Go back
The US Curve

The US Curve

Debates


🤣

Vote Up
Vote Down

9300 new cases in the US yesterday...

Vote Up
Vote Down

@shavixmir said
9300 new cases in the US yesterday...
That's interesting because yesterday it said 14,550. There's no indication on worldometers that the figure's been corrected. Does anyone have any idea why this is?


@deepthought said
That's interesting because yesterday it said 14,550. There's no indication on worldometers that the figure's been corrected. Does anyone have any idea why this is?
Worldometer says 9335 for the US

Vote Up
Vote Down

@huckleberryhound said
Worldometer says 9335 for the US
But yesterday it said 14,550, I made a post in the Stats thread about it and people responded to the post. Eladar mentioned that it was 12,000 in NYC. The worldometer site has changed it's presentation of the statistics without comment.


@deepthought said
But yesterday it said 14,550, I made a post in the Stats thread about it and people responded to the post. Eladar mentioned that it was 12,000 in NYC. The worldometer site has changed it's presentation of the statistics without comment.
I noticed that too, they corrected (or just changed) the figure after a few hours w/o comment.
A lot of Corona patients aren't even being tested for it or counted in the figures if it's obvious they have it according to this article:
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-03-19/coronavirus-patients-not-tested-not-counted


@dood111 said
I noticed that too, they corrected (or just changed) the figure after a few hours w/o comment.
A lot of Corona patients aren't even being tested for it or counted in the figures if it's obvious they have it according to this article:
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-03-19/coronavirus-patients-not-tested-not-counted
These numbers are like 4 or 5 days old due to testing time to result. The deaths are current, but the cases are lagging.

Vote Up
Vote Down

@dood111 said
I noticed that too, they corrected (or just changed) the figure after a few hours w/o comment.
A lot of Corona patients aren't even being tested for it or counted in the figures if it's obvious they have it according to this article:
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-03-19/coronavirus-patients-not-tested-not-counted
Well, there's limited resources as far as tests are concerned. At a clinical level, if one's certain about the diagnosis or it doesn't affect the treatment protocol then there's no point in confirming it with a test. It could produce a problem for the epidemiologists though; if the official figures only count cases confirmed by testing, but do not count cases diagnosed without testing then there's some serious undercounting going on.

1 edit

@deepthought said
But yesterday it said 14,550, I made a post in the Stats thread about it and people responded to the post. Eladar mentioned that it was 12,000 in NYC. The worldometer site has changed it's presentation of the statistics without comment.
I think that was total cases, not new today cases.

The two categories are causing confusion.

At the moment New York has nearly 17 thousand cases but only about 1 thousand new cases today.


@deepthought said
Well, there's limited resources as far as tests are concerned. At a clinical level, if one's certain about the diagnosis or it doesn't affect the treatment protocol then there's no point in confirming it with a test. It could produce a problem for the epidemiologists though; if the official figures only count cases confirmed by testing, but do not count cases diagnosed without testing then there's some serious undercounting going on.
I find that comforting in a way, that means that there are an enormous number of corona cases out there not being counted, which vastly reduces it's supposed mortality rate.


@eladar said
I think that was total cases, not new today cases.

The two categories are causing confusion.

At the moment New York has nearly 17 thousand cases but only about 1 thousand new cases today.
Following a link in Wikipedia I found this site [1]. They talk about their methodology in the FAQ. Duchess64 might approve of them 😉

[1] https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/en


@deepthought said
Following a link in Wikipedia I found this site [1]. They talk about their methodology in the FAQ. Duchess64 might approve of them 😉

[1] https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/en
Finally, an RHP poster who understands what footnote citations are for.

Vote Up
Vote Down

@Suzianne
He should, he has Phd in physics so he will be quite familiar with footnotes.