Coronavirus thread

[drogulus]

     4 Boston Hospitals Report Significant Number Of Employees Have Coronavirus

Four of Boston's largest and best-known hospitals said on Monday that in all, 345 of their employees have tested positive for the coronavirus, putting additional pressure on the area's already stretched medical resources.

Massachusetts General Hospital confirmed to NPR on Monday afternoon that 115 of its staff members have tested positive for COVID-19; Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center told NPR on Monday afternoon that it has 62 employees who have tested positive for the coronavirus. Additionally, Boston television station WBZ reported Monday that Tufts Medical Center has 61 employees who have tested positive.

Additionally, a WBZ reporter stated on Monday afternoon that Brigham and Women's Hospital said that it had 107 employees who were positive for COVID-19.

     

[greg]

     

During the 2018-19 flu season, about 35 million people in the US contracted the flu and about 34,000 died, according to the CDC. The agency estimates the total number of flu infections in the US via its influenza-surveillance system, which gathers flu data from state and local partners and projects nationwide totals using infectious-disease models.


     The difference between a 0.1% fatality rate and a 1-2% corona virus rate is that to produce the same number of deaths you only need 1.75-3.5 million infected.

     Variation among countries tells me that some countries will have lower death rates based on the age of the population and how well the older component has been protected at an early stage of the pandemic.

   

Ugh. The putting 12% at the top instead of 100% to make it seem more dramatic is so distasteful. 😑

[drogulus]

Ugh. The putting 12% at the top instead of 100% to make it seem more dramatic is so distasteful. 😑

     For comparative purposes 12% is about right. If you like you can scale to 100 for the leftmost column (like using "1986 dollars" for inflation estimates).

[Pohjolas Daughter]

Definitive numbers are of course not available. But the consensus seems to be that the novel coronavirus has a transmission rate (R0) of about 3, meaning each infected person gives to 3 people on average. For the flu (including the 1918 pandemic flu) the corresponding number is more like 1.5.

For seasonal flu, mortality (percentage of infected patients who die) is about 0.1%. For the novel coronavirus it seems to be 1-2%, which would give it comparable mortality to the 1918 pandemic flu.

Interesting.  I thought that l had last heard that it was something like 3 times easier to catch than the flu?     Will have to look into it further, but thank you for your thoughts and the information.   

Managed to (mostly) forget about it for a while today; after grocery shopping in very strange circumstances, went for a walk for a couple of hours....ahhh...peace!

[Kaga2]

The Spanish flu had a mortality of 3% or slightly higher.

[Ratliff]

Ugh. The putting 12% at the top instead of 100% to make it seem more dramatic is so distasteful. 😑

A graph should be scaled to display the dynamic range of the data. Reasonable practice is to use the smallest round number that encloses the data. A suppressed zero can be considered deceptive under some circumstances, but I don't see why every percentage graph has to be plotted with a 100% limit.

[geralmar]

100 coronavirus cases aboard U.S. Navy aircraft carrier:

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Exclusive-Captain-of-aircraft-carrier-with-15167883.php

[greg]

A graph should be scaled to display the dynamic range of the data. Reasonable practice is to use the smallest round number that encloses the data. A suppressed zero can be considered deceptive under some circumstances, but I don't see why every percentage graph has to be plotted with a 100% limit.

It might be made as a genuine comparison alone, so it could be without criticism.

But another thing is the rightmost part is not the same- comparing 65+ to 85+ and two other categories. If they just did a 65+ category on the right side, like they did the left side, it would only be less than 6% combined. Not quite as dramatic.

Also I don't really like comparison charts like these scaled this way because the only motive could be to shoot down others arguments "it's just like the flu". It doesn't show the big picture or put things into perspective with this scaling, only potentially freaks people even though me and most others only have a .1% chance of dying from it, if we even got it.

[drogulus]

It might be made as a genuine comparison alone, so it could be without criticism.

But another thing is the rightmost part is not the same- comparing 65+ to 85+ and two other categories. If they just did a 65+ category on the right side, like they did the left side, it would only be less than 6% combined. Not quite as dramatic.

Also I don't really like comparison charts like these scaled this way because the only motive could be to shoot down others arguments "it's just like the flu". It doesn't show the big picture or put things into perspective with this scaling, only potentially freaks people even though me and most others only have a .1% chance of dying from it, if we even got it.

     The chart does reveal how unlike the flu it is. That stands out clearly because the chart is scaled to reveal the difference. If this shoots down a "just like the flu" argument, it does so legitimately.

     I'm in the 2.7% column on account of being too old for my own good. Oddly, I don't care whether some chartmaker is motivated to freak me out or has some other motive like promoting a New New World Order.

[prémont]

I'm in the 2.7% column on account of being too old for my own good. Oddly, I don't care whether some chartmaker is motivated to freak me out or has some other motive like promoting a New New World Order.

But as far as I see it - and have pointed to before -, this column comprises all the people in that age group without correction for other complicating diseases, and as such it is at best useless and at worst misleading.

[greg]

     The chart does reveal how unlike the flu it is. That stands out clearly because the chart is scaled to reveal the difference. If this shoots down a "just like the flu" argument, it does so legitimately.

     I'm in the 2.7% column on account of being too old for my own good. Oddly, I don't care whether some chartmaker is motivated to freak me out or has some other motive like promoting a New New World Order.

I also think everyone pretty much intuitively scales graphs like these to 100% by default (because 0-100% is the spectrum of all possibilities). You have to take a second to sort of really zoom out, which often people won't even do and instead just react emotionally.

There could be an upside- show this to old people who get duped easily from scams because their mind is rotting away, and they will be extra motivated to not be around people. Hopefully that was the intent.
 

[BasilValentine]

It might be made as a genuine comparison alone, so it could be without criticism.

But another thing is the rightmost part is not the same- comparing 65+ to 85+ and two other categories. If they just did a 65+ category on the right side, like they did the left side, it would only be less than 6% combined. Not quite as dramatic.

Also I don't really like comparison charts like these scaled this way because the only motive could be to shoot down others arguments "it's just like the flu". It doesn't show the big picture or put things into perspective with this scaling, only potentially freaks people even though me and most others only have a .1% chance of dying from it, if we even got it.

The reason there is an 85+ category for today and it only goes to 65+ on the 1918 side is that the 85+ category, for all intents and purposes, didn't exist in 1918, when the average life expectancy was in the low 50s. The scaling is accurate, the percentages are right there, and including the empty space between 12% and 100% would just obscure the relevant data. More specifically, the graph needs to be able to illustrate graphically the difference between .1 and .5 percent — which means the relevant scale for the graph, if one wishes to illustrate the whole range of possible percentages, is not 1-100, but 1-1,000. The scale as it stands now is 1-120. 

[drogulus]

But as far as I see it - and have pointed to before -, this column comprises all the people in that age group without correction for other complicating diseases, and as such it is at best useless and at worst misleading.

     I don't think that correction is needed any more than you need to be reminded that all those young people who aren't dying are in the aggregate very healthy.

     It comes down to this IMV, the age differences contain the health differences. Even most 80 year olds survive the virus, somewhere between 85-90%. It's in the aggregate, not the individual, that age matters. For a personal assessment I can use my fantastical super health to de-age myself. Yeah, let's do that.
     

[greg]

The reason there is an 85+ category for today and it only goes to 65+ on the 1918 side is that the 85+ category, for all intents and purposes, didn't exist in 1918, when the average life expectancy was in the low 50s.

Are we talking about the same chart? It says 2018-2019 flu season, so was assuming it was about that year.

The scaling is accurate, the percentages are right there, and including the empty space between 12% and 100% would just obscure the relevant data.

I mean... technically not if the chart were big enough and you can see the difference still.
But I'm not the chartmaker, so it's probably fine for whatever their intent was.

[drogulus]

I also think everyone pretty much intuitively scales graphs like these to 100% by default (because 0-100% is the spectrum of all possibilities).
 

     I have no interest in mere possibilities. It's possible that the virus is spread by crab men from planet Mongo. It would be just like them to do it.

[greg]

     I have no interest in mere possibilities. It's possible that the virus is spread by crab men from planet Mongo. It would be just like them to do it.

No, actually the current theory, which is much more likely, is that it was spread from Mongo men from the planet Crab.

[drogulus]

No, actually the current theory, which is much more likely, is that it was spread from Mongo men from the planet Crab.

      The Crab Nebula, you mean? Yeah, I can see that.

[drogulus]

     Massachusetts deaths suddenly jumped from 56 to 89. It's like it came out of nowhere.

[BasilValentine]

Are we talking about the same chart? It says 2018-2019 flu season, so was assuming it was about that year.

I mean... technically not if the chart were big enough and you can see the difference still.
But I'm not the chartmaker, so it's probably fine for whatever their intent was.

Oops, right you are. But the scaling comment stands.

[arpeggio]

Gentlemen, I have learned from a reliable source that Trump blames the Easter Bunny for the virus.  The Bunny feels that he is overworked so he created a phony virus scandal that would cancel Easter so he would not have to show up for the egg roll at the White House this year