what percent of the US population to date do you think has been infected by covid at some point in time?
I would love to knowwhat percent of the US population to date do you think has been infected by covid at some point in time?
2.6%. Johns Hopkins reports 9,045,494 cases. We don't know the number of cases not tested or otherwise diagnosed.what percent of the US population to date do you think has been infected by covid at some point in time?
You can't be serious. This is the ONLY part of this virus I will enjoy. Telling Trump fans how dumb they are as cases continue to rise and hospitals become overwhelmed post election.It's almost over. It all disappears on Wednesday.
then we'll get these idiots giving Trump credit for the Oxford vaccine that he had zero to do with.You can't be serious. This is the ONLY part of this virus I will enjoy. Telling Trump fans how dumb they are as cases continue to rise and hospitals become overwhelmed post election.
Or are these dead people and overworked healthcare workers paid actors?
Trump 2020then we'll get these idiots giving Trump credit for the Oxford vaccine that he had zero to do with.
ridiculous there aren't some numbers on this.I would love to know
Lol. So if we add up batting 3 month batting averages of say .250, .275, and .300 we get .825. Wow! You must be an @outside shooter student.ie, if we have averaged 1.5% positive rates in random testing for the 8 months of March through Oct, that's just over 16 two wk periods, so 16 X 1.5%, or just over 24%.
I didn’t bother to do the math because I can’t but it does seem that some stats guy ought to be able to extrapolate an approximation from known dataLol. So if we add up batting 3 month batting averages of say .250, .275, and .300 we get .825. Wow! You must be an @outside shooter student.
The Johns Hopkins and several other websites provide all the data and graphs you’d care to see.I didn’t bother to do the math because I can’t but it does seem that some stats guy ought to be able to extrapolate an approximation from known data
Ivanka 2024Trump 2020
Hooefully no I’vegotwinners working for them 😂The Johns Hopkins and several other websites provide all the data and graphs you’d care to see.
You're an idiot.It's almost over. It all disappears on Wednesday.
God forgive me for defending IGW, but your criticism is unfair, since he's talking cumulative positives. If those 1.5% results were all the result of random testing, he'd be right.Lol. So if we add up batting 3 month batting averages of say .250, .275, and .300 we get .825. Wow! You must be an @outside shooter student.
if the positives are a steady 20% of total tests per month; you don’t have 100% after 5 months.God forgive me for defending IGW, but your criticism is unfair, since he's talking cumulative positives. If those 1.5% results were all the result of random testing, he'd be right.
Are you saying that's all it will be when all is known?Ivanka 2024
You don't have 20%, either. You have 100% minus whatever proportion of them were repeat positives of the same people.if the positives are a steady 20% of total tests per month; you don’t have 100% after 5 months.
Then you should be happy for the country.It's almost over. It all disappears on Wednesday.
Easy. Suicide due to TDS.Then you should be happy for the country.
However, you're going to have to explain the rising death toll just in general. You can put reason for death whatever you want.
It won't be over by Wednesday. Too bad too. It was the one whack-a-mole conspiracy theory I was hoping would be true.Easy. Suicide due to TDS.
Have you ever taken a course in statistics and/or probability?if the positives are a steady 20% of total tests per month; you don’t have 100% after 5 months.
COH is an "expert" in many fields.Have you ever taken a course in statistics and/or probability?
That is not how those are computed.
I suggest you sign up for a statistics course at a junior high before you misuse it.
You are saying, assuming 100 tested each month, and a constant 20% positive rate, you’ll have 100 positives after 5 months. Thats still 20% because the total will be 500 tested.You don't have 20%, either. You have 100% minus whatever proportion of them were repeat positives of the same people.
I think you should take a reading course.Have you ever taken a course in statistics and/or probability?
That is not how those are computed.
I suggest you sign up for a statistics course at a junior high before you misuse it.
It's a 20% rate of positives tests, yes, but it doesn't equate to a 20% overall infection rate, because all the people who were previously tested are still part of the total infected. For example:You are saying, assuming 100 tested each month, and a constant 20% positive rate, you’ll have 100 positives after 5 months. Thats still 20% because the total will be 500 tested.
You are also a student @outside shooter.
When CoH corrects someone on math, it might be time for that someone to jump off a cliff.COH is an "expert" in many fields.
Check out this development.It won't be over by Wednesday. Too bad too. It was the one whack-a-mole conspiracy theory I was hoping would be true.
I understand the duplicate tests in the same sample issue. But the hypothetical said “random” so I think a different sample for each period is a reasonable assumption. Accumulation in a random sample is not the real world.It's a 20% rate of positives tests, yes, but it doesn't equate to a 20% overall infection rate, because all the people who were previously tested are still part of the total infected. For example:
Week 1: 20% positive. Total infected rate is now 20%.
Week 2: 20% positive. Total infected rate is now 40% minus whatever share of those positives were people who were already positive in Week 1.*
A better baseball analogy would be total hits, not batting average, since we are talking about a cumulative stat.
* An enterprising mathematician might argue that the total infected rate after Week 2 is 36%, not 40% (0.4 + 0.4 * 0.8), but that assumes all of the people tested in Week 2 are people who were not infected by Week 1. Not only will some of the positives in Week 2 be repeats, but some of the negatives in Week 2 will be people who were actually positive in Week 1, which is why the maximum total infected is 40%, not 36%.
No, random means there will be random overlap based on the size of the sample. Either way, some of the positives in Week 2 will be new positives, which means the overall infected rate goes up. The overlap is the reason it won't go up the max (i.e., all the way to 40%), but it will still go up. Otherwise, you'd be talking about a situation where no one got infected at all after Week 1, which we know is ridiculous!I understand the duplicate tests in the same sample issue. But the hypothetical said “random” so I think a different sample for each period is a reasonable assumption. Accumulation in a random sample is not the real world.
Either way, some of the positives in Week 2 will be new positives, which means the overall infected rate goes up.
Sorry but that just doesn't make any sense. Once you've been infected, you've been infected, and you stay a member of that group. Any new members added later increase the size of that group.Only if you are talking about testing the entire US population over and over. Or if you are talking about repeated testing of the same smaller sample. I don’t think that is a reasonable interpretation. Continuing testing of different random individuals is the reality with the hypo separating them by time (months).
He like Trump didn't take the early warnings seriously. Telling half the world that he even met Covid patients, handshakes them and low & behold, got Rona a few weeks later. Went on ventilator too.Check out this development.
England to enter new lockdown; UK virus cases pass 1 million
LONDON (AP) — British Prime Minister Boris Johnson on Saturday announced a new month-long lockdown for England after being warned that without tough action a resurgent coronavirus outbreak will...apnews.com
Johnson knows Covid is serious.
We all know it’s serious but what are we doing. Our region is talking about shutting down because of hospitalizations. We have 422 in hospitals out of 3 million people. Lockdowns are not the answer. I don’t know what is but you hear hospitalizations are up that could literally be a few dozen people out of millions. Capacity is so small at hospitals. It’s a shitshow. I wonder what it would take to appreciably increase capacity. That seems an area the feds should be involved by way of subsidies etcCheck out this development.
England to enter new lockdown; UK virus cases pass 1 million
LONDON (AP) — British Prime Minister Boris Johnson on Saturday announced a new month-long lockdown for England after being warned that without tough action a resurgent coronavirus outbreak will...apnews.com
Johnson knows Covid is serious.
Are you assuming the same sample? If you have two discrete samples, the overall average rate would indeed be 15%—the same as if tested together.Look at it like this. Say in Week 1, 20% come back positive. Then in Week 2, only 10% come back positive. Would you then argue that the total infected in the country somehow dropped to 15%? Such a result would be mathematically impossible.
No, we are talking about the total infected rate. We have been since the beginning. That's why I have stressed this point approximately 400 times in this thread.Are you assuming the same sample? If you have two discrete samples, the overall average rate would indeed be 15%—the same as if tested together.
Just to split another hair, we are not talking about infection rates. We are talking about the percent positive tests.
Read IGW’s hypo.No, we are talking about the total infected rate. We have been since the beginning. That's why I have stressed this point approximately 400 times in this thread.
Seems like the simplest way to end this is talk in terms testing the entire population. Firdt week 20%, second weeks can only go up, eventually reaching the max possible of 100%.Sorry but that just doesn't make any sense. Once you've been infected, you've been infected, and you stay a member of that group. Any new members added later increase the size of that group.
Look at it like this. Say in Week 1, 20% come back positive. Then in Week 2, only 10% come back positive. Would you then argue that the total infected in the country somehow dropped to 15%? Such a result would be mathematically impossible.