mrb

62 ms·

661.
by mrb 7y ago
No, as reported by other posters, most bulbs that flicker do it at 120 Hz or 60 Hz. This is easily confirmed by eyesight alone because 60 or 120 Hz can be perceived when an object illuminated by the bulb (eg. your hand) moves quickly in fro
662.
by mrb 7y ago
Actually, Git is technically a blockchain. Commit hashes are a hash of the previous commit hash + new data. The structure (history) is replicated in a decentralized way on every user's node. The only missing thing is a proof-of-work, b
663.
by mrb 7y ago
GP means if their processing limit is 3k tests per day, then at most they can report 3k new confirmed cases per day. And that's pretty much what we've seen since Jan 31: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_
664.
by mrb 7y ago
Honestly, given the precedent—China lied to the WHO about SARS ( https://www.theguardian.com/society/2003/apr/21/china.sars )—I am baffled the WHO isn't sending a commission to monitor deaths at hosp
665.
by mrb 7y ago
Honestly, I watched the original and the 4k and don't really notice any big difference. The wider aspect ratio of the 4k is more pleasant, but this has nothing to do with the enhanced resolution.
666.
by mrb 7y ago
The conversion techniques you explained, I use them myself (that's why they always ask for my help, I can do it in my head.) But the fact many Americans are unable to do that is, in itself, evidence the imperial system doesn't wor
667.
by mrb 7y ago
My wife's family, who almost all have university degrees, who were all born and raised in the US, and who are very familiar with the imperial system NEVER seem to be able to do math with it. They ask me, a European raised with the metr
668.
by mrb 7y ago
« the whole thing is misinformation » Another non-answer. It is perfectly valid to compare various epidemiological characteristics like I did, and like Dr. Melvin Sanicas did (are you going to criticize him too?) A lot of us on HN are suffi
669.
by mrb 7y ago
I suppose I didn't communicate clearly. I never said we are all going to die. For one, we are probably going to find a vaccine or treatment. And the eventual observed CFR may end up being in the lower end of what I quote (9%) instead o
670.
by mrb 7y ago
Correct there is a bias. However even when comparing the coronavirus to the seasonal flu (hospitalized patients only), the coronavirus still looks much more severe: Only 7% of hospitalized flu cases died in 2018-2019 (34 157 out of 490,561)
671.
by mrb 7y ago
« It takes longer to recover than it does to die » Citation needed. I am not aware of data supporting this (or the reverse.)
672.
by mrb 7y ago
« All the data is not valid » That's a non-answer. My data is valid. I challenge you to point out specific errors. My data comes from two sources: 1) Initially I replicated the chart by Dr. Melvin Sanicas, a vaccinologist and public he
673.
by mrb 7y ago
That's a very good observation on these 10 provinces. But I would apply caution when interpreting a cherry-picked data subset. Nitpick: I don't claim "20-56%" death rate, but "9-56%", thus your observation of a
674.
by mrb 7y ago
When the WHO declares something a "global health emergency" we have valid reasons to be alarmist :) I think that "going back 6 days" is insufficient, so your conclusion of a 6% probability is unsupported. Given the extre
675.
by mrb 7y ago
Not 50%, you misunderstand me. I edited my comment to clarify. What I meant is out of those who came out of the hospital (either dead or recovered), 26% died. So those remaining in the hospital are assumed to have a 26% chance of dying. Ano
676.
by mrb 7y ago
« cases that get reported are biased towards people who get more sick » True, the data is biased. « the 20-56% mortality rate claimed based on guessing N=6 is inconsistent with the mortality rates outside of China, where no one has died so
677.
by mrb 7y ago
I'm just applying the work of epi scientists. I'd love to get feedback from one. Your comment isn't useful.
678.
by mrb 7y ago
« assume that when a case is confirmed the death or cured status is also determined at that moment » This is why epidemiologists (ref: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ebf2/48c9fc0a1a23d1778b9408... or https:/&#x
679.
by mrb 7y ago
"Just looking at daily data" is your mistake. Essentially, it takes N days for the virus to kill, so deaths will lag confirmed cases by N days, and thus the calculated case fatality rate using this method is incorrect. This is why
680.
by mrb 7y ago
Agreed, when using the "deaths / (deaths + recoveries)" formula, recoveries being under-reported is possible and would skew the CFR upward. But also, if deaths are under-reported in the same proportion as recoveries, then it
681.
by mrb 7y ago
Yes I made the table, but which part of this table is misinformation? All data is valid. Twitter is not a good format to present a bunch of data, hence the convoluted link to a link to a link... However, for your information, the 56% case f
682.
by mrb 7y ago
Ignore the people telling you it's 2-3%. The case fatality ratio is between 9 and 56% according to proper epidemiological methods, such as using the formula "deaths / (deaths + recoveries)": https://mobile.twi
683.
by mrb 7y ago
It's about time... All early characteristics of the novel coronavirus indicate it's far more dangerous than SARS/MERS/seasonal flu (which kills 30-60k/year in the US) so, unless a cure is found soon, we should expec
684.
by mrb 7y ago
Officially published in The Lancet today: https://www.thelancet.com/pb-assets/Lancet/pdfs/S01406736203... Moderator: feel free to update the link to point to thelancet.com
685.
11% case fatality rate observed in 2019 novel coronavirus cases [pdf](marlin-prod.literatumonline.com)
3 points by mrb 7y ago|1 comments
686.
by mrb 7y ago
« it's highly likely that there are more unreported cases than unreported deaths, which means that the actual mortality rate is lower. » I don't think so, because deaths lag infections. When the outbreak is rapidly growing, if it
687.
by mrb 7y ago
Of course, we need better data. But tunesmith was downplaying numbers with unsourced claims, so he needed to be corrected. The latest stats: 54 deaths out of 1764 cases → 3.1% mortality rate https://bnonews.com/index.php&#x
688.
by mrb 7y ago
You are right, I misremembered Nature's video ( https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00209-y claimed SARS, not nCoV-2019, had an 11% mortality rate.) I edited the comment.
689.
by mrb 7y ago
Based on documented facts and best epidemiological guesses about the novel coronavirus 2019-nCoV, I think it will probably turn into a pandemic affecting most countries. Let's review: • human-to-human transmission while asymptoma
690.
by mrb 7y ago
Care to quote a source for "twice as fatal as the flu"? Everything indicates it's way worse. 6 of the first 41 identified patients have died. That's a mortality rate of 15%. https://www.thelancet.com/jour

More ›