COVID-19, Number Blindness, and the Monolithic Legacy Media

In an article by Anthony Fauci and others in the New England Journal of Medicine, the real case-fatality rate is probably in the range of 0.1 percent to 1 percent. Fauci goes on to say:

If one assumes that the number of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times as high as the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%. This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.

MSNBC new math students.

The most important thing is for PT to continue what he is doing, and not panic the country. The panic would be the most dangorous. Another breifing by him this week should happen though.

500/327 and that's 1.5290519, close enough. I don't expect news people to see that down to eight significant figures

The irony is the 500 has ONE significant figure, therefore the answer cannot have more than one significant figure. The answer should be 2, most assuredly NOT 1.5290519. It doesn't matter how many digits his calculator can produce.

If Charlie is going to write a piece like this, at least get that right.

Too rational, too factual, panic requires more fear.

The Media boffins need to have the IRS tax ALL of their income, every year.

The “blindness” here was blind hatred. I simply can’t wrap my mind around the possibility of normal adults actually being this stupid. I assure you that all of my grade school classmates, from the slowest to the brightest would get this problem right, at least in order of magnitude, nearly 50 years ago.

I hope you’ve had a chance to savor the video. The deep concern and drama that Brian Williams and Mara Gay apply to the ludicrously incorrect math is a thing to behold. Cringeworthy virtue-signalling.

The left gave up on logic and math many years ago, when it was clear logic and math do not help them gain power, unless they lie about them, claiming logic and math help them, when they do not.

It’s new math. When dealing with dollars you don’t cancel the million, you carry the million over. Modern Monetary Theory.

The irony is the 500 has ONE significant figure, therefore the answer cannot have more than one significant figure.

You may be right in this particular case - but a zero is not automatically a non-significant figure. Any given zero need not be the result of rounding; ratehr, it could be the result of an actual measurement.

Regards,

Significant Figure Rules

There are three rules on determining how many significant figures are in a number:

Non-zero digits are always significant.
Any zeros between two significant digits are significant.
A final zero or trailing zeros in the decimal portion ONLY are significant.

Great post. This is what we need at this hour — thoughtful analysis of the facts by experts. And given this is Anthony Fauci — someone who has a long-term track record of success in this very area of knowledge — this analysis is highly authoritative.

These are the kind of people the public needs to listen to rather than the Marxist, Trump-hating, “Never that Great” brother of Fredo.

And where are the pollsters when we need them? I’d be curious to know if climate-change-fascists and TDS sufferers are more susceptible to Covid-19 doomsday fears than the rest of the public.

“Never that Great” brother of Fredo........lol.

If going with Dr. Fauci’s numbers for COVID-19 (0.1%-1.0%) then 0.1% is about the same as a normal common flu season in the US (0.14% for a bad flu season), but if 1% then that is 7x worse than common flu.

Good point. So Dr. Fauci’s comment is not as optimistic as it sounds at first glance. Thanks for this observation.

Even more astonishing is that this wasn’t sprung on them by a guest, with no time to think. It had been in Brian Williams mind for some hours, it had gone through the staff and they had prepared it for the show, and then brought up with the guest in a prepped conversation.

I’d even buy giving them the first zero in 500 as a significant figure, or calculating it as ‘450-550’, taking the first digit to the right of the decimal in the result as being rounded to the nearest half. But definitely not more precision than that.

If one assumes that the number of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times as high as the number of reported cases,

If one assumes. No basis given, or even assumed, for assuming a particular ratio.

I’m not sure that in places with strong testing programs like S. Korea, that there are reasons to assume they are off by more than 50%. If so, then the 1-0.1% numbers would not seem to be within bounds.