Official Covid-19 Discussion Thread

[Kevin Willis]

Russia getting rocked.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/putins-bleak-covid-19-admission-122708635.html

[execoftheyear]

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30418-9/fulltext

you can never trust people nowadays, these people could have been paid hush money from the CCP or have stock in a potential vaccine

See, what you're failing to consider here is the flipside, that the peoplen in the first video could also have an agenda, financial motive or other reason for speaking in the way they do also. You don't think there are people who would pay to spread disinformation about China, or benefit from knocking China down from it's perch as a rival superpower to the US? The fact that they are calling it the CCP Virus should be raising some very loud alarm bells in your head, because that is a highly charged, highly inflammatory name to give it. It goes well beyond calling it the Wuhan Virus or China Virus and basically screams "we have a specific axe to grind".

for sure which is why I'm not taking any sides. I'm just saying you can't trust people in general. Everyone has their motive and no one will ever know until this is over with and clear evidence is brought to light.

[Hero]

Are people cutting their own hair?

I got a haircut just before the guidelines so I'm okay for a little longer but it makes you wonder.

[Huffman]

Are people cutting their own hair?

I got a haircut just before the guidelines so I'm okay for a little longer but it makes you wonder.

I've cut mine a couple of times and I cut my dad's on the weekend. I watched a couple of "how to" videos on Youtube and rolled the dice. My dad was so please he wants me to do it permanently. We have simple hair styles though. I use clippers on the sides and back and keep the cutting on top and front to a minimum.

Invest in a hat too.

[wayoftheroad]

Bruh I didnt know I was such a good barber. I've been giving my brother proper fades, might have to make it a side hustle.

[NinjaBro]

Super easy to do my hair with a clipper. I've been wearing a touque so it doesn't have to be perfect but weather is getting warmer here so...

[NinjaBro]

Gotdam, USA getting rocked. Already 2347 dead today, France 1438 dead. These numbers are getting out of control. You can't have 2000+ people dying everyday, it's going to wipe out a significant portion of the population if this thing keeps going.

[dohboy_24]

Gotdam, USA getting rocked. Already 2347 dead today, France 1438 dead. These numbers are getting out of control. You can't have 2000+ people dying everyday, it's going to wipe out a significant portion of the population if this thing keeps going.

FYI... not as if it makes a difference because this is basic math and percentages, but I have a Bachelor's degree in Statistics, Economics and Finance and am simply pointing out the math/statistics behind these numbers and how much valuable information you can get from just the raw numbers.

Given France and the US don't have the same number of citizens, the only way to make an apples-to-apples comparison is to normalize the data either by calculating a standard base number (per 1 million) or calculating percentages.

Let's take the US as an example.

There are about 330,600,000 million people in the US.

What percentage of that population is represented by the 28,529 people who've succumbed to this virus so far? What percentage of that population is represented by the 566,859 cases of this virus in the US so far?

% of US population infected = 566,859/330,600,0000 = 0.17%
At present, 0.17% of the US population has been infected.

% of US population who've succumbed to the virus = 28,529/330,600,000 = 0.008%
At present, 0.008% of the US population has succumbed to the virus.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/us-population/

Total tests per 1 million people = 9,845
Total cases per 1 million people = 1,946
Total deaths per 1 million people = 86

If tested, what is the percentage likelihood to have the virus?
cases/tested = 1,946/9,845 = 19.7%
19.7% of the people tested have tested positive.

If tested, what is the percentage likelihood of dying from the virus?
deaths/tested = 86/9,845 = 0.87%
If tested, regardless of the results of the test, you have a 0.87% likelihood of dying.

If tested positive for the virus, what is the percentage likelihood of dying from the virus?
deaths/cases = 86/1946 = 4.4%

If you run the same numbers for France, you'll be able to make a more accurate comparison between the two, but given the numbers above for the US alone, do think the US is getting rocked if less than a quarter of a percent of the population has tested positive?

When you look at the numbers in this way, do you still think they're getting out of control and could potentially wipe out a significant portion of the population?

[Kabookalu]

Gotdam, USA getting rocked. Already 2347 dead today, France 1438 dead. These numbers are getting out of control. You can't have 2000+ people dying everyday, it's going to wipe out a significant portion of the population if this thing keeps going.

FYI... not as if it makes a difference because this is basic math and percentages, but I have a Bachelor's degree in Statistics, Economics and Finance and am simply pointing out the math/statistics behind these numbers and how much valuable information you can get from just the raw numbers.

Given France and the US don't have the same number of citizens, the only way to make an apples-to-apples comparison is to normalize the data either by calculating a standard base number (per 1 million) or calculating percentages.

Let's take the US as an example.

There are about 330,600,000 million people in the US.

What percentage of that population is represented by the 28,529 people who've succumbed to this virus so far? What percentage of that population is represented by the 566,859 cases of this virus in the US so far?

% of US population infected = 566,859/330,600,0000 = 0.17%
At present, 0.17% of the US population has been infected.

% of US population who've succumbed to the virus = 28,529/330,600,000 = 0.008%
At present, 0.008% of the US population has succumbed to the virus.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/us-population/

Total tests per 1 million people = 9,845
Total cases per 1 million people = 1,946
Total deaths per 1 million people = 86

If tested, what is the percentage likelihood to have the virus?
cases/tested = 1,946/9,845 = 19.7%
19.7% of the people tested have tested positive.

If tested, what is the percentage likelihood of dying from the virus?
deaths/tested = 86/9,845 = 0.87%
If tested, regardless of the results of the test, you have a 0.87% likelihood of dying.

If tested positive for the virus, what is the percentage likelihood of dying from the virus?
deaths/cases = 86/1946 = 4.4%

If you run the same numbers for France, you'll be able to make a more accurate comparison between the two, but given the numbers above for the US alone, do think the US is getting rocked if less than a quarter of a percent of the population has tested positive?

When you look at the numbers in this way, do you still think they're getting out of control and could potentially wipe out a significant portion of the population?

You also have to consider land mass though. The US as a country isn't that much smaller compared to the entirety of Europe. Texas alone is bigger than every European country last time I checked. I'm not a statistician, so I don't know the best methodology to determine how rocked America is, though I'd think land mass has to play a part. The state of New York having more cases and deaths than any other country alone (that we know of since lying China won't reveal the truth) is alarming.

[execoftheyear]

Gotdam, USA getting rocked. Already 2347 dead today, France 1438 dead. These numbers are getting out of control. You can't have 2000+ people dying everyday, it's going to wipe out a significant portion of the population if this thing keeps going.

FYI... not as if it makes a difference because this is basic math and percentages, but I have a Bachelor's degree in Statistics, Economics and Finance and am simply pointing out the math/statistics behind these numbers and how much valuable information you can get from just the raw numbers.

Given France and the US don't have the same number of citizens, the only way to make an apples-to-apples comparison is to normalize the data either by calculating a standard base number (per 1 million) or calculating percentages.

Let's take the US as an example.

There are about 330,600,000 million people in the US.

What percentage of that population is represented by the 28,529 people who've succumbed to this virus so far? What percentage of that population is represented by the 566,859 cases of this virus in the US so far?

% of US population infected = 566,859/330,600,0000 = 0.17%
At present, 0.17% of the US population has been infected.

% of US population who've succumbed to the virus = 28,529/330,600,000 = 0.008%
At present, 0.008% of the US population has succumbed to the virus.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/us-population/

Total tests per 1 million people = 9,845
Total cases per 1 million people = 1,946
Total deaths per 1 million people = 86

If tested, what is the percentage likelihood to have the virus?
cases/tested = 1,946/9,845 = 19.7%
19.7% of the people tested have tested positive.

If tested, what is the percentage likelihood of dying from the virus?
deaths/tested = 86/9,845 = 0.87%
If tested, regardless of the results of the test, you have a 0.87% likelihood of dying.

If tested positive for the virus, what is the percentage likelihood of dying from the virus?
deaths/cases = 86/1946 = 4.4%

If you run the same numbers for France, you'll be able to make a more accurate comparison between the two, but given the numbers above for the US alone, do think the US is getting rocked if less than a quarter of a percent of the population has tested positive?

When you look at the numbers in this way, do you still think they're getting out of control and could potentially wipe out a significant portion of the population?

people keep bringing up numbers of people dying directly from the virus...what about those indirectly dying from the virus? People dying from starvation in their homes from losing their jobs and being unable to afford basic necessities during isolation periods? People unable to get treatment at hospitals for other critical health conditions because hospitals won't take any patients or perform surgeries because COVID patients are occupying all the ICU beds and hospitals are just too contagious to perform these treatments/surgeries. People are even dying in their homes and aren't being included in the numbers. If the US were to include those that have been affected directly AND indirectly then yes, they are definitely getting "rocked". The collateral damage this is causing needs to be considered since the numbers don't tell the entire story of what's actually happening.

[dohboy_24]

[
people keep bringing up numbers of people dying directly from the virus...what about those indirectly dying from the virus? People dying from starvation in their homes from losing their jobs and being unable to afford basic necessities during isolation periods? People unable to get treatment at hospitals for other critical health conditions because hospitals won't take any patients or perform surgeries because COVID patients are occupying all the ICU beds and hospitals are just too contagious to perform these treatments/surgeries. People are even dying in their homes and aren't being included in the numbers. If the US were to include those that have been affected directly AND indirectly then yes, they are definitely getting "rocked". The collateral damage this is causing needs to be considered since the numbers don't tell the entire story of what's actually happening.

Yes, the decision to lockdown has resulted in a number of dominoes to fall subsequent to that decision.

If the data, no matter how fallacious it might be, was being presented in a more fair and balanced manner rather than being sensationalized as it has been, and the initial predictions made from them were more accurate, the decision to lock down would probably have not been made in the first place.

As a result, none of the dominoes that followed it would be experienced either.

In the case of the measures being taken to protect the 99% of the world who aren't being affected by the virus, the cure is worse than the disease as more people will affected by these ripple effects than the actual virus itself.

[Fairview4Life]

[
people keep bringing up numbers of people dying directly from the virus...what about those indirectly dying from the virus? People dying from starvation in their homes from losing their jobs and being unable to afford basic necessities during isolation periods? People unable to get treatment at hospitals for other critical health conditions because hospitals won't take any patients or perform surgeries because COVID patients are occupying all the ICU beds and hospitals are just too contagious to perform these treatments/surgeries. People are even dying in their homes and aren't being included in the numbers. If the US were to include those that have been affected directly AND indirectly then yes, they are definitely getting "rocked". The collateral damage this is causing needs to be considered since the numbers don't tell the entire story of what's actually happening.

Yes, the decision to lockdown has resulted in a number of dominoes to fall subsequent to that decision.

If the data, no matter how fallacious it might be, was being presented in a more fair and balanced manner rather than being sensationalized as it has been, and the initial predictions made from them were more accurate, the decision to lock down would probably have not been made in the first place.

As a result, none of the dominoes that followed it would be experienced either.

In the case of the measures being taken to protect the 99% of the world who aren't being affected by the virus, the cure is worse than the disease as more people will affected by these ripple effects than the actual virus itself.

Or...the reason why 99% of the world isn't being affected by the virus is one of the ripple effects of the lockdown.

Telling people to stay home doesn't make more "dominoes fall". It isn't, by itself, causing more people to die. It actually reduces deaths from like car accidents or whatever. The dominoes that are falling is the lack of capacity for people having strokes or heart attacks or a million other problems that would normally be looked at without covid patients using up beds and resources.

[dohboy_24]

You also have to consider land mass though. The US as a country isn't that much smaller compared to the entirety of Europe. Texas alone is bigger than every European country last time I checked. I'm not a statistician, so I don't know the best methodology to determine how rocked America is, though I'd think land mass has to play a part. The state of New York having more cases and deaths than any other country alone (that we know of since lying China won't reveal the truth) is alarming.

Yes, land mass, total population and population density could be a factor.

That being said, there are many countries with high population densities and/or small land masses who aren't experiencing nearly the same level of cases or deaths on a per capita basis as being experienced by others.

In either event, there doesn't appear to be statistically significant relationship

Coronavirus by country:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries

Smallest countries by area:
https://www.countries-ofthe-world.com/smallest-countries.html

Randomly sampling from with the top 100 countries by are:

Monaco: 2,370 cases per 1 million, 76 deaths per 1 million
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/monaco/

Singapore: 757 cases per 1 million, 2 deaths per 1 million
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/singapore/

Lebanon: 97 cases per 1 million, 2 deaths per 1 million
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/lebanon/

Slovenia: 610 cases per 1 million, 29 deaths per 1 million
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/slovenia/

Belgium: 3,003 cases per 1 million, 419 deaths per 1 million
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/belgium/

Taiwan: 17 cases per 1 million, 0.3 deaths per 1 million
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/taiwan/

Switzerland: 3,089 cases per 1 million, 148 deaths per 1 million
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/switzerland/

Netherlands: 1,075 cases per 1 million, 193 deaths per 1 million
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/netherlands/

Most populous countries: https://www.countries-ofthe-world.com/most-populous-countries.html

Sample pulled from top 10 countries by population:

China: 57 cases per 1 million, 2 deaths per 1 million
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/china/

India: 9 cases per 1 million, 0.3 deaths per 1 million
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/india/

US: 2,015 cases per 1 million, 102 deaths per 1 million
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

Indonesia: 20 cases per 1 million, 2 deaths per 1 million
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/indonesia/

Brazil: 137 cases per 1 million, 8 deaths per 1 million
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/brazil/

Pakistan: 31 cases per 1 million, 0.6 deaths per 1 million
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/pakistan/

Nigeria: 2 cases per 1 million, 0.06 deaths per 1 million
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/nigeria/

Bangladesh: 10 cases per 1 million, 0.4 deaths per 1 million
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/bangladesh/

Since population density is calculated as the total population divided by the total land area, many of the countries listed above are also one of the top countries ranked by population density.

http://statisticstimes.com/demographics/countries-by-population-density.php

Would have to plot and graph each to calculate R squared values and correlation coefficients for them, but given the above, there doesn't appear to be a very strong relationship between the size of a country, its population density, or total population with respect to the number of coronavirus cases or deaths per 1 million people.

[dohboy_24]

Or...the reason why 99% of the world isn't being affected by the virus is one of the ripple effects of the lockdown.

Telling people to stay home doesn't make more "dominoes fall". It isn't, by itself, causing more people to die. It actually reduces deaths from like car accidents or whatever. The dominoes that are falling is the lack of capacity for people having strokes or heart attacks or a million other problems that would normally be looked at without covid patients using up beds and resources.

Compare the growth rate prior to lockdown measures to the growth rates after lockdown measures were taken.
Calculate the change in growth between each period.

Did the growth rates decline or increase after lockdown measures were taken? By which percentage?

[Fairview4Life]

Or...the reason why 99% of the world isn't being affected by the virus is one of the ripple effects of the lockdown.

Telling people to stay home doesn't make more "dominoes fall". It isn't, by itself, causing more people to die. It actually reduces deaths from like car accidents or whatever. The dominoes that are falling is the lack of capacity for people having strokes or heart attacks or a million other problems that would normally be looked at without covid patients using up beds and resources.

Compare the growth rate prior to lockdown measures to the growth rates after lockdown measures were taken.
Calculate the change in growth between each period.

Did the growth rates decline or increase after lockdown measures were taken? By which percentage?

Since testing wasn't ubiquitous before and after locking things down, I am not sure how much that would tell us. But you can look at growth models before and after lockdown and just decide not to trust epidemiologists if you want, I guess.

[Hipster Doofus]

Almost 200 dead in Canada so far today? Damn man, it'll be a bad one...

[dohboy_24]

Since testing wasn't ubiquitous before and after locking things down, I am not sure how much that would tell us. But you can look at growth models before and after lockdown and just decide not to trust epidemiologists if you want, I guess.

You said:

Or...the reason why 99% of the world isn't being affected by the virus is one of the ripple effects of the lockdown.

Aside from looking at the before/after growth rates, how else could you support that claim using some form of factual evidence?

You said:

The dominoes that are falling is the lack of capacity for people having strokes or heart attacks or a million other problems that would normally be looked at without covid patients using up beds and resources.

Yes, that is a sound hypothesis, but still just that until further research and investigation is completed.

Do you know how many beds and resources are available to determine the carrying capacity of such resources? Do you know how many beds and resources are normally being used at any one time (utilization rate)?

Can you use those numbers to calculate the tipping point at which resources would reach maximum carrying capacity? Can you use those numbers to calculate the percentage of available carrying capacity or unavailable carrying capacity should the threshold have already been reached?

Have you looked at the data during this period of time last year and compared it to the same period of time this year for the causes of death and hospitalization you mentioned?

Are there more of less cases of hospitalization due to those causes between the start of January and now compared to the same period last year? Are there more of less deaths caused between the start of January this year and how compared to the same period last year?

[dohboy_24]

Almost 200 dead in Canada so far today? Damn man, it'll be a bad one...

What about the 5 days prior to today...

Apr 15 = 107
Apr 14 = 123
Apr 13 = 63
Apr 12 = 64
Apr 11 = 84

What about the number of people who recovered the last 5 days...

Apr 15 = 744
Apr 14 = 479
Apr 13 = 584
Apr 12 = 744
Apr 11 = 415

37,600,000 people live in Canada.
29,929 of them have tested positive.
9,674 have recovered.
1,191 have succumbed to this virus.

% of population infected = 29,929/37,600,000 = 0.07% of Canadians have tested positive
% of population who've died from coronavirus = 1,191/37,600,000 = 0.003% of Canadians have died from this virus

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/canada/
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/canada-population/

How do those numbers compare to the number of people who've applied for employment, been temporarily laid off, been let go from their jobs, or had their hours reduced as a result of the lockdown measures taken?

How do those numbers compared to the number of businesses that have closed temporarily due to these lockdown measures, the number who've reduced their hours, the number who've closed permanently, and the number of them who might never re-open when the lockdown measures are removed?

Even without looking up the numbers, would it be fair to say that more than 0.003% to 0.07% of Canadians have been effected by the ripple effects of these lockdown measures?

[raptorstime]

Are people cutting their own hair?

I got a haircut just before the guidelines so I'm okay for a little longer but it makes you wonder.

I will be be getting a buzz cut on the weekend. I already owned a pair of clippers before the crisis.

[LoveMyRaps]

Yikes. Worst day for Canada in terms of new reported cases.
Wait till the Eastern numbers start rolling in...