Covid-19

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
32,871
16,370
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
Do you mean 95% CI? Yes, that is pretty much standard. The interesting part is that the lower limit falls either above or just inside what we thought the R0 was. I may have to rethink the post where I said it couldn't have been engineered.
On a side note as part of my Grad school finals we had to design study and determine sample size etc. needed.

A girl tried to design a study with a 98% CI based on how long it took govt contractors to implement a POTUS Executive order on equal pay. She got beat down on this because the sample size was damn near the entire population of Govt Contractors LOL and her sample size was deemed not realistic and she failed her comp final and had to take another semester and do it again
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
32,871
16,370
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
Right, the debate isn't what a CI is, but whether we'd interpret it as "wide" in this case or at all. My reply is more meaning that as researchers, we do make interpretations about how wide a CI is for the very reasons that it's an indicator of the range of values that are likely. In this case, an r0 that may range from 4 to 8 or 9 is a big difference and importantly indicates that even in that broad range, data suggest that original r0 estimates were off.
I think this shows the original r0 was way off due to it being based on Chinese data. I think the biggest outcome of this CDC study is that it pretty much proves China's data was fully shit and under reported
 
May 4, 2011
1,764
932
743
Charleston, SC
Sep 18, 2006
1,136
1,489
1,743
SEC country :(
Depends on the area and disease. I primarily work with mental health and substance use epidemiology with some background in HIV. Some disorders have wide CIs because you have small numbers and inconsistent data, which is what we have here.
Thank you for the response. That makes sense about the sample size/variance.
But 95%CI is 95%CI. It doesn't make sense to me to think of it as "wide" or "narrow". It is what it is.
I understand what a confidence interval tells us and how it's constructed. I wasn't trying to suggest that the width of the interval should be interpreted in any way, so I do apologize if that is how it appeared. It just struck me as a big +/-, but as you said, it is what it is, that's what the method results in.
 
May 31, 2007
1,099
279
1,713
Edmond, OK
As many have said, I am with the camp who believes the majority of us have already been infected. There have been studies that show 50% or more will show little to no symptoms. Of the known cases with noticeable symptoms, only 20% are critical to the point they need hospitalization. I think the numbers are much, much higher which means the critical rate is much, much lower.

I wish we would focus on self quarantining or social distance the elderly or anyone who may be high risk and the rest of the world slowly get back to normal with caution.
You’re right on my friend. The reality of the situation is slowly starting to come into focus and it aligns with what infectious docs and others in the health care industry told me 2 months ago. This thing is highly infectious but very mild unless you have severe underlying pre-conditions. Isolating the at risk and practicing good health & hygiene is all that was needed. We will never know how many died from this but you better believe the final number will be extremely inflated. All of a sudden deaths in so-called hot spots from heart attacks, strokes, etcetera are falling more than should be statistically plausible. If that’s not a dead give away I don’t know what is. I can’t believe how gullible and cowardly parts of our society have become.
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
32,871
16,370
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
Told us we can't assemble, work, go to church.

A fair argument could be made as to why these temporary restrictions, but there's no debate we have lost freedoms lately.
They didn't tell you you couldn't do those things. They recommended you not do those things and set up guidelines of what they think should be done. State/Local Govts are the ones who implemented and Told you

Which is very evident in the fact that 8 states haven't fully implemented all of their recommendations
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
32,871
16,370
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
The state of NY has now confirmed more positive cases in the state than any other country as a whole in the world.

149,316 positive cases
45% female and 55% male

With 40% of people who have been given a test, testing positive
 

Jostate

CPTNQUIRK called me a greenhorn
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
20,393
14,578
1,743
They didn't tell you you couldn't do those things. They recommended you not do those things and set up guidelines of what they think should be done. State/Local Govts are the ones who implemented and Told you

Which is very evident in the fact that 8 states haven't fully implemented all of their recommendations
Okay so the state and local instead of the Feds. It's still clear the gubmint on some level has restricted our rights.
 
Feb 11, 2007
4,406
1,983
1,743
Oklahoma City
They didn't tell you you couldn't do those things. They recommended you not do those things and set up guidelines of what they think should be done. State/Local Govts are the ones who implemented and Told you

Which is very evident in the fact that 8 states haven't fully implemented all of their recommendations
But people have been arrested for non-compliance...that violates our right of freedom to assembly