Aggie95 said:

---

that would mean a death rate of .03%

---

Yeah, but you also have to change the numerator if you change the denominator!!! /corona bros

Aggie95 said:

---

that would mean a death rate of .03%

---

You have to also assume that no more new cases are diagnosed and no one that is already sick dies. You simply can't take a snapshot one month in and extrapolate that to a death rate. Even with their extensive testing, we know how infection numbers double every few days so it is easy to realize that a significant percentage of their 1000 confirmed cases are in the early stages. When those cases get to about day 10 or so the death numbers will begin to change.

Hopefully with all their testing they have been able to get sick people isolated before they spread it and their total cases can be kept under control.

what number do you find a flaw?

People die after weeks so your numerator is inflated

Experts are using closed cases for death rates

Aggie95 said:

---

what number do you find a flaw?

---

You don't think it is flawed to use a random internet poster's estimate of cases in any calculation?

I laughed!

The first report from this study, 19 of the random 1800 came back positive, half of those had symptoms. As far as I know there has been no follow up on the others .

Why has our testing not made it to the random stage yet? And why are we not doing antibody tests to figure out who had it and didn't know it?

Whats spooky is IF 10m+ people have this, when everyone thinks its around 140k, that shows just how crazy this thing spread under our very nose.
That does not bode well for the next pandemic - one that's not so kind with its death rate (.03 in this theory).

We don't have enough tests. The tests we do have only test when you have active viral shedding, so it only works when you're sick.

We don't have an antibody test yet, but they're working on it. Limited tests starting up by Abbott and other countries are also working on this.

Aggie95 said:

---

the op estimated 10 million cases...we know there are roughly 2,458 deaths..that means the rate is roughly .0245%

yes, the numerator and denominator will change over time but the general rate will not change that much.

---

The rate, whatever it is currently, probably won't change as long as everything else remains constant.

Overwhelming the hospital capacity is a significant change that could greatly impact the death rate. That is what we are fighting against.

k2aggie07 said:

---

We don't have enough tests. The tests we do have only test when you have active viral shedding, so it only works when you're sick.

We don't have an antibody test yet, but they're working on it. Limited tests starting up by Abbott and other countries are also working on this.

---

5 min tests at 50K tests per day by 4/1. https://apple.news/AYPIw7avARJaPvXOVF5fWww

policywonk98 said:

---

Wyoming is our least populated state.
Alaska our least dense.

Like Iceland, they will be much much easier to keep undercontrol.

No accident that Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Alaska are states with smallest number of cases and deaths.

---

65% of the population of Iceland lives in the small area in and around Reykjavk.

I don't know if that matters, but is interesting.

panamamyers00 said:

---

Sorry if already discussed...

Iceland has done more testing per capita than any other country. Testing random people that have no symptoms of anything. Their first case wasn't until late February. They have found that 1% of their population has covid-19 with no symptoms. So 3,600 out of 360,000 with no symptoms have it. Starting from the last week of February.
They have 1,000 official cases of positive tests with 2 deaths at this time.

The United States had the first case in late January. So even if you are conservative and take the same 1%, which should be much higher with a one month head start, you are looking at 4 million people that have it or have had it in the United States. I thought ten days ago that at least 100,000 had it, but I think I may have been vastly underestimating.

Iceland is much more isolated. They have given way more tests per capita. They have traced and quarantined much more effectively and 1% of their population(as of 2 days ago) has it after giving the United States a four week head start.

How can anyone not think that at least, conservatively, at least 2.5 million Americans have had it or have it currently. If putting money on it, I would guess closer to 10 million.

---

S Korea and Germany seem to be doing great with this approach as well. Aggressive widespread testing then isolation of the positives and contacts.

panamamyers00 said:

---

Sorry if already discussed...

Iceland has done more testing per capita than any other country. Testing random people that have no symptoms of anything. Their first case wasn't until late February. They have found that 1% of their population has covid-19 with no symptoms. So 3,600 out of 360,000 with no symptoms have it. Starting from the last week of February.
They have 1,000 official cases of positive tests with 2 deaths at this time.

The United States had the first case in late January. So even if you are conservative and take the same 1%, which should be much higher with a one month head start, you are looking at 4 million people that have it or have had it in the United States. I thought ten days ago that at least 100,000 had it, but I think I may have been vastly underestimating.

Iceland is much more isolated. They have given way more tests per capita. They have traced and quarantined much more effectively and 1% of their population(as of 2 days ago) has it after giving the United States a four week head start.

How can anyone not think that at least, conservatively, at least 2.5 million Americans have had it or have it currently. If putting money on it, I would guess closer to 10 million.

---

Here's where you ****ed up OP. You shouldn't be taking that percentage and extrapolating with it.

We all know this thing spreads at a constantly increasing rare until hitting an inflection point and leveling off. That said, it is the same rate regardless of population size. Population size merely influences the total number of infected and when the inflection point is hit. If you were to look at the number of infected in terms of days from initial observation, Iceland and the US would be about equal, all things being equal, until Iceland's smaller population size caught up with it and the virus burned itself out. The US would keep going until the same thing happened. Basically, if we started on the same day and did the same stuff with the same population density, we should see the same total number for quite awhile.

Herein lies the problem with your percentage assumption. The number of infected, the numerator, is roughly equal to a certain point. The denominator, or population size, is vastly different. You can't extrapolate Iceland's 1% to the US because this virus didn't spread as a percentage of population, it spreads at a specific rate.

Now, granted Iceland does have a lot of things going for it, that doesn't change the fact the extrapolation of percentages doesn't work. Based on growth rate, we shouldn't have hit 1% yet, while Iceland should have.

Here's where you ****ed up.
Whereas Iceland has 360,000 people to act as starting points, a proportion of those would have travelled and brought it back and started spreading it within Iceland.
We have 1,000 times more starting points to travel, return then start the spread.
We are like 1,000 Icelands spread through out the country. If you had 1,000 copies of Iceland, then you would still have the same 3600 people infected you believe? Or there would be 3600 in each of the copies of Iceland?

All American cases did not come from one person in Washington. They came from thousands of people sprinkled throughout the country.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Here's where you ****ed up OP. You shouldn't be taking that percentage and extrapolating with it.

We all know this thing spreads at a constantly increasing rare until hitting an inflection point and leveling off. That said, it is the same rate regardless of population size. Population size merely influences the total number of infected and when the inflection point is hit.

---

I would like to know more about this.....my tiny brain can't wrap its head around this.

what is stumping me is what you call the inflection point?

how would a virus know to stop when it reaches a certain number of people? and what about the spread of people, we read data about countries - but a virus doesn't know what nationality of peron they are infecting........

i am NOT being sarcastic in this question

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/world/corona-simulator/

This is a great visualization for this

Carnwellag2 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Here's where you ****ed up OP. You shouldn't be taking that percentage and extrapolating with it.

We all know this thing spreads at a constantly increasing rare until hitting an inflection point and leveling off. That said, it is the same rate regardless of population size. Population size merely influences the total number of infected and when the inflection point is hit.

---

I would like to know more about this.....my tiny brain can't wrap its head around this.

what is stumping me is what you call the inflection point?

how would a virus know to stop when it reaches a certain number of people? and what about the spread of people, we read data about countries - but a virus doesn't know what nationality of peron they are infecting........

i am NOT being sarcastic in this question

---

Most epidemiologist estimate 70% infection rate as the herd immunity inflection point for COVID.

k2aggie07 said:

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/world/corona-simulator/

This is a great visualization for this

---

my tiny brain understands that - but in each of those simulations every 'person' ended up with the virus at some point.

if that is truly the case and this doesn't end until all have it....... shouldn't we be coming up with a plan to infect everyone with the virus. but do so as to not overwhelm the hospitals?????