SCI: The new flu, an analytical approach

page: 1
47
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+23 more 
posted on May, 7 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   
In the midst of the threads of news and updates, and theories about the “Novel- flu” (swine-flu) i feel a little like drowning, and i am sure that i am not alone.

Therefore i thought i should make an analytical approach (as i am an apprentice lab-technician) to all the numbers to get a clearer perspective on how this is evolving and how it has evolved so far. I will keep updating this first post every day to improve my calculations and show an up to date picture.

Sorry if i am beeing booring:p

In all my calculations i have only used official numbers from the WHO, i know many don’t thrust them, but the data seem to paint a pretty plausible, and more dire picture than i thought before i started.

NOTE: All my calculations are based on world wide cases.
Also remember that this is statistics and statistics can lie, but often helps to paint a picture of things.


Official number of infected up to today



Official number of dead up to today



It is easy to see the graphs roughly follows each other, meaning that the death rate has NOT decreased and appear to be fairly constant at this time.
(The bumps in the graph are due to the small amount of datapoints)

Now looking at this graphs one can easily see that they are both exponential

Then making the assumption that the death rate is constant over time one can use the same equation to calculate both graphs. I calculated an equation for the Infected rate as this has more data point and are in other words more reliable
From looking at the data i belive the equation for this graph is somewehere close too: f(x)=(x*0,2)+x

(using the data and comparing the function to the increase so far fits pretty well but i will review it over time when we get new official data)

Then, knowing that the lab tests take from 5-9 days to complete it means that the official numbers are in avrage 7 days old!

By moving the timline on my first graph 7 days back i can calculate what the numbers might be now:

Infected calculation



Deaths calculation


I will not try to use this to predict the furture since only time will tell if my calculations are close to correct, but it appears to be not too outlandish.
You can probably multibly the numbers by some factor too, since there surely is many infected that have not, and will not be detected. (Even though things dont look good anyways)

(all calculations and graphs done by Zykloner)

I would really appriciate comments and sugestions on how to improve my model.
And as said earlier i will improve my calculations and add one day to the graph timelines everyday. (If people are reading and active)

Source of data for all calculations

(bet you cant get this thread frontpage)


Thank you for reading.

-Zyk



[edit on 7-5-2009 by Zykloner]

[edit on 7-5-2009 by Zykloner]

[edit on 7-5-2009 by Zykloner]




posted on May, 7 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   
S&F Zykloner,

Not many data points yet but if it does continue to increase we will see soon enough



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Yes

And for fun my calculations say that the evening report from WHO will be around 2500 infected per today.

-Zyk

[edit on 7-5-2009 by Zykloner]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   
S&F

I will be checking in on this page daily, so please do keep up the good work. WHO may not be the most reliable source in all of this, but as long as you keep all information coming from any one source, the progress of cases should be correct for numbers obtained anywhere.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Cameoii
 


Exactly



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Zykloner
 





And for fun my calculations say that the evening report from WHO will be around 2500 infected per today.


Considering that the last official report was something like 2099 infected cases, I would say you are probably spot on. We have the entire rest of the day to make it up to around 2500.

I will most definitely keep watching this thread.

[edit on 5/7/09 by CSquared288]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   
New numbers from WHO out.
2371 infected

Official graph edited

Not changing calculations yet since i expect an RSD% of about +-5
Meaning 2500 is close enough


-Zyk



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   
S&F!

A Graph will get more attention than plain boring numbers...


I'll cross post this from...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Just as a side note for total estimates based on just raw numbers

*In no way really scientific, just playing with numbers*


These figures were based on...
Mexico: 92 Additional Cases and Two Additional Fatal Cases of Influenza A (H1N1) Confirmed; Total Increases to 1,204 Cases and 44 Deaths less than a minute ago from web

Hmmm...with these numbers=3.65% mortality rate?


And...

Flu Pandemic Morbidity / Mortality
www.globalsecurity.org...

~
A different pattern may emerge in a pandemic. The 1918-19 pandemic affected mainly healthy young adults and seemed to spare those at the extremes of life. In the USA, the mortality rate during the 1918 pandemic pandemic was around 2.5%. Similarly, in 1957, the brunt fell on schoolchildren and young adults.

----------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm...using this info


7/1/2007 population estimate
Chicago, Ill. 2,836,658

at 3.65% mortality rate=~103,538

-----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. 306,375,158
17:04 GMT (EST+5) May 07, 2009
www.census.gov...

at 3.65% mortality rate=~11,182,693

-----------------------------------------------------------
World 6,778,292,272
17:07 GMT (EST+5) May 07, 2009
www.census.gov...

at 3.65% mortality rate=~247,407,668


...but cut these by .333 IF that's the estimate of WHO 1/3 TOTAL infected...still...
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm...

Using a .333 infection rate of total populations at 3.65% mortality we get...

Chicago=~34,478

US=~3,723,837

World=~82,386,753


-----------------------------------------------------------
OK OK


Don't beat me about the cranium with those numbers


I was using just STRAIGHT numbers...

I know it will not be evenly divided across the globe...

Developed country's will probably have .333 of the mortality totals, while 3rd world country's will bear the .666 of this, IF it occurs...


[edit on 5/7/2009 by Hx3_1963]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Zykloner
 


Good post, thanks for all your work.

f(x)=(x*0,2)+x

Is your equation an estimation by looking, or did you let a program do a "Best Squares" fit? It seems you equation is saying a 20% increase everyday, but that doesn't seem right. It should be fairly easy to get a very accurate equation (or "trendline") using whatever software created those charts. With a trendline you will have a very accurate margin of error as well.

Just a suggestion, I want to follow up and see how accurate your data is. I believe we will see a decline over summer and big resurgence this fall. I am actually a little worried about it's seriousness next winter.


[edit on 7-5-2009 by getreadyalready]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   
sorry but your charts reflect 0 - 5 in one and 0 - 1000 in another.,.,,,,

fab in graphical terms as they all seem so steep... and so complimetary

I'm not dissing you or down playing things but....



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Zykloner
 


Good post, thanks for all your work.

f(x)=(x*0,2)+x

Is your equation an estimation by looking, or did you let a program do a "Best Squares" fit? It seems you equation is saying a 20% increase everyday, but that doesn't seem right. It should be fairly easy to get a very accurate equation (or "trendline") using whatever software created those charts. With a trendline you will have a very accurate margin of error as well.

Just a suggestion, I want to follow up and see how accurate your data is. I believe we will see a decline over summer and big resurgence this fall. I am actually a little worried about it's seriousness next winter.


[edit on 7-5-2009 by getreadyalready]


All charts made in MS Excel
Calculations for function done manually as programs have problems with this few datapoints. Function is compared to the increase in WHO updates and seem to fit well up to this point.

-Zyk



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by yzzyUK
sorry but your charts reflect 0 - 5 in one and 0 - 1000 in another.,.,,,,

fab in graphical terms as they all seem so steep... and so complimetary

I'm not dissing you or down playing things but....


It is called exponential growth and it is what you get if one person infects more than one new. My current function says that one person infects 1,2 persons. That is actually not much compared to spanish flu for example which had about 1,5 at times. I wasnt that worried either and bacame rather shocked making my own graphs and calculations.

-Zyk



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Zykloner
 


y = 27.019x2 - 139.07x + 179.34
R2 = 0.9955

for infections, I didn't do deaths yet.

Hi Zyk,

I didn't want to spend 3 hrs to duplicate your numbers, but just guesstimating from your chart and plugging into excel I got the best fit equation above. I expected an exponential (e^x) equation to work better, because this is a population type growth, but it didn't. 2nd Degree polynomial gave a very small margin of error. If you want to U2U me the real data points, I will try it again.

[edit on 7-5-2009 by getreadyalready]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Well

Thats it for today folks. Im hitting bed now.
Thanx for S&F
I will edit it around 16:00 GMT tomorrow

-Zyk

[edit on 7-5-2009 by Zykloner]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Zykloner
 


Great info Zykloner. I thought I would include the following link to the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) H1N1 Influenza Center.

also, Check this Jan 14, 2004 Center for Infectious Disease Research & Policy (CIDRAP) News -
CDC to mix avian, human flu viruses in pandemic study

"That could happen, scientists predict, if someone who is already infected with an ordinary flu virus contracts the avian virus at the same time. The avian virus has already caused at least 48 confirmed human illness cases in Asia, of which 35 have been fatal. The virus has shown little ability to spread from person to person, but the fear is that a hybrid could combine the killing power of the avian virus with the transmissibility of human flu viruses.

Now, rather than waiting to see if nature spawns such a hybrid, US scientists are planning to try to breed one themselves—in the name of preparedness."

Note that this CIDRAP news article was published Jan 14, 2004.

Makes one pause and ponder...



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Nice thread, I don't know why the media is now suggesting that swine flu is declining, just because Mexico says so because they don't want to be hurt anymore economically. I guess that was proof enough for them.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by bl4ke360
Nice thread, I don't know why the media is now suggesting that swine flu is declining, just because Mexico says so because they don't want to be hurt anymore economically. I guess that was proof enough for them.


You are on to something there,
by looking at the official number graphs it is quite apparent that it is NOT declining.

-Zyk



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 03:30 AM
link   
Front-page!
Yay!

Nice too see you appriciate my work.

No new numbers from WHO so i cant recalculate my function yet.
I will add another day to the timeline as soon as i get home from work.

-Zyk



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 03:56 AM
link   
I guess I will be the first to dump on your graphs. First, Kudos to you for all the hard work. Second, I think that the first graph of the rate of infection is great. The problem that I have is with the second graph showing the amount of deaths. I think that it is highly sensationalized to create maximum effect by creating an upper limit of 50. I think that you should use the same parameters that you used in the first graph (an upper limit of 2500) so that people can see that deaths from infection are minuscule.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 04:03 AM
link   
reply to post by SuperSecretSquirrel
 


You are not dumping friend, all feedback is appriciated.
Thanks for input.

I see your point but the calculated graphs are actually following the same function giving about a 2% death-rate. As for now the death graph is lagging 5-10 days behind the infected graph, something that makes it unreadable with that scale.

When time passes and the function are perfected i am planning to put both graphs in one x-y system.

-Zyk





top topics
 
47
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join