If you cut out China's worthless figures, that looks a little bit something like this:
218286 + 75879 ÷ 75879 = 3.876764322144467
100 ÷ 3.876764322144467 = 25.7%
There's the fatality rate of the resolved cases so far. 25.7%. There's your CFR. Kind of. We'd have to see how the rest fare.
If you want to make sense, you need to explain your fucking numbers. Are you in primary school? Why are you using "÷"? Haven't seen that since the last cancer "viral math question" shit.
Also,
218286 + 75879 ÷ 75879 =
3.876764322144467
= 218286 + 1
= 218287
You idiot.
If I haven't been looking into this shit, I'd have no idea what you're doing.
China's numbers are hardly worthless. It basically shows us the severity of the virus, even when it's forcibly contained to Wuhan via the fist of authoritarianism. It gives us an idea on how bad the virus will be given the response time frame. China responded on the 19th of Jan by sending epidemiologists to Wuhan, after the 18th gathering, and Wuhan was locked down on the 23rd. Patient Zero believed to be found on the 10th of Dec last year, and the virus blew up on the 27th on Jan. Most deaths were in Wuhan. Tells us this:
- Lockdown works, even if it's a week too late
- Yes the numbers are severely underestimated, but it's also broken down by province and thus a good reference, no matter how much you might dislike it
- If you're going to just claim the lockdown is a lie, then there's videos of people dropping dead all across the country. Not the fact.
- Death at home likely not included. Only those who die and were diagnosed are included in the statistics
- Deadliest aspect of the virus is the long incubation periods
First case in USA was on the 21st, so murica's effort has been an utter disaster. First case in Korea is on 20th, and look at how well they've been doing.
What I can see is you basically adding 1 to the fraction, then dividing it by 100. You have to explain what CFR and IFR is for anyone not fucking autistic enough to get aroused by numbers. You likely don't know what they are either.
You might also want to factor in lag time that fucks up the reporting and gathering of statistics, you even mentioned it. 100 died at 10pm, but this 100 might be confirmed at 11pm, reported at 0am, then added at 8am when people start working. This makes CFR a very jumpy and unreliable metric, because is it jumpy and unreliable.
Oh and yeah... CFR changes. Your numbers are pretty useless.
Virus kills 100% patients:
Day 1: 200 cases, 0 death, CFR=0%
Day 2: 500 cases, 250 deaths, CFR=50%
Day 3: 750 cases, 500 deaths, CFR=66.6667%
Day 3: 1000 cases, 1000 deaths, CFR=100%
Day 4: 0 cases, 0 deaths... good.
I think you don't really know what you're talking about. People aren't miscalculating the CFR, they aren't retards. You simply chose to use RCFR (Resolved CFR) because... reasons? SARS kills 1 out of 10 patients, covid-19 kills 2 out of 100 on average. RCFR evaluates the ratio at a given time. The RCFR will begin as a tiny number, then steadily climb, and then decline again (hopefully).
Also, if you even want to use CFR right now as the epidemic is brewing, you need to see how it correlates with the real values, the real fatality rate, or the 2% of covid-2019 which is based on China (hint: mathematically, it fucking doesn't!). CFR is based on current numbers, not used as an estimation and it in no way means averages are meaningless, most don't give a shit about these stats. RCFR and CFR will overestimate or underestimate depending on which numbers you're trying to pull out. However, eventually the two should converge, which means mathematically, give it enough time, RCFR and CFR will reach 2% or so, or otherwise, it should converge to 2% or so when the epidemic ends. If it doesn't, then China's numbers are either overestimated or underestimated. It's also fallacious to treat an entire country as a whole, as the hotspots sees the worst of the virus and some buttfuck nowhere sees nothing.
Ironically, CFR works great for countries such as China and South Korea, where the epidemic is effectively at its end (might see a second boom, that would be scary, but both can get very dictatorial). That's when the metric is significant and converges to real world values. You somehow called it worthless, baffling. Just because the CPC has a track record of being liars and faggots doesn't mean the numbers are bad and shouldn't be used.
Holy fuck, I'm wasting my time.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You've shown very serious misunderstandings of these numbers and displayed yourself as basically a retard. I'll get something up for specifically China, Taiwan, and South Korea to show you why what you're saying is basically shit. Hopefully this convinces you to be less smug.
tl;dr OP is using a metric known as RCFR, calls it CFR because reasons. Both metrics are useless because they can only truly represent reality after an epidemic, and both are susceptible to time frames, and correlation doesn't exist most of the time.
In all fairness to our OP here, neither the media nor WHO is qualified to talk about mathematics. OP exemplifies why normies should just stay away and eat the easiest numbers, ie the daily calculated numbers which are just averages. How many died, how many new cases, how many up until now, and what's dead divided by the addition of the two?
soundcloud.com
steamcommunity.com
time.com
www.businessinsider.com
coronavirus.jhu.edu
en.wikipedia.org
