Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
D&D and the rising pandemic
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7942572" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>Yes, well that article is wrong. There is a ton of reasons why, but one big clue is they don't understand the difference between mortality rate and transient case fatality ratio, and so they say really stupid things like:</p><p></p><p>"The mortality rate in South Korea, where more than 1,100 tests have been administered per million residents, comes out to just 0.6%, for example."</p><p></p><p>No, at the time they wrote that the mortality rate in South Korea - defined by the number of deaths divided by the number of closed cases (deaths + recoveries) stood at like 24%. The number they use there, the infamous "0.6%" quote represented the transient case fatality ratio. CFR is useful for determining whether you have found most of the cases that exist, but has nothing to do at all with how many people will die. The easiest way to realize that is to realize that if you have a CFR of like "0.6%" but you still have 7000 people who are sick, then actually "0.6%" represents the absolute floor possible of your mortality rate since it is based on the unspoken assumption that all 7000 people who are still sick will not die.</p><p></p><p>Not surprisingly, South Koreas transient CFR has been rising steadily all through the period were people were using the number to claim - without a shred of epidemiological training and no understanding what they were saying - that the overall mortality rate is low.</p><p></p><p>Let's get this settled on this thread once and for all. The observed mortality rate globally is not 3.4% - right now it's 7.2%. The 3.4% number builds into it an assumption that many mild cases don't get counted to the total. Right now, to get to 3.4% you more or less have to assume about half the cases are so mild they don't get counted. If <em>that assumption is wrong</em>, then it's highly possible Covid-19 is more deadly than is being reported. 3.4% is not a sensational number based on hype. I'd calculated 3.6% 10 days before WHO came out with their estimate. 3.4% is a low ball let's not start a panic number.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7942572, member: 4937"] Yes, well that article is wrong. There is a ton of reasons why, but one big clue is they don't understand the difference between mortality rate and transient case fatality ratio, and so they say really stupid things like: "The mortality rate in South Korea, where more than 1,100 tests have been administered per million residents, comes out to just 0.6%, for example." No, at the time they wrote that the mortality rate in South Korea - defined by the number of deaths divided by the number of closed cases (deaths + recoveries) stood at like 24%. The number they use there, the infamous "0.6%" quote represented the transient case fatality ratio. CFR is useful for determining whether you have found most of the cases that exist, but has nothing to do at all with how many people will die. The easiest way to realize that is to realize that if you have a CFR of like "0.6%" but you still have 7000 people who are sick, then actually "0.6%" represents the absolute floor possible of your mortality rate since it is based on the unspoken assumption that all 7000 people who are still sick will not die. Not surprisingly, South Koreas transient CFR has been rising steadily all through the period were people were using the number to claim - without a shred of epidemiological training and no understanding what they were saying - that the overall mortality rate is low. Let's get this settled on this thread once and for all. The observed mortality rate globally is not 3.4% - right now it's 7.2%. The 3.4% number builds into it an assumption that many mild cases don't get counted to the total. Right now, to get to 3.4% you more or less have to assume about half the cases are so mild they don't get counted. If [I]that assumption is wrong[/I], then it's highly possible Covid-19 is more deadly than is being reported. 3.4% is not a sensational number based on hype. I'd calculated 3.6% 10 days before WHO came out with their estimate. 3.4% is a low ball let's not start a panic number. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
D&D and the rising pandemic
Top