5 ms·

> No, worldwide numbers are ~34 million confirmed. You don't get to just randomly multiply by some fudge factor that feels right to you and then reason based on

> No, worldwide numbers are ~34 million confirmed. You don't get to just randomly multiply by some fudge factor that feels right to you and then reason based on that. Certainly any other number is entirely speculative, but given the minor symptoms it usually causes (and the lack of symptoms in many people) it seems a huge stretch to assume that confirmed cases == number of infections.

mattigames 6y ago
True, but reinfections (with symptoms) have occurred[0], so numbers of confirmed may not be an important metric, further studies are needed to conclude either way. [0] https://www.google.com/amp/s/nationalpost.com/news/world/reinfections-are-possible-man-who-tested-positive-for-covid-19-twice-identified-in-nevada-says-study/wcm/b6b4abd2-cf6b-45de-a1cc-c7211739cceb/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/nationalpost.com/news/world/rei...
- zaroth 6y ago
  So that makes two people in the entire world who are known to have re-tested positive. Immunity is never 100%. Why would we highlight 2 cases out of 30 million and turn that into a talking point like it means something?
  - mattigames 6y ago
    The virus the second time it was a different strain, so 2 people can become millions if the virus keeps mutating, let's remember it doesn't even have a year in existence so we know near nothing about how it mutates.
    - zaroth 6y ago
      In this fictional hypothetical, we get really good at manufacturing new vaccines, and we also get really really good at targeting suppression policies at only the highest risk individuals. Because for the majority of the population it’s less of a concern than annual flu. Back in reality, coronavirus mutates much slower than flu, and vaccines are targeted at particularly stable features even within an overall fairly stable structure.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
titzer 6y ago
Sure. Nobody knows the real number and efforts to estimate it vary wildly in their outcomes. Please read my comment again, what you quoted and also what I didn't say. I am not asserting that confirmed == actual. Of course that would be silly to believe that. I am explicitly cautioning others from just fudging out numbers and then reasoning based on speculative numbers. I am not substituting a different number or different reasoning. I only quoted actual facts, and I am explicitly encouraging us all to stick closer to actual data, because we just wander into bad conclusions otherwise.
- nradov 6y ago
  Looking at confirmed case numbers leads to bad conclusions because those numbers are almost completely worthless. It's common knowledge now that the majority of cases are never counted in official statistics.
  - barumi 6y ago
    > Looking at confirmed case numbers leads to bad conclusions because those numbers are almost completely worthless. They really aren't, and trying to portray official numbers as "worthless" is something that flies in the face of reason. In the very least they serve as a verified conservative estimate, or a reliable lower bound. Moreover, it's stupid and disingenuois to claim that "majority of cases are never counted in official statistics" because "official statistics" represent only test results taken at specific moments in time, and never were assumed to represent the total number of cases.
  - Smithalicious 6y ago
    So instead look at this number I just pulled out of my fucking ass
- ajsnigrutin 6y ago
  Weren't there randomized antibody tests in multiple countries, dealing with just that (basically, calculating the approximate number of people who got it, and then comparing to number of people getting tested positive)?
barumi 6y ago
> it seems a huge stretch to assume that confirmed cases == number of infections. I didn't saw anyone claiming that confirmed cases match total cases. However, that doesn't mean anyone can simply fabricate numbers out of thin air to try to pass them off as the truth.

mattigames 6y ago

True, but reinfections (with symptoms) have occurred[0], so numbers of confirmed may not be an important metric, further studies are needed to conclude either way. [0] https://www.google.com/amp/s/nationalpost.com/news/world/reinfections-are-possible-man-who-tested-positive-for-covid-19-twice-identified-in-nevada-says-study/wcm/b6b4abd2-cf6b-45de-a1cc-c7211739cceb/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/nationalpost.com/news/world/rei...

zaroth 6y ago
So that makes two people in the entire world who are known to have re-tested positive. Immunity is never 100%. Why would we highlight 2 cases out of 30 million and turn that into a talking point like it means something?
- mattigames 6y ago
  The virus the second time it was a different strain, so 2 people can become millions if the virus keeps mutating, let's remember it doesn't even have a year in existence so we know near nothing about how it mutates.
  - zaroth 6y ago
    In this fictional hypothetical, we get really good at manufacturing new vaccines, and we also get really really good at targeting suppression policies at only the highest risk individuals. Because for the majority of the population it’s less of a concern than annual flu. Back in reality, coronavirus mutates much slower than flu, and vaccines are targeted at particularly stable features even within an overall fairly stable structure.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]

titzer 6y ago

Sure. Nobody knows the real number and efforts to estimate it vary wildly in their outcomes. Please read my comment again, what you quoted and also what I didn't say. I am not asserting that confirmed == actual. Of course that would be silly to believe that. I am explicitly cautioning others from just fudging out numbers and then reasoning based on speculative numbers. I am not substituting a different number or different reasoning. I only quoted actual facts, and I am explicitly encouraging us all to stick closer to actual data, because we just wander into bad conclusions otherwise.

nradov 6y ago
Looking at confirmed case numbers leads to bad conclusions because those numbers are almost completely worthless. It's common knowledge now that the majority of cases are never counted in official statistics.
- barumi 6y ago
  > Looking at confirmed case numbers leads to bad conclusions because those numbers are almost completely worthless. They really aren't, and trying to portray official numbers as "worthless" is something that flies in the face of reason. In the very least they serve as a verified conservative estimate, or a reliable lower bound. Moreover, it's stupid and disingenuois to claim that "majority of cases are never counted in official statistics" because "official statistics" represent only test results taken at specific moments in time, and never were assumed to represent the total number of cases.
- Smithalicious 6y ago
  So instead look at this number I just pulled out of my fucking ass
ajsnigrutin 6y ago
Weren't there randomized antibody tests in multiple countries, dealing with just that (basically, calculating the approximate number of people who got it, and then comparing to number of people getting tested positive)?

barumi 6y ago

> it seems a huge stretch to assume that confirmed cases == number of infections. I didn't saw anyone claiming that confirmed cases match total cases. However, that doesn't mean anyone can simply fabricate numbers out of thin air to try to pass them off as the truth.