Covid-19 information - some statistics, models, and firsthand sources.

A different perspective than the media/gubbment sez

I saw this video on Facebook earlier today. Since it seems to be making the rounds, I'll point out a key fallacy in the doctor's extrapolations.

The doctor's extrapolation on mortality and infection rates in the 4-7 minute mark (and again at the 10 minute mark) of the video is incorrect sampling. From what I've read online, in order to be tested in either CA or NY, you need to either show symptoms or have been in contact with someone who tested positive for COVID-19. This already biases your sample towards those who are more likely to test positive. His extrapolation to the entire population only works if it's a truly random sample. Given that the sample is biased, his mortality extrapolations are also moot.

I'm not necessarily arguing his points, just the way he's going about trying to prove them. This is basic Stats 101 type stuff that any undergrad in a science field would understand before they can legally buy beer. He should know better.

The doctors are arguing that the mortality rate is lower than the media suggests. You seem to be saying it is even lower than what the doctors are suggesting. You might be right, but that is an even stronger argument supporting there claim that the lockdown should be ended.

No he’s saying that the data is from a biased sample and that covid is not as prevalent as this doctor thinks it is because it’s not sound to extrapolate from a biased sample.

Garbage in, garbage out.

I agree it’s not a perfect random controlled study sample. In New York they tested pregnant women. This group shouldn’t be biased towards testing positive. Still not a perfect random sample. They tested positive at 15% not 7%. So even though the doctors sample isn’t statistically random, it still seems to be undercounting cases. Maybe because it doesn’t include asymptomatic cases. So even if the data is less than perfect it seems as time goes by the doctors suggestion that we should end the lockdown is supported by the improving data.


As the novel coronavirus spread in New York City, pregnant patients developed severe symptoms of the coronavirus only after they were admitted to our labor and delivery unit, exposing health-care providers to the virus. We rapidly instituted a universal screening policy.
This week, we published our findings after two weeks of universal screening at New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center. In our area, which includes upper Manhattan and the Bronx, about 15 percent of patients who came to us for delivery tested positive for the coronavirus

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/04/20/we-tested-all-our-patients-covid-19-found-lots-asymptomatic-cases/

The doctors are arguing that the mortality rate is lower than the media suggests. You seem to be saying it is even lower than what the doctors are suggesting. You might be right, but that is an even stronger argument supporting there claim that the lockdown should be ended.

Like I said in my original post, I'm not arguing the guy's assertions. I am pointing out how he incorrectly arrived at those assertions, regardless of their validity.

It would be like if the answer to a question was the number 5, and the "doctor" claimed he reached that answer by using the equation 2 + 2 = 5. He may have landed upon the correct answer, but he stumbled upon it by mistake/chance. This is not how objective reasoning works. The thread title was asking for facts and statistics, and this "doctor" throws out bad stats a mere four minutes into a fifty minute video. This really kills your credibility as a professional or "expert" when you make such an ameteur mistake.

For the record, I absolutely hope the guy is right in everything he says. To think I'm arguing otherwise is pretty effed up. Do you really think I would prefer the mortality rate be higher, and that this whole nightmare drags on for longer than it needs to? Who the Hell would want that?

In correlating abuse, molestation, etc. with SIP, dox seem2 rely on anecdote or conjecture rather than survey?

I mean, its easy to presume that SIP would make someone bonkers bc we all feel that way.  I tend 2 agree, but gut n logic does not confirm statistical significance.  BTW, it is prolly the case that SIP = bonkers.  An employee I canned in 2014 and got a TRO against has resumed harassment of me and others involved in the case over the last three wks.  We think SIP left him with more time on his hands 2 get all sideshow bob up in his own hed. 

But 2 the point, one nut alone does not make the fruitcake, rt? 

For the record, I absolutely hope the guy is right in everything he says.

Ditto, I hope he's correct re: overblown mortality.

In correlating abuse, molestation, etc. with SIP, dox seem2 rely on anecdote or conjecture rather than survey?

I mean, its easy to presume that SIP would make someone bonkers bc we all feel that way.  I tend 2 agree, but gut n logic does not confirm statistical significance.  BTW, it is prolly the case that SIP = bonkers.  An employee I canned in 2014 and got a TRO against has resumed harassment of me and others involved in the case over the last three wks.  We think SIP left him with more time on his hands 2 get all sideshow bob up in his own hed. 

But 2 the point, one nut alone does not make the fruitcake, rt? 

For the record, I absolutely hope the guy is right in everything he says.

Ditto, I hope he's correct re: overblown mortality.

This must be past the point where I stopped watching the video. I clarify my previous statement by tying it only to the infection and mortality rates the doctor "suggests" early on. Haven't watched the rest of the vid, not planning to either.

It seems like there is a lot of focus on determining and debating the actual mortality rate, but I’m having a hard time seeing the value of that information when it comes to making decisions about when to ease restrictions.

The WHO has found no evidence that surviving Covid-19 leaves you immune to the disease. (Google that and pick the story written by your chosen news source.) This implies that the total population at risk of infection (or reinfection) at a given time is equal to the total number of living humans minus the number of living humans who are currently fighting the virus.

In the context of the fact that nearly 60k Americans have died in the last couple months, a lower mortality rate just means more people were (and are) infected. In other words, the virus is more transmissible than previously thought.

Either it’s less transmissible and more lethal, or more transmissible and less lethal - pick your poison. Either way, there are still a lot of people getting sick and dying.

I don't mean to be a downer. Hell, I would really like to be more optimistic and hopeful about this than I am.

So if someone can explain why I should feel better in the light of these lower mortality rates being contemplated, please do. I'd like to get in on some of that optimism.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It seems like there is a lot of focus on determining and debating the actual mortality rate, but I’m having a hard time seeing the value of that information when it comes to making decisions about when to ease restrictions.

I agree with you there, at least in light of the information in your post.

I look at its value with regards to the general population, the ones who are not in positions of authority to make game-changing decisions. A lower mortality rate is a morale booster for the general population. People like bullet points and fast facts. Hit them with gloom n doom all the time, and they're more likely to fall into despair.

We live in a world where people either don't have the time or the will to dive into the minutia of complex issues. Take the previously posted video with the two "doctors" as an example: the lower mortality rates they claimed in the video caused the vid to go viral, and the people I've seen posting it even say it "allayed their fears". Of course, it would've been significantly more effective if they actually knew how elementary stastitics work instead of flubbing it up in the first four minutes.

totally agree w/u that their approach and methodology is wack and debatable. 
But its obvious they were rushing hard as advocates for a certain outcome. 
In that way, they weren't so much 'getting it wrong' as they were manipulating certain data points, de-emphasizing others, etc.  Far from neutral, but that wasn't their goal.  Their obvious and implied (if not express) goal was to get medical staff scrubbed up and back working in clinical settings.

It seems like there is a lot of focus on determining and debating the actual mortality rate, but I’m having a hard time seeing the value of that information when it comes to making decisions about when to ease restrictions.

I agree with you there, at least in light of the information in your post.

I look at its value with regards to the general population, the ones who are not in positions of authority to make game-changing decisions. A lower mortality rate is a morale booster for the general population. People like bullet points and fast facts. Hit them with gloom n doom all the time, and they're more likely to fall into despair.

We live in a world where people either don't have the time or the will to dive into the minutia of complex issues. Take the previously posted video with the two "doctors" as an example: the lower mortality rates they claimed in the video caused the vid to go viral, and the people I've seen posting it even say it "allayed their fears". Of course, it would've been significantly more effective if they actually knew how elementary statistics work instead of flubbing it up in the first four minutes.

Yeah. I guess I can see how a lower mortality rate could make some people feel more comfortable, but only when taken at face value without considering all the other facts.

I just hope that morale boost doesn't prompt any actions that later turn out to be premature.

Imperfect numbers? Definitely. I assume everyone chiming in was even more critical of the numbers put out in the beginning  with no data at all. Are imperfect numbers better than nothing or do we wait for a random study before we make conclusions or take action?

It seems like there is a lot of focus on determining and debating the actual mortality rate, but I’m having a hard time seeing the value of that information when it comes to making decisions about when to ease restrictions.

The WHO has found no evidence that surviving Covid-19 leaves you immune to the disease. (Google that and pick the story written by your chosen news source.) This implies that the total population at risk of infection (or reinfection) at a given time is equal to the total number of living humans minus the number of living humans who are currently fighting the virus.

In the context of the fact that nearly 60k Americans have died in the last couple months, a lower mortality rate just means more people were (and are) infected. In other words, the virus is more transmissible than previously thought.

Either it’s less transmissible and more lethal, or more transmissible and less lethal - pick your poison. Either way, there are still a lot of people getting sick and dying.

I don't mean to be a downer. Hell, I would really like to be more optimistic and hopeful about this than I am.

So if someone can explain why I should feel better in the light of these lower mortality rates being contemplated, please do. I'd like to get in on some of that optimism.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That sounds like a self serving claim by the WHO or the reporter that wrote the story. To say they haven't found evidence does not prove it isn't there. Won't we have to wait to know those answers?  Are they saying no antibodies are produced or the antibodies are ineffective? Do they site a study that was used to make the claim or is it just a meaningless headline meant to mislead?

Dude, you should work at NASA.

<Scientists at NASA building a manned spacecraft to head to Mars>: “Sir, I don’t think these calculations are perfect to get our spacecraft to Mars. I just pulled some numbers out of my butt and didn’t use any math.”

<E Kayaker>: “Meh, I bet they’re close enough. 3-2-1 Blast Off!!”

They moved the goal posts again to the end of May..."to be safe," or retaining government control depending how you look at it...oh well, psychologists and counselors might have a rush o' business putting people's lives back together after the damage is accessed...

Dude, you should work at NASA.

<Scientists at NASA building a manned spacecraft to head to Mars>: “Sir, I don’t think these calculations are perfect to get our spacecraft to Mars. I just pulled some numbers out of my butt and didn’t use any math.”

<E Kayaker>: “Meh, I bet they’re close enough. 3-2-1 Blast Off!!”

It is really amusing to me when the "But we have to do something!" shoe is on the other foot.

It seems like there is a lot of focus on determining and debating the actual mortality rate, but I’m having a hard time seeing the value of that information when it comes to making decisions about when to ease restrictions.

The WHO has found no evidence that surviving Covid-19 leaves you immune to the disease. (Google that and pick the story written by your chosen news source.) This implies that the total population at risk of infection (or reinfection) at a given time is equal to the total number of living humans minus the number of living humans who are currently fighting the virus.

In the context of the fact that nearly 60k Americans have died in the last couple months, a lower mortality rate just means more people were (and are) infected. In other words, the virus is more transmissible than previously thought.

Either it’s less transmissible and more lethal, or more transmissible and less lethal - pick your poison. Either way, there are still a lot of people getting sick and dying.

I don't mean to be a downer. Hell, I would really like to be more optimistic and hopeful about this than I am.

So if someone can explain why I should feel better in the light of these lower mortality rates being contemplated, please do. I'd like to get in on some of that optimism.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That sounds like a self serving claim by the WHO or the reporter that wrote the story. To say they haven't found evidence does not prove it isn't there. Won't we have to wait to know those answers?  Are they saying no antibodies are produced or the antibodies are ineffective? Do they site a study that was used to make the claim or is it just a meaningless headline meant to mislead?

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that's a "self serving" claim by the WHO, but your questions seem valid.

From what I gather, the WHO's claim is based on data out of South Korea and China indicating that somewhere between 2% and 5-10% those who have recovered from Covid-19 have subsequently tested positive a second time. I don't know how that compares to their first-time infection rate, but that would be interesting to know.

Maybe some people DO develop immunity to the virus, but the data from South Korea and China suggests that many do not.