Jump to content

FlorbFnarb

Verified Tanker [NA]
  • Content Count

    5,789
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

FlorbFnarb last won the day on September 28 2019

FlorbFnarb had the most liked content!

About FlorbFnarb

  • Rank
    Hacked by Glorious Leader

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Sitting on a throne built from anime-fag skulls
  • Server
    NA

Recent Profile Visitors

5,831 profile views
  1. Oh, I get what you're saying. No, it isn't an April Fool's thing. Mine has been saying I have a purple WR for months now. And I don't. I promise you, I don't.
  2. Yeah, it says the same thing when I look it up, updated today: https://wotlabs.net/na/player/florbfnarb
  3. "I find your lack of hand-washing...disturbing." As a side note, has Never turned the wotlabs sigs into Crazy Mode or something? Mine's saying I'm some kind of blunicum. CAN'T HIT 55% WHILE PLAYING, BUT I FUCKING QUIT AND THE GAME STARTS SAYING I'M ALMOST PURPLE WTF. Or did WG's data finally shit the bed?
  4. If there are multiple strains of the corona virus, does this mean any immunities built up - if any - are entirely worthless, or would they perhaps provide a partial but imperfect resistance to other strains?
  5. Yeah SR, I think something glitched. I kept hitting “save” or whatever for the post but it didn’t seem to post. Turned out it posted half a dozen times. Got busy elsewhere, forgot to fix it; thanks.
  6. I heard something about that. Related to the virus's general ability to cause inflammation by immune system response?
  7. Right. I guess I was questioning if it were mathematically possible that that's due to an excessively high rate of virulence, rather than a high fatality rate. Like, take the regular seasonal flu and make it 100x as virulent and you'd see much higher death numbers as well, even with the same mortality rate as such.
  8. Okay, so it seems as though overall they have a 1% infection rate. If we've reached that percentage, that would be roughly 3.3 million infected, bringing us to a mortality rate of 0.045% - how does that compare to the estimated total fatality rate for the seasonal flu, not just the number based on confirmed cases? Or is that something that can 't even be estimated, really? Right. That's a logistical question: getting sufficient reserve doctors and nurses and respirators to the places suffering near-capacity serious cases. My first overall point is about the possibility that this disease is significantly more virulent and less lethal than we have thought. Firstly, what's a sensible upper bound on the possible virulence? At what point do we say "it's unlikely that more than X people are infected because that would require a virulence significantly higher than anything we've ever seen"? Secondly, what does it mean in terms of a prognosis nationally for how this will play out, if it is significantly more virulent and less lethal than we've been thinking? Googling a basic question, I see an estimate that 60% of the population would need to have been exposed to the virus before herd immunity starts being a significant factor in terms of damping down the spread. For the US, that's 198 million. We have 105,116 cases right now; if only 1 in 10 infected is diagnosed, that would mean we have 1 million infected right now; if 1 in 100 infected is diagnosed, we have 10 million infected, and are getting a good start on that 198 million infected and recovered figure we need to see in order to gain herd immunity. I guess I'm looking at what's some upper limit of optimism in this respect. If we have a gazillion undiagnosed infected, say the full 198 million, we'd be looking at a leveling off of serious cases pretty soon. I'm assuming that's unreasonably optimistic right now though, and would require an infeasible rate of virulence. But how feasible is it that we have say 20 million infected but undiagnosed, putting us 10% of the way towards herd immunity? Or would that require an unrealistically virulent but un-lethal virus?
  9. Okay, a little statistical discussion here, because I'm starting to get interested in statistical questions revolving around this virus. As of today, the U.S. has 105,116 cases and 1,590 deaths. That's roughly a 1.5% death rate. However, of course, the "cases" figure is inherently constrained by the availability of testing. Early on testing was reserved for the worst cases, obviously, but presumably there are still a lot of undiagnosed cases out there - both those who are infected but entirely asymptomatic, and those who have mild symptoms and who attribute their condition to the flu and never get tested. So, if the real number of cases, including the undiagnosed, is 150,000, that reduces the death rate to more like 1%. On the other hand, if we have significantly higher numbers of undiagnosed infected people, that reduces the death rate accordingly. If we have say 500,000 infected, that's a death rate of 0.3% - roughly triple that of the seasonal flu, if what I've heard is right. If we have 1.5 million infected, and don't know it because of limited availability of testing, we're looking at 0.1% - a death rate around that of the seasonal flu. 15 million infected at this point would mean 0.01% death rate, and so on. Of course, such increasing numbers of infected-but-not-yet-tested-or-diagnosed people imply increasing rates of virulence. Going off what we know about other such virulent, airborne respiratory viruses, what's a feasible roughly-estimated upper bound on the number of total infected at this point? What number would be unreasonably high and unlikely?
  10. Logically all three are the cause of death, of course. Any two out of those three wouldn't be sufficient to get his ass killed.
  11. Way over my head, but it does look like something of a delay between the day of interventions and the day infections level off, with another delay between that and the day hospitalizations drop off. So does that mean there's a statistical method to look at current data and estimate how much of current increases in reported infections is due to more testing and how much reflects an actual increase? I've once or twice seen people raise the possibility that more people might have already been exposed than we had thought, which would imply a much lower fatality rate from the disease. Is that statistically calculable from present data, or would we have to randomly test a large sample of people to see who had antibodies for the virus?
  12. Knowing only a smidgen about statistics myself, I know that some of that is going to be improved testing, and I wonder if it's possible to mathematically (roughly) determine how much of that rise is an actual increase, and how much is due to the manufacture of more tests? The mathematical questions involved in this sort of thing are beginning to interest me.
×
×
  • Create New...