it. 4M of those are toddlers under the age of 5. Now imagine I send a news team to every place in the world every time one dies and it gets splashed all over the news and people develop projections on how many will die today and we make a big website to track it all by the second. Horrible of course, but only because you broke out a single variable. Its a cognitive bias.

    Now what if I add in the abortions per year, 40M aborted. So just about 45M kids under age of 5 and unborn die every year. Where is the outrage?

    We didnt shut down our economy and quarantine toddlers or stop abortion did we? We carry right on and put that tragedy right out of our minds.

    I don't like death anymore than anyone else, but I really despise hypocrisy. Reply With Quote

  • Mar 24, 2020 | 17:10 22
    Quote Originally Posted by wd9 View Post
    I have that too, am immuno-compromised, guess its ok if i just die as well. Just trying to calculate my odds of living, so humour me. The bigger issue is the collapse of the medical system there, they couldn't save them even if they could.

    In Bergamo they have a 48 ventilated bed facility with a 4300 patient caseload in just Covid. Many come in and are just ushered straight to palliative care to die. They can only the save the ones with the highest odds of living, not because the rest can't be medically saved, there is just too many. Remember, just because you have a pandemic, doesn't mean you stop all the other diseases, influenza, heart attacks, pneumonia, cancer, blood disease, leukemia, and a million other things. The deaths would have been far less if they just listened.

    This is what is trying to be prevented in Canada.
    I absolutely respect that. I have a sister in law, young and healthy and mother of 3 in hospital right now with unexplained ( but tested negative for Covid) respiratory issues on oxygen right now. If we were in the midst of an epidemic, where hospitals are overwhelmed, where would she be right now? Reply With Quote
    Mar 24, 2020 | 17:13 23
    Quote Originally Posted by dalek View Post
    No I don’t think we’ll ever know how many people get it. I know the local health unit here says they have 50-60 probable cases but only 3 have been tested and they don’t seem to be in a hurry to test anyone that doesn’t end up in a hospital. I would think that there are probably 10 people who didn’t get tested for every one that did
    Based on the random testing from Iceland, 1% of the population tested positive, and half of those were asymptomatic, and didn't know they were even sick. So we can likely extrapolate those ratios to other parts of the world to estimate the true extent of how many total cases there actually are. Reply With Quote
    Mar 24, 2020 | 17:14 24 the corona virus is a terrible thing but to shut down whole countries is not the answer. we probably going to loose more people on the side effects of the economy shutdown, more suicide heart attacks domestic violence heart attacks and the like but that does not mean that we should do nothing but a little more measured approach. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Mar 24, 2020 | 17:15 25
    Quote Originally Posted by jazz View Post
    Let me give you some other math. 57M people die every year from all cause mortality across the globe.

    Now lets track one horrible portion of it. 4M of those are toddlers under the age of 5. Now imagine I send a news team to every place in the world every time one dies and it gets splashed all over the news and people develop projections on how many will die today and we make a big website to track it all by the second. Horrible of course, but only because you broke out a single variable. Its a cognitive bias.

    Now what if I add in the abortions per year, 40M aborted. So just about 45M kids under age of 5 and unborn die every year. Where is the outrage?

    We didnt shut down our economy and quarantine toddlers or stop abortion did we? We carry right on and put that tragedy right out of our minds.

    I don't like death anymore than anyone else, but I really despise hypocrisy.
    Disgustingly grotesque, but completely true. Reply With Quote
    Mar 24, 2020 | 17:49 26 Saskatchewan test results in for today. Positive tests/total tests steady. It's only one day so anything could happen but it could have been worse.

    First day I have seen the age breakdown. 82% in the 20-64 age group. A better chance for recovery than if it was more heavily concentrated in the older folks Reply With Quote
    Mar 24, 2020 | 18:14 27 wd9, as someone with experience and connections in the medical field, how serious is the mask shortage? I happen to have a couple of boxes of N95 because of grain allergies, and countless ( and in my case, useless, and likely expired) regular masks. Is there a need, or a way to donate these to hospitals, or emergency workers? I assume there will be supplies to replenish my stock eventually, are they accepting, or are supplies on their way already? Reply With Quote
    wd9
    Mar 24, 2020 | 18:18 28
    Quote Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
    I absolutely respect that. I have a sister in law, young and healthy and mother of 3 in hospital right now with unexplained ( but tested negative for Covid) respiratory issues on oxygen right now. If we were in the midst of an epidemic, where hospitals are overwhelmed, where would she be right now?
    Really hard to know, the heartbreaking decision would rest in the physician in charge.

    Burnt, yes that also, absolutely terrible. I would have thought they made the wrong decision, but wow, so tough.

    Jazz, while those are certainly numbers, they aren't that helpful for me. I'll take a different approach then tweety. Here is also a numbers question, if human life is irrelevant (can't believe i just typed that) which has more long term economic damage,

    1. complete collapse of the medical system and just let "nature take its course, everybody gets infected". Those who live, live.

    2. flatten the curve and relatively quickly have R<1 and maintain critical cases within the capability of the hospital system long term? Canada's strategy.

    edit: I should explain R0 or R-Naught. Its the infectious ratio of a particular disease. More people getting over it then getting it is R<1. Reply With Quote
    wd9
    Mar 24, 2020 | 18:28 29
    Quote Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
    wd9, as someone with experience and connections in the medical field, how serious is the mask shortage? I happen to have a couple of boxes of N95 because of grain allergies, and countless ( and in my case, useless, and likely expired) regular masks. Is there a need, or a way to donate these to hospitals, or emergency workers? I assume there will be supplies to replenish my stock eventually, are they accepting, or are supplies on their way already?
    You know, i think keep a box for yourself as PPE and your family, passing on a sealed box to the hospital would be a truly wonderful thing to do. They may not need it if things go to plan, but oh if they do. May a 1000 feet deep of good Karma be upon you

    As long as not expired of course. Any farmers out there, if you have extra masks in a box unopened, just drop them off by emerg at a distance getting the attention of someone, or phone ahead and make arrangements/discover the need Reply With Quote
    Mar 24, 2020 | 18:47 30
    Quote Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
    Based on the random testing from Iceland, 1% of the population tested positive, and half of those were asymptomatic, and didn't know they were even sick. So we can likely extrapolate those ratios to other parts of the world to estimate the true extent of how many total cases there actually are.
    No one responded, so I will answer my own query, if half the infected people who were randomly tested did not know they were even sick, and we are only testing people sick enough to go to the hospital, or in high risk, the prevalence in the general population is likely much much higher than what is reported.
    This much larger infected number would make the deaths as a percentage much lower, plus the fact that it takes much longer to be considered recovered than it does to die, so it is a very very trailing indicator. Reply With Quote