State by state coronavirus comparison is misleading

Post Reply New Topic

So I was looking at state by state coronavirus comparison over here https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/03/health/u ... index.html and one thing I realized is that they are looking at the wrong thing. They are looking at the total number of people infected at a given state, but what they SHOULD BE looking at is a RATIO of that number to total population of that state. I actually computted those rations and, as you are about to see, if I order states by total numbers and if I order them by ratios, I get quite a different order.

And the other point worth making is that, if you look at the ration, you will see that its not nearly as scary as they make of it. In most cases it is single digid out of a millon. So how can anyone be so scared of being one of those very few people out of a million? I bet its easier to win a lottery than catch coronavirus.

And, last but not least: lets say you are still worried about that minuscule chance (because its deadly and what not) and lets say you want to find the ratio of how dangerous it is to be on one state over how dangerous it is to be in the other one. If you look at total numbers, you will find that California has 300+ cases and some other states have single digids, which means that California is like 20 times worse than most other places. But if you look at the ratio, then no its not the case. California is usually like 1.5 times worse, but not 20 times worse.

Now, if you look at the lists I provided below, you won't be mislead in this way. After all, I wrote ratios, so anyone remotely familiar with math will look at both numerator and denominator. But if you look at the site that provided that statistics (such as this one https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/03/health/u ... index.html ), they did NOT write ratio; instead, they just wrote the number of people affected and thats it. Now, most people wouldn't realize that the populations of some states might be 30 times larger than populations of the other states. In fact, I myself didn't realize it -- until someone pointed it out to me. So thats how people can just read those numbers and be misled.

The only two states that continue to be dramatically worse are Washington and New York. Like if you go to Washington then its no longer a single digid out of a million but rahter 1 out of 10,000. But still. Do you REALLY feel like you are going to be that unlucky 1 out of 10,000? Seriously?!

In any case, let me show you two lists: first one will order by total number (which is what everyone else does) and the other one I will order by ratios (which is my idea). So here it goes:

ORDERING BY TOTAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE INFECTED:

1. Washington: 769/7,614,893 = 1.0099*10^-4
2. New York: 729/19,453,561 = 3.7474*10^-5
3. California: 369/39,512,223 = 9.339*10^-6
4. Massachusets: 164/6,949,503 = 2.3599*10^-5
5. Colorado: 131/5,758,736 = 2.2748*10^-5
6. Florida: 115/21,477,737 = 5.354*10^-6
7. Georgia: 99/10,617,423 = 9.324*10^-6
8. Illinois: 93/12,671,821 = 7.339*10^-6
9. Louisianna: 91/4,648,794 = 1.9575*10^-5
10. New Jersey: 69/8,882,190 = 7.768*10^-6
11. Pennsylvania: 63/12,801,989 = 4.921*10^-6
12. Texas: 51/28,995,881 = 1.759*10^-6
13. Virginia: 45/8,535,519 = 5.272*10^-6
14. Tennessee: 39/6,833,174 = 5.707*10^-6
15. Ohio: 36/11,689,100 = 3.08*10^-6
16. Oregon: 36/4,217,737 = 8.535*10^-6
17. Minnesota: 35/5,639,632 = 6.206*10^-6
18. Michigan: 33/9,986,857 = 3.304*10^-6
19. North Carolina: 32/10,488,084 = 3.051*10^-6
20. Maryland: 31/6,045,680 = 5.128*10^-6
21. South Carolina: 28/5,148,714 = 5.438*10^-6
22. Utah: 28/3,205,958 = 8.734*10^-6
23. Wisconsin: 27/5,822,434 = 4.637*10^-6
24. Connecticut: 26/3,565,287 = 7.293*10^-6
25. Kentucky: 20/4,467,673 = 4.477*10^-6
26. Rhode Island: 20/1,059,361 = 1.8879*10^-5
27. Indiana: 19/6,732,219 = 2.822*10^-6
28. Iowa: 18/3,155,070 = 5.705*10^-6
29. Nevada: 18/3,080,156 = 5.844*10^-6
30. Nebraska: 17/1,934,408 = 8.788*10^-6
31. Arkansas: 16/3,017,825 = 5.302*10^-6
32. District of Columbia: 16/705,749 = 2.2671*10^-5
33. New Hampshire: 13/1,359,711 =9.56*10^-7
34. New Mexico: 13/2,096,829 = 6.281*10^-6
35. Alabama: 12/4,903,185 = 2.447*10^-6
36. Arizona: 12/7,278,717 = 1.649*10^-6
37. Mississippi: 10/2,976,149 = 3.36*10^-6
38. South Dakota: 9/884,659 = 1.0173*10^-5
39. Kansas: 8/2,913,314 = 2.746*10^-6
40. Oklahoma: 8/3,956,971 = 2.022*10^-6
41. Delaware: 7/973,764 = 7.189*10^-6
42. Montana: 7/1,068,778 = 6.55*10^-6
43. Idaho: 5/1,792,065 = 2.79*10^-6
44. Missouri: 5/6,137,428 = 8.15*10^-7
45. Hawaii: 4/1,415,872 = 2.825*10^-6
46. Vermont: 4/623,989 = 6.41*10^-6
47. Maine: 3/1,344,212 = 2.232*10^-6
48. Wyoming: 3/578,759 = 5.184*10^-6
49. Puerto Rico: 3/3,193,694 = 9.39*10^-7
50. Alaska: 1/731,545 = 1.367*10^-6
51. North Dakota: 1/762,062 = 1.312*10^-6

ORDERING BY THE RATIO OF PEOPLE INFECTED TO GENERAL POPULATION:

1. Washington: 769/7,614,893 = 1.0099*10^-4
2. New York: 729/19,453,561 = 3.7474*10^-5
3. Massachusets: 164/6,949,503 = 2.3599*10^-5
4. Colorado: 131/5,758,736 = 2.2748*10^-5
5. District of Columbia: 16/705,749 = 2.2671*10^-5
6. Louisianna: 91/4,648,794 = 1.9575*10^-5
7. Rhode Island: 20/1,059,361 = 1.8879*10^-5
8. South Dakota: 9/884,659 = 1.0173*10^-5
9. California: 369/39,512,223 = 9.339*10^-6
10. Georgia: 99/10,617,423 = 9.324*10^-6
11. Nebraska: 17/1,934,408 = 8.788*10^-6
12. Utah: 28/3,205,958 = 8.734*10^-6
13. Oregon: 36/4,217,737 = 8.535*10^-6
14. New Jersey: 69/8,882,190 = 7.768*10^-6
15. Illinois: 93/12,671,821 = 7.339*10^-6
16. Connecticut: 26/3,565,287 = 7.293*10^-6
17. Delaware: 7/973,764 = 7.189*10^-6
18. Montana: 7/1,068,778 = 6.55*10^-6
19. Vermont: 4/623,989 = 6.41*10^-6
20. New Mexico: 13/2,096,829 = 6.281*10^-6
21. Minnesota: 35/5,639,632 = 6.206*10^-6
22. Nevada: 18/3,080,156 = 5.844*10^-6
23. Tennessee: 39/6,833,174 = 5.707*10^-6
24. Iowa: 18/3,155,070 = 5.705*10^-6
25. South Carolina: 28/5,148,714 = 5.438*10^-6
26. Florida: 115/21,477,737 = 5.354*10^-6
27. Arkansas: 16/3,017,825 = 5.302*10^-6
28. Virginia: 45/8,535,519 = 5.272*10^-6
29. Wyoming: 3/578,759 = 5.184*10^-6
30. Maryland: 31/6,045,680 = 5.128*10^-6
31. Pennsylvania: 63/12,801,989 = 4.921*10^-6
32. Wisconsin: 27/5,822,434 = 4.637*10^-6
33. Kentucky: 20/4,467,673 = 4.477*10^-6
34. Mississippi: 10/2,976,149 = 3.36*10^-6
35. Michigan: 33/9,986,857 = 3.304*10^-6
36. Ohio: 36/11,689,100 = 3.08*10^-6
37. North Carolina: 32/10,488,084 = 3.051*10^-6
38. Hawaii: 4/1,415,872 = 2.825*10^-6
39. Indiana: 19/6,732,219 = 2.822*10^-6
40. Idaho: 5/1,792,065 = 2.79*10^-6
41. Kansas: 8/2,913,314 = 2.746*10^-6
42. Alabama: 12/4,903,185 = 2.447*10^-6
43. Maine: 3/1,344,212 = 2.232*10^-6
44. Oklahoma: 8/3,956,971 = 2.022*10^-6
45. Texas: 51/28,995,881 = 1.759*10^-6
46. Arizona: 12/7,278,717 = 1.649*10^-6
47. Alaska: 1/731,545 = 1.367*10^-6
48. North Dakota: 1/762,062 = 1.312*10^-6
49. New Hampshire: 13/1,359,711 =9.56*10^-7
50. Puerto Rico: 3/3,193,694 = 9.39*10^-7
51. Missouri: 5/6,137,428 = 8.15*10^-7

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4 ... navirus-in

“Don’t believe the numbers when you see, even on our Johns Hopkins website, that 1,600 Americans have the virus,” Makary said. “No, that means 1,600 got the test, tested positive. There are probably 25 to 50 people who have the virus for every one person who is confirmed.”

We're only seeing the tip of the iceberg. Especially in Washington state and New York.

Still, though, what I said about ratios is true regardless. They should have written ratios instead of just total numbers.

Some states with lesser numbers have higher ratios. Look at District of Columbia for example. It has one of the smaller numbers yet one of the largest ratios. So if you think its dangerous, then why lure people there?

I like your idea of including the ratios. The more details, the better. I think they should also show the data of the individual cities. I'm sure that Seattle has many more cases than Spokane, but if they only lump the cases into the category of "Washington," it makes the whole state look bad.

Yeah, I agree with you about the cities. I think being in a "dangerous" state far away from major cities is better than being in a "safe" state in the middle of a big city -- since the cities is where it is probably concentrated.

That, plus also different states have different sizes. Same goes for cities by the way. But at least within a city you can say that people travel back and forth. But as far as state goes, there is no reason to assume they are any more likely to travel to the opposite side of a huge state then make a short trip across the border to the other state.

By the way, even though I agree that "the more details the better", as far as ratio goes its not about "more details" but about the MAIN thing. The way I see it is that ratio is the main thing, the total number is a detail.

I do not think anyone is worried about being one of the very few people out of a million. What they're worried about is, that if the infected people are not identified and isolated on time, the number of infections grows exponentially.

Still, it's not something to be overly scared about, unless you're very old or already have another serious illness. Most healthy, young or middle aged people don't get seriously ill.

I think you're missing the point and focusing on the wrong numbers. A ratio isn't a very useful number in epidemiology, you need numbers of people to then extrapolate how many will need hospitalisation, how many will need ICU beds, to determine what resources are needed and when to enact containment measures. Looking at these numbers by themselves to determine how you'll be affected isn't useful either. The trend is important; these numbers will rise exponentially, and in a couple of weeks the numbers will be rising rapidly.

Also, focusing on coronavirus mortality alone to determine how many people will die or how likely you are to die doesn't capture the entire picture. Most people with coronavirus will survive, but many of those people will still need hospitalisation, far more than what any nation's hospital system can deal with. The hardest hit places will have to make some tough decisions in the next months, letting patients they might've been able to help previously die. Mortality data will never account for this - people are going to be dying regardless of their cause for presenting to hospital because there won't be the resources to manage them.

From heart attacks to teenagers at parties who popped too many pills, mortality for all presentations is going to rise when resources are sufficiently stretched.

What ratio is telling you is the probability of a given person catching the desease.



Actually in this thread I wasn't focusion on mortality at all -- I only talked about getting sick. You see, they gave two sets of numbers: number of deaths and number of sicknesses. The numbers I used was number of sicknesses.

There probably will be many more cases of the Coronavirus reported----once testing really gets under way. The vast majority will be people with mild illnesses who weren't on the "priority list" for testing.

The unfortunate thing is that at least some of the mild cases will infect people in the higher-risk categories.

The question really should be:

What percentage of those being tested on any given day are positive for COVID-19?

I sense that this will give us a good idea as to the extent of COVID-19 infiltration.

I decided to isolate in my apartment. My husband had chronic health conditions and caught double pneumonia that lead to his death eventually combined with other things. Awful way to die....

My apartment is in a very small village more than 15 miles from any major town. Probably will be awhile before it gets here.

All that hurts my head...

Trump had to declare a national emergency even though he was being reluctant about it, and its a global pandemic it is serious.

Also I myself am not so worried about catching the virus myself...don't think I am in the at risk group for it being fatal. But with the whole national emergency thing I am a bit more worried about people acting crazy than I am about getting sick.

The reality is no one knows exactly how many people have it or just carry it without having symptoms and could be spreading it to other people. They haven't tested everyone.

By the way, you are living in one of the most dangerous states. The state of Colorado is number 4 in one of my lists and number 5 in the other of my list.

Are you saying your husband died just now or a long time ago? If just now, then I am confused why you said in the next paragraph that desease won't get to your place any time soon. Are you saying his pneumonia had nothing to do with it and its just a coincidence?

Her husband passed away not long ago.

She's saying that double pneumonia was a contributing factor to his passing away---but there were other conditions, too, which contributed to his passing away.

He passed away in December... But how he passed is kinda similar to how people with Coronavirus are passing...