Dazed
@_Dazed
6 Years10,000+ Posts
Comments: 9549 · Posts: 12626 · Topics: 250
From 1.6 to 2.4
Posted by ItsSupes2Posted by _Dazed
What is the percent increase?
I'm trying to help my nephew with his homework and I forgot how to do this sheet.
That manic shit really has you ate up budclick to expand
Help me, math wizard.
Posted by ItsSupes2Posted by _DazedPosted by ItsSupes2Posted by _Dazed
What is the percent increase?
I'm trying to help my nephew with his homework and I forgot how to do this sheet.
That manic shit really has you ate up bud
Help me, math wizard.
I gave you the answer alreadyclick to expand
What was your answer again? 4.2% ?
Can you show your math so I can help my nephew?
Posted by HeartofIcePosted by ItsSupes2Posted by HeartofIce
Isn't it 50% increase or am I really being dumb
I'm legit asking because I don't wanna be dumb lol
Nope. It’s statistics and probability. Can’t work it like standard mathematics. That’s why there’s a variance in the R0 values.
The R0 value crosses at the bottom so statistically.......you have the exact same chances of transmitting the flu as you do Corona.
So then what's the answer?click to expand
He doesn't know. He's frantically googling.
Practice social distancing and get away from your nephew
Posted by Generous_LibraPosted by _Dazed
What is the percent increase?
I'm trying to help my nephew with his homework and I forgot how to do this sheet.
1.6 and 2.4 are those percentage or just numbers?click to expand
Numbers.
Posted by Generous_LibraPosted by _Dazed
What is the percent increase?
I'm trying to help my nephew with his homework and I forgot how to do this sheet.
1.6 and 2.4 are those percentage or just numbers?click to expand
Numbers, but specifically for rates of infection. It's the number of people one person can infect. When I get home I'm going to try to find a pictograph.
Posted by Phantum
Didn't you hear? In addition to science, each individual snowflake can now make up his own math too.
My answer is 32.
Show your math.
Posted by PhantumPosted by _DazedPosted by Phantum
Didn't you hear? In addition to science, each individual snowflake can now make up his own math too.
My answer is 32.
Show your math.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/42_(number)
+
bad memory (-10)click to expand
Posted by ItsSupes2Posted by xoxflutePosted by ItsSupes2Posted by HeartofIce
Isn't it 50% increase or am I really being dumb
I'm legit asking because I don't wanna be dumb lol
Nope. It’s statistics and probability. Can’t work it like standard mathematics. That’s why there’s a variance in the R0 values.
The R0 value crosses at the bottom so statistically.......you have the exact same chances of transmitting the flu as you do Corona.
They are ALL standard math lol. I've studied both. If you meant simple math, then sure. Neither are simple math.
"The R0 value crosses at the bottom so statistically.......you have the exact same chances of transmitting the flu as you do Corona."
---> Not true. R0 value is only defined at the time of invasion, so unless it's 0, it will never cross at the bottom. With a typical epidemic outbreak, you get the curve that first increases and then decreases, which says nothing about the likelihood of the virus transmitting.
The R values define the probability of transmissionclick to expand
lol
*googling intensifies*
"The flu R Rate is 1.5-1.6
Corona is 1.5-2.4"
"It’s less than 5% difference. Quit being dramatic."
"Is on a 0-100 scale man. Wtf"
"No, it doesn’t spread FASTER. It spreads EASIER"
"Ofc. I do this butter all day
It’s 4.2% which is less than 5% ."
"It’s simple math man"
"They’re basing it on flu numbers. It doesn’t work like that. Pretending like the R value stops at 5 or something."
"What’s the highest R0 for the flu? 1.6?
Corona is what? 3.2 now from 2.4?
Do the math of 3.2 vs 1.6 since there’s no R0 ceiling. " - 100% - "Wow. Your math sucks about as bad as your logic"
Corona is 1.5-2.4"
"It’s less than 5% difference. Quit being dramatic."
"Is on a 0-100 scale man. Wtf"
"No, it doesn’t spread FASTER. It spreads EASIER"
"Ofc. I do this butter all day
It’s 4.2% which is less than 5% ."
"It’s simple math man"
"They’re basing it on flu numbers. It doesn’t work like that. Pretending like the R value stops at 5 or something."
"What’s the highest R0 for the flu? 1.6?
Corona is what? 3.2 now from 2.4?
Do the math of 3.2 vs 1.6 since there’s no R0 ceiling. " - 100% - "Wow. Your math sucks about as bad as your logic"
I want to know how he came up with a 4.2% difference.
Posted by ItsSupes2Posted by xoxflutePosted by ItsSupes2Posted by HeartofIce
Isn't it 50% increase or am I really being dumb
I'm legit asking because I don't wanna be dumb lol
Nope. It’s statistics and probability. Can’t work it like standard mathematics. That’s why there’s a variance in the R0 values.
The R0 value crosses at the bottom so statistically.......you have the exact same chances of transmitting the flu as you do Corona.
They are ALL standard math lol. I've studied both. If you meant simple math, then sure. Neither are simple math.
"The R0 value crosses at the bottom so statistically.......you have the exact same chances of transmitting the flu as you do Corona."
---> Not true. R0 value is only defined at the time of invasion, so unless it's 0, it will never cross at the bottom. With a typical epidemic outbreak, you get the curve that first increases and then decreases, which says nothing about the likelihood of the virus transmitting.
The R values define the probability of transmissionclick to expand
"R0 tells you the average number of people who will catch a disease from one contagious person. It specifically applies to a population of people who were previously free of infection and haven’t been vaccinated."
https://www.healthline.com/health/r-nought-reproduction-number
So, more or less, like give or take. A far cry from "maybe or maybe not."
Posted by ItsSupes2Posted by sultrykittyPosted by ItsSupes2Posted by xoxflutePosted by ItsSupes2Posted by HeartofIce
Isn't it 50% increase or am I really being dumb
I'm legit asking because I don't wanna be dumb lol
Nope. It’s statistics and probability. Can’t work it like standard mathematics. That’s why there’s a variance in the R0 values.
The R0 value crosses at the bottom so statistically.......you have the exact same chances of transmitting the flu as you do Corona.
They are ALL standard math lol. I've studied both. If you meant simple math, then sure. Neither are simple math.
"The R0 value crosses at the bottom so statistically.......you have the exact same chances of transmitting the flu as you do Corona."
---> Not true. R0 value is only defined at the time of invasion, so unless it's 0, it will never cross at the bottom. With a typical epidemic outbreak, you get the curve that first increases and then decreases, which says nothing about the likelihood of the virus transmitting.
The R values define the probability of transmission
"R0 tells you the average number of people who will catch a disease from one contagious person. It specifically applies to a population of people who were previously free of infection and haven’t been vaccinated."
https://www.healthline.com/health/r-nought-reproduction-number
So, more or less, like give or take. A far cry from "maybe or maybe not."
It’s an estimated number at this point. 2 weeks ago the R0 was 1.6-2.4. The R0 today is 3.8. They don’t know the true numbers till after the factclick to expand
How is 4.2% the difference between 1.6 and 2.4?
Simple question that you say has a simple answer.
Posted by ItsSupes2Posted by sultrykittyPosted by ItsSupes2Posted by xoxflutePosted by ItsSupes2Posted by HeartofIce
Isn't it 50% increase or am I really being dumb
I'm legit asking because I don't wanna be dumb lol
Nope. It’s statistics and probability. Can’t work it like standard mathematics. That’s why there’s a variance in the R0 values.
The R0 value crosses at the bottom so statistically.......you have the exact same chances of transmitting the flu as you do Corona.
They are ALL standard math lol. I've studied both. If you meant simple math, then sure. Neither are simple math.
"The R0 value crosses at the bottom so statistically.......you have the exact same chances of transmitting the flu as you do Corona."
---> Not true. R0 value is only defined at the time of invasion, so unless it's 0, it will never cross at the bottom. With a typical epidemic outbreak, you get the curve that first increases and then decreases, which says nothing about the likelihood of the virus transmitting.
The R values define the probability of transmission
"R0 tells you the average number of people who will catch a disease from one contagious person. It specifically applies to a population of people who were previously free of infection and haven’t been vaccinated."
https://www.healthline.com/health/r-nought-reproduction-number
So, more or less, like give or take. A far cry from "maybe or maybe not."
It’s an estimated number at this point. 2 weeks ago the R0 was 1.6-2.4. The R0 today is 3.8. They don’t know the true numbers till after the factclick to expand
I've seen as high as 6.7, so....
Still worse than the flu by magnitudes, which is where this started.
Posted by sultrykittyPosted by ItsSupes2Posted by sultrykittyPosted by ItsSupes2Posted by xoxflutePosted by ItsSupes2Posted by HeartofIce
Isn't it 50% increase or am I really being dumb
I'm legit asking because I don't wanna be dumb lol
Nope. It’s statistics and probability. Can’t work it like standard mathematics. That’s why there’s a variance in the R0 values.
The R0 value crosses at the bottom so statistically.......you have the exact same chances of transmitting the flu as you do Corona.
They are ALL standard math lol. I've studied both. If you meant simple math, then sure. Neither are simple math.
"The R0 value crosses at the bottom so statistically.......you have the exact same chances of transmitting the flu as you do Corona."
---> Not true. R0 value is only defined at the time of invasion, so unless it's 0, it will never cross at the bottom. With a typical epidemic outbreak, you get the curve that first increases and then decreases, which says nothing about the likelihood of the virus transmitting.
The R values define the probability of transmission
"R0 tells you the average number of people who will catch a disease from one contagious person. It specifically applies to a population of people who were previously free of infection and haven’t been vaccinated."
https://www.healthline.com/health/r-nought-reproduction-number
So, more or less, like give or take. A far cry from "maybe or maybe not."
It’s an estimated number at this point. 2 weeks ago the R0 was 1.6-2.4. The R0 today is 3.8. They don’t know the true numbers till after the fact
I've seen as high as 6.7, so....
Still worse than the flu by magnitudes, which is where this started.click to expand
I just want to know how the percent difference between 1.6 and 2.4 is 4.2% .
Posted by _DazedPosted by sultrykittyPosted by ItsSupes2Posted by sultrykittyPosted by ItsSupes2Posted by xoxflutePosted by ItsSupes2Posted by HeartofIce
Isn't it 50% increase or am I really being dumb
I'm legit asking because I don't wanna be dumb lol
Nope. It’s statistics and probability. Can’t work it like standard mathematics. That’s why there’s a variance in the R0 values.
The R0 value crosses at the bottom so statistically.......you have the exact same chances of transmitting the flu as you do Corona.
They are ALL standard math lol. I've studied both. If you meant simple math, then sure. Neither are simple math.
"The R0 value crosses at the bottom so statistically.......you have the exact same chances of transmitting the flu as you do Corona."
---> Not true. R0 value is only defined at the time of invasion, so unless it's 0, it will never cross at the bottom. With a typical epidemic outbreak, you get the curve that first increases and then decreases, which says nothing about the likelihood of the virus transmitting.
The R values define the probability of transmission
"R0 tells you the average number of people who will catch a disease from one contagious person. It specifically applies to a population of people who were previously free of infection and haven’t been vaccinated."
https://www.healthline.com/health/r-nought-reproduction-number
So, more or less, like give or take. A far cry from "maybe or maybe not."
It’s an estimated number at this point. 2 weeks ago the R0 was 1.6-2.4. The R0 today is 3.8. They don’t know the true numbers till after the fact
I've seen as high as 6.7, so....
Still worse than the flu by magnitudes, which is where this started.
I just want to know how the percent difference between 1.6 and 2.4 is 4.2% .click to expand
I know you do. 😉
Doubt there will be an answer.
ETA
I can't believe I'm here as a die hard, tin foil hat wearing, "deplorable" Trump supporter arguing with another one about the seriousness of a disease.
Posted by ItsSupes2Posted by _DazedPosted by ItsSupes2Posted by sultrykittyPosted by ItsSupes2Posted by xoxflutePosted by ItsSupes2Posted by HeartofIce
Isn't it 50% increase or am I really being dumb
I'm legit asking because I don't wanna be dumb lol
Nope. It’s statistics and probability. Can’t work it like standard mathematics. That’s why there’s a variance in the R0 values.
The R0 value crosses at the bottom so statistically.......you have the exact same chances of transmitting the flu as you do Corona.
They are ALL standard math lol. I've studied both. If you meant simple math, then sure. Neither are simple math.
"The R0 value crosses at the bottom so statistically.......you have the exact same chances of transmitting the flu as you do Corona."
---> Not true. R0 value is only defined at the time of invasion, so unless it's 0, it will never cross at the bottom. With a typical epidemic outbreak, you get the curve that first increases and then decreases, which says nothing about the likelihood of the virus transmitting.
The R values define the probability of transmission
"R0 tells you the average number of people who will catch a disease from one contagious person. It specifically applies to a population of people who were previously free of infection and haven’t been vaccinated."
https://www.healthline.com/health/r-nought-reproduction-number
So, more or less, like give or take. A far cry from "maybe or maybe not."
It’s an estimated number at this point. 2 weeks ago the R0 was 1.6-2.4. The R0 today is 3.8. They don’t know the true numbers till after the fact
How is 4.2% the difference between 1.6 and 2.4?
Simple question that you say has a simple answer.
It’s the probability of transmission between the 2click to expand
You said.. "The R values define the probability of transmission"
So 4.2% is the probability of transmission between Influenza and Covid?
Posted by xoxflutePosted by ItsSupes2Posted by xoxflutePosted by ItsSupes2Posted by xoxflutePosted by ItsSupes2Posted by xoxflutePosted by ItsSupes2Posted by HeartofIce
Isn't it 50% increase or am I really being dumb
I'm legit asking because I don't wanna be dumb lol
Nope. It’s statistics and probability. Can’t work it like standard mathematics. That’s why there’s a variance in the R0 values.
The R0 value crosses at the bottom so statistically.......you have the exact same chances of transmitting the flu as you do Corona.
They are ALL standard math lol. I've studied both. If you meant simple math, then sure. Neither are simple math.
"The R0 value crosses at the bottom so statistically.......you have the exact same chances of transmitting the flu as you do Corona."
---> Not true. R0 value is only defined at the time of invasion, so unless it's 0, it will never cross at the bottom. With a typical epidemic outbreak, you get the curve that first increases and then decreases, which says nothing about the likelihood of the virus transmitting.
The R values define the probability of transmission
R0 =/= R after invasion ... from the link you provided:
"after the infection has invaded a population and everyone is no longer susceptible, R is always less than the basic reproduction number R0."
That’s true for any virus.
Still makes your statement false though. R0, unless it's 0, will never cross the bottom. If R0=0, there is no virus outbreak.
When any 2 axis cross, at any point, they are equal at that point. Basic geometry
1.6 is the top range for the flu. 1.6 is the bottom range for COVID-19. At that R0 value, they are equal
lol, this just says the two range overlaps at one point...so in most cases they are not equal.click to expand
X marks the spot though...
Posted by ItsSupes2Posted by _DazedPosted by ItsSupes2Posted by _DazedPosted by ItsSupes2Posted by sultrykittyPosted by ItsSupes2Posted by xoxflutePosted by ItsSupes2Posted by HeartofIce
Isn't it 50% increase or am I really being dumb
I'm legit asking because I don't wanna be dumb lol
Nope. It’s statistics and probability. Can’t work it like standard mathematics. That’s why there’s a variance in the R0 values.
The R0 value crosses at the bottom so statistically.......you have the exact same chances of transmitting the flu as you do Corona.
They are ALL standard math lol. I've studied both. If you meant simple math, then sure. Neither are simple math.
"The R0 value crosses at the bottom so statistically.......you have the exact same chances of transmitting the flu as you do Corona."
---> Not true. R0 value is only defined at the time of invasion, so unless it's 0, it will never cross at the bottom. With a typical epidemic outbreak, you get the curve that first increases and then decreases, which says nothing about the likelihood of the virus transmitting.
The R values define the probability of transmission
"R0 tells you the average number of people who will catch a disease from one contagious person. It specifically applies to a population of people who were previously free of infection and haven’t been vaccinated."
https://www.healthline.com/health/r-nought-reproduction-number
So, more or less, like give or take. A far cry from "maybe or maybe not."
It’s an estimated number at this point. 2 weeks ago the R0 was 1.6-2.4. The R0 today is 3.8. They don’t know the true numbers till after the fact
How is 4.2% the difference between 1.6 and 2.4?
Simple question that you say has a simple answer.
It’s the probability of transmission between the 2
You said.. "The R values define the probability of transmission"
So 4.2% is the probability of transmission between Influenza and Covid?
It’s the transmission increase potential of COVID-19 over the common flu. I’ve explained it a few times.click to expand
Okay. I'm starting to understand.
So the percent increase in transmission potential is 4.2% .
Can you show me the math behind 1.6 (R-naught for influenza) and 2.4 (R-naught for Covid-19) being 4.2% ?
Posted by ItsSupes2Posted by xoxflutePosted by ItsSupes2Posted by xoxflutePosted by ItsSupes2Posted by xoxflutePosted by ItsSupes2Posted by xoxflutePosted by ItsSupes2Posted by HeartofIce
Isn't it 50% increase or am I really being dumb
I'm legit asking because I don't wanna be dumb lol
Nope. It’s statistics and probability. Can’t work it like standard mathematics. That’s why there’s a variance in the R0 values.
The R0 value crosses at the bottom so statistically.......you have the exact same chances of transmitting the flu as you do Corona.
They are ALL standard math lol. I've studied both. If you meant simple math, then sure. Neither are simple math.
"The R0 value crosses at the bottom so statistically.......you have the exact same chances of transmitting the flu as you do Corona."
---> Not true. R0 value is only defined at the time of invasion, so unless it's 0, it will never cross at the bottom. With a typical epidemic outbreak, you get the curve that first increases and then decreases, which says nothing about the likelihood of the virus transmitting.
The R values define the probability of transmission
R0 =/= R after invasion ... from the link you provided:
"after the infection has invaded a population and everyone is no longer susceptible, R is always less than the basic reproduction number R0."
That’s true for any virus.
Still makes your statement false though. R0, unless it's 0, will never cross the bottom. If R0=0, there is no virus outbreak.
When any 2 axis cross, at any point, they are equal at that point. Basic geometry
1.6 is the top range for the flu. 1.6 is the bottom range for COVID-19. At that R0 value, they are equal
lol, this just says the two range overlaps at one point...so in most cases they are not equal.
But your previous claim was completely false and in no way represents what I’m saying. You’re not even comprehending what I’m saying here.click to expand
What ARE you saying though? Because everything I'm reading translates to some kind of confusion.
1.6 divided by 2.4 = 66.67% . A visual way - x, 1.6, 2.4, what is x (how much is it increasing by? 2.4-1.6=.8, so .8. It takes three .8's to make 2.4, and 1.6 is 2 of them (.8+.8=1.6) so 1.6 = 2/3 of 100% = 66.67% .
Posted by _DazedPosted by ItsSupes2Posted by _DazedPosted by ItsSupes2Posted by _DazedPosted by ItsSupes2Posted by sultrykittyPosted by ItsSupes2Posted by xoxflutePosted by ItsSupes2Posted by HeartofIce
Isn't it 50% increase or am I really being dumb
I'm legit asking because I don't wanna be dumb lol
Nope. It’s statistics and probability. Can’t work it like standard mathematics. That’s why there’s a variance in the R0 values.
The R0 value crosses at the bottom so statistically.......you have the exact same chances of transmitting the flu as you do Corona.
They are ALL standard math lol. I've studied both. If you meant simple math, then sure. Neither are simple math.
"The R0 value crosses at the bottom so statistically.......you have the exact same chances of transmitting the flu as you do Corona."
---> Not true. R0 value is only defined at the time of invasion, so unless it's 0, it will never cross at the bottom. With a typical epidemic outbreak, you get the curve that first increases and then decreases, which says nothing about the likelihood of the virus transmitting.
The R values define the probability of transmission
"R0 tells you the average number of people who will catch a disease from one contagious person. It specifically applies to a population of people who were previously free of infection and haven’t been vaccinated."
https://www.healthline.com/health/r-nought-reproduction-number
So, more or less, like give or take. A far cry from "maybe or maybe not."
It’s an estimated number at this point. 2 weeks ago the R0 was 1.6-2.4. The R0 today is 3.8. They don’t know the true numbers till after the fact
How is 4.2% the difference between 1.6 and 2.4?
Simple question that you say has a simple answer.
It’s the probability of transmission between the 2
You said.. "The R values define the probability of transmission"
So 4.2% is the probability of transmission between Influenza and Covid?
It’s the transmission increase potential of COVID-19 over the common flu. I’ve explained it a few times.
Okay. I'm starting to understand.
So the percent increase in transmission potential is 4.2% .
Can you show me the math behind 1.6 (R-naught for influenza) and 2.4 (R-naught for Covid-19) being 4.2% ?click to expand
Ohhhh, so THAT's where he's going with this. What difference does the potential increase in transmission matter when you already have the numbers giving the ACTUAL transmission rate in real time?
Posted by ItsSupes2Posted by sultrykittyPosted by ItsSupes2Posted by xoxflutePosted by ItsSupes2Posted by xoxflutePosted by ItsSupes2Posted by xoxflutePosted by ItsSupes2Posted by xoxflutePosted by ItsSupes2Posted by HeartofIce
Isn't it 50% increase or am I really being dumb
I'm legit asking because I don't wanna be dumb lol
Nope. It’s statistics and probability. Can’t work it like standard mathematics. That’s why there’s a variance in the R0 values.
The R0 value crosses at the bottom so statistically.......you have the exact same chances of transmitting the flu as you do Corona.
They are ALL standard math lol. I've studied both. If you meant simple math, then sure. Neither are simple math.
"The R0 value crosses at the bottom so statistically.......you have the exact same chances of transmitting the flu as you do Corona."
---> Not true. R0 value is only defined at the time of invasion, so unless it's 0, it will never cross at the bottom. With a typical epidemic outbreak, you get the curve that first increases and then decreases, which says nothing about the likelihood of the virus transmitting.
The R values define the probability of transmission
R0 =/= R after invasion ... from the link you provided:
"after the infection has invaded a population and everyone is no longer susceptible, R is always less than the basic reproduction number R0."
That’s true for any virus.
Still makes your statement false though. R0, unless it's 0, will never cross the bottom. If R0=0, there is no virus outbreak.
When any 2 axis cross, at any point, they are equal at that point. Basic geometry
1.6 is the top range for the flu. 1.6 is the bottom range for COVID-19. At that R0 value, they are equal
lol, this just says the two range overlaps at one point...so in most cases they are not equal.
But your previous claim was completely false and in no way represents what I’m saying. You’re not even comprehending what I’m saying here.
What ARE you saying though? Because everything I'm reading translates to some kind of confusion.
Read what I wrote to dazedclick to expand
Yep, just got it. But answer my question to my reply to him.
Posted by ItsSupes2Posted by sultrykittyPosted by ItsSupes2Posted by sultrykittyPosted by ItsSupes2Posted by xoxflutePosted by ItsSupes2Posted by xoxflutePosted by ItsSupes2Posted by xoxflutePosted by ItsSupes2Posted by xoxflutePosted by ItsSupes2Posted by HeartofIce
Isn't it 50% increase or am I really being dumb
I'm legit asking because I don't wanna be dumb lol
Nope. It’s statistics and probability. Can’t work it like standard mathematics. That’s why there’s a variance in the R0 values.
The R0 value crosses at the bottom so statistically.......you have the exact same chances of transmitting the flu as you do Corona.
They are ALL standard math lol. I've studied both. If you meant simple math, then sure. Neither are simple math.
"The R0 value crosses at the bottom so statistically.......you have the exact same chances of transmitting the flu as you do Corona."
---> Not true. R0 value is only defined at the time of invasion, so unless it's 0, it will never cross at the bottom. With a typical epidemic outbreak, you get the curve that first increases and then decreases, which says nothing about the likelihood of the virus transmitting.
The R values define the probability of transmission
R0 =/= R after invasion ... from the link you provided:
"after the infection has invaded a population and everyone is no longer susceptible, R is always less than the basic reproduction number R0."
That’s true for any virus.
Still makes your statement false though. R0, unless it's 0, will never cross the bottom. If R0=0, there is no virus outbreak.
When any 2 axis cross, at any point, they are equal at that point. Basic geometry
1.6 is the top range for the flu. 1.6 is the bottom range for COVID-19. At that R0 value, they are equal
lol, this just says the two range overlaps at one point...so in most cases they are not equal.
But your previous claim was completely false and in no way represents what I’m saying. You’re not even comprehending what I’m saying here.
What ARE you saying though? Because everything I'm reading translates to some kind of confusion.
Read what I wrote to dazed
Yep, just got it. But answer my question to my reply to him.
I haven’t lookedclick to expand
Please do. It's not hard to find.
Posted by sultrykittyPosted by _DazedPosted by ItsSupes2Posted by _DazedPosted by ItsSupes2Posted by _DazedPosted by ItsSupes2Posted by sultrykittyPosted by ItsSupes2Posted by xoxflutePosted by ItsSupes2Posted by HeartofIce
Isn't it 50% increase or am I really being dumb
I'm legit asking because I don't wanna be dumb lol
Nope. It’s statistics and probability. Can’t work it like standard mathematics. That’s why there’s a variance in the R0 values.
The R0 value crosses at the bottom so statistically.......you have the exact same chances of transmitting the flu as you do Corona.
They are ALL standard math lol. I've studied both. If you meant simple math, then sure. Neither are simple math.
"The R0 value crosses at the bottom so statistically.......you have the exact same chances of transmitting the flu as you do Corona."
---> Not true. R0 value is only defined at the time of invasion, so unless it's 0, it will never cross at the bottom. With a typical epidemic outbreak, you get the curve that first increases and then decreases, which says nothing about the likelihood of the virus transmitting.
The R values define the probability of transmission
"R0 tells you the average number of people who will catch a disease from one contagious person. It specifically applies to a population of people who were previously free of infection and haven’t been vaccinated."
https://www.healthline.com/health/r-nought-reproduction-number
So, more or less, like give or take. A far cry from "maybe or maybe not."
It’s an estimated number at this point. 2 weeks ago the R0 was 1.6-2.4. The R0 today is 3.8. They don’t know the true numbers till after the fact
How is 4.2% the difference between 1.6 and 2.4?
Simple question that you say has a simple answer.
It’s the probability of transmission between the 2
You said.. "The R values define the probability of transmission"
So 4.2% is the probability of transmission between Influenza and Covid?
It’s the transmission increase potential of COVID-19 over the common flu. I’ve explained it a few times.
Okay. I'm starting to understand.
So the percent increase in transmission potential is 4.2% .
Can you show me the math behind 1.6 (R-naught for influenza) and 2.4 (R-naught for Covid-19) being 4.2% ?
Ohhhh, so THAT's where he's going with this. What difference does the potential increase in transmission matter when you already have the numbers giving the ACTUAL transmission rate in real time?click to expand
The percent increase in transmission potential is 50% .
R-Naught of 1.6 compared to R-Naught of 2.6
Posted by _DazedPosted by sultrykittyPosted by _DazedPosted by ItsSupes2Posted by _DazedPosted by ItsSupes2Posted by _DazedPosted by ItsSupes2Posted by sultrykittyPosted by ItsSupes2Posted by xoxflutePosted by ItsSupes2Posted by HeartofIce
Isn't it 50% increase or am I really being dumb
I'm legit asking because I don't wanna be dumb lol
Nope. It’s statistics and probability. Can’t work it like standard mathematics. That’s why there’s a variance in the R0 values.
The R0 value crosses at the bottom so statistically.......you have the exact same chances of transmitting the flu as you do Corona.
They are ALL standard math lol. I've studied both. If you meant simple math, then sure. Neither are simple math.
"The R0 value crosses at the bottom so statistically.......you have the exact same chances of transmitting the flu as you do Corona."
---> Not true. R0 value is only defined at the time of invasion, so unless it's 0, it will never cross at the bottom. With a typical epidemic outbreak, you get the curve that first increases and then decreases, which says nothing about the likelihood of the virus transmitting.
The R values define the probability of transmission
"R0 tells you the average number of people who will catch a disease from one contagious person. It specifically applies to a population of people who were previously free of infection and haven’t been vaccinated."
https://www.healthline.com/health/r-nought-reproduction-number
So, more or less, like give or take. A far cry from "maybe or maybe not."
It’s an estimated number at this point. 2 weeks ago the R0 was 1.6-2.4. The R0 today is 3.8. They don’t know the true numbers till after the fact
How is 4.2% the difference between 1.6 and 2.4?
Simple question that you say has a simple answer.
It’s the probability of transmission between the 2
You said.. "The R values define the probability of transmission"
So 4.2% is the probability of transmission between Influenza and Covid?
It’s the transmission increase potential of COVID-19 over the common flu. I’ve explained it a few times.
Okay. I'm starting to understand.
So the percent increase in transmission potential is 4.2% .
Can you show me the math behind 1.6 (R-naught for influenza) and 2.4 (R-naught for Covid-19) being 4.2% ?
Ohhhh, so THAT's where he's going with this. What difference does the potential increase in transmission matter when you already have the numbers giving the ACTUAL transmission rate in real time?
The percent increase in transmission potential is 50% .
R-Naught of 1.6 compared to R-Naught of 2.6click to expand
LOL, yes, I think that's been established by just about everyone.
But R0 isn't actually potential transmission, it's ACTUAL (average) transmission.
If the "potential" for increase is lower, then sure. But it's meaningless in the presence of actual rates, which we have knowledge of. Get me?
Posted by sultrykittyPosted by _DazedPosted by sultrykittyPosted by _DazedPosted by ItsSupes2Posted by _DazedPosted by ItsSupes2Posted by _DazedPosted by ItsSupes2Posted by sultrykittyPosted by ItsSupes2Posted by xoxflutePosted by ItsSupes2Posted by HeartofIce
Isn't it 50% increase or am I really being dumb
I'm legit asking because I don't wanna be dumb lol
Nope. It’s statistics and probability. Can’t work it like standard mathematics. That’s why there’s a variance in the R0 values.
The R0 value crosses at the bottom so statistically.......you have the exact same chances of transmitting the flu as you do Corona.
They are ALL standard math lol. I've studied both. If you meant simple math, then sure. Neither are simple math.
"The R0 value crosses at the bottom so statistically.......you have the exact same chances of transmitting the flu as you do Corona."
---> Not true. R0 value is only defined at the time of invasion, so unless it's 0, it will never cross at the bottom. With a typical epidemic outbreak, you get the curve that first increases and then decreases, which says nothing about the likelihood of the virus transmitting.
The R values define the probability of transmission
"R0 tells you the average number of people who will catch a disease from one contagious person. It specifically applies to a population of people who were previously free of infection and haven’t been vaccinated."
https://www.healthline.com/health/r-nought-reproduction-number
So, more or less, like give or take. A far cry from "maybe or maybe not."
It’s an estimated number at this point. 2 weeks ago the R0 was 1.6-2.4. The R0 today is 3.8. They don’t know the true numbers till after the fact
How is 4.2% the difference between 1.6 and 2.4?
Simple question that you say has a simple answer.
It’s the probability of transmission between the 2
You said.. "The R values define the probability of transmission"
So 4.2% is the probability of transmission between Influenza and Covid?
It’s the transmission increase potential of COVID-19 over the common flu. I’ve explained it a few times.
Okay. I'm starting to understand.
So the percent increase in transmission potential is 4.2% .
Can you show me the math behind 1.6 (R-naught for influenza) and 2.4 (R-naught for Covid-19) being 4.2% ?
Ohhhh, so THAT's where he's going with this. What difference does the potential increase in transmission matter when you already have the numbers giving the ACTUAL transmission rate in real time?
The percent increase in transmission potential is 50% .
R-Naught of 1.6 compared to R-Naught of 2.6
LOL, yes, I think that's been established by just about everyone.
But R0 isn't actually potential transmission, it's ACTUAL (average) transmission.
If the "potential" for increase is lower, then sure. But it's meaningless in the presence of actual rates, which we have knowledge of. Get me?click to expand
Yep.
Posted by _Dazed
"The flu R Rate is 1.5-1.6
Corona is 1.5-2.4"
"It’s less than 5% difference. Quit being dramatic."
"Is on a 0-100 scale man. Wtf"
"No, it doesn’t spread FASTER. It spreads EASIER"
"Ofc. I do this butter all day
It’s 4.2% which is less than 5% ."
"It’s simple math man"
"They’re basing it on flu numbers. It doesn’t work like that. Pretending like the R value stops at 5 or something."
"What’s the highest R0 for the flu? 1.6?
Corona is what? 3.2 now from 2.4?
Do the math of 3.2 vs 1.6 since there’s no R0 ceiling. " - 100% - "Wow. Your math sucks about as bad as your logic"
Posted by -Damous
I'm bout to get lit and erase all this dumbassery from my brain
Make sure to show you math.
So @ItsSupes2,
Let's assume that the R0 for this thing is 2.4. That's not a good number for the reasons argued here all over the place.
You're right, the potential could be much lower. But based on the values we currently have, experts are saying it would take a lot more than what we're doing to get it down to say, 1.6 (like the flu). Still pretty bad (read 20-60?000 dead in a season, assumingthe same morality rate, which isn't the case)
Experts also have determined that to snuff out an epidemic, R0 needs to be at 1 or below. There aren't many ways to get there, and none of them are pretty. South Korea has been doing the best job, beu they're still way above that number, and so is Italy even with it's complete shut down. I doubt we'll be able to do much better considering we're in the upswing now.
I hope I'm wrong. But I'm not betting my life or my loved ones on "potential" right now. We'll just have to see how this plays out.
Let's assume that the R0 for this thing is 2.4. That's not a good number for the reasons argued here all over the place.
You're right, the potential could be much lower. But based on the values we currently have, experts are saying it would take a lot more than what we're doing to get it down to say, 1.6 (like the flu). Still pretty bad (read 20-60?000 dead in a season, assumingthe same morality rate, which isn't the case)
Experts also have determined that to snuff out an epidemic, R0 needs to be at 1 or below. There aren't many ways to get there, and none of them are pretty. South Korea has been doing the best job, beu they're still way above that number, and so is Italy even with it's complete shut down. I doubt we'll be able to do much better considering we're in the upswing now.
I hope I'm wrong. But I'm not betting my life or my loved ones on "potential" right now. We'll just have to see how this plays out.
Posted by ItsSupes2Posted by sultrykitty
So @ItsSupes2,
Let's assume that the R0 for this thing is 2.4. That's not a good number for the reasons argued here all over the place.
You're right, the potential could be much lower. But based on the values we currently have, experts are saying it would take a lot more than what we're doing to get it down to say, 1.6 (like the flu). Still pretty bad (read 20-60?000 dead in a season, assumingthe same morality rate, which isn't the case)
Experts also have determined that to snuff out an epidemic, R0 needs to be at 1 or below. There aren't many ways to get there, and none of them are pretty. South Korea has been doing the best job, beu they're still way above that number, and so is Italy even with it's complete shut down. I doubt we'll be able to do much better considering we're in the upswing now.
I hope I'm wrong. But I'm not betting my life or my loved ones on "potential" right now. We'll just have to see how this plays out.
You’re not wrong to bet on the potential. I’ll be willing to bet the R0 factor will be closer to 5 when it’s August. The number will be higher this year than any other year because people are careless and refuse to exercise proper hygiene.click to expand
And travelling (Spring Break), and ordering from Amazon, and conducting ordinary business.
Posted by ItsSupes2Posted by sultrykitty
So @ItsSupes2,
Let's assume that the R0 for this thing is 2.4. That's not a good number for the reasons argued here all over the place.
You're right, the potential could be much lower. But based on the values we currently have, experts are saying it would take a lot more than what we're doing to get it down to say, 1.6 (like the flu). Still pretty bad (read 20-60?000 dead in a season, assumingthe same morality rate, which isn't the case)
Experts also have determined that to snuff out an epidemic, R0 needs to be at 1 or below. There aren't many ways to get there, and none of them are pretty. South Korea has been doing the best job, beu they're still way above that number, and so is Italy even with it's complete shut down. I doubt we'll be able to do much better considering we're in the upswing now.
I hope I'm wrong. But I'm not betting my life or my loved ones on "potential" right now. We'll just have to see how this plays out.
You’re not wrong to bet on the potential. I’ll be willing to bet the R0 factor will be closer to 5 when it’s August. The number will be higher this year than any other year because people are careless and refuse to exercise proper hygiene.click to expand
2.4 to 5.0
So you're willing to bet that there will be a 108.3% increase by August?
Posted by ItsSupes2Posted by LittleStarPosted by ItsSupes2Posted by xoxflutePosted by ItsSupes2Posted by xoxflutePosted by ItsSupes2Posted by xoxflutePosted by ItsSupes2Posted by xoxflutePosted by ItsSupes2Posted by xoxflutePosted by ItsSupes2Posted by HeartofIce
Isn't it 50% increase or am I really being dumb
I'm legit asking because I don't wanna be dumb lol
Nope. It’s statistics and probability. Can’t work it like standard mathematics. That’s why there’s a variance in the R0 values.
The R0 value crosses at the bottom so statistically.......you have the exact same chances of transmitting the flu as you do Corona.
They are ALL standard math lol. I've studied both. If you meant simple math, then sure. Neither are simple math.
"The R0 value crosses at the bottom so statistically.......you have the exact same chances of transmitting the flu as you do Corona."
---> Not true. R0 value is only defined at the time of invasion, so unless it's 0, it will never cross at the bottom. With a typical epidemic outbreak, you get the curve that first increases and then decreases, which says nothing about the likelihood of the virus transmitting.
The R values define the probability of transmission
R0 =/= R after invasion ... from the link you provided:
"after the infection has invaded a population and everyone is no longer susceptible, R is always less than the basic reproduction number R0."
That’s true for any virus.
Still makes your statement false though. R0, unless it's 0, will never cross the bottom. If R0=0, there is no virus outbreak.
When any 2 axis cross, at any point, they are equal at that point. Basic geometry
1.6 is the top range for the flu. 1.6 is the bottom range for COVID-19. At that R0 value, they are equal
lol, this just says the two range overlaps at one point...so in most cases they are not equal.
But your previous claim was completely false and in no way represents what I’m saying. You’re not even comprehending what I’m saying here.
Yeah, how so?
You said "The R0 value crosses at the bottom". I'm saying it will never happen. You are saying they are equal because max value for flu is 1.6 which is the min value for covid-19. I'm saying the two range only overlap at one point, so in most cases they aren't equal.
I apologize. I misread your last statement. Too many conversations. I got you, dazed, sultry, xo and littlestar........she’s not adding any value and only trying to sling insults (as usual)
Awww.
I don’t argue with you because I only like conversations that are truthful and stimulating.
Show me where I’ve said something that’s incorrect or against what the Dr’s are saying. I’ll waitclick to expand
It's no worse than the flu.
Posted by ItsSupes2Posted by _DazedPosted by ItsSupes2Posted by sultrykitty
So @ItsSupes2,
Let's assume that the R0 for this thing is 2.4. That's not a good number for the reasons argued here all over the place.
You're right, the potential could be much lower. But based on the values we currently have, experts are saying it would take a lot more than what we're doing to get it down to say, 1.6 (like the flu). Still pretty bad (read 20-60?000 dead in a season, assumingthe same morality rate, which isn't the case)
Experts also have determined that to snuff out an epidemic, R0 needs to be at 1 or below. There aren't many ways to get there, and none of them are pretty. South Korea has been doing the best job, beu they're still way above that number, and so is Italy even with it's complete shut down. I doubt we'll be able to do much better considering we're in the upswing now.
I hope I'm wrong. But I'm not betting my life or my loved ones on "potential" right now. We'll just have to see how this plays out.
You’re not wrong to bet on the potential. I’ll be willing to bet the R0 factor will be closer to 5 when it’s August. The number will be higher this year than any other year because people are careless and refuse to exercise proper hygiene.
2.4 to 5.0
So you're willing to bet that there will be a 108.3% increase by August?
Again, you’re looking at that all wrong from what I was saying.click to expand
"The flu R Rate is 1.5-1.6
Corona is 1.5-2.4"
"It’s less than 5% difference. Quit being dramatic."
4.2% to be exact.
What is the percent if the "R Rate" is 5.0?
Posted by ItsSupes2Posted by sultrykittyPosted by ItsSupes2Posted by sultrykitty
So @ItsSupes2,
Let's assume that the R0 for this thing is 2.4. That's not a good number for the reasons argued here all over the place.
You're right, the potential could be much lower. But based on the values we currently have, experts are saying it would take a lot more than what we're doing to get it down to say, 1.6 (like the flu). Still pretty bad (read 20-60?000 dead in a season, assumingthe same morality rate, which isn't the case)
Experts also have determined that to snuff out an epidemic, R0 needs to be at 1 or below. There aren't many ways to get there, and none of them are pretty. South Korea has been doing the best job, beu they're still way above that number, and so is Italy even with it's complete shut down. I doubt we'll be able to do much better considering we're in the upswing now.
I hope I'm wrong. But I'm not betting my life or my loved ones on "potential" right now. We'll just have to see how this plays out.
You’re not wrong to bet on the potential. I’ll be willing to bet the R0 factor will be closer to 5 when it’s August. The number will be higher this year than any other year because people are careless and refuse to exercise proper hygiene.
And travelling (Spring Break), and ordering from Amazon, and conducting ordinary business.
If you don’t wash your hands after touching something from Amazon, you deserve the sicknessclick to expand
Aaand there you go.
The moral of the story is, if you are Asian, you got coronavirus and you're good at math?
Posted by ItsSupes2Posted by sultrykittyPosted by ItsSupes2Posted by sultrykittyPosted by ItsSupes2Posted by sultrykitty
So @ItsSupes2,
Let's assume that the R0 for this thing is 2.4. That's not a good number for the reasons argued here all over the place.
You're right, the potential could be much lower. But based on the values we currently have, experts are saying it would take a lot more than what we're doing to get it down to say, 1.6 (like the flu). Still pretty bad (read 20-60?000 dead in a season, assumingthe same morality rate, which isn't the case)
Experts also have determined that to snuff out an epidemic, R0 needs to be at 1 or below. There aren't many ways to get there, and none of them are pretty. South Korea has been doing the best job, beu they're still way above that number, and so is Italy even with it's complete shut down. I doubt we'll be able to do much better considering we're in the upswing now.
I hope I'm wrong. But I'm not betting my life or my loved ones on "potential" right now. We'll just have to see how this plays out.
You’re not wrong to bet on the potential. I’ll be willing to bet the R0 factor will be closer to 5 when it’s August. The number will be higher this year than any other year because people are careless and refuse to exercise proper hygiene.
And travelling (Spring Break), and ordering from Amazon, and conducting ordinary business.
If you don’t wash your hands after touching something from Amazon, you deserve the sickness
Aaand there you go.
Is it not true?click to expand
That people *deserve* to get sick and possibly die, and likely take others with them? No, I don't believe it is.
Posted by nikkistar
The moral of the story is, if you are Asian, you got coronavirus and you're good at math?
Always making this about race smh
Posted by FactCheckPosted by ooru-u
1.6 divided by 2.4 = 66.67% . A visual way - x, 1.6, 2.4, what is x (how much is it increasing by? 2.4-1.6=.8, so .8. It takes three .8's to make 2.4, and 1.6 is 2 of them (.8+.8=1.6) so 1.6 = 2/3 of 100% = 66.67% .
That's asking what percentage is 1.6 of 2.4. That's not the percent increase. The percent increase is 50% youd take .8 and divide it by the original value 1.6click to expand
Oops, I created a different problem. This is kind of tricky.
Posted by _Dazed
"The flu R Rate is 1.5-1.6
Corona is 1.5-2.4"
"It’s less than 5% difference. Quit being dramatic."
"Is on a 0-100 scale man. Wtf"
"No, it doesn’t spread FASTER. It spreads EASIER"
"Ofc. I do this butter all day
It’s 4.2% which is less than 5% ."
"It’s simple math man"
"They’re basing it on flu numbers. It doesn’t work like that. Pretending like the R value stops at 5 or something."
"What’s the highest R0 for the flu? 1.6?
Corona is what? 3.2 now from 2.4?
Do the math of 3.2 vs 1.6 since there’s no R0 ceiling. " - 100% - "Wow. Your math sucks about as bad as your logic"
Some people will say and do anything to be right. Even if it makes them look stupid.
This applies to people from both donkey and elephant parties.
Join the Conversation. Explore Yourself. Connect with Others.
Discover insights, swap stories, and find people. dxpnet is where experiences turn into understanding.
Create Your Free Account →Related Topics
Will Supes and TheSag burn theirs or return them to the government in protest?
On January 20, 2017 the Dow average was 19,827.25.
Today it closed at 20,188.52.
Obama took office with the Dow 7,949.09
He left office with the Dow at 19,732 (Up 148%)
How long before the Dow tops 50,000 and beats Obama?
Starting tomorrow Afternoon or Evening
and on Tuesdays for the next 2 months
Online Survival begins
How will DXP's Dazed do against 11 other strangers? Will he become banned in the game like he enjoys being on DXP?
As we all struggle offline, who will
I can't seem to figure it out
And just less than a week ago lol
https://www.gannett-cdn.com/presto/2020/03/11/PPYD/339535c0-8371-4e8c-863f-77370ca8e0b4-Trump_tweet.jpg?width=540&height=&fit=bounds&auto=webp
Last time I was like 12 when it happened. This is my first adult recession. I don’t know how to feel about all this yet. What are you all doing to protect yourselves besides stocking up on toilet paper?
Lately I've been feeling down because I keep getting passed over for promotions and raises and other things.
I want certain doors to open for me but they're remaining shut.
I would really like to prosper and expand but I feel so stifled.
Ugh. So frustr
I am just watching a Law and Order episode, where a lap dancer got "raped". She offered herself to the "customer"
My question is, is there a difference between people who get raped just going home at a dark alley by random predators and between people w
Here's the latest info, just came out this week. No studies to date that show Vaccine safety. Tests were not even done properly and had no control group. People should be outraged but main news channels are sponsored by pharmaceutical companies who prohib
I don’t know why my desire to have so many children in the future is so strong when I can’t even tolerate my husband’s 4 year old niece. Sure she’s cute and says all the adorable right things like I’m her favorite princess. She even bullies my husband whi
Is it about expressing your feelings? When called on it, do you deny it?
What’s your moon sign?
I don’t. I’m an aqua moon. 🤷♀️
By the number and tone of the posts, it sounded pretty serious, so I just wanted to hear tour thoughts.
Are you happier?
Sadder?
Has your lame leg been miraculously healed?
Please share.
@nikkistar since you're named. Thread not intended as an
Just for anyone that wants to talk about themselves, share a story, literally anything. I just wanna talk to people and i know there's some people who have things they'd like to share but can't find the right time to draw up a conversation. Here's your ou
Eventually your body tries to tell you it’s poison. At what point do you listen? Is anyone here sober? Either by choice, religion or necessity? The longer I delve into a WFPB diet, the harder it is to ignore all those signals. I’d love to hear your storie
I am here for you. Tell of all that ails thy soul. All problems are welcome :D
I haven't looked up who he actually killed, but was happy at the thought of him killing child molesters who would probably be let loose again, while he sat in prison for 1 murder for the rest of his life.
Inmate confesses killing 2 molesters in letter t
I'm always looking for new hobbies and activities to try so ..
What do you guys like to do?
Just for Valentine’s Day ❤️I’d like to offer one card readings for anyone interested. My clients and friends seem to love this deck.
Please leave a question and I’ll do as many as time and energy allows me
One reading per person
https://tshop.r10s.jp/
I really would like to here from men on this, but if there is women who like to hear about guys sex life please tell why. There is this guy who wants me to tell him about all my sex adventures. Why would he want to know? Do some people get off on that?
Is being passionate about things good? Or are you just crazy?
I'm trying to help my nephew with his homework and I forgot how to do this sheet.