biometrics
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2019
- Messages
- 20,382
My logic is sound, proven with data.we cant do tha tcalculation bitch, I.ve explained that
My logic is sound, proven with data.we cant do tha tcalculation bitch, I.ve explained that
yeah but your data is incompleteMy logic is sound, proven with data.
It's not. I use official death vs recovery. I have yet to see your math.yeah but your data is incomplete
Zuma + Boris?Trump and Kushner, could there be a worse pairing?
US edits National Stockpile website after Kushner claims it’s not for states
Strategic National Stockpile site edited to downplay role in helping US states.arstechnica.com
Zuma + Boris?
There are 4 statistical numbers atm forIt's not. I use official death vs recovery. I have yet to see your math.
So still no math?There are 4 statistical numbers atm for
ACTIVE CASES - (mild & serious/critical)
CLOSED CASES- (dead & recovered)
You need the full volume of cases, active and closed, to get a closer to the truth picture
Need some input from a statistician at this point to complete the equation - as mentioned before. With access to the correct data they will be able to predict what percentage of the "serious/critical" segment will die - be it 20% 45% whatever. You need that probability factor to complete the equation
which will end up being as follows
((death value + serious/critical value *probability of death %)/Total number infected)*100
Simply because the mild cases will recover for sure as well as the remainder of the serious cases
You cannot link the death value with ONLY the recovered value. Your mortality rate is 20%So still no math?
My calculation is based on three months of official data. The trend is set. The data is good. The logic is sound.
Unless you can show me anything other than walls of text, I know I am correct.
Pfft.
Nobody with the right credentials in the world will agree with you on this.Sigh.
Let me try again.
You know state machines, right?
Do you speak for them?Nobody with the right credentials in the world will agree with you on this.
You are being difficult right now. It feels like I'm in a Bitcoin thread
So how is it that the considered death rate by proffesionals in the field is not even a quarter of your 20% (which btw now climbed to 21%)Do you speak for them?
Jesus dude, did you look at my pic? There are only two outcomes, you either die or you recover. In the past three months we have good data, 1m infected, 200k recovered, 50k died. Using primary school fraction math, aka percentage, it is clear that:
death rate in % = (deaths/(deaths+recoveries))*100
According to Dr Anthony Fauci, the director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the estimated percentage of Covid-19 deaths was earlier predicted to be 2%, but he did mention it could be lower due to the number of infections that go undetected.
You are missing it. The death rate is based on infections.Why we're overestimating the mortality rate for COVID-19
A lack of adequate testing for COVID-19 means only a proportion of cases are being counted in official statistics - making it seem deadlier than it is.www.weforum.org
Punch the numbers into the %. Why would I lie?So how is it that the considered death rate by proffesionals in the field is not even a quarter of your 20% (which btw now climbed to 21%)
here's one for you.
Coronavirus death rate lower than previously thought, study suggests | Life
The number of sudden coronavirus-related deaths paints a grim reality. But research suggests this number is not as horrific as it seems, even though this coronavirus is still deadlier than seasonal flu.www.health24.com
2% !! Good lord how the fuck did they get their calculation so wrong. They should get in contact with that coder in Hermanus
You have no insight for this