Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

The_jackalope

(1,660 posts)

3. I have no doubt the Lancet has way better statisticians than me.

Reply to blitzen (Reply #2)

Fri Apr 3, 2020, 02:45 PM

Apr 2020

I just don't trust low aggregate numbers for this disease, even when they're announced by people wearing lab coats. Not given the death rates we're already seeing, and the fact that it's only 3 months and a bit since the very first cases. Low numbers sound like "don't spook the horses" PR to me at this point.

I'll stick with my own numbers for now, until I see a reason not to.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

7 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Big numbers [View all] The_jackalope Apr 2020 OP

I would say you are very good at this. I actually can understand it and that is saying something. monmouth4 Apr 2020 #1

Thanks! nt The_jackalope Apr 2020 #4

This study in Lancet has the CFR at 1.38 percent. And I would bet that goes down with more data. blitzen Apr 2020 #2

I have no doubt the Lancet has way better statisticians than me. The_jackalope Apr 2020 #3

Yes, I think the official case numbers are way low (lack of testing, etc.), and so the CFR will... blitzen Apr 2020 #6

The site I use has the CFR for closed cases at 20% The_jackalope Apr 2020 #7

I disagree as a high number of people died of CFR and were not counted IMHO. We know this happened Demsrule86 Apr 2020 #5