Numerators and Denominators in the Coronavirus Saga

American Thinker.com ^ | March 29, 2020 | Clarice Feldman,

[Kaslin]

To ascertain how fatal a virus is, we need an accurate picture of how many people have it (the denominator) and how many have died as a result (the numerator), we have neither, but the data is improving and with it some substantial shifts away from the original model, which predicted far more deaths as a result of the Wuhan virus than we are seeing. (Rather like the Zika scare where the claim that virus resulted in natal microcephaly was proven upon examination to be anecdotal and not scientific -- but only after the WHO declared it a pandemic and we spent $1 billion to deal with it.) Early models also could not accurately predict how quickly the virus would spread and what tools could be brought in to limit mortality. As the data comes in, we have reason to be more optimistic that the death rate will be lower, the extreme efforts to control its spread should soon be relaxed, and that efficacious treatments are already underway. (Unfortunately, I can be far less sanguine about the end of Democratic rapaciousness in the face of national emergencies or media disingenuousness.)

Early Models: Flaws and Shortcomings

Neil Ferguson at Imperial College was the lead author of the first study, which predicted a high mortality rate. He warned that the UK could suffer 500,000 deaths and the U.S. 2.2 million from Wuhan and fanned fears it would overwhelm ICU capacity. This week he said the virus was more quickly transmitted than his first calculations, that the denominator (the number of those who already had it) was far larger and the number seriously affected lower (therefore, less dangerous). He originally indicated the UK would need an 18-month quarantine. This week he says the epidemic there will peak in a couple of weeks.

[tired&retired]

Both the numerator and the denominator are most likely incorrect for many reasons.

1. Lack of adequate testing to define the population.

2. Positive cases with zero symptoms that are infectious.

3. The time lag from symptoms first appearing to death.

4. Bad data from China.

5. Increased spread causes the denominator to increase quickly.

6. Most studies the denominator was based upon a population of those hospitalized, not just those infected. The mortality is about 15% for the hospitalized population.

[tired&retired]

And there are many deaths that were never properly diagnosed, or have comorbidities.

[Adder]

This week he says the epidemic there will peak in a couple of weeks.

GNS.

You can bet that just like when authorities keep people out of their homes after hurricanes have long passed “until its safe”, these lockdowns will continue long past their expirations.

We crippled our economies and proved our sheep mentality, tho...making it easier “next time”. All over nothing pearl clutching “abundance of caution” panic.

Keep you SAFE is more important than your freedom to make your own decisions.

For the common good and all that.

[sauropod]

Precisely.

[brookwood]

The article says Germany’s fatality rate is “only” .3% - you have to watch the data everyday, there are now 455 deaths out of 58,247 cases in Germany so the death rate there is now .8%. I hope we can keep it that low here. It’s like 10 years of the flu in one year.

[MAGAthon]

“there are now 455 deaths out of 58,247 cases in Germany so the death rate there is now .8%”

sorry. that tells nothing about the death rate.

[wastoute]

Germany has hardly begun it’s epidemic. A couple days ago I heard the signal hasn’t even begun to emerge from the noise. Our did a couple weeks ago as I recall.

[null and void]

Decide on the result, pick the data that supports it...

Bring Out Your Dead

Post to me or FReep mail to be on/off the Bring Out Your Dead ping list.

The purpose of the “Bring Out Your Dead” ping list (formerly the “Ebola” ping list) is very early warning of emerging pandemics, as such it has a high false positive rate.

The false positive rate was 100%.

At some point we may well have a high mortality pandemic, and likely as not the “Bring Out Your Dead” threads will miss the beginning entirely.

*sigh* Such is life, and death...

If a quarantine saves just one child's or one old fart’s life, it's worth it.

[sonofagun]

That would be 455 deaths out of 8,936 cases that had an outcome, either recovered or died, or 5%.

Anything other is based on estimates and assumptions written into their statistical models.

When this whole process is over, the CDC will use deaths per resolved cases (cases with an outcome), to determine actual fatality rate.

[Monkey Face]

Crikey. I’ll be so glad when this thing is history. I mean very well past tense.

[JungleGoat77]

When this whole process is over, the CDC will use deaths per resolved cases (cases with an outcome), to determine actual fatality rate.

Might better read - When this whole process is over, the DNC will use deaths per resolved cases (cases with an outcome), to determine their politically-useful fatality rate.

[upchuck]

Thanks for posting this Kaslin.

Clarice Feldman ping.

If you'd like to be on or off the Clarice Feldman ping list, usually issued only on Sunday morning, please click Private Reply below and drop me a FReepmail.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

GNS? Come on...

Gossip News and Scandal
Good Night Show
Gilbert and Sullivan
Going Nowhere Slowly
GangNam Style
Gamist Nartativist Simulationist

[FreeReign]

That would be 455 deaths out of 8,936 cases that had an outcome, either recovered or died, or 5%.

That figure is just as incomplete and just as wrong. Did you read the article?

[sonofagun]

“That figure is just as incomplete and just as wrong. Did you read the article? “

Actually the number is complete for what I intended.

I did read the article. The fact is, regardless how much lecturing we receive on healthy living, those with unhealthy risk factors will still die on account of not being strong enough to fight this virus due to their unhealthy lifestyle.

All of those will, and should be counted as coronavirus fatalities.

[tired&retired]

Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.

[Shethink13]

To ascertain how fatal a virus is, we need an accurate picture of how many people have it (the denominator) and how many have died as a result (the numerator), we have neither...

Correction...how many people currently have it AND how many people HAVE had it and were unaware.

We have no idea how long it has actually been around, we only know when it started to be discussed.

You cannot tell if someone HAS had it and got better by testing only the symptomatic patients. If someone was infected weeks ago and developed immunity there will be no virus in them to detect and the incorrect assumption would be that they've never been exposed.

In order to determine how many have actually been infected you have to test the antibody titers of...well...everybody. Or at least a significant cross-section of the population.

There is much anecdotal evidence in the public of people claiming to have a mysterious illness months back that they couldn't put their finger on but had similar symptoms to Covid-19. Even cases resulting as "not detected" (negative) today could have been positive a week or two ago.

Bottom line is, we need to get the IgM/IgG antibody testing going, not just a fixed moment in time antigen test that cannot prove or disprove prior infection.

Since antibody testing, like viral antigen testing, requires only a specimen taken from a patient (nasal swab for antigen, blood for antibody), there is no concern for adverse side effects and should be easily approved by the FDA when available.

I, for one, would like to know if during the course of this or previous cold/flu seasons I have been exposed and subsequently immunized to it. It would sure help to get people out of isolation and back into the world.

[PGalt]

Another GREAT piece by, Clarice. HOORAY Clarice. Thanks for the ping; post