Lol. Enough said, or I'll be put into the naughty chair!
Coronavirus 2019-2020 thread (no unsubstantiated rumours!)
- Thread starter localizer
- Start date
Lol. Enough said, or I'll be put into the naughty chair!
May I ask, what is the source of the cartoon? Is it Italian?
You're now just repeating my points. Since you agree with me that (quoting you) "If you're using the data from beginning to the end (or current value), it doesn't really matter if it's "the sum of" or it's the "average value" since mortality rate is a ratio, meaning they both end up having the same value.", then why were you using two formulas in your post as if they were different:
You wrote as if those two were different, because the second, you suggested, required the conditions to be relatively stabilized to be accurate, where as the first, you suggested, was simply an identity.
The only logical explanation of what you wrote was that in the second formula you were averaging over the numbers from the more recent period of time rather than over the entire outbreak. So in order to be charitable, that's how I interpreted.
If you were indeed averaging over the entire outbreak, then I'm just not interested in that figure. I don't know why you even brought it up as I said very clear in my first post in this little discussion that I'm interested in the recent fatality trend given the expanded healthcare capacity in Wuhan, not over the entire outbreak. I suggest you reread earlier posts if you somehow forgot what how this discussion started.
And I've spent a lot of time explaining to you why "daily death"/ ("daily discharged+ daily death") for a single day is not a good estimation of the trending fatality rate because there is a time induced distortion. I'm going to do this for one more time, if you still don't get it, then so be it.
When I estimate (very roughly) the trending fatality rate after the expansion of healthcare in Wuhan, I want to know what is the likely outcome of a patient given the amount of medical resources available per patient in the last few weeks (I made my intention very clear in my first post). Ideally I want to trace all patients with the same day of onset, say Feb 15, and see what's their outcomes. But I don't have the data. If I calculate "daily death"/ ("daily discharged+ daily death") for a single day as you suggested (remember you did suggest it, that's how this discussion about time lag distortion started), I would be looking at the numbers of discharged mild cases with on average more recent time of onset, and the numbers of discharged serious cases/death with on average earlier time of onset. But since the number of new cases have been dropping, the first numbers will be smaller than it would be if we look at mild cases with earlier time of onset. Hence the time lag distortion.
This is all really simple. Just a variation of why we shouldn't look at cumulative death / (cumulative discharged + cumulative death) as a good estimation of the overall CFR in the early days of the outbreak, because death takes longer.
Realistically, we won't ever get that data.
And in terms of probability, Guangdong is still the most likely location for the animal to human jump to have occurred, not Vietnam or any other place.
Guangdong does have the highest concentration of stupid food **connoisseurs** who think eating exotic and freshly slaughtered meat is best.
That is the root issue.
Maybe, but the even if the virus made the jump in Guangdong, it didn't spread wide in Guangdong as it did in Wuhan. So it's very unlikely that the jump was made at a wet market in a major city, because the spread would have been wide in Guangdong if such a wet market there was first infected. And it's diffcult to link a small village wet market with Wuhan. Therefore if the jump was made in Guangdong, the first infected were probably traffickers delivering animals to Wuhan, not wet market sellers. But then why it's not a trafficker from, say, Vietnam, who then passed it to trafficker in Guangdong who then deliver them to Wuhan?
Again we need to first know what's the intermediary animal between bat and human before we can give any answer.
It was originally a Group A strain, which was presumably less contagious.
That would be consistent with limited spread in Guangdong.
Then it mutated into a more contagious Group B strain, then again into a very contagious Group C.
This is from the initial genetic paper, but it'll probably be confirmed for certain in the future.
We won't ever know exactly where the jump happened to create the Group A strain.
But does it actually matter?
The root cause is the demand for exotic or fresh meat, which is centred around Guangdong food **connoisseurs**
Because SE Asia (not all of SE Asia, just some countries) also have a lot of wildlife foodies? If the jump was made there we can demand SE Asia to control their wet markets and wildlife consumption, which would be a good thing. We don't want Guangdong/Guangxi people to take wildlife food tourism in SE Asia