Yeah but it won’t be updated so it will fail too, if not with 0.106, sometime later.
So do I. It’s nice and lightweight.
Oh FFS. Sorry. 
Wasn’t paying close enough attention.
So on topic-ish:
Why bother tracking it?
The flu kills way more people. 56,000 a year.
the only reason the flu kills more people each year is that it is a lot more widespread. If COVID-19 is allowed to spread to the same extent we’ll be seeing at least ten times more deaths each year as the mortality rate for COVID-19 are ten times higher than those for influenza.
4 Likes
Summary:
- More people get infected with some strain of the influenza virus every year than have been infected by COVID-19 (so far).
- Influenza kills about 0.1% of infected patients (US stats). COVID-19’s death rate is currently estimated to be 2-3% (and much higher in the elderly and lower in the young).
- Influenza’s characteristics are known and vaccines are available.
- COVID-19’s characteristics are unknown and no vaccines are available.
- The R0 (R-nought; transmission rate) of influenza is ~1.3 (one infected person can infect just over one other person).
- The R0 of influenza is currently estimated to be between 2 and 3 (one infected person can infect just over 2 more persons).
Compared to influenza, humanity faces a virus with (relatively) unknown characteristics, higher death rate, higher transmission rate, and no available vaccine.
Although medical knowledge has improved tremendously in the past century, there is a lesson to be learned from the 1918 Influenza Pandemic (a.k.a. “Spanish Flu”). It infected about a quarter of the world’s population at the time (half-billion people contracted it) and is estimated to have killed tens of millions.
The best defense available now is to minimize one’s chances of infection. Information is widely available from reputable sources (WHO, CDC, etc). It consists of simple hygiene to prevent infection and common-sense practices to minimize transmission should you become infected. The advice is practical and should also help to minimize the chances of contracting seasonal influenza and the common cold (also transmitted by air-borne droplets).
3 Likes
It’s nice to see, how people quote statistics, no one knows how accurate they are…
With all these comparisons to the flu, one has to keep in mind, that COVID-19 is a new deasease, all numbers shown at the moment are based on estimation, not facts!
No one knows the dark figures. If you take Iran for example, all experts say, they are more infected people, than officially noted. If you take these people into account, take all others, that don’t even know they have/had COVID-19, the death rate gets lower and lower. Experts say, based on estimation, that the death toll will be around the same as the influenza.
I personally can only guess, but within the first six to ten months of this infection, we will not have any numbers, that can be seen as facts, they are just a guesses. It is way to early, to give any reasonable numbers, we will have to wait! 
Good stuff, thank you.
Your post began with the claim that no one knows the accuracy of the statistics (issued by organizations most familiar with the subject matter). Yet it fails to provide evidence to substantiate this claim, only a trailing ellipsis which constitutes nothing more than a wink and a nod.
It continues by claiming the reported statistics aren’t facts but estimations. In your opinion, when does an estimate become a fact? For example, the world’s population is estimated to be 7.7 billion. When will it become a fact?
Please provide references for the “experts” you cited in your example about Iran.
It’s entirely plausible that there are more cases of infection than officially reported. That may be due to many reasons including concealment, lack of testing, symptoms haven’t manifested themselves yet, etc.
Let’s assume it’s a combination of all of the above and there are more infected individuals than currently known/reported. That does not automatically make the death rate lower. For that to happen, all of the unreported cases would have to survive their infection. That’s simply implausible; all of the unreported cases would have to be part of a cohort known to have better odds of survival (i.e. the young).
It ends with a personal “guess” that humanity needs to wait more than “six to ten months” before “facts” are known. I encourage you to learn more about epidemiology. Outbreaks tend to follow a pattern and you don’t need to wait 6-10 months to understand their progression.
2 Likes
In the US, the number of reported cases roughly doubles every 4 days. If you’re numerate, you can do the math.
You’re welcome to wait if you want to. I’m planning for what I consider a certainty.
1 Like
Nice try, but as long as you take all countries into account, you will not getting me to agree, that everybody is setting the same standard as it is for example in the US or Europe. And even there are huge differences. So everything you put together is nothing else than an estimation, based on the idea, everybody tells the truth and is accurate - sorry Mate, not going to happen in this world. And for this, I don’t need statistics, that’s just my personal experience.
Good example, but that’s not what I meant. I meant that in that moment, you read the statistic, it is already not accurate. The ways for reporting aren’t the same everywhere, so it is logical, that these numbers aren’t real time. Please don’t read a “the-earth-is-flat” theory into this. What I wanted to say is, we are nearly on the same page regarding the statistics, but it is not as accurate as a number on sold cars. Can we agree on that?
No, you are just assuming the “extreme” value. There is something in between the numbers you noted before and “all unreported cases will survive”. As english is not my native language, I’ll try it with an example:
According to your numbers two out of a hundred will not survive. If you just add twenty people to this, that are not diagnosed, not tested and so on, it changes to 120 and two dead. Makes a factor of 1.667%…
The difference is simply too big to speak of accurate measurement. And that’s what I’m saying. Your numbers can be right, but until we have more data material, this is more guessing than knowing.
It’s not about understanding the progression, it is about not enough data material to say soemthing defintive. One of the priorities in epidemology is accurate data. Right now, you can’t say the data is accurate. So we will need time to reassure the numbers are correct. Taking the actual spreading pattern, my guess is six to ten months to validate the estimations given right now or to adjust them.
To take the minimalistc approach, I’m saying: take the numbers we have, but do not take them as a fact, keep always in mind, they are estimations at the moment and will change. In which direction is as well a guess, mine is, the death rate will be lower in hindsight.
That’s exactly what I’m talking about. The CDC is denying tests to people, to keep the data low. And no, this is a fact, can be read on all major medias, I saw it yesterday on CNN (and checked it against german media).
But to avoid misunderstandings, I don’t care or criticize this behaviour, I’m just saying it is changing the data material we have. And that’s why I don’t believe these statistics are accurate. That’s all what I’m saying, it is more guessing than knowing at this point.
EDIT: And if you now take countries like Iran or North Korea, you don’t want to tell me, there numbers are accurate, don’t you?
Maybe all patients have visiting hours, so are unavailable…
I had the same this morning, in my case it was the unavailability of the domain for half an hour or so. Have you tried to check the page in the browser?
Removed the integration, added it back and voila… but something is wrong here… (but not the people count)
Yes, I agree. The number I’ve used are confirmed cases. The real numbers are likely worse. But waiting for more reasonable numbers to inform what needs to be done is not a course of action. That’s all I’m attempting to convey.
1 Like
In fact, I’m not trying to get you to agree to anything. My point was simply that your entire rebuttal was based on “personal experience”, “personal guess”, unreferenced and unsubstantiated claims.
As with most everything else in science, the information reported to date has been based on the best available evidence. If your point was simply to say the statistics will be refined with more data then we are in agreement. However, your message disputes the validity of most everything known to date and introduces specious arguments.
According to your numbers two out of a hundred will not survive. If you just add twenty people to this, that are not diagnosed, not tested and so on, it changes to 120 and two dead. Makes a factor of 1.667%
The death rate is calculated based on knowns, not unknowns. The 20 additional people your example introduces are unknowns so, yes, they may all not die thereby driving the death rate down or they may all die and drive the death rate up. The reality is likely to be somewhere in between.
Tens of thousands are known to have been infected and thousands are known to have died. At the risk of sounding cold and calculating, that’s an adequate sample-size to establish a reliable death rate.
1 Like
I had a 12.26 PM and a 8.26 PM update. Currently shows 85 People
Can you share your lovelace code ? I like the graphic version better than glance card
The card is mini-graph-card .
color_thresholds:
- color: '#e74c3c'
value: 150
- color: '#ffff00'
value: 75
- color: '#1db954'
value: 0
entities:
- entity: sensor.uk_coronavirus_confirmed
index: 0
- entity: sensor.uk_coronavirus_deaths
index: 0
- entity: sensor.uk_coronavirus_current
index: 0
font_size: 65
height: 46
hours_to_show: 168
line_width: 2
name: Coronavirus
points_per_hour: 1
show:
extrema: true
icon: false
type: 'custom:mini-graph-card'
I’m sure it could be better, but works for me.
3 Likes
Thanks a lot