Another question:

(yeah, I was raised by my Dad and Mom (and a few other mentors) to ask a lot of questions. I question everything and I like to turn a lot of data over in my mind)

We get stats on the Media about “number of cases” of CororinaVirus, and we get stats for “number of deaths” (those I question…not that they are dead, but that they died from Covid-19…often they are already old, weak or otherwise compromised and have other complicating factors).

But one bit of data I don’t ever see is the number of people needing little or no care, or some level of hospitalization because of the effects of Covid-19. In fact, if you look, the data is pretty much only aimed at “deaths” and not much else.

Out of the several thousand cases for any one given area that have shown enough symptoms that they are tested, how many need any level of hospitalization?
I guess because they aren’t anything the media can sensationalize, they don’t give us any of that data.

I do think it would be a good bit of data though.

People showing symptoms and tested vs people tested showing positive vs people needing actual care vs people needing hospitalization vs people needing intensive care vs people dying.

I think the numbers would be not as terrible as the media and our governments might like you to think.

Then again, until I see some data I just don’t know.

2 thoughts on “Another question:

  1. As more people are involved, the data will be incomplete, corrupted, or not recorded for reference. Those with access will report on what they acquire, the worst misreading of the data will be leaked to the media, and those doing well due to the crisis will find it useful.

    If I had to guess how this will play out, I would guess people will eventually know someone with the virus, the symptoms in general will be similar to the flu, and the damage due to the panic will cause anger. How that anger is focused will be something to see.

  2. 1) You are correct that such specific date would be useful.
    2) You will never get it.
    3) Because the CDC buggered up the test kits months ago, and we don't have enough. Anywhere.
    3a) L.A. County just told doctors there yesterday not to test anyone (because they're out of kits) unless the results would change their treatment of the patient. (Which is no one, because you treat the severity of symptoms, not the presence or absence of the virus. If someone is sick enough to admit, you admit them. If not, you send them home and tell them to self quarantine.)
    3b) This ensures we'll never know how many people have Kung Flu, and we'll never know how many people who have Kung Flu we've launched back into the community, to re-infect 2, 4, 8, or 48 of their fellows.
    4) Things like this are why all stats on this outbreak will be pure bullsh*t, going forward. Nothing published will be reliable, because lack of rapid and accurate testing for all suspected cases ensures we never know how widespread it is, how bad it is, and what percentage of people are uninfected, asymptomatic, mildly symptomatic, really sick, or dead, because you erased most of that pie chart from the start.

    (V + W + X + Y + Z = Q)
    Z = 340
    Q = 330M
    Solve for all other variables.

    In mathematical terms, we have made it impossible to solve for X, when we have put V, W, Y, and Z beyond knowing. Ever.

    We know today that 340 people have died.
    But we don't know whether that's out of 27K cases, or 270K cases, or 2.7M cases, or 330M cases.

    So we know how bad it is for 340 people.
    But we can never know how bad it's going to be for 330M people.

    The people at CDC that bungled the testing kits should be hanging by their thumbs in Lafayette Park across from the White House, while passersby jeer and pelt them with rotten fruit.

    The problem with knowing the numbers, isn't that we'd know how terrible this outbreak isn't.
    The problem is that we'd know how bad the government is.

    But you're asking the right questions.

Comments are closed.