03 Sep 21
@eladar saidFrom death, yes.
So you are saying that out 600 cases 1 person dies?
I would say I am relatively safe.
From having a seriously nasty experience, maybe less so.
Look, buddy, you don't want to get vaxxed? That's your choice. I'm not interested in forcing you. But I don't understand why you keep engaging in this effort to convince other people that getting vaxxed is a bad idea.
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
03 Sep 21
2 edits
@sh76 saidNO... its 1 in 3 have had COVID last year ( before December of 2020 ). NOT 1 in 3 Americans have had COVID...period That is a significant difference!
If 1 in 3 Americans have had COVID, that's about 110m cases. Given over 600k deaths, that's an IFR over .5%
I think 1-in-3 is likely an underestimate, but I don't see how that affects my analysis.
In Dec of 2020 the cumulative case count was 14.3 million. They have concluded the ACTUAL number of infections was more like 103 million at that time! The IFR would be diluted by nearly a factor of 10!
03 Sep 21
@joe-shmo saidYou're right. The number is much higher than 1/3 now. But let's say it's 150m or even 180m cases. That's still implies an IFR in the .35-.4% range
NO... its 1 in 3 have had COVID last year ( before December of 2020 ). NOT 1 in 3 Americans have had COVID...period That is a significant difference!
In Dec of 2020 the cumulative case count was 14.3 million, in August when the study was concluded it was 36.5 million or more confirmed cases . What the study shows that in Dec the cases were undercounted 4 fold when they were trying to compute IFR.
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
03 Sep 21
2 edits
@sh76 saidIn Dec of 2020 the cumulative case count was 14.3 million. They have concluded the ACTUAL number of infections was more like 103 million at that time! The IFR would be diluted by nearly a factor of 10 in the general population and even more so for young age specific demographics because most of the missed cases come from there.
You're right. The number is much higher than 1/3 now. But let's say it's 150m or even 180m cases. That's still implies an IFR in the .35-.4% range
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
03 Sep 21
1 edit
@sh76 saidLook, in December the IFR was more like 0.27% for the general population. But that is a highly inadequate measure for any age specific group. You must look at deaths under 40 in December. Then factor in that the overwhelming majority of the missed cases ( 90 million or so according to the study ) were from that age group. the IFR for under 40 somethings is going to free fall.
You're right. The number is much higher than 1/3 now. But let's say it's 150m or even 180m cases. That's still implies an IFR in the .35-.4% range
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
03 Sep 21
4 edits
@sh76 saidFirstly: NO its not. the logarithm of e^x is x, its not e^(-x) or 1/e^x. Also, ln( x )^(-1) = 1/ ln(x) and ln( x^-1) = - ln(x). So you don't know what you are talking about, its not just dealing with "positve or negative exponents".
Nice nitpick. Anyway, logarithmic and exponential are the same thing; it's just a matter of whether you're dealing with negative or positive exponents.
In practice no scientist would define the growth as inverted logarithmic! Thats why the they have distinct names! I do like your enthusiasm though!
03 Sep 21
@joe-shmo saidThe spread between cases and infections is much lower than in 2020, as testing availability is ubiquitous now much more so than for much of 2020.
In Dec of 2020 the cumulative case count was 14.3 million. They have concluded the ACTUAL number of infections was more like 103 million at that time! The IFR would be diluted by nearly a factor of 10 in the general population and even more so for young age specific demographics because most of the missed cases come from there.
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
03 Sep 21
1 edit
@sh76 saidGot a citation for that with specifics?
The spread between cases and infections is much lower than in 2020, as testing availability is ubiquitous now much more so than for much of 2020.
You can't just drop that in here. Timing matters.
03 Sep 21
2 edits
@joe-shmo saidHe thinks that dividing by an exponential is the same thing as taking a log.
Firstly: NO its not. the logarithm of e^x is x, its not e^(-x) or 1/e^x. Also, ln( x )^(-1) = 1/ ln(x) and ln( x^-1) = - ln(x). So you don't know what you are talking about, its not just dealing with "positve or negative exponents".
In practice no scientist would define the growth as inverted logarithmic! Thats why the they have distinct names! I do like your enthusiasm though!
In fact what he describes simply turns exponential growth into exponential decay.
The negative 1 he is thinking about is for function notation. He probably thinks that arc sine is 1/sin
03 Sep 21
@eladar saidI apologize for using imprecise terminology. I realized it right after I posted but didn't bother editing.
He thinks that dividing by an exponential is the same thing as taking a log.
In fact what he describes simply turns exponential growth into exponential decay.
The negative 1 he is thinking about is for function notation. He probably thinks that arc sine is 1/sin
It's a silly nitpick, though. Logarithmic would be correct if I were looking in the other direction: from risk to older to risk to younger. The Richter scale is a logarithmic scale even though the increase is exponential.
You know what... forget it. This is an absurd thing to be wasting time on.
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
03 Sep 21
1 edit
@sh76 said
I apologize for using imprecise terminology. I realized it right after I posted but didn't bother editing.
It's a silly nitpick, though. Logarithmic would be correct if I were looking in the other direction: from risk to older to risk to younger. The Richter scale is a logarithmic scale even though the increase is exponential.
You know what... forget it. This is an absurd thing to be wasting time on.
Logarithmic would be correct if I were looking in the other direction: from risk to older to risk to younger. The Richter scale is a logarithmic scale even though the increase is exponential.
No its important. And everything you just said above is incorrect. Exponential decay does not equal logarithm
03 Sep 21
1 edit
@sh76 saidOlder to younger would be exponential decay.
I apologize for using imprecise terminology. I realized it right after I posted but didn't bother editing.
It's a silly nitpick, though. Logarithmic would be correct if I were looking in the other direction: from risk to older to risk to younger. The Richter scale is a logarithmic scale even though the increase is exponential.
You know what... forget it. This is an absurd thing to be wasting time on.
Log curves are strictly increasing but as x gets larger the slope of the curve approaches 0. In other words, the y values would be approaching some constant.