That would certainly be racist and probably xenophobic
Printable View
No, I was trying to say what I said.
I cannot believe you still do not understand this. Or maybe you do and just really mangled your version of what you think I said.
The CDC totals on Rob’s page are all the deaths *known* on whatever date. They are what they are and they don’t get updated retrospectively. The update *is* the next total number known on the next day.
And so yeah, because if reporting lag, you can NEVER take the total number of deaths *known*on day X, subtract the number *known* on day X-1 and call that a daily death count for day X. Because some deaths that happened on day X-2 (or X-3,...), for example, weren’t known on day X-1 but *are* known on day X. Plus many reports for deaths that occurred on day X won’t be at the CDC on day X. You just get a meaningless mess when you do that.
If I want to know how many people died today, I need to add up all the reports of deaths that occurred today, ie whose reports are DATED today. These will reach the CDC over a period of 1-2 weeks, so the numbers before then are always at least somewhat incomplete. That’s why separate data sets are kept for this type of statistical analysis.
Quote:
And so yeah, because if reporting lag, you can NEVER take the total number of deaths *known*on day X, subtract the number *known* on day X-1 and call that a daily death count for day X. Because some deaths that happened on day X-2 (or X-3,...), for example, weren’t known on day X-1 but *are* known on day X. Plus many reports for deaths that occurred on day X won’t be at the CDC on day X. You just get a meaningless mess when you do that.
Indeed...Quote:
just really mangled
Right. So if I want to know how many people died today I’ll need to wait to weeks. Isn’t that what I just said you tried to say but was not clear or are we both clearly being unclear with what we’re clearly trying to say?Quote:
These will reach the CDC over a period of 1-2 weeks, so the numbers before then are always at least somewhat incomplete.
Certainly thought provoking, and good for moving the conversation forward.
If one of his theses is true (the idea that hospitals are a primary vector for transmission), the irony is spectacular. But it makes good sense - hospitals found a particularly intense form of mass gathering.
It also provides a good answer to the mystery involved in Rip's observation: We haven't merely overestimated the virus's transmission - we've completely failed to appreciate the nuance of its dynamics (well, some hospitals have; many haven't).
Those people will be the enemy, in New America.
It's the same old story as the military, very few are willing to do the job. At some point, the standards slide down to fit those willing to do the job. Add to that, time and effort is poorly paid. In my area, a entry level handyman makes more than a seasoned cop. With getting cursed, low paid and crappy hours, who would want to be a LEO? We collectively have only ourselves to blame.