For some best-case scenario stuff...why not Zoidberg? Or Germany?
What is that, a .26% mortality rate? What are the Germs doing that makes them so superior?
For some best-case scenario stuff...why not Zoidberg? Or Germany?
What is that, a .26% mortality rate? What are the Germs doing that makes them so superior?
Is it an assumption that the area under the curves is the same? If so, does anyone with more bio knowledge than me think that assumption is justified? I get the math, and I understand the problems with the Lancet study. Just trying to get as good a technical grasp on it as possible.
If that's covered in the study, I apologize, I only read someone else's highlights.
A question for law enforcement folks: what exactly are the implications of these "shelter in place" orders that are beginning to pop up? I realize the particulars will vary based on jurisdiction, but the way media outlets are explaining it, it sounds like an extra stern, "Please don't leave your house."
"Sapiens dicit: 'Ignoscere divinum est, sed noli pretium plenum pro pizza sero allata solvere.'" - Michelangelo
''Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.'' ―Albert Einstein
Full disclosure per the Pistol-Forum CoC: I am the author of Quantitative Ammunition Selection.
If you lean more towards the German authorities, they are relying on their excellent, extensive healthcare system.
If you lean more towards international observers like NN Taleb, they are certifying under a better-looking comorbid CoD whenever remotely possible. If you look at things like how some European countries tend to categorize infant mortality, that would make some sense, though in all fairness, it's probably some of both.
China, for example, (rarely a good example of accurate statistics) has an absurdly low number of deaths from influenza, like <200 per year for 1.4 billion people, because their recording methods are almost directly opposite to those in the US. Where the US estimates flu deaths mathematically and records them in practically any case of "deaths that occur in people for whom influenza infection was likely a contributor to the cause of death, but not necessarily the primary cause of death”, in China if there is anything else at all going on, either pre-existing or secondary to the flu, that goes on the records instead.
These are valid numbers, but we should be cautious about whether they are actually "comparable". For example, almost all of them occur at relatively static rates (when viewed in terms of years, rather than decades), and those rates are influenced more by long-term trends in behaviour and healthcare services/technology/pharmacology, not by the introduction or proliferation of something with the potential for rapid, open-ended multiplication. While an infectious disease like COVID-19 has a high potential (probability, really) to increase rapidly and exponentially in a relatively short amount of time, the same can't be said of cerebrovascular disease.