Woman with COVID-19 visited YMCA in Fremont for Special Olympics event; players, coaches and team staff are asked to self-quarantine

Fremont Tribune ^ | 3/7/2020 | Tribune Staff and Lee Newspapers

[calenel]

My definition is the correct one. Case Fatality Rate. You only have to read about 5 sentences in to see I am right. The one that says: "CFR can only be considered final when all the cases have been resolved (either died or recovered)." Our FRiend is trying to count all the unresolved cases to pad her stats. I have referenced the current CFR as "current" or "instantaneous" and stated that it should drop over time to what ever the final (probably lower) CFR will be, repeatedly. Shrug. Other people's reading comprehension issues aren't really my problem, but I try to be clear in my statements.

[calenel]

Thanks for the support, by the way.

I notice you quickly got labeled as a “sky is falling type” when you dared disagree with her.

[Brown Deer]

Gotta qualify your remarks.

I did! Obviously you cannot read.

...the likelihood of anyone in this Country catching this, is very low.

FACT: For most people, the immediate risk of being exposed to the virus that causes COVID-19 is thought to be low. This virus is not currently widespread in the United States.

You are probably going to eat those words...

Probably? I doubt that either of you know more than the experts. You are just spouting the liberal #fakenews nonsense.

[TexasGurl24]

Did you see that she first tried to divide deaths by the recovered patients, was called out on it as that is not the definition of CFR, then she quoted Wikipedia and didn’t even read the first sentence of what she quoted.

She’s beyond any reason and isn’t worth even conversing with.

[Brown Deer]

And my definition of CFR is THE definition of CFR. deaths over (deaths plus recoveries).

No, it's your Wikipedia definition! and indeed, some moron misrepresented the definition in the "example calculation".

Definition of Case Fatality Risk

...the denominator of the CFR as the estimated number of infections...

You don't get to change the definition of things so you can "win" an argument. That's a liberal idiot trick.

Then you try to bully people who won't cower before your almighty tinfoil paranoia.

She’s beyond any reason and isn’t worth even conversing with.

Agreed.

I know I'm not worried.

Number of deaths for leading causes of death:

Heart disease: 647,457.
Cancer: 599,108.
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 169,936.
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 160,201.
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 146,383.
Alzheimer's disease: 121,404.
Diabetes: 83,564.
Influenza and Pneumonia: 55,672.
Coronavirus: 21.

[calenel]

Dude. When they put the estimated number of infections in the denominator it’s for things that have run their course and all of those estimated number of infections have either died or recovered. In no case do they include unresolved cases. That is a different number, the death-to-case ratio.

You don’t have to like Wikipedia. But unless you can find a clear contradiction where they explicitly say that you are to include unresolved cases, you’re stuck with the definition as it stands. Your own example was about a historical disease in which all the cases had resolved.

Your confirmation bias is getting in the way of your objectivity, here, and you are ignoring facts and choosing poor allies. And YOU, also, do not get to change the definition of things so you can “win” an argument.

As for your list of fatalities, once again, you have to consider that the flu is endemic and the Wuhan virus is not and people with your casual disregard for the well being of others just make it harder to keep it that way. Essentially, everybody in the world is exposed to the flu multiple times per season, but relatively few people (perhaps tens of millions, world wide) have been exposed to the Wuhan virus. Change that and see what happens.

Oh, who did I bully? Did I try to force someone into a retarded bet to make them leave FR and insist that if they didn’t take the bet they were a liar? That wasn’t me. See “choosing poor allies” above. Disagreeing with someone doesn’t make you or them a bully, but trying to force them to do something against their will, such as quit FR (because you can’t defeat their arguments), does.

Also, I am not being paranoid, I am being careful. The Wuhan virus isn’t “out to get me” any more than the common cold or the acorn from the oak tree that fell on me. But it is a danger and I evaluate the risk to be high enough to take precautions. You should do a better, more careful, job of it yourself.

If I am not worth conversing with, feel free not to. I don’t care, but I won’t let you pass off misinformation, either.

[Brown Deer]

Dude. When they put the estimated number of infections in the denominator it’s for things that have run their course and all of those estimated number of infections have either died or recovered. In no case do they include unresolved cases. That is a different number, the death-to-case ratio.

One more time! Read the Definition of Case Fatality Risk

Published in 2013 by:

Jessica Y. Wong,
School of Public Health, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China

Heath Kelly,
Victorian Infectious Diseases Reference Laboratory, North Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia

Dennis K. M. Ip,
School of Public Health, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China

Joseph T. Wu,
School of Public Health, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China

Gabriel M. Leung,
School of Public Health, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China

and Benjamin J. Cowling
School of Public Health, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China

The denominator could be counts or estimates of the number of laboratory-confirmed H1N1pdm09 cases, the number of symptomatic H1N1pdm09 cases, or the number of infections.

There is absolutely nothing whatsoever in that denominator about recovery and/or unresolved cases!

And YOU, also, do not get to change the definition of things so you can “win” an argument.

[calenel]

For historical diseases all cases are considered resolved. Analysis of the 2018 flu or some past outbreak, all cases are resolved.

Assume the case count for the current CV outbreak freezes right now. Assume that everybody survives. There is *your* CFR calculation method. And it implies that there is zero risk to anybody, including unresolved cases. So it is a totally useless number.

Or assume that there will be more cases and that some of the current and future cases will resolve favorably (live). How many more cases? How many will live? We don’t know. So this calculation is meaningless.

Or take the existing cases that have resolved, favorably or not, and use those statistics as a measure of how things are going. Still not the final CFR, but an instantaneous measure of the CFR. Clearly not the end result but at least you can compare from day to day (as you progress toward the final number, once all the cases have resolved) and see the trend.

Your confirmation-bias is not letting you see the context of the examples in your source. Which is historical; the disease has already run its course for that particular outbreak.

“There is absolutely nothing whatsoever in that denominator about recovery and/or unresolved cases!”

Exactly my point.

“And YOU, also, do not get to change the definition of things so you can “win” an argument.”

I provided an explicit definition that DOES say what goes in the denominator and that the true CFR is not determined until the outbreak has run its course. I am not cherry-picking parts of an article or taking selected parts out of context. You are.

I won’t attempt to bludgeon you with citations, they are there for anybody to check.

But carry on claiming that your definition has any meaning and prepare to be wrong all the time.

[Brown Deer]

No, this was NOT an analysis of the 2018 flu. YOU INDEED, ARE FULL OF IT! No, all cases were NOT resolved, YOU ARE INDEED LYING!

I provided an explicit definition that DOES say what goes in the denominator and that the true CFR is not determined until the outbreak has run its course.

And once again, YOU ARE LYING.

One more time, by definition, the case fatality rate is the number of deaths divided by the total number of confirmed cases. It's NOT MY definition! It is the definition of CFR by ALL reliable sources! There is nothing whatsoever in the "explicit definition" that you gave, which says that you ignore unresolved cases in the denominator! That indeed, is a figment of your imagination!

[Brown Deer]

You should do a better, more careful, job of it yourself.

REALLY? YOU KNOW WHAT I DO, TO TAKE CARE OF MYSELF?

The fact is, you know nothing whatsoever, about me. So mind your own business, you ignorant troll!

[A Navy Vet]

Thank you.