independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Covid-19: Daily US Count + related issues
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 9 of 18 « First<5678910111213>Last »
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #240 posted 06/30/20 1:36pm

purplethunder3
121

avatar

Baby Trump is truly frightening! LMAO razz lol https://youtu.be/iC1-FOwDtV0

"Music gives a soul to the universe, wings to the mind, flight to the imagination and life to everything." --Plato
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #241 posted 06/30/20 2:14pm

IanRG

TweetyV6 said:

IanRG said:

.

Try again - they flagged all the weeks that are above the normal line as potentially incomplete, not just the last week - they say all these figures could change. Yet you imagine you can guess what the real figure for the latest week will be.

.

If this was a graph put up to show something with which you disagree, we all know you would go berko on the clear and obvious error here.


Realy?
Damn it... how stupid can one be?

The disclaimer says that the reporing is lagging. Only 60% of the expected reports arrives on time.
The 40% due will come later, but they don't give an indication how much later.
If you scroll back in time you see that the figures stabilse after 3-4 weeks.

BUT

If you look at other sections of the page, you see that they correct for that.
I guess based on their experience with reporting timeliness, they predict the final figure from the 60% on time reports and correct that when time progresses untill 100% of the reports have been

received.

https://public.tableau.co...cessDeaths

Latest (initial) report for week ending June 13th:
34.466 deaths reported. (so far)

52.708 deaths expected. (when all reports are in)


Latest (1st update from initial) report for week ending June 6th:
47.254 deaths reported. (so far)

52.887 deaths expected.

The week before that:
https://public.tableau.co...cessDeaths

Initial report for week ending June 6th:
38.048 deaths reported. (initially)

52.893 deaths expected.

So the delta between Initial and 1st update report week ending June 6th:
Reported deaths + 9.260 (more reports have been received and processed)
Expected deaths -6


Now go stand in a corner and be deeply ashamed of yourself. lol

.

There is already one person there - the one covering his arse after the event because he presented yet another chart without first understanding it.

.

You missed that the figures were not compete in your rush to presents yet another graph that you don't understand and you had no idea about the disclaimer. And you want me to be ashamed of the authors needing to predict figures! You basis - at one data point they did not change their prediction by much over a week.

.

But what does this mean? Due to the lockdowns and changes in how many are acting with reduced activity world wide (even in Sweden) there are less deaths from all causes. It does not mean Covid 19 is over. It does not that the reason for higher cases is higher testing. It leaves us still with fewer people are dieing as resuly of Covid19 because of the changes in knowledge, identification, practices and treatments - These benefit all people including those countries that failed to manage this like Sweden - just less so (Sweden is at over 24% of its peak average weekly, Norway is at 1.6% of its peak and remember Sweden's peak killed more than 5 times as many people as Norway's peak. Internationally, the change in total deaths per case has stayed in a tight band of more than 4.8% to less than 7.1% for months. On 4 April it was 5.046% and on 29 June it was 4.879%. You are miss-using figures to push an agenda

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #242 posted 06/30/20 5:57pm

v10letblues

avatar

Here is Southern California everyone in Riverside County got a Public Safety Alert on our phones telling us ICU hospiptal beds are capacity. All breweries, pubs and bars are closed until further notice and to protect yourself.

Two people from work are out for 15 days as they have been in close contact with family memebers with covid.

Not good

[Edited 6/30/20 17:57pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #243 posted 07/01/20 12:13am

TweetyV6

avatar

DiminutiveRocker said:

IanRG said:

.

You have pulled another tweety.

.

Read the note on the later figures - I will make it easy: It states that they are incomplete with only 60% of figures supplied within the 10 days after the end of the week and completeness varies by jurisdiction. This note is on all the Covid19 era results.

falloff

Looks like Ian has 'pulled a Tweety'
Read on and be surprised flipped off

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #244 posted 07/01/20 12:22am

TweetyV6

avatar

IanRG said:

TweetyV6 said:


Realy?
Damn it... how stupid can one be?

The disclaimer says that the reporing is lagging. Only 60% of the expected reports arrives on time.
The 40% due will come later, but they don't give an indication how much later.
If you scroll back in time you see that the figures stabilse after 3-4 weeks.

BUT

If you look at other sections of the page, you see that they correct for that.
I guess based on their experience with reporting timeliness, they predict the final figure from the 60% on time reports and correct that when time progresses untill 100% of the reports have been

received.

https://public.tableau.co...cessDeaths

Latest (initial) report for week ending June 13th:
34.466 deaths reported. (so far)

52.708 deaths expected. (when all reports are in)


Latest (1st update from initial) report for week ending June 6th:
47.254 deaths reported. (so far)

52.887 deaths expected.

The week before that:
https://public.tableau.co...cessDeaths

Initial report for week ending June 6th:
38.048 deaths reported. (initially)

52.893 deaths expected.

So the delta between Initial and 1st update report week ending June 6th:
Reported deaths + 9.260 (more reports have been received and processed)
Expected deaths -6


Now go stand in a corner and be deeply ashamed of yourself. lol

.

There is already one person there - the one covering his arse after the event because he presented yet another chart without first understanding it.

.

You missed that the figures were not compete in your rush to presents yet another graph that you don't understand and you had no idea about the disclaimer. And you want me to be ashamed of the authors needing to predict figures! You basis - at one data point they did not change their prediction by much over a week.

Very poor comeback, Sherlock.

I did notice, but to me that's nothing strange.
A similar disclamer is made by EuroMoMo and I even made the remark in a previous thread with regard to the reporting lag, you should calculate a 7 days running average score for the daily reported Covid-19 deaths since there is an recurring patteren in the reporting that values after the weekend are significantly lower then during the week.

But hey... dataprocessing is only a big part of my daily job, so what do I know.....

Whatever you say... my point stands: the reporting lag and minor adjustments over time don't have a significant influence on the trend.

As the situation is now, the trend of excess death has been going downwards and has achieved a level which is considdered as Normal.

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #245 posted 07/01/20 12:26am

TweetyV6

avatar

IanRG said:

But what does this mean? Due to the lockdowns and changes in how many are acting with reduced activity world wide (even in Sweden) there are less deaths from all causes. It does not mean Covid 19 is over. It does not that the reason for higher cases is higher testing. It leaves us still with fewer people are dieing as resuly of Covid19 because of the changes in knowledge, identification, practices and treatments - These benefit all people including those countries that failed to manage this like Sweden - just less so (Sweden is at over 24% of its peak average weekly, Norway is at 1.6% of its peak and remember Sweden's peak killed more than 5 times as many people as Norway's peak. Internationally, the change in total deaths per case has stayed in a tight band of more than 4.8% to less than 7.1% for months. On 4 April it was 5.046% and on 29 June it was 4.879%. You are miss-using figures to push an agenda


There's only one thing: The mortality rate of the virus has been exaggerated drastically.

Deaths are declining since those who were about to die, have died off.Regardless of what you do or don't in respect of 'prevention', you will see no significant rise in deaths.

Farr's law, bitch!

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #246 posted 07/01/20 1:18am

maplenpg

TweetyV6 said:

IanRG said:

But what does this mean? Due to the lockdowns and changes in how many are acting with reduced activity world wide (even in Sweden) there are less deaths from all causes. It does not mean Covid 19 is over. It does not that the reason for higher cases is higher testing. It leaves us still with fewer people are dieing as resuly of Covid19 because of the changes in knowledge, identification, practices and treatments - These benefit all people including those countries that failed to manage this like Sweden - just less so (Sweden is at over 24% of its peak average weekly, Norway is at 1.6% of its peak and remember Sweden's peak killed more than 5 times as many people as Norway's peak. Internationally, the change in total deaths per case has stayed in a tight band of more than 4.8% to less than 7.1% for months. On 4 April it was 5.046% and on 29 June it was 4.879%. You are miss-using figures to push an agenda


There's only one thing: The mortality rate of the virus has been exaggerated drastically.

Deaths are declining since those who were about to die, have died off.Regardless of what you do or don't in respect of 'prevention', you will see no significant rise in deaths.

Farr's law, bitch!

Please read this Twitter thread Tweety. Stuart studies deaths for a living. He knoes what he's talking about https://twitter.com/Actua...6806629382. From the thread:

"I'm not seeing any evidence supporting the idea that many of those who died during the COVID peak would otherwise have died around now"

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #247 posted 07/01/20 1:32am

maplenpg

Also the European Actuary did a study on whether those that died would have died anyway. Their conclusion was:


CONCLUSION:

COVID-19 does seem to disproportionately affect people with chronic health problems. On the other hand, while it affects the old more than the young, and a large proportion of the elderly will have chronic health problems, only a tiny fraction of impaired lives have life expectancies of the order of one year.


Therefore we feel it is unfounded to claim that a large proportion of those who have died from COVID-19 in 2020 would have died in any case this year.


http://theeuropeanactuary...20-DEF.PDF

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #248 posted 07/01/20 2:27am

IanRG

TweetyV6 said:

IanRG said:

But what does this mean? Due to the lockdowns and changes in how many are acting with reduced activity world wide (even in Sweden) there are less deaths from all causes. It does not mean Covid 19 is over. It does not that the reason for higher cases is higher testing. It leaves us still with fewer people are dieing as resuly of Covid19 because of the changes in knowledge, identification, practices and treatments - These benefit all people including those countries that failed to manage this like Sweden - just less so (Sweden is at over 24% of its peak average weekly, Norway is at 1.6% of its peak and remember Sweden's peak killed more than 5 times as many people as Norway's peak. Internationally, the change in total deaths per case has stayed in a tight band of more than 4.8% to less than 7.1% for months. On 4 April it was 5.046% and on 29 June it was 4.879%. You are miss-using figures to push an agenda


There's only one thing: The mortality rate of the virus has been exaggerated drastically.

Deaths are declining since those who were about to die, have died off.Regardless of what you do or don't in respect of 'prevention', you will see no significant rise in deaths.

Farr's law, bitch!

.

Wrong.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #249 posted 07/01/20 2:50am

IanRG

TweetyV6 said:

IanRG said:

.

There is already one person there - the one covering his arse after the event because he presented yet another chart without first understanding it.

.

You missed that the figures were not compete in your rush to presents yet another graph that you don't understand and you had no idea about the disclaimer. And you want me to be ashamed of the authors needing to predict figures! You basis - at one data point they did not change their prediction by much over a week.

Very poor comeback, Sherlock.

I did notice, but to me that's nothing strange.
A similar disclamer is made by EuroMoMo and I even made the remark in a previous thread with regard to the reporting lag, you should calculate a 7 days running average score for the daily reported Covid-19 deaths since there is an recurring patteren in the reporting that values after the weekend are significantly lower then during the week.

But hey... dataprocessing is only a big part of my daily job, so what do I know.....

Whatever you say... my point stands: the reporting lag and minor adjustments over time don't have a significant influence on the trend.

As the situation is now, the trend of excess death has been going downwards and has achieved a level which is considdered as Normal.

.

Sure you did. It just took you all this time to make this claim.

.

I have been wondering the same thing - What do you know?

.

Using a 7 day average is not a method of adding a predicted adjustment for missing figures. It is a method of smoothing figures to take out natural daily variations in actual deaths and reporting cycles within a week. We need to move away from amateur hour.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #250 posted 07/01/20 5:31am

TweetyV6

avatar

IanRG said:

TweetyV6 said:


There's only one thing: The mortality rate of the virus has been exaggerated drastically.

Deaths are declining since those who were about to die, have died off.Regardless of what you do or don't in respect of 'prevention', you will see no significant rise in deaths.

Farr's law, bitch!

.

Wrong.


Ah, then pls explain why there is no significant difference in the development of the daily death curves between countries with a very strict lock-down scenario e.g. Spain, France & Italy and countries with a mild lock down scenario, like Germany & the Netherlands?


The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #251 posted 07/01/20 5:37am

TweetyV6

avatar

IanRG said:

TweetyV6 said:

Very poor comeback, Sherlock.

I did notice, but to me that's nothing strange.
A similar disclamer is made by EuroMoMo and I even made the remark in a previous thread with regard to the reporting lag, you should calculate a 7 days running average score for the daily reported Covid-19 deaths since there is an recurring patteren in the reporting that values after the weekend are significantly lower then during the week.

But hey... dataprocessing is only a big part of my daily job, so what do I know.....

Whatever you say... my point stands: the reporting lag and minor adjustments over time don't have a significant influence on the trend.

As the situation is now, the trend of excess death has been going downwards and has achieved a level which is considdered as Normal.

.

Sure you did. It just took you all this time to make this claim.

.

I have been wondering the same thing - What do you know?

.

Using a 7 day average is not a method of adding a predicted adjustment for missing figures. It is a method of smoothing figures to take out natural daily variations in actual deaths and reporting cycles within a week. We need to move away from amateur hour.

You're the one with the comprehension issues here.
Where did I say that a 7 days rolling average is predicitive?
I mean exactly what you say. Except that I was talking about a weekly pattern of reporting lag & adjustments.

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #252 posted 07/01/20 7:25am

DiminutiveRock
er

avatar

maplenpg said:

Also the European Actuary did a study on whether those that died would have died anyway. Their conclusion was:


CONCLUSION:

COVID-19 does seem to disproportionately affect people with chronic health problems. On the other hand, while it affects the old more than the young, and a large proportion of the elderly will have chronic health problems, only a tiny fraction of impaired lives have life expectancies of the order of one year.


Therefore we feel it is unfounded to claim that a large proportion of those who have died from COVID-19 in 2020 would have died in any case this year.


http://theeuropeanactuary...20-DEF.PDF


wink there you go

VOTE....EARLY
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #253 posted 07/01/20 9:04am

TweetyV6

avatar

DiminutiveRocker said:

maplenpg said:

Also the European Actuary did a study on whether those that died would have died anyway. Their conclusion was:


CONCLUSION:

COVID-19 does seem to disproportionately affect people with chronic health problems. On the other hand, while it affects the old more than the young, and a large proportion of the elderly will have chronic health problems, only a tiny fraction of impaired lives have life expectancies of the order of one year.


Therefore we feel it is unfounded to claim that a large proportion of those who have died from COVID-19 in 2020 would have died in any case this year.


http://theeuropeanactuary...20-DEF.PDF


wink there you go



I FEEL they're wrong.
I SEE that the research data is from 16 April 2020
I SEE that it is a very selective population (only people in the IC)
I READ the disclaimer:

ICU patients are obviously not representative of the general population – it would be worrying if they were

I also READ that :

"Professor Neil Ferguson, said in late March that ‘the latest research suggested as many as half to twothirds of deaths from coronavirus might have happened this year anyway, because most fatalities were among people at the end of their lives or with other health conditions’."

Data SHOW that Exces Mortality in some countries is dropping below normal

Data also SHOW that excess mortality in the Netherlands after the flu epedemic 2017/2019 (when 3000(!!) more Dutch people died then now) was low and that there was no annual spike in the winter 2018/2019


I have READ an article (which I cannot find right now) where an employee of the Dutch RIVM, the Dutch Advisory Board for Public Health and Environment stated that it was interresting to see how mortality dropped after the flu epidemic 2017/2018 and the lack of a excess mortality spike in the winter of 2018/2019 could not other be explained then that the voulnurable people died off during the flu epidemic.

Which is, again, what Farr's law says.


The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #254 posted 07/01/20 9:37am

DiminutiveRock
er

avatar

You are wasting your time - either your sources are highly suspect or wrong, or you churn out irrelevant information. You are convincing NO ONE and have no credibility.

Please give up and just be concerned for your own Netherworld.

Good day, sir.





I SAID GOOD DAY!

VOTE....EARLY
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #255 posted 07/01/20 9:50am

DiminutiveRock
er

avatar

A mushrooming outbreak

The United States announced more than 48,000 new coronavirus infections yesterday, another daily record and an increase of 80 percent... two weeks.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, warned the Senate that the number could soon reach 100,000 a day if the country does not act quickly.

Cases overview:

United States
Confirmed
2.69M
+43,865
Recovered
829K
Deaths
129K
+613
^^ Thanks, swamp



Worldwide
Confirmed
10.5M
+164K
Recovered
5.39M
Deaths
512K
+3,949

[Edited 7/1/20 10:10am]

VOTE....EARLY
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #256 posted 07/01/20 10:26am

DiminutiveRock
er

avatar

v10letblues said:

Here is Southern California everyone in Riverside County got a Public Safety Alert on our phones telling us ICU hospiptal beds are capacity. All breweries, pubs and bars are closed until further notice and to protect yourself.

Two people from work are out for 15 days as they have been in close contact with family memebers with covid.

Not good

[Edited 6/30/20 17:57pm]


Not good at all. I was going to plan a social-distance picnic with my family but this set us back.

VOTE....EARLY
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #257 posted 07/01/20 2:10pm

IanRG

TweetyV6 said:

IanRG said:

.

Sure you did. It just took you all this time to make this claim.

.

I have been wondering the same thing - What do you know?

.

Using a 7 day average is not a method of adding a predicted adjustment for missing figures. It is a method of smoothing figures to take out natural daily variations in actual deaths and reporting cycles within a week. We need to move away from amateur hour.

You're the one with the comprehension issues here.
Where did I say that a 7 days rolling average is predicitive?
I mean exactly what you say. Except that I was talking about a weekly pattern of reporting lag & adjustments.

.

You pretended to not have missed the disclaimer requiring the use of predicted data by saying you had already addressed a similar thing by using a 7 day rolling average, that is where.

.

Except this is spin to cover your arse.

.

The use of a seven day rolling average is not to handle missing data where less than 2/3rds is available for 10 days and the rest can take an undisclosed number of weeks. This shows you do not know about data processing.

.

The use of a seven day rolling average is not a method of adding an adjustment being a prediction because data is missing. The only adjustment in your example is the catchup in the first couple of days after the weekend. This is not the same as adding an adjustment, so when you equated arguing for using a 7 day rolling average it was NOT at all comparable to people adding predictive data - Yet you made that comparison. A seven day rolling is just a method of smoothing and reducing noise from daily variabilities. This shows you do not know about data processing.

.

When you pretend to justify that you knew the data you presented was based on predictions because it takes many weeks for the data to be complete, you did this by stating you had already addressed this type of issue in a previous thread. Now you agree that this is lie. There is no missing data adjustment in a 7 day rolling average - All the base figures stay the same, they are either summed to a rolling weekly total or divided by 7 for an average daily total. Simple, basic data processing - the simplest, most basic method of trend analysis - even simpler than the most simple y = mx + b syle linear data regression.

.

We need to move away from amateur hour.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #258 posted 07/01/20 2:35pm

IanRG

TweetyV6 said:

IanRG said:

.

Wrong.


Ah, then pls explain why there is no significant difference in the development of the daily death curves between countries with a very strict lock-down scenario e.g. Spain, France & Italy and countries with a mild lock down scenario, like Germany & the Netherlands?


.

Already explained with reference to RoS's horrible death toll being a different pattern to shockingly disasterous Swedish toll. To repeat yet again: RoS rose slower, peaked much lower and is reducing much quicker. This is a significant difference driven by the factors you choose to ignore. The key ones being changes in treatment affecting who dies from this and the identification, locking down, tracking and tracing of cases in the critical early period. Sweden let so many of the first victims die. They did not identify and lockdown the spread any where near as effectively as RoS and their people are still paying the price.

.

Germany's response may have less severe than Italy's (out of necessity) but its success relative to Italy is in the timing of the lockdown and effective testing regime in the early stages of the disease cycle and its adherence to lockdowns by their people relative to Italy. In no way is the development of the German daily death rate curve significantly the same as Italy's. Italy's rose significantly faster, peaked signficantly higher and its tail is significantly slower. All this means is nearly 4 times many people have died so far in Italy.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #259 posted 07/01/20 10:45pm

TweetyV6

avatar

IanRG said:

TweetyV6 said:

You're the one with the comprehension issues here.
Where did I say that a 7 days rolling average is predicitive?
I mean exactly what you say. Except that I was talking about a weekly pattern of reporting lag & adjustments.

.

You pretended to not have missed the disclaimer requiring the use of predicted data by saying you had already addressed a similar thing by using a 7 day rolling average, that is where.

.

Except this is spin to cover your arse.

.

The use of a seven day rolling average is not to handle missing data where less than 2/3rds is available for 10 days and the rest can take an undisclosed number of weeks. This shows you do not know about data processing.

.

The use of a seven day rolling average is not a method of adding an adjustment being a prediction because data is missing. The only adjustment in your example is the catchup in the first couple of days after the weekend. This is not the same as adding an adjustment, so when you equated arguing for using a 7 day rolling average it was NOT at all comparable to people adding predictive data - Yet you made that comparison. A seven day rolling is just a method of smoothing and reducing noise from daily variabilities. This shows you do not know about data processing.

.

When you pretend to justify that you knew the data you presented was based on predictions because it takes many weeks for the data to be complete, you did this by stating you had already addressed this type of issue in a previous thread. Now you agree that this is lie. There is no missing data adjustment in a 7 day rolling average - All the base figures stay the same, they are either summed to a rolling weekly total or divided by 7 for an average daily total. Simple, basic data processing - the simplest, most basic method of trend analysis - even simpler than the most simple y = mx + b syle linear data regression.

.

We need to move away from amateur hour.

Godfuckingdamnit, you're so thick....

The disclaimer pops up when you put the mouse over the graph.
In the same box it says: PREDICTED number of deaths PREDICTED... PREDICTED.... P R E D I C T E D = NOT ACTUAL

It's very obvious, at least to me, that combining the statement that only 60% of the reports are received on time and if they express the value of the reporting period as PREDICTED that the ACTUAL value is lower.
The actual value can also be found on the same page, something your lame ass has missed completely. Talking about amateurs.... flipped off

The prediction is done so that the general TREND is not skewed

My Initial point was:
The increase of infections has not yet lead to an increase of deaths.
For weeks now, the TREND is a steady decline of Covid-19 deaths.

Which stands as a brick house in a hurricane.



That this information is processed differently in your grey cells is your problem, not mine.

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #260 posted 07/01/20 11:12pm

TweetyV6

avatar

IanRG said:

TweetyV6 said:


Ah, then pls explain why there is no significant difference in the development of the daily death curves between countries with a very strict lock-down scenario e.g. Spain, France & Italy and countries with a mild lock down scenario, like Germany & the Netherlands?


Germany's response may have HAS BEEN less severe than Italy's (out of necessity [Huh, what??]) but its success relative to Italy is in the timing of the lockdown [What?] and effective testing regime in the early stages of the disease cycle [What?] and its adherence to lockdowns [plain and utter bullshit!] by their people relative to Italy.

Do you suck this kind of BS from your thumb?


In no way is the development of the German daily death rate curve significantly the same as Italy's. Italy's rose significantly faster, peaked signficantly higher and its tail is significantly slower. All this means is nearly 4 times many people have died so far in Italy.

In Spain, Italy and France, people were not allowed to leave their homes for weeks.
To be able to leave your home, you needed to fill in a request.
In Italy it was only one person per household, 1x a week to the nearest store.
Police enforced this.

From that, you would expect the daily deaths to drop back close to zere within 2 weeks of going into lockdown. That did NOT happen.

In Germany & the Netherlands, we were allowed to leave our houses whenever we liked.
Germany closed non-essential shops, the Netherlands didn't
When in Germany the non-essential shops opened again, wearing face masks was (and still is) mandatory. In the Netherlands, noone wears face masks. They're only mandatory in public transport.

No significant difference in the development of daily infections or daily deaths.


What you see from the daily deaths curves is that they roughly follow exactly the same shape.
Steep rise in deaths, a peak after 4-6 weeks and then a smooth fade-out back to zero.

It's very unfortunate that we cannot paste screenshots in this forum.

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #261 posted 07/02/20 1:34am

maplenpg

TweetyV6 said:

IanRG said:

Germany's response may have HAS BEEN less severe than Italy's (out of necessity [Huh, what??]) but its success relative to Italy is in the timing of the lockdown [What?] and effective testing regime in the early stages of the disease cycle [What?] and its adherence to lockdowns [plain and utter bullshit!] by their people relative to Italy.

Do you suck this kind of BS from your thumb?


In no way is the development of the German daily death rate curve significantly the same as Italy's. Italy's rose significantly faster, peaked signficantly higher and its tail is significantly slower. All this means is nearly 4 times many people have died so far in Italy.

In Spain, Italy and France, people were not allowed to leave their homes for weeks.
To be able to leave your home, you needed to fill in a request.
In Italy it was only one person per household, 1x a week to the nearest store.
Police enforced this.

From that, you would expect the daily deaths to drop back close to zere within 2 weeks of going into lockdown. That did NOT happen.

In Germany & the Netherlands, we were allowed to leave our houses whenever we liked.
Germany closed non-essential shops, the Netherlands didn't
When in Germany the non-essential shops opened again, wearing face masks was (and still is) mandatory. In the Netherlands, noone wears face masks. They're only mandatory in public transport.

No significant difference in the development of daily infections or daily deaths.


What you see from the daily deaths curves is that they roughly follow exactly the same shape.
Steep rise in deaths, a peak after 4-6 weeks and then a smooth fade-out back to zero.

It's very unfortunate that we cannot paste screenshots in this forum.

Except the UK and US are nowhere near zero.

What are you advocating? No lockdown at all? No social distancing? FWIW in Europe, I believe we're past the worst until flu season starts again, then I think we're in very real trouble if we haven't got this virus almost completely suppressed. Especially here in England, whose strategy for beating this is officially called the 'whack-a-mole' strategy - it's just a fucking game for our government.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #262 posted 07/02/20 3:19am

IanRG

TweetyV6 said:

IanRG said:

.

You pretended to not have missed the disclaimer requiring the use of predicted data by saying you had already addressed a similar thing by using a 7 day rolling average, that is where.

.

Except this is spin to cover your arse.

.

The use of a seven day rolling average is not to handle missing data where less than 2/3rds is available for 10 days and the rest can take an undisclosed number of weeks. This shows you do not know about data processing.

.

The use of a seven day rolling average is not a method of adding an adjustment being a prediction because data is missing. The only adjustment in your example is the catchup in the first couple of days after the weekend. This is not the same as adding an adjustment, so when you equated arguing for using a 7 day rolling average it was NOT at all comparable to people adding predictive data - Yet you made that comparison. A seven day rolling is just a method of smoothing and reducing noise from daily variabilities. This shows you do not know about data processing.

.

When you pretend to justify that you knew the data you presented was based on predictions because it takes many weeks for the data to be complete, you did this by stating you had already addressed this type of issue in a previous thread. Now you agree that this is lie. There is no missing data adjustment in a 7 day rolling average - All the base figures stay the same, they are either summed to a rolling weekly total or divided by 7 for an average daily total. Simple, basic data processing - the simplest, most basic method of trend analysis - even simpler than the most simple y = mx + b syle linear data regression.

.

We need to move away from amateur hour.

Godfuckingdamnit, you're so thick....

The disclaimer pops up when you put the mouse over the graph.
In the same box it says: PREDICTED number of deaths PREDICTED... PREDICTED.... P R E D I C T E D = NOT ACTUAL

It's very obvious, at least to me, that combining the statement that only 60% of the reports are received on time and if they express the value of the reporting period as PREDICTED that the ACTUAL value is lower.
The actual value can also be found on the same page, something your lame ass has missed completely. Talking about amateurs.... flipped off

The prediction is done so that the general TREND is not skewed

My Initial point was:
The increase of infections has not yet lead to an increase of deaths.
For weeks now, the TREND is a steady decline of Covid-19 deaths.

Which stands as a brick house in a hurricane.



That this information is processed differently in your grey cells is your problem, not mine.

.

I know it was easy to find. I found it in seconds but you missed it.

.

Getting all angry again is just more arse covering.

.

Because YOU are missing my point in response to your error - YOU equated 7 day rolling averages with predictions due to reporting lags. YOU said "I even made the remark in a previous thread with regard to the reporting lag, you should calculate a 7 days running average score". It is the number of times you make beginner errors like this that is why it is clear the knowledge you boast of is clearly lacking.

.

[Edited 7/2/20 3:49am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #263 posted 07/02/20 3:36am

IanRG

TweetyV6 said:

IanRG said:

Germany's response may have HAS BEEN less severe than Italy's (out of necessity [Huh, what??]) but its success relative to Italy is in the timing of the lockdown [What?] and effective testing regime in the early stages of the disease cycle [What?] and its adherence to lockdowns [plain and utter bullshit!] by their people relative to Italy.

Do you suck this kind of BS from your thumb?


In no way is the development of the German daily death rate curve significantly the same as Italy's. Italy's rose significantly faster, peaked signficantly higher and its tail is significantly slower. All this means is nearly 4 times many people have died so far in Italy.

In Spain, Italy and France, people were not allowed to leave their homes for weeks.
To be able to leave your home, you needed to fill in a request.
In Italy it was only one person per household, 1x a week to the nearest store.
Police enforced this.

From that, you would expect the daily deaths to drop back close to zere within 2 weeks of going into lockdown. That did NOT happen.

In Germany & the Netherlands, we were allowed to leave our houses whenever we liked.
Germany closed non-essential shops, the Netherlands didn't
When in Germany the non-essential shops opened again, wearing face masks was (and still is) mandatory. In the Netherlands, noone wears face masks. They're only mandatory in public transport.

No significant difference in the development of daily infections or daily deaths.


What you see from the daily deaths curves is that they roughly follow exactly the same shape.
Steep rise in deaths, a peak after 4-6 weeks and then a smooth fade-out back to zero.

It's very unfortunate that we cannot paste screenshots in this forum.

.

Wrong: The videos of people braking the Lombardi lockdown were shown world-wide. This created the necessity for the too late much tighter lockdown as demonstrated by their death rate.

.

The significant difference you constantly miss is Germany's deaths are fraction of Italy's. This is the difference in necessity you willfully dismiss - the additional deaths that you ignore. So, you childish comments in my response are just another tweety failure to understand basic maths and stats to push an agenda.

.

Your obsession with shape without understanding of scale or any care that this is dead people is telling.

[Edited 7/2/20 3:48am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #264 posted 07/02/20 4:44am

PennyPurple

avatar

If you want to be alive on Aug. 1, then stay home on the 4th of July.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #265 posted 07/02/20 5:36am

TweetyV6

avatar

Double post.

[Edited 7/2/20 5:50am]

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #266 posted 07/02/20 5:46am

TweetyV6

avatar

IanRG said:

TweetyV6 said:

In Spain, Italy and France, people were not allowed to leave their homes for weeks.
To be able to leave your home, you needed to fill in a request.
In Italy it was only one person per household, 1x a week to the nearest store.
Police enforced this.

From that, you would expect the daily deaths to drop back close to zere within 2 weeks of going into lockdown. That did NOT happen.

In Germany & the Netherlands, we were allowed to leave our houses whenever we liked.
Germany closed non-essential shops, the Netherlands didn't
When in Germany the non-essential shops opened again, wearing face masks was (and still is) mandatory. In the Netherlands, noone wears face masks. They're only mandatory in public transport.

No significant difference in the development of daily infections or daily deaths.


What you see from the daily deaths curves is that they roughly follow exactly the same shape.
Steep rise in deaths, a peak after 4-6 weeks and then a smooth fade-out back to zero.

It's very unfortunate that we cannot paste screenshots in this forum.

.

Wrong: The videos of people braking the Lombardi lockdown were shown world-wide. This created the necessity for the too late much tighter lockdown as demonstrated by their death rate.

.


Lombardy = not all of Italy.
A lot of people 'fled' from the north to the south when the possibility of a lock down became realistic. That movement DID NOT result in an increase of infected people in the south.

The significant difference you constantly miss is Germany's deaths are fraction of Italy's. This is the difference in necessity you willfully dismiss - the additional deaths that you ignore. So, you childish comments in my response are just another tweety failure to understand basic maths and stats to push an agenda.


I don't care about the amount of deaths. That figure is useless as the criteria differ from country to country. That's what I have been saying from the beginning.
Only thing that counts is excess mortality.

.

Your obsession with shape without understanding of scale or any care that this is dead people is telling.

[Edited 7/2/20 3:48am]


The different approches should have led to a different type of shape. It didn't.
Why?
Because the majority of the infections are undiscovered because many infected people (85% as per Ischgl study) don't have any symptoms at all, or the symptoms are so mild the infected people dind't recognise it as Covid-19.

The whole lock-down / social distancing / facemask bullshit is just that: BULLSHIT.
Hardly any effect on the spread of the virus but with terrible effects to the economy.

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #267 posted 07/02/20 5:49am

TweetyV6

avatar

PennyPurple said:

If you want to be alive on Aug. 1, then stay home on the 4th of July.


Pathetic.


Kans-op-sterven.jpg

Column 1: Age group
Column 2: Actual death rate (IFR)
Column 3: Percentage of people from that age group which think chance to die when infected is >5%
Column 4: Percentage of people from that age group which think chance to die when infected is <0,1%
Column 4: Average estimated chance of death
Column 5: Overexaggeration factor

People are scared shitless. And you add to that fear!



P.s.: Column 2 is IFR Infection Fatality Rate - percentage of INFECTED people from that age group who died. So not from the total population of that age group.

.

[Edited 7/2/20 5:50am]

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #268 posted 07/02/20 6:28am

v10letblues

avatar

S let me get this straight, after we have a countries that has been filled ICU beds full to capicity becasue of the virus, here in sunny southern california included right now, Tweety is still posting graphs?

:lol:What happened in New York, The Uk, Spain and Italy WITH precautions didn't happen becasue of your cut and paste graphs?

.

C'mon dude, action was taken so as to not overburden hospitals and staff and you can acually SEE the real issues, yet continue play in your silly bubblle with all personalized news feeds where you cut and paste your confirmation bias across platforms like a crack addited beee cross-pollitating platforms.

.

I would say to take a break from your bubble and go and and get some air, fresh ideas, but i don;t want you to get ..sick-..er.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #269 posted 07/02/20 6:49am

IanRG

TweetyV6 said:

IanRG said:

.

Wrong: The videos of people braking the Lombardi lockdown were shown world-wide. This created the necessity for the too late much tighter lockdown as demonstrated by their death rate.

.

The significant difference you constantly miss is Germany's deaths are fraction of Italy's. This is the difference in necessity you willfully dismiss - the additional deaths that you ignore. So, you childish comments in my response are just another tweety failure to understand basic maths and stats to push an agenda.

.

Your obsession with shape without understanding of scale or any care that this is dead people is telling.

.

Lombardy = not all of Italy.
A lot of people 'fled' from the north to the south when the possibility of a lock down became realistic. That movement DID NOT result in an increase of infected people in the south.

.

I don't care about the amount of deaths. That figure is useless as the criteria differ from country to country. That's what I have been saying from the beginning.
Only thing that counts is excess mortality.

.

The different approches should have led to a different type of shape. It didn't.
Why?
Because the majority of the infections are undiscovered because many infected people (85% as per Ischgl study) don't have any symptoms at all, or the symptoms are so mild the infected people dind't recognise it as Covid-19.

The whole lock-down / social distancing / facemask bullshit is just that: BULLSHIT.
Hardly any effect on the spread of the virus but with terrible effects to the economy.

.

Wrong on all counts

.

Italy's total number of death was abysmal because its lockdown was ineffective in Lombardi in the critical phase - this is also what happened in Sweden and USA and UK and Brazil. The movement DID result in more deaths.

.

We know you don't care about deaths of others. The excess mortality of Italy was massively more deaths than in Germany. It was massively more deaths in Sweden than in RoS.

.

The shape is significantly different in places that handled it better - they did not increase as rapidly, they generally peaked both earlier and significantly lower and the rate of reduction was generally quicker. This resulted in the area under the curve being much less - This is not some high school maths puzzle - this meant significantly fewer deaths.

.

It is not correct that majority of infections were undiscovered in places that managed this better than Sweden and Italy. Places with proper and early enough testing, track and trace have been able to eliminate community spread. The only new infections have been by import - people returning from places that failed to manage the infection. Claimed results from one town does not explain why there is virtually no community transmission in Iceland, New Zealand, Australia (the current kick up in Australia is from returnees forced to stay in hotels and these were miss-managed by the hotel security). If 85% of infectious people where undiscovered then the SCALE of deaths in these countries would be Sweden/Italy bad instead. Fact: they are not.

.

The whole lockdown social distancing facemask commonsense is working to reduce the scale. It is saving lives and has actually prevented spread - this prevention has had the side effect of reducing other spreads eg of the normal flus.

.

Your obsession with shape without understanding of scale or any care that this is dead people is telling. You inability to understand basic data analysis, statistics and maths makes me question you claims of being employed anywhere near numbers.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 9 of 18 « First<5678910111213>Last »
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Covid-19: Daily US Count + related issues