• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A statistic of interest.

Torus34

Torus34

DP Veteran
Joined
May 5, 2019
Messages
9,706
Reaction score
4,681
Location
Staten Island, NY USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
There are a number of quantities which are of importance in tracking the progress of the COVID-19 zoonotic pandemic. These include the number of people who have tested positive for the virus in a given population, the number of deaths in that population, the number of recoveries, and others.

One which seems to be of great interest is the rate of mortality. To put it in simple words, just how deadly is the disease? We've quite a range of estimates.

The rate of mortality has another use. It can be applied to give an estimate of how we are doing in our program to test Americans for the disease. Here's how it goes.

One estimate of the mortality rate, with obvious flaws, is that given as a percent of those who have tested positive for the disease. During the period 3/22-4, it hovered at its lowest point, around 1.2%. As of today, 4/6, it stands at 2.86% with 9,620 recorded virus-caused deaths and 336,851 recorded positives. If we boost the number of people who test positive from its present value to bring the mortality rate back to 1.2%, we would need 801,670 confirmed cases.

That means that we may be behind in testing by 464,800 tests as compared to the 3/22-4 period.

[Disclaimer: I'm at home with statistical techniques both through graduate study and professional use. I've been tracking these and other data since 3/18/2020.]
 
Last edited:
It is theoretically possible to derive the number of cases from the number of deaths; however, one cannot assume all test results are positive. As some tests are negative, merely adding a number of tests and presuming they are all positive does not arrive at the number of tests that should have been conducted.
 
Torus34 said:
There are a number of quantities which are of importance in tracking the progress of the COVID-19 zoonotic pandemic. These include the number of people who have tested positive for the virus in a given population, the number of deaths in that population, the number of recoveries, and others.

One which seems to be of great interest is the rate of mortality. To put it in simple words, just how deadly is the disease? We've quite a range of estimates.

The rate of mortality has another use. It can be applied to give an estimate of how we are doing in our program to test Americans for the disease. Here's how it goes.

One estimate of the mortality rate, with obvious flaws, is that given as a percent of those who have tested positive for the disease. During the period 3/22-4, it hovered at its lowest point, around 1.2%. As of today, 4/6, it stands at 2.86% with 9,620 recorded virus-caused deaths and 336,851 recorded positives. If we boost the number of people who test positive from its present value to bring the mortality rate back to 1.2%, we would need 801,670 confirmed cases.

That means that we may be behind in testing by 464,800 tests as compared to the 3/22-4 period.

[Disclaimer: I'm at home with statistical techniques both through graduate study and professional use. I've been tracking these and other data since 3/18/2020.]
Click to expand...
We may never really know the mortality, unless we know how many people actually contracted Covid-19, and we may not know that unless we just assume 100% were exposed.
I think the Mayo clinic is working on an antibody test to look at who is making antibodies, I.E. who has gotten and recovered from Covid-19.
In my County, I would be surprised if 1% of the population has been tested.
 
The above statistic stands in contrast to the plethora of reports and statements of how many test kits are being manufactured and shipped. There appears to be a tight spot in the flow from manufacturer to those actually administering the tests. Whether it be hold-ups in moving merchandise, guidelines which restrict their use or some other constriction is not known to this poor old country mouse. It is doubtful if we will get any answer soon. Vituperative finger-pointing, however, seems to be freely available.
 
ecofarm said:
It is theoretically possible to derive the number of cases from the number of deaths; however, one cannot assume all test results are positive. As some tests are negative, merely adding a number of tests and presuming they are all positive does not arrive at the number of tests that should have been conducted.
Click to expand...

Hi, and thank you for taking time to read and to comment. In the particular statistic detailed in the OP, false positives [Ed.: and false negatives, dude,] can be assumed to 'wash'. they exist in the same proportion throughout, unless there has been a change in test procedure with a significant difference in false results between the tests. There is no information either for or against such a change.

Regards, and stay well.
 
longview said:
We may never really know the mortality, unless we know how many people actually contracted Covid-19, and we may not know that unless we just assume 100% were exposed.
I think the Mayo clinic is working on an antibody test to look at who is making antibodies, I.E. who has gotten and recovered from Covid-19.
In my County, I would be surprised if 1% of the population has been tested.
Click to expand...

Hi! Thanks for the response.

With time, and with the increase in data which will occur, we'll be able to put tighter and tighter limits on the actual mortality value. It's been asserted by some that as we test more people, the mortality percent figure will drop. That hasn't been borne out by the actual reported data. That, in turn, led to the OP and the tentative conclusion.

Regards, and stay well.
 
Torus34 said:
Hi! Thanks for the response.

With time, and with the increase in data which will occur, we'll be able to put tighter and tighter limits on the actual mortality value. It's been asserted by some that as we test more people, the mortality percent figure will drop. That hasn't been borne out by the actual reported data. That, in turn, led to the OP and the tentative conclusion.

Regards, and stay well.
Click to expand...
We are still in the phase where someone must pass a screening process even to be tested,
but we know there are people out there who get this virus, and the symptoms are mild, and may never ask to be tested,
or not even know they are sick.
True mortality would be the number of deaths over the number of infected, we may never know the number of infected.
I am not sure we even have a good idea of the percentage of people who are asymptomatic, when they get this virus.
 
Digger said:
South Korea is the best place to get information about coronavirus. They are the only country that has had mass testing and tracking, besides China, whose numbers I don't trust. Here are lots of numbers. Have fun twisting your brain into knots.

South Korea Coronavirus: 10,284 Cases and 186 Deaths - Worldometer
Click to expand...

Hi! The South Korea data gives a value of 1.8%. That's not far from the 2.1% I selected as a working 'base line' for the OP. As an aside, had I selected 1.8% or 2.4%, the thrust of the argument would be unchanged. The data suggests we're falling behind in testing.

Regards, and stay well.
 
Torus34 said:
Hi, and thank you for taking time to read and to comment. In the particular statistic detailed in the OP, false positives [Ed.: and false negatives, dude,] can be assumed to 'wash'. they exist in the same proportion throughout, unless there has been a change in test procedure with a significant difference in false results between the tests. There is no information either for or against such a change.

Regards, and stay well.
Click to expand...

What I mean is this:

We have number of deaths. You are using that to establish the number of cases. In theory, that can work (depending on sample size and thus empirical data). So I'll assume it does work (not guaranteed, it's pretty complex and fraught with opportunity for error). We'll say you have arrived at the correct number of cases.

What you cannot then do is simply add that number to the number of tests for the total tests that should have been conducted. You see, for every positive test result, there are negative test results. Not false results, real results. Your error is in arriving at the number of tests that should have been conducted:

That means that we may be behind in testing by 464,800 tests
Click to expand...

False. That means that we may be behind in testing by 464,800 positive test results.


To find the number of tests that we are behind, we need the rate of positive to negative tests, then negative test results must be accounted in the total number of additional tests required to have tested every case.
 
Torus34 said:
There are a number of quantities which are of importance in tracking the progress of the COVID-19 zoonotic pandemic. These include the number of people who have tested positive for the virus in a given population, the number of deaths in that population, the number of recoveries, and others.

One which seems to be of great interest is the rate of mortality. To put it in simple words, just how deadly is the disease? We've quite a range of estimates.

The rate of mortality has another use. It can be applied to give an estimate of how we are doing in our program to test Americans for the disease. Here's how it goes.

One estimate of the mortality rate, with obvious flaws, is that given as a percent of those who have tested positive for the disease. During the period 3/22-4, it hovered at its lowest point, around 1.2%. As of today, 4/6, it stands at 2.86% with 9,620 recorded virus-caused deaths and 336,851 recorded positives. If we boost the number of people who test positive from its present value to bring the mortality rate back to 1.2%, we would need 801,670 confirmed cases.

That means that we may be behind in testing by 464,800 tests as compared to the 3/22-4 period.

[Disclaimer: I'm at home with statistical techniques both through graduate study and professional use. I've been tracking these and other data since 3/18/2020.]
Click to expand...

Given the obvious problems with the number of tests administered, using this to create a percent of the dead to the infected seems useless.

The mortality number as a rate of the total population might produce a rate using at least one constant.

Using the changing number of the KNOWN infected when both the dead and the infected numbers change on a daily basis seem prone to provide a meaningless number.

The TOTAL number of the currently infected is not knowable. Using an agreed upon total population number would at least provide one constant in the formula.

If there is a different constant that could be employed, that might be meaningful as well. I don't know what might be meaningful...

As it is, the numbers of dead, hospitalized and recovered seem to be the most meaningful numbers in this. At least, to me.
 
ecofarm said:
What I mean is this:

We have number of deaths. You are using that to establish the number of cases. In theory, that can work (depending on sample size and thus empirical data). So I'll assume it does work (not guaranteed, it's pretty complex and fraught with opportunity for error). We'll say you have arrived at the correct number of cases.

What you cannot then do is simply add that number to the number of tests for the total tests that should have been conducted. You see, for every positive test result, there are negative test results. Not false results, real results. Your error is in arriving at the number of tests that should have been conducted:



False. That means that we may be behind in testing by 464,800 positive test results.


To find the number of tests that we are behind, we need the rate of positive to negative tests, then negative test results must be accounted in the total number of additional tests required to have tested every case.
Click to expand...

Hi! You're arguing for a change in the data base. That's an entirely different critter. I haven't found a source for that information and so have danced with the girl I know. Again, if the number of negatives, as a percent of the total, is reasonably constant, the tentative conclusion remains intact.

Regards, and stay well.
 
code1211 said:
Given the obvious problems with the number of tests administered, using this to create a percent of the dead to the infected seems useless.

The mortality number as a rate of the total population might produce a rate using at least one constant.

Using the changing number of the KNOWN infected when both the dead and the infected numbers change on a daily basis seem prone to provide a meaningless number.

The TOTAL number of the currently infected is not knowable. Using an agreed upon total population number would at least provide one constant in the formula.

If there is a different constant that could be employed, that might be meaningful as well. I don't know what might be meaningful...

As it is, the numbers of dead, hospitalized and recovered seem to be the most meaningful numbers in this. At least, to me.
Click to expand...

Hi! Thank you for your response.

Take care. Stay well.
 
longview said:
We may never really know the mortality, unless we know how many people actually contracted Covid-19, and we may not know that unless we just assume 100% were exposed.
I think the Mayo clinic is working on an antibody test to look at who is making antibodies, I.E. who has gotten and recovered from Covid-19.
In my County, I would be surprised if 1% of the population has been tested.
Click to expand...

After the Swine Flu, the experts say that 60 million were infected. Was there some kind of wide ranging testing program that led to this number?
 
Torus34 said:
Hi! You're arguing for a change in the data base. That's an entirely different critter. I haven't found a source for that information and so have danced with the girl I know. Again, if the number of negatives, as a percent of the total, is reasonably constant, the tentative conclusion remains intact.

Regards, and stay well.
Click to expand...


I am arguing that this statement in your OP is false (by way of reasoning):

That means that we may be behind in testing by 464,800 tests
Click to expand...


What you mean to claim is "464,800 positive test results", which we know would require more than that number of tests to be conducted.
 
code1211 said:
After the Swine Flu, the experts say that 60 million were infected. Was there some kind of wide ranging testing program that led to this number?
Click to expand...
Good question, I have no idea how they arrived at that number.
 
Digger said:
South Korea is the best place to get information about coronavirus. They are the only country that has had mass testing and tracking, besides China, whose numbers I don't trust. Here are lots of numbers. Have fun twisting your brain into knots.

South Korea Coronavirus: 10,284 Cases and 186 Deaths - Worldometer
Click to expand...

I know that when statics come in from different countries, the data is interpreted in different ways by different countries before submission.

In many, many cases, Coronavirus victims also have different underlying problems.

Do all countries count all Coronavirus deaths as Coronavirus or do some call pneumonia or AIDS the cause when both are present?
 
ecofarm said:
I am arguing that this statement in your OP is false (by way of reasoning):




What you mean to claim is "464,800 positive test results", which we know would require more than that number of tests to be conducted.
Click to expand...

Hi! Thank you for your comments. Please re-read my response in Post # 12.

Stay well.
 
Torus34 said:
Hi! Thank you for your comments.

Stay well.
Click to expand...


I don't understand why you don't understand the correction I'm making.


You're equating cases and tests. But not all test results are positive. Some people are tested and are negative. Therefore, you cannot presume a 100% success rate in testing. You require only 1 test per case discovered; that's incorrect.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
I don't understand why you don't understand the correction I'm making.


You're equating cases and tests. But not all test results are positive. Some people are tested and are negative. Therefore, you cannot presume a 100% success rate in testing. you require only 1 test per case discovered; that's incorrect.
Click to expand...

I fully understand what you are stating. It would not affect the trend noted in the OP. I'll not reply further.

Regards, and stay well.
 
Torus34 said:
I fully understand what you are stating. It would not affect the trend noted in the OP. I'll not reply further.

Regards, and stay well.
Click to expand...

I can accept claiming the error is irrelevant to the main point. I'm just happy you're not blocking it out in some kind of psychotic episode. People do that, ya know.
 
Torus34 said:
Hi! The South Korea data gives a value of 1.8%. That's not far from the 2.1% I selected as a working 'base line' for the OP. As an aside, had I selected 1.8% or 2.4%, the thrust of the argument would be unchanged. The data suggests we're falling behind in testing.

Regards, and stay well.
Click to expand...

It's a bit more complicated than that. To get the real death rate, you don't just divide deaths by cases, because only 6k of the 10k cases have recovered. There are still 4 k who have not yet recovered, but have not yet died either. Some number of those people will die, pushing the actual death rate up. If you want to figure out the actual death rate, you'll have to go deeper into the weeds than that.
 
Digger said:
It's a bit more complicated than that. To get the real death rate, you don't just divide deaths by cases, because only 6k of the 10k cases have recovered. There are still 4 k who have not yet recovered, but have not yet died either. Some number of those people will die, pushing the actual death rate up. If you want to figure out the actual death rate, you'll have to go deeper into the weeds than that.
Click to expand...

Hi! And deeper into the future, as well. We're perched precariously on that razor-edge moment in time known as the present. We can look backward but must guess forward. The following definition comes to mind:

"PAST, n. That part of Eternity with some small fraction of which we have a slight and regrettable acquaintance. A moving line called the Present parts it from an imaginary period known as the Future. These two grand divisions of Eternity, of which the one is continually effacing the other, are entirely unlike. The one is dark with sorrow and disappointment, the other bright with prosperity and joy. The Past is the region of sobs, the Future is the realm of song. In the one crouches Memory, clad in sackcloth and ashes, mumbling penitential prayer; in the sunshine of the other Hope flies with a free wing, beckoning to temples of success and bowers of ease. Yet the Past is the Future of yesterday, the Future is the Past of to-morrow. They are one—the knowledge and the dream."

Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.

Regards, and stay well.
 
Digger said:
It's a bit more complicated than that. To get the real death rate, you don't just divide deaths by cases, because only 6k of the 10k cases have recovered. There are still 4 k who have not yet recovered, but have not yet died either. Some number of those people will die, pushing the actual death rate up. If you want to figure out the actual death rate, you'll have to go deeper into the weeds than that.
Click to expand...
I think statistics on pandemics are tricky, There is not an accurate count of how many died of the Spanish Flu a century ago.
At some point the system breaks down, and counting the dead, becomes much less important than staying alive.
 
longview said:
I think statistics on pandemics are tricky, There is not an accurate count of how many died of the Spanish Flu a century ago.
At some point the system breaks down, and counting the dead, becomes much less important than staying alive.
Click to expand...

Hi! A pragmatic and extremely useful viewpoint. The Bee Gees put it into the alto range.

Regards, and stay well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom