On Topic Discussion 2019 Coronavirus (COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2)

[cityboy-stl]

I know a couple of people who don't plan to get vaccinated, who when they heard about the $1mn lottery idea scoffed: they recognize that the chance of them winning anything is negligible. One said they should have twenty $50k prizes instead and he'd go get his shots because that would be enough money to totally change his life and having twenty times as great a chance to win would be enough to make it worthwhile.

But you still have the same odds of winning any one drawing.

First of all, this isn't a Lottery (like the state lotteries) despite what they're calling it. It is basically a Raffle. In a Raffle, winners are chosen from among those who participate. Someone always wins a Raffle. Winning Lottery numbers are chosen irrespective of the tickets sold. That's why Lotteries roll-over all the time. Second, in a Raffle, chances are based on the tickets sold or in this case, shots given. If there are 1,000 shots given, your chances are 1 in 1,000. If there were twenty $50K prizes, your chances are 20 in 1,000.

 

[Alistair]

First of all, this isn't a Lottery (like the state lotteries) despite what they're calling it. It is basically a Raffle. In a Raffle, winners are chosen from among those who participate. Someone always wins a Raffle. Winning Lottery numbers are chosen irrespective of the tickets sold. That's why Lotteries roll-over all the time. Second, in a Raffle, chances are based on the tickets sold or in this case, shots given. If there are 1,000 shots given, your chances are 1 in 1,000. If there were twenty $50K prizes, your chances are 20 in 1,000.

But the odds basically don’t change from one drawing to the next (other than the people that are added in as they get vaccinated so your odds actually get worse as you go)

as for your example each drawing your odds are still 1 in 1000 not 20 in 1000

 

[cityboy-stl]

But the odds basically don’t change from one drawing to the next (other than the people that are added in as they get vaccinated so your odds actually get worse as you go)

as for your example each drawing your odds are still 1 in 1000 not 20 in 1000

The first sentence is contradictory. The odds DO change from one drawing to the next as well as get worse with more entrants. Assuming one prize, the odds are 1 in the-number-of-tickets-in-the-pot. The odds of your individual ticket being selected varies with the total number in the drawing. It could 1 in 1,000. It could be 1 in 10,000. Or it could be 1 in 10. It's not the same as an actual Lottery where the winning numbers are independent of the tickets; in that case your individual odds are always the same regardless of how many tickets there are.

If they were giving 20 prizes, we know there will be 20 winners in the Raffle. At the first drawing there already exists 20 winners sitting there in that pot of 1,000 tickets. Therefore, the odds of your individual ticket being selected are 20 in 1,000 - or statistically 1 in 50 tickets in that pot of 1,000, is a winner. Or if you want to think of it this way - 1 in 1000 - 20 times.

 

[belamyi]

The first sentence is contradictory. The odds DO change from one drawing to the next as well as get worse with more entrants. Assuming one prize, the odds are 1 in the-number-of-tickets-in-the-pot. The odds of your individual ticket being selected varies with the total number in the drawing. It could 1 in 1,000. It could be 1 in 10,000. Or it could be 1 in 10. It's not the same as an actual Lottery where the winning numbers are independent of the tickets; in that case your individual odds are always the same regardless of how many tickets there are.

If they were giving 20 prizes, we know there will be 20 winners in the Raffle. At the first drawing there already exists 20 winners sitting there in that pot of 1,000 tickets. Therefore, the odds of your individual ticket being selected are 20 in 1,000 - or statistically 1 in 50 tickets in that pot of 1,000, is a winner. Or if you want to think of it this way - 1 in 1000 - 20 times.

 

[Alistair]

The first sentence is contradictory. The odds DO change from one drawing to the next as well as get worse with more entrants. Assuming one prize, the odds are 1 in the-number-of-tickets-in-the-pot. The odds of your individual ticket being selected varies with the total number in the drawing. It could 1 in 1,000. It could be 1 in 10,000. Or it could be 1 in 10. It's not the same as an actual Lottery where the winning numbers are independent of the tickets; in that case your individual odds are always the same regardless of how many tickets there are.

If they were giving 20 prizes, we know there will be 20 winners in the Raffle. At the first drawing there already exists 20 winners sitting there in that pot of 1,000 tickets. Therefore, the odds of your individual ticket being selected are 20 in 1,000 - or statistically 1 in 50 tickets in that pot of 1,000, is a winner. Or if you want to think of it this way - 1 in 1000 - 20 times.

Sorry that’s not how odds work. If you buy a lottery ticket every day your odds don’t improve for winning. Your odds are exactly the same as the guy that buys one ticket. You have more chances to win, but not better odds.

 

[cityboy-stl]

Sorry that’s not how odds work. If you buy a lottery ticket every day your odds don’t improve for winning. Your odds are exactly the same as the guy that buys one ticket. You have more chances to win, but not better odds.

That is exactly what I said. And NOT what we are talking about. Or are you just being difficult? The covid prizes are not lotteries depite what they're being called.

 

[Alistair]

I’m not going to argue with you. It’s pretty simple math.

 

[belamyi]

I’m not going to argue with you. It’s pretty simple math.

Exactly: simple math right before very simple and basic probability enters in, which is what "odds" are actually about.


Your view of "how odds work" is, pretty simply stated, that at midnight CET you, a Western soldier walking around in Afghanistan, and a black man entering a 7-Eleven in Texas wearing a hood, all have exactly the same chances of dying, because you all were given the same mortality ticket.




It's funny how socialist Americans can get as soon as they see their individuality challenged by the privilege of unfavorable unequal mathematical odds


No wonder you were so incensed the day you saw this "load of fucking crap" posted.

 

[cityboy-stl]

I’m not going to argue with you. It’s pretty simple math.

The COVID prizes are RAFFLES not lotteries, despite what they are calling them.

LOTTERY: You sell a bunch of tickets. You independently select a set of winning numbers. If your ticket matches, you win. There might not be a winner. Your individual odds for any drawing are always the same; one in the-number-of-possible-winning-combinations. You are correct about that.

RAFFLE: You sell a bunch of tickets or give shots in this case. You select the winners from the known pool of shots given. There is always a winner. Your individual odds for the raffle are 1 in the-number-of-shots-in-the-pool. if 20 winners are selected from the pool, your odds are 20 in the-number-of-shots-in-the-pool because your individual ticket has 20 opportunities to be selected from a KNOWN pool of winners.

Therefore to the orginal point:

One said they should have twenty $50k prizes instead and he'd go get his shots because that would be enough money to totally change his life and having twenty times as great a chance to win would be enough to make it worthwhile.

 

[belamyi]

The COVID prizes are RAFFLES not lotteries, despite what they are calling them.

LOTTERY: You sell a bunch of tickets. You independently select a set of winning numbers. If your ticket matches, you win. Your individual odds for any drawing are always the same; one in the-number-of-possible-winning-combinations. You are correct about that.

RAFFLE: You sell a bunch of tickets or give shots in this case. You select the winners from the known pool of shots given. There is always a winner. Your individual odds for the raffle are 1 in the-number-of-shots-in-the-pool. if 20 winners are selected from the pool, your odds are 20 in the-number-of-shots-in-the-pool because your individual ticket has 20 opportunities to be selected from a KNOWN pool of winners.

Therefore to the orginal point:

Don't sweat it, kid, it's pretty simple math: a person gets a ticket, and the odds depend on that person and that ticket, not on anything else around, no matter how you name the game.

 

[Alistair]

The COVID prizes are RAFFLES not lotteries, despite what they are calling them.

LOTTERY: You sell a bunch of tickets. You independently select a set of winning numbers. If your ticket matches, you win. There might not be a winner. Your individual odds for any drawing are always the same; one in the-number-of-possible-winning-combinations. You are correct about that.

RAFFLE: You sell a bunch of tickets or give shots in this case. You select the winners from the known pool of shots given. There is always a winner. Your individual odds for the raffle are 1 in the-number-of-shots-in-the-pool. if 20 winners are selected from the pool, your odds are 20 in the-number-of-shots-in-the-pool because your individual ticket has 20 opportunities to be selected from a KNOWN pool of winners.

Therefore to the orginal point:

Now I get what you’re saying but that wasn’t what I was talking about. In my original post about the million being given away there are 5 separate drawings giving away 1 million dollars. Not one drawing with 5 winners. From one drawing to another you have the same odds of winning. 1 out of the amount of people entered. I was assuming that kuhli meant they’d break the money up into separate $50k drawings. Each drawing would still have the same odds 1 out of the people entered. I now get you meant there’d be one drawing with multiple winners. Yes you’re right then the odds of winning would improve.

 

[Alistair]

I’ll give this one more go. Then I’ll stop trying to explain. I’m going to just throw out a number and say that there are 2,450,420 people eligible to win the original million dollars.

Your odds of winning 1 out of 2,450,420.

Now let’s split it up into 400 winners.

Your odds of your name being drawn on the first pull is 1 out of 2,450,420

Now take out that winner and your odds of your name being drawn the second time is 1 out of 2,450,419

3rd 1 out of 2,450,418

4th 1 out of 2,450,417

400th 1 out of 2,450,020

Your odds of winning the 1 million or the 50k are basically the same you just have more opportunities to win the 50k

 

[cityboy-stl]

Now I get what you’re saying but that wasn’t what I was talking about. In my original post about the million being given away there are 5 separate drawings giving away 1 million dollars. Not one drawing with 5 winners. From one drawing to another you have the same odds of winning. 1 out of the amount of people entered. I was assuming that kuhli meant they’d break the money up into separate $50k drawings. Each drawing would still have the same odds 1 out of the people entered. I now get you meant there’d be one drawing with multiple winners. Yes you’re right then the odds of winning would improve.

Yes, correct. Due to the nature of this particular thing, one person can only have one entry. Maybe they get a second entry at the second shot, not sure - but that would likely go in a different drawing. But for any entry, yes the odds are the same for each of the five drawings: 1 in number-of-tickets-in-the-pool - although number-of-tickets-in-the-pool can vary from drawing-to-drawing so they're not numerically identical. I also assume after each drawing, a new pool is created starting with the next group of people being vaccinated. What I thought Kuli meant was at each drawing instead of one winner for $1M, there would 20 winners for $50K, so one ticket has 20 chances of being selected. That makes a total of 100 winners of $50K each across 5 drawings, rather 5 winners of $1M each. That sounds like a better incentive to me. Glad we cleared that up.

 

[cityboy-stl]

I’ll give this one more go. Then I’ll stop trying to explain. I’m going to just throw out a number and say that there are 2,450,420 people eligible to win the original million dollars.

Your odds of winning 1 out of 2,450,420.

Now let’s split it up into 400 winners.

Your odds of your name being drawn on the first pull is 1 out of 2,450,420

Now take out that winner and your odds of your name being drawn the second time is 1 out of 2,450,419

3rd 1 out of 2,450,418

4th 1 out of 2,450,417

400th 1 out of 2,450,020

Your odds of winning the 1 million or the 50k are basically the same you just have more opportunities to win the 50k

Ok, that makes sense. More opportunities doesn't give you significantly better odds.

 

[belamyi]

Now I get what you’re saying but that wasn’t what I was talking about. In my original post about the million being given away there are 5 separate drawings giving away 1 million dollars. Not one drawing with 5 winners. From one drawing to another you have the same odds of winning. 1 out of the amount of people entered. I was assuming that kuhli meant they’d break the money up into separate $50k drawings. Each drawing would still have the same odds 1 out of the people entered. I now get you meant there’d be one drawing with multiple winners. Yes you’re right then the odds of winning would improve.

Yes, correct. Due to the nature of this particular thing, one person can only have one entry. Maybe they get a second entry at the second shot, not sure - but that would likely go in a different drawing. But for any entry, yes the odds are the same for each of the five drawings: 1 in number-of-tickets-in-the-pool - although number-of-tickets-in-the-pool can vary from drawing-to-drawing so they're not numerically identical. I also assume after each drawing, a new pool is created starting with the next group of people being vaccinated. What I thought Kuli meant was at each drawing instead of one winner for $1M, there would 20 winners for $50K, so one ticket has 20 chances of being selected. That makes a total of 100 winners of $50K each across 5 drawings, rather 5 winners of $1M each. That sounds like a better incentive to me. Glad we cleared that up.

So it was not actually about simple math, but about the scenario one chooses before applying the math: that why they always say "read carefully the problem" Like they also say... "silence is golden"

And then they talk about things being "just semantics" as if "semantics" were not just everything, all that makes a difference, all that makes, precisely, "sense".

 

[belamyi]

I’ll give this one more go. Then I’ll stop trying to explain. I’m going to just throw out a number and say that there are 2,450,420 people eligible to win the original million dollars.

Your odds of winning 1 out of 2,450,420.

Now let’s split it up into 400 winners.

Your odds of your name being drawn on the first pull is 1 out of 2,450,420

Now take out that winner and your odds of your name being drawn the second time is 1 out of 2,450,419

3rd 1 out of 2,450,418

4th 1 out of 2,450,417

400th 1 out of 2,450,020

Your odds of winning the 1 million or the 50k are basically the same you just have more opportunities to win the 50k

Right, but the odds are still not QUITE the same: you, just like city, make an appreciation of it as not being "significantly", but that is not a mathematical appreciation...

In any case, this discussion started up from some people's perception of increased "opportunities", not of rational odds, and it seems we all agree on that.

 

[Kulindahr]

I haven't heard anything about remote employees but the battle is coming:

U.S. agency says employers can mandate COVID-19 vaccination [Reuters]


"Can". The uncertainty is "Will they?".

At least two businesses here have.

 

[Kulindahr]

Right, but the odds are still not QUITE the same: you, just like city, make an appreciation of it as not being "significantly", but that is not a mathematical appreciation...

In any case, this discussion started up from some people's perception of increased "opportunities", not of rational odds, and it seems we all agree on that.

Yes -- people are seeing "1 out of 2,450,420" vs. "40 out of 2,450,420".

 

[belamyi]

Only 36% of the people in my town have received at least one shot/jab.

On the other hand, it has been the first week since last July in which there were no covid deaths reported.

 

[KaraBulut]

Three countries along the Pacific Rim- South Korea, Japan and Vietnam- have had great success at controlling COVID-19 in their countries... well, until the past month, that is.

Vietnam is the latest to go on lockdown.


Vietnam Detects New Highly Transmissible Coronavirus Variant [NPR]

Vietnam has detected a new coronavirus variant that is highly transmissible and has features of two other strains.

"Vietnam has uncovered a new COVID-19 variant combining characteristics of the two existing variants first found in India and the U.K.," Health Minister Nguyen Thanh Long said, according to Reuters. "That the new one is an Indian variant with mutations that originally belong to the U.K. variant is very dangerous."...

Since the pandemic began, Vietnam has reported 6,713 cases and 47 deaths as of Saturday. A little more than half of the cases and 12 of the deaths were reported in the last month, according to the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center.