Statistic Added to Worldometer Chart

Moxie(Z4 St. Paul, MN)

The worldometer global table has a new column "Tot. Deaths/1M Pop." The data in the table can be sorted in ascending or descending order by column. The table resets at midnight GMT. Timeliness of the data depends on when and how often their sources update. One can drill down to USA for data by state. They have links to their sources for state data.

Link to Worldometer Charts

At this time:

Total confirmed cases

  1. China
  2. Italy
  3. USA

Total confirmed deaths vs. deaths per 1M pop

  1. Italy > 6000 (~101 deaths per 1M population)
  2. China > 3000 (~2 deaths per 1M population)
  3. Spain > 2800 (~60 deaths per 1M population)
SaveComment34Like
Comments (34)
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

Interesting. We are still climbing. I will be much more assured when we level off.

Save     Thanked by Moxie
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
ubro(2a)

Thank you for the link

Save     Thanked by Moxie
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

Web MD pediatrician speaks about flattening the curve.

https://www.instagram.com/tv/B-H82gEASU4/?igshid=6b94u17wnpwu

1 Like Save     Thanked by Moxie
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jerzeegirl (FL zone 9B)(9b)

That Worldometer show a death rate of 4.45%. That's pretty high.

1 Like Save     Thanked by Moxie
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nhb_6

jerzeegirl (FL zone 9B)(9b)

I do not think we really know how accurate 4.45% yet. Here is good discussion of mortality rate:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-rate/

But it is scarry


1 Like Save     Thanked by Moxie
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

Even if we flatten the curve doesn’t mean we are out of the woods. It just means we have a trail to follow.

3 Likes Save     Thanked by Moxie
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dandyfopp

Just how dumb is Ann Coulter?


1 Like Save     Thanked by Moxie
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
petalique

Coulter is an attention seeking numbskull. Her approximate age is 59.5 yrs. But because she’s a gadfly, her risk of contracting it might be higher than others who aren’t socializing.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
girlnamedgalez8a(8A)

We are about to over come China as the country with the most cases.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Wants to Grow

Hi girlnamedgalez, China's statistics cannot be trusted, since they lie.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
blfenton

And China has four times the population of the US. The US has ten times the population of Canada but is far-out stripping us in cases and deaths proportionally.

I hope that the US starts to flatten it's curve somehow really soon.

2 Likes Save     Thanked by Moxie
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
ubro(2a)

Hi girlnamedgalez, China's statistics cannot be trusted, since they lie.

And because the US does not have enough testing yours are much higher as well.


1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
girlnamedgalez8a(8A)

There are many here in the US who cannot even get tested. They are being turned down so we will never really know how many cases are here in this country.


2 Likes Save     Thanked by Moxie
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"That Worldometer show a death rate of 4.45%. That's pretty high. "

JG, it's total deaths per 1 million in population (not per 100 in population). "4.45%" of our populaton (of about 330,000,000) would be approximately 147,000 deaths. Right now we have about 1,300 deaths.

That is what the thread/OP is about.

Then, following your comment about "4.45%", nhb posted a comment and link talking about a completely different calculation - mortality rate among those who get the virus (positive tests). Our current US death rate using the numbers provided in worldometer is 1.5% (of those who have tested positive). That rate has been coming down as more testing has been completed and the number of positive tests has increased.

ETA: I calculated the 1.5% death rate by dividing the number of deaths (1300) by the number of cases (85,594). These were the numbers tonight but are updated constantly.

1 Like Save     Thanked by Moxie
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
miss lindsey (stillmissesSophie,chase,others)(8a)

This 16% of closed cases that ended in death...is this cases that were treated in hospital or *all* cases?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Lindsey, those are closed cases (they've had an outcome and are no longer "active" cases). Those with closed cases either recovered or died. At this point, that overall number is still pretty low because the greater number of cases are still in the "active" category rather than the "closed" category.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

I've been trying to get a handle on this question too, because different sources say different things. From my reading, and from the link that nhb_6 posted above in the worldometers site, the mortality rate will be a moving target for some time. It will keep changing as we understand more about the number of cases that really exist in the population, as as we sort out which sources or countries are likely to be providing the most accurate data for the calculations.

Shortages of tests, incomplete reporting, or people who are only lightly
symptomatic or completely asymptomatic make the actual number of cases
likely much higher. What happens if you increase the denominator (the
reported cases) in this equation? The mortality rate goes down.

Second, calculating the mortality rate in this way ignores the factor of time. Some of the reported cases may have been just diagnosed. What will be their ultimate outcome? Only time will tell.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/03/18/calculating-the-coronavirus-mortality-rate-its-complicated/

I think Dr. Birx was saying yesterday that testing for covid19 antibodies could be helpful in learning more about how many in the population have the virus but are asymptomatic.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
ubro(2a)

Part of my concern is that if posters are right and China is lying then this is worse than anticipated. Italy and Spain are examples of that. Some of the other European countries don't have reassuring numbers either.

Here is another tracking site it does state by state and province by province and even city by city..


https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Mudhouse, yeah. Dr. Birx talked at length yesterday about the people comprising the denominator that we have no idea about or count of yet. Also, the UK epidemiologist lowered his dire predictions by a very large amount yesterday. I'll see if I can find that info, because it was a very big change to his estimated numbers.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Here we are, from the Washington Times. This represents a 96% drop in his estimate!

"A British epidemiologist who earlier predicted the U.K. could suffer up to 500,000 coronavirus deaths has now testified the actual figure may be less than 20,000 and that the U.K. should have sufficient intensive care units to handle it.

Neil Ferguson, who is at Imperial College London and who has now contracted COVID-19 himself, made the startling turnaround in parliamentary testimony Wednesday, according to multiple reports. All of his statistics are derived from computer modeling."

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

That's an interesting story Ann, I was following it yesterday. For someone with my background it's also a little bit complicated, and as of late yesterday it was still unfolding. Some articles I read early yesterday had to change their titles later in the day, because the first reporting indicated that Neil Ferguson had revised his estimates for UK deaths down (to less than 5% of his first estimate) because of problems with the models he used in his study.

Late yesterday Neil Ferguson tweeted that he needed to correct that misunderstanding, because he still stood by his models, and by his earlier estimate. He seems to be saying the 96% reduction in estimated death rate is because of the fact that the UK decided to go with the social distancing solution.

I kind of hate to see another confusing thing for everybody to argue about. Right now I think one side will say it was wrong to base critical actions (like shutting down an economy) on estimates that appear to be incredibly overinflated. Others will say the numbers before and after are all correct, and that Ferguson's initial prediction is exactly what would have happened if social distancing hadn't occurred.

It's above my pay grade to know. I'll wait to see what Dr. Birx and others say. Clearly covid19 is a serious threat because it overwhelms hospital systems in ways that other viruses have not. We all want to know numbers, to understand what's happening, but apparently early numbers are hard to rely on. It's frustrating, because you can spend a lot of time reading, and still come up with so many opposing viewpoints.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Part of my concern is that if posters are right and China is lying then this is worse than anticipated.

Ubro, this worries me too, and it puts researchers at a big disadvantage when they really don't know if the data coming out of China can be trusted, because those were the earliest studies they could access, as they started making recommendations that affected the decision making in other countries. Personally I think it's better to assume that China is not being entirely honest in their numbers.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"It's above my pay grade to know. I'll wait to see what Dr. Birx and others say."

Heck, it was above their pay grade too, since it was brand new and unknown. But, now, they are getting enough data to begin to wrap their arms around it. As Dr. Brix said yesterday, the Italy experience is different from the Sweden experience, etc. Various countries are trying various methods of shut down or less of that (like in Sweden) and various methods are getting results. I think it might be very reasonable to think some segments of our big country can open soon and far sooner than others. As was talked about in yesterday's news conference, while some areas of the country might open substantially, others may be shut down even more for a time. I like that they are beginning to explore data driven differences and targeted approaches.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"Personally I think it's better to assume that China is not being entirely honest in their numbers."

I agree. I think now that we're further into the pandemic, we're getting data from countries where we can trust the honesty factor far more.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Moxie(Z4 St. Paul, MN)

There are two ways to measure death rate.

  1. deaths per capita (or a variant like per 1 million people)
  2. deaths per confirmed cases

The first method is far more accurate.

Either metric depends on the accuracy of the death count. It can be inaccurate because through incorrect attribution of cause of death and/or because the number reported is accidently or deliberately incorrect.

Death based on population count is a more reliable metric. While populations numbers are not perfectly accurate, they are "good enough" especially when measured in units of 1 million. In units of 1 million, populations don't fluctuate much in the short term. Population counts are not easily manipulated to give a particular slant to the data.

Death based on case count is something we'd like to know. At best, we will only have a very rough order of magnitude estimate. Without univeral testing, we don't have an accurate current case count. Even if we had universal testing, we wouldn't know how many cases there were prior to that. We have no idea how many "flu" cases were actually early COVID-19 case. We don't know how many cases there were before any testing was available. As with death count, case count is suseptible to deliberate manipulation.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
ubro(2a)

Now isn't it surreal that we, today are discussing Death counts and how they are measured.

Save     Thanked by Moxie
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

It's certainly unfortunate but death rates and counts are and need to be discussed for viruses, drug overdoses, cancer, car accidents, suicide and many more causes where death rates unfortunately apply.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nhb_6

Ann

"It's above my pay grade to know. I'll wait to see what Dr. Birx and others say."

Heck, it was above their pay grade too, since it was brand new and unknown. But, now, they are getting enough data to begin to wrap their arms around it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is exactly the point: "... to BEGIN to wrap their arms around it..."

So how is it smart or responsible for Trump to suggest ( even as a hope) a specific date?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8MmfceRLFU

https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-coronavirus-task-force-briefing-transcript-march-24

We are just in the beginning and nowhere " near the end of our historic battle with the invisible enemy "


Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

"...to ***begin to wrap their arms around it...

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
ubro(2a)

17,000 plus new cases today in the US, just a few days ago each day brought a few thousand, now into double digits.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
ubro(2a)

They added a new column, the first day a case was reported in each country, interesting read

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
blfenton

They also added across the top - the World statistics as well.

Or maybe I just didn't notice it before.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

nhb_6: So how is it smart or responsible for Trump to suggest ( even as a hope) a specific date?

One of things I've learned at HT is there's a huge difference in the way we hear/view things.

To some people, maybe the specific date of Easter seems like a switch to be thrown, and everybody everywhere will be told to go back to work, regardless of consequences, and regardless of the advice of members of the task force team. Closed to open, in one day. But nobody really thinks that's what will happen, of course.

To me, it's clear the Easter date as an aspirational guideline, and one that has always been, from the very start, designed to be modified as we see what the numbers do across the country. To me, it's part of Trump's job, as a leader, to let people know that there will be a time when we're able to start to rebuild the lives we had previously, even if there can be no guarantee of a specific date.

It's his job to give people hope. If that doesn't give you any hope, because of distrust of Trump, I get that. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't do it, because it gives a lot of others hope (who see things differently) and they're comforted to have a leader talk about a date in the future when things will be better. It doesn't matter if it's Easter, or not. The direction forward is what matters, not the specific day.

When Trump negotiates in business, his initial offer is always more than he thinks he'll get. He does that on purpose, because compromise is part of the process, and he picks a high starting point. And this recovery IS a process, not an overnight change from closed to open. The specific date of Easter is just a movable place holder, and a symbolic start to let people think past the awful current days. That's why it was the right thing for him to say.

Personally I don't think he should have made the comment about church pews in Easter. It's a mistake to make any reference to gatherings. Trump isn't careful with his words and he buys himself trouble frequently because of that. But that doesn't change anything I typed above.

Save    
Browse Gardening and Landscaping Stories on Houzz See all Stories
Research How Much Homeowners Spent on Landscape Projects in 2018
Two recent Houzz reports show median costs for landscape upgrades last year and which projects were most popular
Full Story
Summer Gardening 10 Ideas for a Front-Yard Edible Garden Your Neighbors Will Love
Choosing attractive, well-mannered plants and sharing the bounty will go a long way to keeping the peace
Full Story
Data Watch Inside Houzz: New Data Offer Insights on Landscaping Trends
Homeowners are looking to manage water and add more enjoyment to their landscapes, according to a new Houzz survey
Full Story