There is no law or mathematical rule that says you can't mix daily averages with a daily total in a graph or animation (as long as it's clearly labelled as such).
Do tell, math genius, what is the average daily death toll for COVID-19?
I guess I saw the illustration and understood what it was conveying.
Mostly it's showing how our medical resources have been challenged in the past five weeks or so. Where resources have to go. I thought it was pretty clear.
If you look at the chart properly, the CV 19 numbers are the daily death toll for a particular day. You see the numbers rise and fall as the chart loads and animates. They are not an average of anything. The do not represent a rate or average of anything, while the rest of the chart does. It is entirely misleading. The rest of the chart does have daily averages. As I mentioned, if the annual death toll for CV 19 was 60,000, the the daily average death toll for CV 19 is 164. That is 60,000 divided by 365. Far different from the 1900 ± as the chart would have you think. You have evidently been completely fooled by this chart and what you think it is supposed to represent.
This is basic high school math.
It is perfectly legitimate. The other diseases have well established statistical averages so you don't need to calculate the actual value for each day. They are essentially constant and the daily variability will be essentially random noise. There will be seasonal variability in some but that's not the point. What the chart does is exactly what you say it does - it shows how rapidly the daily values of COVID-19 deaths are increasing so that they are higher than the expected daily values for each other disease (as estimated from the average daily value, which is well known). It does not purport to estimate what the annual death toll will be. That number depends on whether people get their shit together and start taking it seriously.
If you look at the chart properly, the CV 19 numbers are the daily death toll for a particular day. You see the numbers rise and fall as the chart loads and animates. They are not an average of anything. The do not represent a rate or average of anything, while the rest of the chart does. It is entirely misleading. The rest of the chart does have daily averages. As I mentioned, if the annual death toll for CV 19 was 60,000, the the daily average death toll for CV 19 is 164. That is 60,000 divided by 365. Far different from the 1900 ± as the chart would have you think. You have evidently been completely fooled by this chart and what you think it is supposed to represent.
This is basic high school math.
It's also BS.
There is no law or mathematical rule that says you can't mix daily averages with a daily total in a graph or animation (as long as it's clearly labelled as such).
Do tell, math genius, what is the average daily death toll for COVID-19?
If you look at the chart properly, the CV 19 numbers are the daily death toll for a particular day. You see the numbers rise and fall as the chart loads and animates. They are not an average of anything. The do not represent a rate or average of anything, while the rest of the chart does. It is entirely misleading. The rest of the chart does have daily averages. As I mentioned, if the annual death toll for CV 19 was 60,000, the the daily average death toll for CV 19 is 164. That is 60,000 divided by 365. Far different from the 1900 ± as the chart would have you think. You have evidently been completely fooled by this chart and what you think it is supposed to represent.
This is basic high school math.
Ah, so averages interspersed with actual live numbers. I got that. As a chart it fails. As an illustration of reality, it's quite effective.
If you look at the chart properly, the CV 19 numbers are the daily death toll for a particular day. You see the numbers rise and fall as the chart loads and animates. They are not an average of anything. The do not represent a rate or average of anything, while the rest of the chart does. It is entirely misleading. The rest of the chart does have daily averages. As I mentioned, if the annual death toll for CV 19 was 60,000, the the daily average death toll for CV 19 is 164. That is 60,000 divided by 365. Far different from the 1900 ± as the chart would have you think. You have evidently been completely fooled by this chart and what you think it is supposed to represent.
This is basic high school math.
The chart's an imperfect comparison of Covid19 as a cause of death vs. the average death toll for other causes of death, but I think it makes a striking illustration of how a disease with exponential growth can generate a significant number of deaths in a very short time. You have a point though, Kurt.
This Web page seems to provide better comparisons. Both images come the article linked to below:
Yes, it does illustrate a bubble going through our medical system, but that was not the point of the graphic as far as I can tell.
You are arguing that the short-term average daily death rates are incorrect? Or you are arguing that short-term rates aren't meaningful? Trying to figure out what is misleading here.
If you look at the chart properly, the CV 19 numbers are the daily death toll for a particular day. You see the numbers rise and fall as the chart loads and animates. They are not an average of anything. The do not represent a rate or average of anything, while the rest of the chart does. It is entirely misleading. The rest of the chart does have daily averages. As I mentioned, if the annual death toll for CV 19 was 60,000, the the daily average death toll for CV 19 is 164. That is 60,000 divided by 365. Far different from the 1900 ± as the chart would have you think. You have evidently been completely fooled by this chart and what you think it is supposed to represent.
indeed. I went hunting for the German original. There is a lot of coverage about this study in the German press. This one (in German) from the the German Medical Association’s official international science journal basically corroborates what Dr. John already said. Looks like there will be an easing of the lock-down for low-risk groups soon, assuming that basic hygiene rules are respected. Kind of nice to finally see some kind of viable exit strategy.
I am not optimistic about good hygiene being maintained down the road. I cannot speak for your part of the world, but regarding the USA, we are generally speaking, filthy slobs by nature. My observations have been formed by working with the public for decades. If we as a group in the USA put hygiene high on our list of priorities, there would not have been a run on Lysol and Clorox wipes, etc. Instead, the slobs freak out and cause harm to the group who have taken hygiene seriously all along and buy up everything insight, so those who have maintained proper hygiene are now unable to do so. And that pisses me off, in fact it really seriously pisses me off.
And what about the run on toilet paper ? Are people finally admitting that they are more full of shit than they were willing to declare in the past ?
Getting back to serious again, if we are going to try and reopen our economy here in the USA, we should not do so until all of the things needed to maintain proper hygiene have been replenished and shelves fully stocked to deal with ongoing needs going forward. And the same goes for PPE's for both the medical community and the general public that would include masks and gloves. To do so before these needs can be met is asking for a whole new reinfection of the herd because the basic things needed for prevention and maintenance of proper hygiene are not fully available.
Yes, it does illustrate a bubble going through our medical system, but that was not the point of the graphic as far as I can tell.
If you look at the annualized rate of say 60,000 CV 19 deaths, that would be 166 per day. That would put it right by influenza and pneumonia @ 155 per day. Influenza also comes in big seasonal waves. It would be nice to have influenza and pneumonia broken down individually, but this graphic was not interested in anything other than trying to mislead. Backscrolling, the two who did comment on this graphic did not mention that it was misleading. Instead they observed how shocking it was. They reacted to the graphic in the way it was intended by the person who put it together.
Yet that high, despite the draconian measures. One can only imagine....
The rights "nothing to see here" is merely pandering to a simple-minded base. The comparisons are generally the result of years/decades of behaviors and/or poor genetics. Everyone dies, so statistically, there will be causes for millions of deaths per year. COVID is taking more people right now than every other cause, and it's existed 5 months...and nearly the entire planet has been hiding from it in their homes for at least a month at this point.
The arguments about annualized deaths and comparisons to major diseases are rediculous. If we could test everyone, track progression, and identify those with anti-bodies, we would be able to make informed decisions. Since we've had no leadership, it's earlier to make false equivalencies than it is to solve the problems.
Yes, it does illustrate a bubble going through our medical system, but that was not the point of the graphic as far as I can tell.
You are arguing that the short-term average daily death rates are incorrect? Or you are arguing that short-term rates aren't meaningful? Trying to figure out what is misleading here.
Reading between the lines (or connecting the dots as it were), I think the message is "nothing to see here, move along... please move along, stop calling attention to this failure of leadership impossible to predict freak occurrence of nature". You're not going to get a realistic substantiation of a specious argument.
Yes, it does illustrate a bubble going through our medical system, but that was not the point of the graphic as far as I can tell.
You are arguing that the short-term average daily death rates are incorrect? Or you are arguing that short-term rates aren't meaningful? Trying to figure out what is misleading here.
Reading between the lines (or connecting the dots as it were), I think the message is "nothing to see here, move along... please move along, stop calling attention to this failure of leadership impossible to predict freak occurrence of nature". You're not going to get a realistic substantiation of a specious argument.
Yes, it does illustrate a bubble going through our medical system, but that was not the point of the graphic as far as I can tell.
You are arguing that the short-term average daily death rates are incorrect? Or you are arguing that short-term rates aren't meaningful? Trying to figure out what is misleading here.
