5 ms·

Maybe, but it's not going to be wrong by several orders of magnitude like this.

nostromo 7y ago
Well, it is though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmonellosis_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmonellosis_in_the_United_St... 142,000 cases were reported annually several years ago. Not 1.3 million. So it is indeed an order of magnitude off. Imagine comparing estimated flu infections vs people that go to the doctor for flu and you'd get similarly ridiculous results.
- ska 7y ago
  You are comparing apples and oranges. The 142000 number is from chicken, alone. The 1.3 (or 1.2 at the top of the same wiki page you cite) is for all sources. There is a epidemiological problem here, of a) reported vs. estmated and b) the basis of both those things. But it isn't the one you thought it was.
  - nostromo 7y ago
    The context of this thread is chicken, but thanks for noting that. But the point stands -- estimated infections cannot be compared with reported cases. If you can find actual reported cases in the US from all sources, that would be great to compare -- otherwise we shouldn't make the comparison at all.
    - ska 7y ago
      Yes, we are pointing out the same epidemiological problem - I'm just noting your numbers don't support it compared that way.
creddit 7y ago
The estimates of people infected by coronavirus in China are orders of magnitude larger than the reported cases. It’s very possible in epidemiology.
- bosswipe 7y ago
  Coronavirus in China is a very early and fluid situation. The CDC is able to make estimates based on many years of data and research.
  - creddit 7y ago
    I'm not sure that that's the reason, actually. The reason is that not everyone who suffers from disease X necessarily goes to get treatment for disease X which would be the only way in which that case of disease X could be reported. So, for example, if it's the case that only 1/100 people who get salmonella have symptoms severe enough to cause them to go for treatment, then the _estimates_ of salmonella will be 2 orders of magnitude _higher_ than the _reported_ cases.

Well, it is though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmonellosis_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmonellosis_in_the_United_St... 142,000 cases were reported annually several years ago. Not 1.3 million. So it is indeed an order of magnitude off. Imagine comparing estimated flu infections vs people that go to the doctor for flu and you'd get similarly ridiculous results.

ska 7y ago
You are comparing apples and oranges. The 142000 number is from chicken, alone. The 1.3 (or 1.2 at the top of the same wiki page you cite) is for all sources. There is a epidemiological problem here, of a) reported vs. estmated and b) the basis of both those things. But it isn't the one you thought it was.
- nostromo 7y ago
  The context of this thread is chicken, but thanks for noting that. But the point stands -- estimated infections cannot be compared with reported cases. If you can find actual reported cases in the US from all sources, that would be great to compare -- otherwise we shouldn't make the comparison at all.
  - ska 7y ago
    Yes, we are pointing out the same epidemiological problem - I'm just noting your numbers don't support it compared that way.

creddit 7y ago

The estimates of people infected by coronavirus in China are orders of magnitude larger than the reported cases. It’s very possible in epidemiology.

bosswipe 7y ago
Coronavirus in China is a very early and fluid situation. The CDC is able to make estimates based on many years of data and research.
- creddit 7y ago
  I'm not sure that that's the reason, actually. The reason is that not everyone who suffers from disease X necessarily goes to get treatment for disease X which would be the only way in which that case of disease X could be reported. So, for example, if it's the case that only 1/100 people who get salmonella have symptoms severe enough to cause them to go for treatment, then the _estimates_ of salmonella will be 2 orders of magnitude _higher_ than the _reported_ cases.