PDA

View Full Version : Covid Discussion



JPtheBeasta
05-04-2020, 11:45 AM
It stands to reason that if the goal truly is herd immunity then people actually need to, well... you know... be around each other and get the virus.

kitzbuel
05-04-2020, 12:10 PM
It stands to reason that if the goal truly is herd immunity then people actually need to, well... you know... be around each other and get the virus.

Or hopefully get vaccinated.

JPtheBeasta
05-04-2020, 12:29 PM
Or hopefully get vaccinated.

The original claim is that we won’t have a vaccine by then. It doesn’t make sense to bemoan the lack of herd immunity while simultaneously warning that cases are still increasing. I shouldn’t have even said anything, then or now.... but we do have the opinion by LTown lingering above that shouldn’t be there, either.

LTownZag
05-04-2020, 02:25 PM
The original claim is that we won’t have a vaccine by then. It doesn’t make sense to bemoan the lack of herd immunity while simultaneously warning that cases are still increasing. I shouldn’t have even said anything, then or now.... but we do have the opinion by LTown lingering above that shouldn’t be there, either.

JPtheBeasta, Your inbox is full.

--

Hi JPtheBeasta,

My post has been posted for too many days for me to be able to delete or edit it at this point. Can you let me know (via private message) what part of the post you feel is an opinion which ought to be deleted? I would have been happy to do so to preserve the discussion.

Thanks

JPtheBeasta
05-04-2020, 02:54 PM
JPtheBeasta, Your inbox is full.

--

Hi JPtheBeasta,

My post has been posted for too many days for me to be able to delete or edit it at this point. Can you let me know (via private message) what part of the post you feel is an opinion which ought to be deleted? I would have been happy to do so to preserve the discussion.

Thanks

Since I made my issue public I will just tell you here and hopefully that is ok, because any feedback would be beneficial to me. In my opinion, the stuff after “Things to consider:” is of the variety that has been getting posts shut down lately and doesn’t directly. I don’t want to be a hypocrite because I have also been vocal about my opinion here and have had lengthy discussions about Covid-19 of my own. I admit that I have a problem of my own to deal with because I have a hard time not responding, which exacerbates the issue. If you and others feel that it is something I am off base on I will work on solving this issue on my end.

That said, I will clean out my inbox...

LTownZag
05-04-2020, 03:40 PM
If you let me know which specific opinion/prediction you disagree with, and why, in private or in the “foo” forum, I’d love to respectfully discuss.

In the meantime, I’m not sure why COVID related discussion is considered off topic for basketball and moderated as such. It’s obviously incredibly related to the immediate future of GU and the sport.

JPtheBeasta
05-04-2020, 03:56 PM
If you let me know which specific opinion/prediction you disagree with, and why, in private or in the “foo” forum, I’d love to respectfully discuss.

In the meantime, I’m not sure why COVID related discussion is considered off topic for basketball and moderated as such. It’s obviously incredibly related to the immediate future of GU and the sport.

It’s all good, as far as I’m concerned, and hopefully much ado about nothing. I hope you feel the same. I think my patience with the Covid-19 response has “socially distanced” itself from the rest of my brain at this point. I don’t think I actually disagreed with anything you said but with the (as I see it) catch 22 that was highlighted in which people are worried that we don’t have enough herd immunity to open up the country, yet can’t get herd immunity without opening up the country.

I do think that the Covid discussion is interesting and agree that it is pertinent to sports, and it is one of the few things left to talk about at this stage. I have wanted to respond more at times (not to you specifically) and either the post got shut down or I worry that what I say will get it shut down— like right now.

kitzbuel
05-04-2020, 03:58 PM
If you let me know which specific opinion/prediction you disagree with, and why, in private or in the “foo” forum, I’d love to respectfully discuss.

In the meantime, I’m not sure why COVID related discussion is considered off topic for basketball and moderated as such. It’s obviously incredibly related to the immediate future of GU and the sport.

Because LTown, no one wants to discuss. They just want to shout.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LTownZag
05-04-2020, 04:11 PM
Because LTown, no one wants to discuss. They just want to shout.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm always happy to have non-shout discussion with anyone! (in this forum if the mods OK it, or in my private messages or the other off-topic forums)

I've had some for sure. MarkBurn has disagreed with me and not shouted. LongIslandZagFan has agreed and not shouted.

sylean
05-04-2020, 06:09 PM
in NYC they went back last week and reclassified deaths as covid deaths, even without testing.....to the tune of 3700 people...

ZagaZags
05-04-2020, 06:29 PM
in NYC they went back last week and reclassified deaths as covid deaths, even without testing.....to the tune of 3700 people...

Maybe they get more money that way. Who knows..... I will be glad when we get to watch sports again.

Quick question. Do you guys think if we don’t have NCAA Football this year, will we have NCAA Basketball?

scrooner
05-05-2020, 06:17 AM
in NYC they went back last week and reclassified deaths as covid deaths, even without testing.....to the tune of 3700 people...

This will probably be called shouting, but have you seen the charts showing the difference in deaths this year vs average, and how it exceeds the number of covid deaths reported?

"More than 27,000 New Yorkers have died since March 11 — 20,900 more than would be expected over this period and thousands more than have been captured by official coronavirus death statistics. As of Sunday, the city had attributed 16,673 deaths to coronavirus, either because people had tested positive for the virus, or because the circumstances of their death meant that city health officials believed the virus to be the most likely cause of death. But there remains a large gap between the 16,673 figure and the total deaths above typical levels in the last six and a half weeks: more than 4,200 people whose deaths are not captured by the official coronavirus toll."

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/27/upshot/coronavirus-deaths-new-york-city.html

LTownZag
05-05-2020, 07:31 AM
This will probably be called shouting, but have you seen the charts showing the difference in deaths this year vs average, and how it exceeds the number of covid deaths reported?

"More than 27,000 New Yorkers have died since March 11 — 20,900 more than would be expected over this period and thousands more than have been captured by official coronavirus death statistics. As of Sunday, the city had attributed 16,673 deaths to coronavirus, either because people had tested positive for the virus, or because the circumstances of their death meant that city health officials believed the virus to be the most likely cause of death. But there remains a large gap between the 16,673 figure and the total deaths above typical levels in the last six and a half weeks: more than 4,200 people whose deaths are not captured by the official coronavirus toll."

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/27/upshot/coronavirus-deaths-new-york-city.html

This (some say inflated) method of calculating COVID deaths is similar to how the CDC has counted seasonal Flu deaths for years. Here's more. (https://slate.com/technology/2009/05/the-math-behind-estimating-seasonal-flu-deaths.html)

If you use official annual CDC flu deaths stats to make a comparison with COVID-19, it's logically inconsistent to use numbers for one virus calculated in this way, but oppose similar calculations for the other.

https://i.imgur.com/R2Iits3.png

JPtheBeasta
05-05-2020, 07:50 AM
I think that our Covid-19 data, despite the flaws, is better than the influenza estimates. When the claims started that Covid-19 was just like a bad flu season, one of the first things I did was see what we know about the flu. It left me with the impression that we need to do better with the data. The CDC web page is an eye opener in this regard. States are not required to report influenza deaths in anyone over 18. I saw an article that talked about 80,000 flu deaths in one year and the CDC page ultimately revised that number to 60,000. There's a large degree of uncertainty there.

Do you potentially make the Covid-19 data just as bad by throwing in models and estimates? Do you revise the numbers in one year from now when all of the data shakes out? Do you suck it up and say that we just have a certain degree of uncertainty about the influenza and Covid-19 data and call it a day?

I'd prefer leaving well enough alone with the understanding that we can't fix the influenza numbers now and that if we adjust the Covid-19 numbers to make it more like the influenza numbers we risk making our understanding worse, not better.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/faq.htm

Markburn1
05-05-2020, 09:52 AM
Sometimes we want hard data to base our actions on. Sometimes we want models that have guesswork involved. Sometimes we want to create numbers that match an agenda. A lot of times there are some people that use all of the above to affirm preconceived endgames. Go figure. Everyone seems to be.

kitzbuel
05-05-2020, 10:47 AM
Sometimes we want hard data to base our actions on. Sometimes we want models that have guesswork involved. Sometimes we want to create numbers that match an agenda. A lot of times there are some people that use all of the above to affirm preconceived endgames. Go figure. Everyone seems to be.

In my line of work we use machine learning which uses historical data to "train" analytical models to improve predictive accuracy. The analyses run continual, multiple scenarios against historical data and compare against actual results, identifying what factors cause variations from the correct outcome. The models continually adjust and improve in accuracy over time as historical data grows and the number of analyses increase, providing the model with greater fidelity. Until we can get adequate or complete data, we frequently use statistical analysis to create 'synthetic' data that fits within the predicted model results, but can be replaced with actual data as i increases in availability and reliability. The approach is a fundamental component of Artificial Intelligence.

Mr Vulture
05-05-2020, 11:10 AM
Well, so much for this thread. That's why I said in my post, I wasn't going to touch the last half of the post made by LTown. This thread is supposed to be about the dates as they are scheduled yet it has turned into a COVID discussion again. Sad...

LTownZag
05-09-2020, 07:28 PM
"New cases dropping fast" is an interesting interpretation of this data:

https://i.imgur.com/WytGiOz.png




https://i.imgur.com/2O6QN1k.png

LTownZag
05-09-2020, 07:50 PM
One key ban this fool. Wrong data d he blows up every conversation. An editable fool who know jack cht. Every time we begin a thoughtful thing redaction bee appears and Nunez the conversation. A fake person with fake data unconfirmed . This is his 7th time. Somebody throw this fool out!

MDABE80,

I posted graphs from Time Magazine and Our World in Data. The data for the TIME graph comes from Johns Hopkins, which you have repeatedly suggested people use, and said you use.

You are making an empirical claim, not a subjective one, about changes in new case numbers. You give no evidence, then you insult me personally and describe my 2 charts as being the "fake data" when evidence to the contrary is presented. I'd love to see evidence of a fast drop in new cases.



WillandI,

Thanks for posting those links! I hope Basketball and Baseball can restart soon! I'm hoping those sports, plus fall sports, help ready the public and iron out the bumps on the road to a college Bball season.

MDABE80
05-09-2020, 08:12 PM
https://www.evaluate.com/covid-19-daily-update

Too bad Ltown. you've been BS from the start. Read the text and begone. And stay gone till you decide to stop blowing up threads.. This is not a public health board,..it's a Gonzaga basketball and sports board. You have continued to doom threads by inserting garbage.. You have interrupted multiple threads . As you can see ( if you might understand) death rate is dropping as are new cases. There will be blips but the trend is downward. Just compare to two weeks ago and then one week ago......you might get the picture.
" You are making an empirical claim, not a subjective one, about changes in new case numbers"....sorry these facts are not "empirical"..go look up the word. Time magazine is always political and is to be disregarded. You might know that. While I've tried to lay low on insults.....you deserve many. I've tried to minimize. When someone is a pretender but has false fakes.....it's time to step up. I did.

All this said, will you kindly stop interrupting threads? Every one has to be stopped because your incessant crazy comments that have only tangential meaing to the topic at hand. I suppose I could swallow some of the BS if it was correct. but BS it is. And yes, TIME magazine is simply NOT a source to be believed.

You night go to Kitzbuel's short explanation on modeling which completely debunked yours from a few days ago. And yet you've continued and I hope you'll end.

'

LTownZag
05-09-2020, 08:24 PM
https://www.evaluate.com/covid-19-daily-update

Too bad Ltown. you've been BS from the start. Read the text and begone. And stay gone till you decide to stop blowing up threads.. This is not a public health board,..it's a Gonzaga basketball and sports board. You have continued to doom threads by inserting garbage.. You have interrupted multiple threads . As you can see ( if you might understand) death rate is dropping as are new cases. There will be blips but the trend is downward. Just compare to two weeks ago and then one week ago......you might get the picture.
" You are making an empirical claim, not a subjective one, about changes in new case numbers"....sorry these facts are not "empirical"..go look up the word. Time magazine is always political and is to be disregarded. You might know that. While I've tried to lay low on insults.....you deserve many. I've tried to minimize. When someone is a pretender but has false fakes.....it's time to step up. I did.

All this said, will you kindly stop interrupting threads? Every one has to be stopped because your incessant crazy comments that have only tangential meaing to the topic at hand. I suppose I could swallow some of the BS if it was correct. but BS it is. And yes, TIME magazine is simply NOT a source to be believed.

'

Thanks for the link, MDABE80. I appreciate it!

Here's the chart of daily new cases in north america from your source. It looks like the charts I posted above, which used data from Johns Hopkins, a source you call the gold standard. Your source didn't have an option to separate the USA from the rest of north america. I'm not going to offer any spin on this trend line or say "new cases dropping fast" - I'll simply paste the chart from your linked source. If one interprets "dropping fast" that's up to them.

https://i.ibb.co/qpZDzrR/Screen-Shot-2020-05-09-at-9-11-09-PM.png

MDABE80
05-09-2020, 08:36 PM
The national percentage of respiratory specimens testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 at public health, clinical and commercial laboratories decreased from week 17 to week 18. Percentages by type of laboratory:
•Public health laboratories – decreased from 17.7% during week 17 to 13.2% during week 18;
•Clinical laboratories – decreased from 10.3% during week 17 to 9.0% during week 18;
•Commercial laboratories – decreased from 15.9% during week 17 to 13.2% during week 18

MOST RECENT CDC DATA ( Data from this past week)...you want more LTown??

It's a basketball Board.not an infectious disease board....too many threads nuked because you didn't seem to get that. Please stop.

LTownZag
05-09-2020, 09:07 PM
The national percentage of respiratory specimens testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 at public health, clinical and commercial laboratories decreased from week 17 to week 18. Percentages by type of laboratory:
•Public health laboratories – decreased from 17.7% during week 17 to 13.2% during week 18;
•Clinical laboratories – decreased from 10.3% during week 17 to 9.0% during week 18;
•Commercial laboratories – decreased from 15.9% during week 17 to 13.2% during week 18

MOST RECENT CDC DATA ( Data from this past week)...you want more LTown??

It's a basketball Board.not an infectious disease board....too many threads nuked because you didn't seem to get that. Please stop.

Thanks, MDABE80! It's great to see that the percent of positive tests is falling, as we are gradually testing more people nationally.

willandi
05-11-2020, 08:49 PM
https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/29158392/few-positive-coronavirus-tests-mlb-employees
'Sixty of the 5,754 people in a study of the Major League Baseball employee population tested positive for coronavirus antibodies, a rate lower than what similar studies run in California found, the studies' authors said Sunday.

"I was expecting a larger number," said Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine at Stanford University, which ran the study. "It shows the value of doing the science as opposed to guessing."

The results of the study, which was held in mid-April, revealed a prevalence of COVID-19 antibodies in the MLB employee population of 0.7% -- a number adjusted to reflect testing accuracy. The survey showed that about 70% of those who tested positive for COVID-19 antibodies had been asymptomatic.'

former1dog
05-12-2020, 02:11 PM
As follows is some data I pulled together. It is sorted by the ordered shelter in place date from earliest to latest.
I classified those states that sheltered in place by March 24 as early. Those that sheltered in place at (or not at all) by April 1 as late.

The early states have an average infection level of .6% of their population. For the late states, the average infection level is .3% of their population.
Overall, the average infection level of all 50 states and DC is .4%.

The average infection rate for the 5 states with no shelter in place order is .3%

The rate of infected people dying in the early states was 5.9%. For the late states it was 3.9%. For the non shelter states it was 1.8%. Overall it was 4.3%.

The population density of the early states on average is roughly twice that of the late states. Controlling for population density, the infection rates for the early states and late/not at all states would be roughly the same.

Here are a couple of apples to apples comparisons based on population density:

State Cases Population SQ Miles Pop Den Inf Lev Death Death Rate Shelter Date


Florida
41923
21477737
53997
398
0.2%
1782
4.3%
4/3/2020


New York
348633
19453561
47224
412
1.8%
27170
7.8%
3/22/2020



State Cases Population SQ Miles Pop Den Inf Lev Death Death Rate Shelter Date


South Carolina
7927
5148714
30111
171
0.2%
355
4.5%
4/7/2020















Michigan
48021
9986857
56539
177
0.5%
4674
9.7%
3/24/2020





Data source for cases and deaths is worldometer.com ... Population levels I pulled off of Wikipedia.... Shelter dates I pulled from the New York Times.





State
Cases
population
Infection Level
Deaths
Rate
Shelter date


California
70637
39512223
0.2%
2891
4.1%
3/19/2020


New Jersey
142046
8882190
1.6%
9532
6.7%
3/21/2020


Illinois
83021
12671821
0.7%
3601
4.3%
3/21/2020


New York
348633
19453561
1.8%
27170
7.8%
3/22/2020


Louisiana
32050
4648794
0.7%
2347
7.3%
3/23/2020


Connecticut
34333
3565287
1.0%
3041
8.9%
3/23/2020


Ohio
25250
11689100
0.2%
1436
5.7%
3/23/2020


Washington
17890
7614893
0.2%
953
5.3%
3/23/2020


Oregon
3358
4217737
0.1%
130
3.9%
3/23/2020


Massachusetts
79332
6949503
1.1%
5141
6.5%
3/24/2020


Michigan
48021
9986857
0.5%
4674
9.7%
3/24/2020


Indiana
25127
6732219
0.4%
1578
6.3%
3/24/2020


Delaware
6741
973764
0.7%
237
3.5%
3/24/2020


New Mexico
5069
2096829
0.2%
208
4.1%
3/24/2020


West Virginia
1378
1792147
0.1%
58
4.2%
3/24/2020


Wisconsin
10611
5822434
0.2%
418
3.9%
3/25/2020


Idaho
2260
1787065
0.1%
70
3.1%
3/25/2020


Vermont
927
623989
0.1%
53
5.7%
3/25/2020


Hawaii
634
1415872
0.0%
17
2.7%
3/25/2020


Colorado
19879
5758736
0.3%
987
5.0%
3/26/2020


Kentucky
6677
4467673
0.1%
311
4.7%
3/26/2020


Minnesota
12494
5639632
0.2%
614
4.9%
3/27/2020


New Hampshire
3160
1359711
0.2%
133
4.2%
3/27/2020


Rhode Island
11614
1059361
1.1%
444
3.8%
3/28/2020


Wyoming
675
578759
0.1%
7
1.0%
3/28/2020


Montana
461
1068778
0.0%
16
3.5%
3/28/2020


Alaska
383
731545
0.1%
10
2.6%
3/28/2020


Maryland
34061
6045680
0.6%
1756
5.2%
3/30/2020


Virginia
25800
8535519
0.3%
891
3.5%
3/30/2020


North Carolina
15591
10488084
0.1%
596
3.8%
3/30/2020


Utah
6432
3205958
0.2%
73
1.1%
3/30/2020


Kansas
7195
2913314
0.2%
184
2.6%
3/30/2020


Tennessee
16111
6833174
0.2%
265
1.6%
3/31/2020


Arizona
11736
7278717
0.2%
562
4.8%
3/31/2020


Pennsylvania
61346
12801989
0.5%
3917
6.4%
4/1/2020


Nevada
6311
3080156
0.2%
312
4.9%
4/1/2020


DC
6485
705749
0.9%
336
5.2%
4/1/2020


Texas
41149
28995881
0.1%
1158
2.8%
4/2/2020


Maine
1477
1344212
0.1%
65
4.4%
4/2/2020


Florida
41923
21477737
0.2%
1782
4.3%
4/3/2020


Georgia
34737
10617423
0.3%
1465
4.2%
4/3/2020


Mississippi
9908
2976149
0.3%
457
4.6%
4/3/2020


Alabama
10310
4903185
0.2%
429
4.2%
4/5/2020


Missouri
10232
6137428
0.2%
531
5.2%
4/6/2020


Oklahoma
4732
3956971
0.1%
278
5.9%
4/6/2020


South Carolina
7927
5148714
0.2%
355
4.5%
4/7/2020


Iowa
12912
3155070
0.4%
289
2.2%
na


Nebraska
8572
1934408
0.4%
100
1.2%
na


Arkansas
4043
3017825
0.1%
94
2.3%
na


South Dakota
3663
884659
0.4%
39
1.1%
na


North Dakota
1571
762062
0.2%
38
2.4%
na

LTownZag
05-13-2020, 11:09 AM
Both France and Spain just announced results of major widespread antibody testing, which determines if someone has been exposed to a virus or not.

Both countries found ~5% of people exposed, 95% not.

Both of those countries have been hit much harder (measured in deaths) than the USA. Spain has 581 deaths (per million), France is 415, USA is 254.

Even Europe's hardest hit major countries and early hot spots have a long way to go to reach herd immunity. This test is also further evidence against the hypothesis that COVID-19 was secretly circulating broadly for weeks or months before it became public knowledge.

https://i.imgur.com/kBtuPVY.png

willandi
05-13-2020, 07:16 PM
Good Read.

https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/7/21248734/coronavirus-antibody-tests-explained-covid-19-immunity-accurate

ZagaZags
05-14-2020, 02:22 AM
I think I know the answer but could someone explain how tracing works? Is it with cell phones, ankle bracelets or a Bill Gates microchip?

willandi
05-14-2020, 05:33 AM
I think I know the answer but could someone explain how tracing works? Is it with cell phones, ankle bracelets or a Bill Gates microchip?

I believe that it is through cell phones. They can keep track of all cell phones, anonymously, and when 1 person is identified, see which other cell phones were within a proximity of that individual within a definitive time frame.

At least that is what I read somewhere.

Markburn1
05-14-2020, 07:06 AM
I believe that it is through cell phones. They can keep track of all cell phones, anonymously, and when 1 person is identified, see which other cell phones were within a proximity of that individual within a definitive time frame.

At least that is what I read somewhere.

That doesn't elicit any level of concern?

Combine that with contact tracers and forced quarantines and...there will be no end to government control.

LTownZag
05-14-2020, 07:57 AM
That doesn't elicit any level of concern?

Combine that with contact tracers and forced quarantines and...there will be no end to government control.

"tracing" is a broad term that means many different things in many places. South Korea's tracing has largely happened via smart phone apps. Here is some information on it.

( https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/seouls-radical-experiment-in-digital-contact-tracing )

I don't not desire, or expect that the USA generally or even any state will attempt a large scale phone-based tracing system. Too many people without phones or without a willingness to join such a program.

If any government official at a state or federal level have seriously proposed large scale domestic electronic tracing of Americans, I haven't heard of it but would be interested in reading such proposals. They would be very unpopular.

willandi
05-14-2020, 08:05 AM
That doesn't elicit any level of concern?

Combine that with contact tracers and forced quarantines and...there will be no end to government control.

Death concerns the hell out of me. An executive run amok concerns the hell out of me.

https://external-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?d=AQBmyAQdxdb347oF&url=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.giphy.com%2Fmedia%2Fcjtgm7 7X3JngYliVvM%2Fgiphy.gif&_nc_hash=AQBa0fuuqyHazWnp

it's a GIF. Maybe this will work.
https://www.alucinoconfeisbuk.com/2020/05/economia-y-coronavirus.html?fbclid=IwAR2JtCpPH1pK4lebVMdO5x_v kTljP7Sj11DNCbvXMu75fw3kcSRLYrw1ySM#.XrfRKhbBiWE.f acebook

LTownZag
05-14-2020, 08:13 AM
My biggest COVID takeaways from the last couple days, following some very broad testing of Antibodies (who has been exposed to this new virus) in France, Spain, and the USA:

Only 4-6% of people in those countries have been exposed and we now (fairly well) estimate the total absolute number of people who have been infected, and compare that against the dead, to determine the death rate of infected in western democracies with fairly honest reporting. The death rate of those who have been infected in each of those countries without overwhelmed medical systems is 1.15% - .75%.

This also works out very closely for USA stats. Our official death count is 85K (https://ncov2019.live/) but recent broader mortality studies put it at 107k.
https://i.imgur.com/lJRdV1R.png


Some widespread antibody tests are showing 4.5% of americans have been infected (20-25% in NYC).

330million
x
4.5% infected
=

14million 850,000 thus far infected


14,850,000 x .75%
=

111,375 deaths

sonuvazag
05-14-2020, 09:10 AM
"tracing" is a broad term that means many different things in many places. South Korea's tracing has largely happened via smart phone apps. Here is some information on it.

( https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/seouls-radical-experiment-in-digital-contact-tracing )

I don't not desire, or expect that the USA generally or even any state will attempt a large scale phone-based tracing system. Too many people without phones or without a willingness to join such a program.

If any government official at a state or federal level have seriously proposed large scale domestic electronic tracing of Americans, I haven't heard of it but would be interested in reading such proposals. They would be very unpopular.

I believe it would be an Apple-Google collaboration that people opt in to.
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/04/apple-and-google-partner-on-covid-19-contact-tracing-technology/

Markburn1
05-14-2020, 11:36 AM
Death concerns the hell out of me. An executive run amok concerns the hell out of me.

https://external-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?d=AQBmyAQdxdb347oF&url=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.giphy.com%2Fmedia%2Fcjtgm7 7X3JngYliVvM%2Fgiphy.gif&_nc_hash=AQBa0fuuqyHazWnp

it's a GIF. Maybe this will work.
https://www.alucinoconfeisbuk.com/2020/05/economia-y-coronavirus.html?fbclid=IwAR2JtCpPH1pK4lebVMdO5x_v kTljP7Sj11DNCbvXMu75fw3kcSRLYrw1ySM#.XrfRKhbBiWE.f acebook

Then stay self quarantined. Nobody is forcing you to open your business or get out amongst the people. It's your choice. The wrong people are being forced to curtail their lives. Suggesting I find it acceptable that people die is disgusting. Those at highest risk should do everything they can to avoid getting sick. The longer the economy is shut down, the more people die from other causes.

Let those that are at least risk help those at higher risk by creating herd immunity. If someone is in the lower risk category and doesn't want to expose themselves, let them make that choice. Realistically, I'm the droid you are looking for. I'm willing to take my chances and to help this virus burn out. If we don't get exposure to approximately 70% of the population this lockdown will be extended forever by people of your opinion because a vaccine is probably never going to happen.

The virus is not the only killer. Poverty is. Depression is. Not taking care of other health problems is.

Let's make a deal. How about avoiding calling me an uncaring killer because I disagree with keeping the economy closed. Can we start with that?

LTownZag
05-14-2020, 12:19 PM
How about avoiding calling me an uncaring killer because I disagree with keeping the economy closed. Can we start with that?

Mark, did WillandI or anyone on these forums call you that? I hope not.

I think I agree with you in general now about the desirability of mostly removing government-enforced closure orders. We didn't overwhelm any local medical systems, and delaying things for any vaccine could be a countdown to eternity. At this point it's a slow march toward something closer to herd immunity.

sonuvazag
05-14-2020, 12:32 PM
Then stay self quarantined. Nobody is forcing you to open your business or get out amongst the people. It's your choice. The wrong people are being forced to curtail their lives. Suggesting I find it acceptable that people die is disgusting. Those at highest risk should do everything they can to avoid getting sick. The longer the economy is shut down, the more people die from other causes.

Let those that are at least risk help those at higher risk by creating herd immunity. If someone is in the lower risk category and doesn't want to expose themselves, let them make that choice. Realistically, I'm the droid you are looking for. I'm willing to take my chances and to help this virus burn out. If we don't get exposure to approximately 70% of the population this lockdown will be extended forever by people of your opinion because a vaccine is probably never going to happen.

The virus is not the only killer. Poverty is. Depression is. Not taking care of other health problems is.

Let's make a deal. How about avoiding calling me an uncaring killer because I disagree with keeping the economy closed. Can we start with that?
I understand the theory here is that we'd be very successful if we allowed the people who wanted that risk to build toward the herd immunity. You might suppose the people with the lowest risk would choose this freedom but I'm actually not so sure about it.

Because, if the idea is it's a choice we all make, what do you do with the essential workers who want to opt out of this scenario where the spread of the virus is encouraged? What do you do to keep a grocery store open if a large percentage of workers decide they don't want to work there? What do you do with people whose job is to interact with high risk people?

I'm not saying this "let people be free" idea can't work, but it still seems incredibly cumbersome and complicated to make this about freedom of choice. Because if it is really a choice, it seems that would mean you're willing to let society do what's necessary to protect the people who don't want the risk, including supporting them fully in their self-quarantine.

Markburn1
05-14-2020, 12:36 PM
Mark, did WillandI or anyone on these forums call you that? I hope not.

I think I agree with you in general now about the desirability of mostly removing government-enforced closure orders. We didn't overwhelm any local medical systems, and delaying things for any vaccine could be a countdown to eternity. At this point it's a slow march toward something closer to herd immunity.

I don’t think I misinterpreted the point of Will’s gif.

Markburn1
05-14-2020, 12:50 PM
I understand the theory here is that we'd be very successful if we allowed the people who wanted that risk to build toward the herd immunity. You might suppose the people with the lowest risk would choose this freedom but I'm actually not so sure about it.

Because, if the idea is it's a choice we all make, what do you do with the essential workers who want to opt out of this scenario where the spread of the virus is encouraged? What do you do to keep a grocery store open if a large percentage of workers decide they don't want to work there? What do you do with people whose job is to interact with high risk people?

I'm not saying this "let people be free" idea can't work, but it still seems incredibly cumbersome and complicated to make this about freedom of choice. Because if it is really a choice, it seems that would mean you're willing to let society do what's necessary to protect the people who don't want the risk, including supporting them fully in their self-quarantine.

Right now we are supporting everyone with transfers of wealth whether they need it or not. We are also picking winners and losers in the business world with arbitrary designations of who is essential and who isn’t. It would be a lot cheaper to let businesses and individuals to make common sense choices about getting their lives and livelihoods back while supporting those that can’t or won’t take the risk. Some will always take advantage. For those, supporting them will be the price to pay until herd immunity or an effective treatment is found.

sonuvazag
05-14-2020, 12:53 PM
Right now we are supporting everyone with transfers of wealth whether they need it or not. We are also picking winners and losers in the business world with arbitrary designations of who is essential and who isn’t. It would be a lot cheaper to let businesses and individuals to make common sense choices about getting their lives and livelihoods back while supporting those that can’t or won’t take the risk. Some will always take advantage. For those, supporting them will be the price to pay until herd immunity or an effective treatment is found.

What do you do about a grocery store or a meat packing plant if the majority of workers choose to stay home? Do you require more precaution for those that interact with high risk people as a part of their job? In general, if a business tells its workers they have to come in or lose their job, do you think they should get unemployment if they don't?

LTownZag
05-14-2020, 01:07 PM
What do you do about a grocery store or a meat packing plant if the majority of workers choose to stay home? Do you require more precaution for those that interact with high risk people as a part of their job? In general, if a business tells its workers they have to come in or lose their job, do you think they should get unemployment if they don't?

I know you were asking Mark, but if it were up to me:

If workers want to not come to work for the same wage as pre-Covid, then the store/plant/etc would just have to start increasing offered wage or shut down. In either option, I don't see why the federal or state government ought to be involved. Work (especially some kinds of environments) is much riskier than it was 4 months ago. That ought be be allowed to be reflected in the price of workers.

willandi
05-14-2020, 01:12 PM
I don’t think I misinterpreted the point of Will’s gif.

When the individual believed that 70 to 700 deaths...70 was OK, then the 70 was his family, it became zero.

At no point did I name you or suggest that you were in favor of letting people die. Your vehemence in coming up with that suggests a measure of self doubt.

I am quarantining, and continuing to do so, but...life IS like a swimming pool. Every one is in it, and some people seem to think having a peeing section is OK.

The problem is that no one knows where anyone else has been. There is no reliable testing, so the individual that seemed to be fine, may just be asymptomatic, and now the next group are infected and so on.

This country has not had a lock down quarantine. Some states started earlier than others, and some have not had any. Interstate travel has never been stopped, so the virus has continued to travel. The ONE thing that would have really helped would have been if every state, at the same time, had had a 2-3 week quarantine, Essential workers exempted and all others short trips and masked. That never happened..


But don't forget. My comment, including the gif, was in response to yours about concern of government control .

sonuvazag
05-14-2020, 01:19 PM
I know you were asking Mark, but if it were up to me:

If workers want to not come to work for the same wage as pre-Covid, then the store/plant/etc would just have to start increasing offered wage or shut down. In either option, I don't see why the federal or state government ought to be involved. Work (especially some kinds of environments) is much riskier than it was 4 months ago. That ought be be allowed to be reflected in the price of workers.

I agree that hazard pay is not only a possible solution but something that should be done anyway, but I see a real risk that truly essential businesses break down in this scenario where we have freedom to choose our risk while the virus runs rampant. In the polling I've seen there's not a very high percentage of people that are eager, like Markburn, to get infected.

Plus, I know you've given up on any path but herd immunity through mass infection, but most epidemiologists that I follow have not thrown in that towel and believe that a test-trace-isolate path is not only still a possibility for many if not most regions in the United States but possible in a way that would substantially save lives.

Markburn1
05-14-2020, 02:07 PM
It seems I have more faith that the American people will ultimately choose to work and live their lives.

Fear of death has caused a lot of people to be afraid to live. That concerns me. What’s the point of being alive? Everyone takes risks every day. A large majority of people infected with this virus have little to no risk of dying. Those that have a high risk should take the appropriate cautions. Those that don’t should take common sense precautions but live their lives to the fullest.

Once again Will, if you don’t want to get in the swimming pool, don’t. Then you won’t get peed on.

LTownZag
05-14-2020, 02:10 PM
I agree that hazard pay is not only a possible solution but something that should be done anyway, but I see a real risk that truly essential businesses break down in this scenario where we have freedom to choose our risk while the virus runs rampant. In the polling I've seen there's not a very high percentage of people that are eager, like Markburn, to get infected.


I think it's unfair, inaccurate and derails respectful conversation to claim that Mark is "eager to get infected".



Plus, I know you've given up on any path but herd immunity through mass infection, but most epidemiologists that I follow have not thrown in that towel and believe that a test-trace-isolate path is not only still a possibility for many if not most regions in the United States but possible in a way that would substantially save lives.

I agree that a test/treat/isolate path, if possible, would be better for the economy and for public health.

My question is: How would such a path be achieved in the USA at this point? We have had over 10 million positive cases, we are 50 diverse states, we have thousands of miles of land borders, and we have a political and social ethic opposed to government surveillance and lockdown. It's not that I don't prefer some idealized version of test/treat/isolate, such as New Zealand or Australia or Iceland has so far managed quite well. It's that I don't see how such an option is still realistically on the table for our country. Convince me otherwise.

sonuvazag
05-14-2020, 02:36 PM
I think it's unfair, inaccurate and derails respectful conversation to claim that Mark is "eager to get infected".
Maybe you missed where Markburn said, explicitly, the following:

Let those that are at least risk help those at higher risk by creating herd immunity. If someone is in the lower risk category and doesn't want to expose themselves, let them make that choice. Realistically, I'm the droid you are looking for. I'm willing to take my chances and to help this virus burn out. If we don't get exposure to approximately 70% of the population this lockdown will be extended forever by people of your opinion because a vaccine is probably never going to happen.


I agree that a test/treat/isolate path, if possible, would be better for the economy and for public health.

My question is: How would such a path be achieved in the USA at this point? We have had over 10 million positive cases, we are 50 diverse states, we have thousands of miles of land borders, and we have a political and social ethic opposed to government surveillance and lockdown. It's not that I don't prefer some idealized version of test/treat/isolate, such as New Zealand or Australia or Iceland has so far managed quite well. It's that I don't see how such an option is still realistically on the table for our country. Convince me otherwise.

I'm essentially paraphrasing epidemiologists who are far more knowledgable than me (https://twitter.com/i/lists/1233998285779632128). Using my own Spokane County as an example, we have had less than 10 new cases a day for quite awhile and our own health commissioner believes we are ready to do it (https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2020/may/12/shawn-vestal-lutz-is-far-from-the-first-to-seek-an/).

As for the smartphone surveillance, my own two cents would be that I believe a substantially large percentage of people already share pretty sensitive location data with particular apps on their phones. Maybe they don't trust it if the government has blanket access to it, but if it was an offshoot of Google Maps or Apple Maps, I suspect a lot of people would trust it. But I don't know for sure. You might be right.

willandi
05-14-2020, 04:26 PM
It seems I have more faith that the American people will ultimately choose to work and live their lives.

Fear of death has caused a lot of people to be afraid to live. That concerns me. What’s the point of being alive? Everyone takes risks every day. A large majority of people infected with this virus have little to no risk of dying. Those that have a high risk should take the appropriate cautions. Those that don’t should take common sense precautions but live their lives to the fullest.

Once again Will, if you don’t want to get in the swimming pool, don’t. Then you won’t get peed on.

We are all in the same pool, like it or not. Anytime one goes out, it is the same pool.

Markburn1
05-14-2020, 05:53 PM
We are all in the same pool, like it or not. Anytime one goes out, it is the same pool.

That’s just factually wrong. If you don’t go out you aren’t in the pool. And that’s your right.

My mom isn’t in the pool. I don’t want her in the pool. My elderly neighbors aren’t in the pool. I wade into the pool (grocery store) for them. The fact that I am in the pool doesn’t mean you or anyone else needs to be.

willandi
05-14-2020, 06:12 PM
That’s just factually wrong. If you don’t go out you aren’t in the pool. And that’s your right.

My mom isn’t in the pool. I don’t want her in the pool. My elderly neighbors aren’t in the pool. I wade into the pool (grocery store) for them. The fact that I am in the pool doesn’t mean you or anyone else needs to be.

If you go into the pool, they are in the pool. Everything you touch should be disinfected.

I am not a fanatic about it. I go out, masked. I maintain social distancing and wipe off with alcohol when I get back to my car, including wiping down gas pumps etc.

I am 71 and in pretty good shape. My 60 yr old wife has a severely compromised immune system. If everybody had quarantined and masked, this would be doing so much better. They didn't. So you never know where the 'water' has come from when you go in. Everything that anybody else has touched, and then you touch, has the potential to be contaminated.

The point of the gif was that when it was his family, zero deaths was the right number. You can do what you want, where you want and when you want.

What is the acceptable number of deaths in your family? That was the sole point of the gif.

Markburn1
05-14-2020, 06:40 PM
If you go into the pool, they are in the pool. Everything you touch should be disinfected.

I am not a fanatic about it. I go out, masked. I maintain social distancing and wipe off with alcohol when I get back to my car, including wiping down gas pumps etc.

I am 71 and in pretty good shape. My 60 yr old wife has a severely compromised immune system. If everybody had quarantined and masked, this would be doing so much better. They didn't. So you never know where the 'water' has come from when you go in. Everything that anybody else has touched, and then you touch, has the potential to be contaminated.

The point of the gif was that when it was his family, zero deaths was the right number. You can do what you want, where you want and when you want.

What is the acceptable number of deaths in your family? That was the sole point of the gif.

You are assuming that I find death in any family acceptable. You are also assuming lockdown isn’t causing deaths and misery that may outpace the virus in the long run.

If everybody had quarantined and masked it may have bent the curve more but it wouldn’t have stopped the eventual spread of the virus. It is going to run it’s course and it’s arrogant to think we can stop it unless herd immunity is achieved.

One more thing you are assuming. I don’t go about willy nilly without disinfecting things and not taking reasonable precautions designed to protect others like my mother and neighbors that are in higher risk categories.

LTownZag
05-14-2020, 07:09 PM
I'm essentially paraphrasing epidemiologists who are far more knowledgable than me (https://twitter.com/i/lists/1233998285779632128). Using my own Spokane County as an example, we have had less than 10 new cases a day for quite awhile and our own health commissioner believes we are ready to do it (https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2020/may/12/shawn-vestal-lutz-is-far-from-the-first-to-seek-an/).


Sonuvazag,

neither of those links lead to any description of how the USA or a given internal part of the contiguous USA could test/trace/isolate. Did you mean to link to one?

As I said, I'd prefer that kind of course, if it were possible. Do you have any reasons to suggest it is possible? (again, over a 12-36 month time horizon, and not for an island nation)

The USA is down there in the bottom right (30tests per1000 people). Y axis is tests per thousand people.

We aren't (and currently can't) test anywhere close to enough people to effectively test/trace/isolate. Even if we had the political and social willingness to trace and be traced, and to isolate and be forcefully isolated, we lack the physical capacity to sufficiently test, and aren't trending toward having it.

https://i.imgur.com/M90Fhj2.png

willandi
05-14-2020, 08:47 PM
You are assuming that I find death in any family acceptable. You are also assuming lockdown isn’t causing deaths and misery that may outpace the virus in the long run.

If everybody had quarantined and masked it may have bent the curve more but it wouldn’t have stopped the eventual spread of the virus. It is going to run it’s course and it’s arrogant to think we can stop it unless herd immunity is achieved.

One more thing you are assuming. I don’t go about willy nilly without disinfecting things and not taking reasonable precautions designed to protect others like my mother and neighbors that are in higher risk categories.

I am not assuming anything. I am responding to your words.

Markburn1
05-14-2020, 08:58 PM
I am not assuming anything. I am responding to your words.

Grow up!

Hmmm. No sense of humor. Haha.

willandi
05-14-2020, 08:59 PM
Hmmm. No sense of humor. Haha.

Well, I did delete the grow up before you posted this, or at the same time.

sonuvazag
05-14-2020, 09:02 PM
Sonuvazag,

neither of those links lead to any description of how the USA or a given internal part of the contiguous USA could test/trace/isolate. Did you mean to link to one?

As I said, I'd prefer that kind of course, if it were possible. Do you have any reasons to suggest it is possible? (again, over a 12-36 month time horizon, and not for an island nation)

The USA is down there in the bottom right (30tests per1000 people). Y axis is tests per thousand people.

We aren't (and currently can't) test anywhere close to enough people to effectively test/trace/isolate. Even if we had the political and social willingness to trace and be traced, and to isolate and be forcefully isolated, we lack the physical capacity to sufficiently test, and aren't trending toward having it.

https://i.imgur.com/M90Fhj2.png

Test trace and isolate is what we will be doing in Spokane County and throughout Washington state so I'm not sure why you're convinced it can't or won't be done. As the second link I provided explains our new daily infections are low enough and our testing capacity is high enough for the undertaking. This, again, is me paraphrasing my county's health officer. Do you disagree with his assessment. If so, why?


Crucially, Lutz’s request is founded on his belief that the district has created a way to test enough people that when we find the sick ones, we can trace the path of the disease through their contacts and isolate them. He outlines this plan in his letter to the governor, along with the statistics showing that Spokane’s cases, hospitalizations and deaths have been consistently below the rest of the state.

Too many people have seen our low case counts as the only factor in reopening. But in a time without a vaccine, it’s the test-trace-isolate regimen that is the most important consideration. It is the obvious, absolute requirement for a responsible reopening, and Lutz waited until he had it before getting on board.

In an interview last week, Lutz talked about this strategy as a way of “boxing in” the virus, to allow things to begin to reopen responsibly. This is vital because reopening will all but certainly lead to more COVID-19 cases. If the county can test-trace-isolate, it can shut the cases down before they spread, Lutz said.

He likened it to opening a door very cautiously, while remaining poised to slam it shut if need be.

Markburn1
05-14-2020, 09:15 PM
Well, I did delete the grow up before you posted this, or at the same time.

Peace, Brother.

We disagree how this mess should be handled. That’s all.

I don’t wish ill health for anybody.

The goal is to get back to living with a minimum amount of tragedy in the interim. I think it can be done without destroying our way of life.

LTownZag
05-14-2020, 09:55 PM
Test trace and isolate is what we will be doing in Spokane County and throughout Washington state so I'm not sure why you're convinced it can't or won't be done. As the second link I provided explains our new daily infections are low enough and our testing capacity is high enough for the undertaking. This, again, is me paraphrasing my county's health officer. Do you disagree with his assessment. If so, why?


I disagree with his expectation that over the course of the next 6 months Spokane or any major city or entire state (maybe except AK, Hawaii, perhaps Vermont or Maine?) will have sufficient tests (not to mention willing test-takers and isolation enforcers) to trace and isolate infected people and their contacts.

We probably have sufficient tests for all cases now, on that I likely agree.
But Spokane is a hub of commerce, education, and transportation for a huge area and has a population that is completely unexposed to a novel highly infection respiratory disease. It doesn't have natural borders or barriers to entry and can't realistically be locked-down in the sense that Israel, or Wuhan, or Singapore has been.


I just found this:

( testandtrace.com ) I appreciate that they quantify their baseline for preparedness (Less than 3% of tests being positive, and having a staff of 5-15 trained contact tracer per daily positive case).

https://i.imgur.com/aRrfBli.png

willandi
05-15-2020, 05:38 AM
https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/95903514_10222613270663876_7127082745460686848_n.j pg?_nc_cat=105&_nc_sid=110474&_nc_ohc=ES7I6BltMBoAX-BvPLP&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=9b5b2d64a01cf75bf5e8a0cbfd30fb1d&oe=5EE3D882

sonuvazag
05-15-2020, 07:12 AM
We probably have sufficient tests for all cases now, on that I likely agree.
But Spokane is a hub of commerce, education, and transportation for a huge area and has a population that is completely unexposed to a novel highly infection respiratory disease. It doesn't have natural borders or barriers to entry and can't realistically be locked-down in the sense that Israel, or Wuhan, or Singapore has been.
Everything you said about Spokane was true over the last two months when our restrictions were able to cause a peak and recession in our number of daily infections. It's strongly suggested by Bob Lutz that he's ready to move us back into a more restrictive scenario as necessary. But if we have capacity to test trace and isolate at the moment, I just don't understand why we wouldn't do it.

Sure, there's a theoretical timeline that's long enough where, without the emergence a treatment or vaccine, it will eventually be moot, but it's pretty likely that after two months less than 1% of the county's population has been infected so far. With that in mind, it would be pretty outrageous in my opinion not to try and buy some more time for an effective treatment or vaccine.

Markburn1
05-15-2020, 07:42 AM
https://spectator.us/lives-vs-lives-global-cost-lockdown/

Something to consider

Markburn1
05-15-2020, 07:48 AM
Another. A balanced approach.

https://okstatefe.blogspot.com/2020/05/a-risk-management-approach-to-defeating.html

Agree with most of this. Not all.

LTownZag
05-15-2020, 08:07 AM
Everything you said about Spokane was true over the last two months when our restrictions were able to cause a peak and recession in our number of daily infections. It's strongly suggested by Bob Lutz that he's ready to move us back into a more restrictive scenario as necessary. But if we have capacity to test trace and isolate at the moment, I just don't understand why we wouldn't do it.

Sure, there's a theoretical timeline that's long enough where, without the emergence a treatment or vaccine, it will eventually be moot, but it's pretty likely that after two months less than 1% of the county's population has been infected so far. With that in mind, it would be pretty outrageous in my opinion not to try and buy some more time for an effective treatment or vaccine.


1. It's definitely not "pretty likely" that 1% of the US has been infected. 4-5% is what the large scale studies are showing for antibodies. If only 1% have been infected (3.3 million) then the infected fatality rate would be over 3%. It's not that deadly.

2. What the Spokane area could have done in March or April, isn't likely to be what they will be able to do in 6 or 10 months. I hope so, but i fear and predict not.

willandi
05-15-2020, 08:08 AM
https://www.healthline.com/health/r-nought-reproduction-number#covid-19-r-0

"For example, in 1918 there was a worldwide outbreak of the swine flu that killed 50 million people. According to a review article published in BMC Medicine, the R0 value of the 1918 pandemic was estimated to be between 1.4 and 2.8.

But when the swine flu, or H1N1 virus, came back in 2009, its R0 value was between 1.4 and 1.6, report researchers in the journal Science. The existence of vaccines and antiviral drugs made the 2009 outbreak much less deadly.


COVID-19 R0
The R0 for COVID-19 is a median of 5.7, according to a study published online in Emerging Infectious Diseases. That’s about double an earlier R0 estimate of 2.2 to 2.7

The 5.7 means that one person with COVID-19 can potentially transmit the coronavirus to 5 to 6 people, rather than the 2 to 3 researchers originally thought."

sonuvazag
05-15-2020, 08:21 AM
1. It's definitely not "pretty likely" that 1% of the US has been infected. 4-5% is what the large scale studies are showing for antibodies. If only 1% have been infected (3.3 million) then the infected fatality rate would be over 3%. It's not that deadly.

2. What the Spokane area could have done in March or April, isn't likely to be what they will be able to do in 6 or 10 months. I hope so, but i fear and predict not.

The United States has regional differences in the percentage infected.

You said earlier that you believe 14,850,000 Americans have been infected. That's approximately 10x the number of confirmed cases. I'll use that multiplier.

There have been 394 confirmed cases in Spokane County and we have a low % of positive tests so it's likely we are, if anything, very good at detecting infections. If I multiply 394 by 10 I get 3,940, which is less than 1% of the 500,000 total county population.

Markburn1
05-15-2020, 08:34 AM
Currently checking for bruises on my head and dents in the wall.

I’ll leave you DOOMSDAY prophets alone for awhile.

Haha.

sonuvazag
05-15-2020, 08:50 AM
Currently checking for bruises on my head and dents in the wall.

I’ll leave you DOOMSDAY prophets alone for awhile.

Haha.

I read your links and I agree that as we move forward and loosen restrictions, special attention should be given to protecting the most vulnerable. In all conversations on this board I have acknowledged that there is a real cost to restricting the economy.

That I believe the restrictions have helped many US communites bend the curve back substantially and that test, trace, and isolate should be a part of the path forward seem to be our biggest points of contention.

From what I can tell, you don't think the virus is as deadly overall as I do. I believe you've compared it to the seasonal flu many times. Because we operate on different premises about the deadliness of the virus, it makes sense that we have different opinions about how it should be managed.

I don't this is a question of who has the moral high ground here. It's a very difficult problem and there's a lot of noise in the data. It's hard, in my opinion, to be sure about any of it.

Markburn1
05-15-2020, 08:55 AM
I read your links and I agree that as we move forward and loosen restrictions, special attention should be given to protecting the most vulnerable. In all conversations on this board I have acknowledged that there is a real cost to restricting the economy.

That I believe the restrictions have helped many US communites bend the curve back substantially and that test, trace, and isolate should be a part of the path forward seem to be our biggest points of contention.

From what I can tell, you don't think the virus is as deadly overall as I do. I believe you've compared it to the seasonal flu many times. Because we operate on different premises about the deadliness of the virus, it makes sense that we have different opinions about how it should be managed.

I don't this is a question of who has the moral high ground here. It's a very difficult problem and there's a lot of noise in the data. It's hard, in my opinion, to be sure about any of it.

Appreciate the response. The only thing I would point out is that I’ve never compared it to the flu that I can remember.

I am going to bow out for awhile on this thread.

sonuvazag
05-15-2020, 09:37 AM
Appreciate the response. The only thing I would point out is that I’ve never compared it to the flu that I can remember.

I am going to bow out for awhile on this thread.

Fair enough. Sorry to mix you up with those that were arguing it was just another flu. My only correction is that I am not a prophet of doom. I still believe an effective public health response from this point forward can save A LOT of lives, even accounting for the other costs of economic restrictions.

ZagaZags
05-15-2020, 10:40 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWMCVpvxbUE

I like this guy.

Markburn1
05-17-2020, 08:09 AM
https://dph.georgia.gov/covid-19-daily-status-report

We were told that Georgia, by reopening too soon, was going to be a disaster of monumental proportions.

There is a chart on this State of Georgia site that shows data concerning covid-19.

It appears that fears were completely overblown. Granted, it's early in the process of reopening but the numbers would indicate that cases, hospitalizations and deaths are all diminishing. I've looked all over trying to find alternative sources that confirm the supposition of disastrous infection rates and deaths. I can't find any.

Do you believe the data?

This should be celebrated shouldn't it? At least cautiously celebrated?

LTownZag
05-17-2020, 09:18 AM
https://dph.georgia.gov/covid-19-daily-status-report

We were told that Georgia, by reopening too soon, was going to be a disaster of monumental proportions.

There is a chart on this State of Georgia site that shows data concerning covid-19.

It appears that fears were completely overblown. Granted, it's early in the process of reopening but the numbers would indicate that cases, hospitalizations and deaths are all diminishing. I've looked all over trying to find alternative sources that confirm the supposition of disastrous infection rates and deaths. I can't find any.

Do you believe the data?

This should be celebrated shouldn't it? At least cautiously celebrated?

I think it absolutely should be celebrated. There has been an incredible variety of outcomes (differences from place to place) and we know some of the reasons, but the degree or difference has been shocking.

Why north Italy but not Rome?

Why Madrid but Lisbon?

Why NYC (area) but not Dallas, Houston, or south Florida?

It seems increasingly evidenced that being outside or in large areas with airflow isn't nearly as dangerous a transmission route as close confinement on public transport, shared housing, conferences, religious gatherings, indoor exercise classes, etc.

The daily movements and crowd groupings in Georgia in the past 3 weeks have likely been very different from what they were 3 months ago, and both of those likely very different from NYC are in March. If all federal/state/local lockdown rules were removed today at noon, people and businesses will still act in ways that lower disease spread rate vs 8 weeks ago.

Rudy Gobert getting COVID and the prime time televised Jazz NBA game getting cancelled post-warmups might have done more for overall public health and perception of the seriousness of the threat than many of the subsequent government dictates.

LTownZag
05-17-2020, 09:41 AM
The United States has regional differences in the percentage infected.

You said earlier that you believe 14,850,000 Americans have been infected. That's approximately 10x the number of confirmed cases. I'll use that multiplier.

There have been 394 confirmed cases in Spokane County and we have a low % of positive tests so it's likely we are, if anything, very good at detecting infections. If I multiply 394 by 10 I get 3,940, which is less than 1% of the 500,000 total county population.

We know about 10% of Boston (https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2020/05/15/boston-coronavirus-antibody-testing) and ~20% of those in NYC have antibodies (https://www.amny.com/coronavirus/latest-antibody-study-report-shows-up-to-20-of-nyc-residents-had-covid-19/) (signs they were infected).

Other (most) areas of the USA are well below the average of 4%. I wouldn't be surprised if at this point, only 1-2% of people in eastern Washington, Spokane, or the whole PNW outside Seattle metro have antibodies. I tried to look up if widespread randomized antibody tests have been done, and couldn't find any. Please post if you do.

https://i.imgur.com/dCcNfFg.png

JPtheBeasta
05-17-2020, 09:36 PM
Covid Deaths By Age Group:

Data from the CDC website, accessed 5/17/2020 [https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm]




Age Group
Covid Deaths
Population
Percent of All Covid Deaths
Percent of Age Group
Deaths Per 100K Persons


<1
4
3,848,208
0.01%
0.00%
0.10


1-4
2
15,962,067
0.00%
0.00%
0.01


5-14
6
41,075,169
0.01%
0.00%
0.01


15-24
59
42,970,800
0.11%
0.00%
0.14


25-34
388
45,697,774
0.71%
0.00%
0.85


35-44
973
41,277,888
1.77%
0.00%
2.36


45-54
2,772
41,631,699
5.05%
0.01
6.658


55-64
6,725
42,272,636
12.26%
0.02%
15.91


65-74
11,524
30,492,316
21.01%
0.04%
37.79


75-84
14,930
15,394,374
27.21%
0.10%
96.98


85<
17478
6,544,503
31.86%
0.27%
267.06


All
54861
327,167,434
100%
0.02%
16.77



Commentary:
It is safe to assume that athletes are in the low risk category unless a) they have other things wrong with them (sickle cell trait is one that isn't on the list but I would love to see data on, given the weird vascular stuff going on with this disease) or b) they play for BYU, in which case there may be a chance they are 35 or older (zing!). I agree with a comment above that this is more about protecting coaches, ancillary staff, and fans than the players (potentially really nasty illness that you get over, notwithstanding). The table and other data (above and below) is helpful in determining one's risk of death/serious illness, based on age and current health condition.

Other useful things to consider:
"[F]or 7% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.5 additional conditions or causes per death." [Same reference as above]

An oft-cited number is that about 80% of all Covid-19 cases are mild
89.3% of all persons who are hospitalized have at least one other underlying condition. That number jumps up to 94.4% for persons over 65.[https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-guidance-management-patients.html] If you are a healthy person over 65, despite the data above, your risk seems to still be low.
In a study of a large NY hospital, 88% of the patients that were admitted (ie seriously ill) had 2 or more comorbidities [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2765184]
43,932 deaths (80%) are persons over the age of 65. If you look at ages 55 and up, that percentage goes to 92%

MDABE80
05-18-2020, 01:12 AM
OLDER GUYS! Drat!...…..let's plan on a season of good competition. Data is mixed but it does look like the number of new cases has been cut in half compared to Early March. There still will be blips though. Big problem is the mixed diagnoses. I have a crew that does janitorial. The owner is Ukrainian and his father passed at age 72 last week. His dad had congestive heart failure and some component of kidney failure. His death certificate read COVID. No blood test to confirm. Lots of this has gone on. Not sure what to make of it. It is now and it'll be difficult to know exactly what disease/diseases are responsible for mortality. My Friends at NIH are thinking 25-50% were coded wrongly or scik elderly had that as a final straw that pushed them over the edge. Troublesome when the data isn't clear. IMHO.

scrooner
05-18-2020, 05:42 AM
Data is mixed but it does look like the number of new cases has been cut in half compared to Early March.

Can you clarify this statement? Where is this reduction in new cases taking place? In "early March" in the US, we were seeing less than 1K new cases per day in the US. We are now seeing between 18K and 25K new cases per day.

https://i.ibb.co/sHmhgWv/Untitled.jpg

kitzbuel
05-18-2020, 06:32 AM
Can you clarify this statement? Where is this reduction in new cases taking place? In "early March" in the US, we were seeing less than 1K new cases per day in the US. We are now seeing between 18K and 25K new cases per day.

https://i.ibb.co/sHmhgWv/Untitled.jpg

It really depends on where you are. My county in Northern Virginia, Fairfax County, has been really climbing, averaging over a thousand new cases a week for the last month. The DMV (DC, Maryland, Virginia) area is really hot right now as evidenced by the White House staffers coming down with Covid-19. Right now the Federal Govt here isn't planning on loosening its telework and distancing orders until July.

Markburn1
05-18-2020, 06:51 AM
Can you clarify this statement? Where is this reduction in new cases taking place? In "early March" in the US, we were seeing less than 1K new cases per day in the US. We are now seeing between 18K and 25K new cases per day.

https://i.ibb.co/sHmhgWv/Untitled.jpg

Perhaps Abe should have said late March or early April. There is a definite trend downward from that point.

Everyone uses numbers to validate their particular view of things. Problem is making the numbers work. For instance, using the spike in your chart around mid April and the end point, and excluding everything before that would result in a chart that says cases are halved since mid April. Add another qualifier like an huge volume of tests compared to earlier and percentages of cases based on that would indicate a rapid decline in percentages of positive tests.

In an earlier post about Georgia I specifically asked if people here believed the numbers. Because who knows who to believe with all the manipulations going on.

LTownZag
05-18-2020, 07:05 AM
The idea that everyone and every side has data so don’t believe data leads to unsupported nihilism and is really the road to willful innumeracy.

The most solid data we have now is from antibody tests and from deaths.

The official Cases data relies on: an increasing quantity of available tests, and a self-selecting group that chooses to get tested. It’s not dishonest or biased, and you’ll see the same numbers on Johns Hopkins, CDC, OurWorldInData, etc. But the official case count in our country so far is largely a function of test kits on hand and convenience or willingness or money to get tested.

Looking at daily deaths and the counting back 25 days (average 3.5 weeks from infection to death) is a more accurate way to track trends in numbers of newly infected on a given date.

Mark, as I wrote, I believe the official Georgia data is being honestly collected and reported. I haven’t seen or heard it doubted by anyone, have you?

You write “who knows what to believe with all the manipulations going on”. Which are some of the manipulations going on?

There has been incredibly consistency among the various reporting and data visitation and comparison sites.

Markburn1
05-18-2020, 07:11 AM
From Nate Silver at 538. All that guy is is numbers.

Silver points out that the media generally doesn’t explain in their broadcasts that the increased number of tests administered is responsible for the increased number of cases reported. So, many viewers are left with the perception that the situation is worsening even though every state is beyond their “peak.”

Markburn1
05-18-2020, 07:31 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ju1ZFuvjzYc

This guy and I agree about once in a blue moon. But, he must have been channeling me here.

kitzbuel
05-18-2020, 07:34 AM
From Nate Silver at 538. All that guy is is numbers.

Silver points out that the media generally doesn’t explain in their broadcasts that the increased number of tests administered is responsible for the increased number of cases reported. So, many viewers are left with the perception that the situation is worsening even though every state is beyond their “peak.”

You can see that in Fairfax County. Testing is actually starting to catch up and as a result we are seeing a decrease in the percent of cases testing positive. We are still seeing an increase in cases though. That means the county is doing wider testing, casting a wider net. The county went from having nearly 40% of tests resulting in positive to around 30% of test resulting in positive. They are now able to test more than just those with specific symptoms so the percentage resulting in positive is dropping. There is still a lag in results though.

JPtheBeasta
05-18-2020, 07:48 AM
Can you clarify this statement? Where is this reduction in new cases taking place? In "early March" in the US, we were seeing less than 1K new cases per day in the US. We are now seeing between 18K and 25K new cases per day.

https://i.ibb.co/sHmhgWv/Untitled.jpg

If you made a best fit line to that data, it appears that after March 30 the slope is negative. It would match the other graphs I have seen for states not named Illinois and (I actually forget the other one). It seems that we have flattened the curve in most places.

JPtheBeasta
05-18-2020, 08:00 AM
I don’t have the link at hand, but if you look at the hospitalization data (DOH Covid-19!Dashboard) in Washington State it is pretty interesting. Seattle area was hit hard but the rest of the stage did ok. Three of the four counties touching Spokane County have zero deaths.

I like that Washington is being opened up by county, but it could be going faster in my opinion. You guys flattened the curve a while ago. The peak of cases was March 23rd.

714 of the 1001 deaths have occurred in the Seattle metro area. If you include Yakima County, that number goes up to 789. It seems that the remaining counties could be open.

JPtheBeasta
05-18-2020, 08:05 AM
From Nate Silver at 538. All that guy is is numbers.

Silver points out that the media generally doesn’t explain in their broadcasts that the increased number of tests administered is responsible for the increased number of cases reported. So, many viewers are left with the perception that the situation is worsening even though every state is beyond their “peak.”

I agree that total number of cases is misleading. You need something to make that result more generalizable, like cases per 100,000 persons, or a percent. Then you can compare different areas. In many cases, it appears that the disease cases grew quickly but it was actually the number of tests were what grew quickly.

LTownZag
05-18-2020, 08:09 AM
From Nate Silver at 538. All that guy is is numbers.

Silver points out that the media generally doesn’t explain in their broadcasts that the increased number of tests administered is responsible for the increased number of cases reported. So, many viewers are left with the perception that the situation is worsening even though every state is beyond their “peak.”

Context is obviously crucial to understanding data, but I'm not sure how much time in every article or broadcast should be devoted to re-explaining context for the nth time. I'm open to the idea that more time and energy still should be spent on repeating context explanations. But that's still not anything like dishonest data manipulating.



----


Here's an example of needing to know context. This graph of official cases is based only on FDA-approved tests which were reported by various dates. It shows close to 0 official cases up through Mar 20, and fewer than 20k/day through end of March.

But by April 4 we had 3-day rolling average of over 1k deaths/day. Clearly these people got sick sometime in the prior weeks, averaging ~25days prior to deaths (March 10ish). So the near-zero official cases prior to march20 represent our lack of tests, not near-zero infections.


https://i.imgur.com/NKlLhOk.png


https://i.imgur.com/9Ag9AXv.png



Data is mixed but it does look like the number of new cases has been cut in half compared to Early March.

One highly reliable way to test this claim is to comparing the deaths ~25 days after each of the two time periods. The final week in March (March 25-Mar31) averaged ~400deaths. Those people represent new cases from early March.

What will we see in 25 days? (June 13?) Will deaths be equal to, let alone lower or even half of the last week in March? If not, will MDABE80 describe what caused the divergence between his prediction and reality? Time will tell. I hope his prediction is accurate.

Zagceo
05-18-2020, 08:31 AM
computer modeling used by many countries to shut down was flawed....says this coder.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2020/05/16/neil-fergusons-imperial-model-could-devastating-software-mistake/

kitzbuel
05-18-2020, 08:59 AM
computer modeling used by many countries to shut down was flawed....says this coder.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2020/05/16/neil-fergusons-imperial-model-could-devastating-software-mistake/

All models are flawed. That is why you need lots of them and you need to continually modify (train) the models as data becomes more robust and variables become more defined. That doesn't mean you ignore them, though.

LTownZag
05-18-2020, 09:36 AM
This model/projector from an MIT data scientist (https://twitter.com/youyanggu/status/1262149966249652224) has consistently been the most accurate of all the models submitted and tested by the CDC. It even outperformed the average of all other models.

https://covid19-projections.com/


Here's a tool to compare various models to reality: https://reichlab.io/covid19-forecast-hub/


The YYG (linked above, viewable at: https://covid19-projections.com/ ) has been the most accurate.


computer modeling used by many countries to shut down was flawed....says this coder.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2020/05/16/neil-fergusons-imperial-model-could-devastating-software-mistake/

The Imperial College (London) and the IHME (Seattle/UW) have bother been relatively inaccurate. The ensemble (collection of all models, which Kitzbuel suggests above) is better. For each of the past 4 weeks running, the best model has been the YYG (Data scientist from MIT)

https://i.imgur.com/bTQzlIS.png

https://i.imgur.com/6qmpYTL.png

Zagceo
05-18-2020, 10:18 AM
Would we have shut down our economy based on these current accurate projections?

LTownZag
05-18-2020, 10:39 AM
Would we have shut down our economy based on these current accurate projections?

A huge percentage (not sure what % ) of the reduction in economic activity happened prior to any government-imposed closures. Much of it will linger long after all lifting of government limits.

The resulting deaths (so far ~100,000 in 7 weeks) have occurred despite massive mitigation efforts. There would have been far more deaths without such efforts, many of which reduced economic activity.

You don't define the "we" in your question, or if "shut down our economy" describes private closures or stay-home choices as well as government mandates.

Given what is now known about COVID, I think most private groups (sports leagues, movie theaters, private colleges) and many local/state governments wish they had closed events and public gatherings earlier, especially in the northeast and mid atlantic.

kitzbuel
05-18-2020, 10:56 AM
Would we have shut down our economy based on these current accurate projections?

The only way these projections are arrived at are through the the actions that shutdown the economy. What you are saying is kind of like saying 'would we have put all that water on the fire if we knew ahead of time the fire would not be big?' The only reason the fire isn't big is because water was applied.

The projections became accurate based on the social distancing activities, to include economic actions, that were implemented. As changes are made to input (economic activity, social distancing) the actuals change. Once the effects of these actions are included in the projections, they make better projections.

Zagceo
05-18-2020, 12:06 PM
Sweden chose another path ....

I recall some on this board predicted huge losses.....even with “stay at home” policy.

Georgia was told if they reopened early there’d be a spike in new cases.

Ten’s of thousands of UPS Fedex and USPS workers continued to work in large warehouses during lockdown.

we all went to grocery stores.

still have not met one person I KNOW that knows one person that has even contracted the virus let alone died from it.

Just my personal observations

MDABE80
05-18-2020, 12:14 PM
Well the number of cases is not accurate , nor is the deaths attributed to COVID. CDC 's numbers are suspect. Funding is increased to $13.9 K for a COVID DX and if the patient goes on a ventilator it's an extra $39 K in billing. Surely a bias has entered the data...Like one of my janitor's father. He'sd now counted as a COVID death but there's no evidence he had it.


I guess what Im saying is that alot of this data is simply not to be trusted. JP's breakdown is very reasonable but even the "oldsters" information look suspect too. I daily new case rate is falling and it's falling quickly. But, then again, it varies by region. So when Debbie or Tony talk about COVID, they are only as good as their data which is handed to them by others.

And I do agree with JP, that Inslee's activity is a wee bit _______<--- you fill in the blank.
Thanks for the "assist" Mark!!!

LTownZag
05-18-2020, 12:31 PM
Well the number of cases is not accurate , nor is the deaths attributed to COVID.


You've called Johns Hopkins the "Gold standard" - they report 90,000 USA deaths as of 5AM this morning. (https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality)

By what factor are they in error? 10% too high? 20%?

For comparison, the Chair of the Department of Data Science at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Professor of Applied Statistics at Harvard, Prof. Irizarry, suggests we were already undercounting COVID deaths by 21,000 as of April 25 in the "fog of war" of the early outbreak. (http://rafalab.github.io/)

https://i.imgur.com/e2J6b3F.png

(Full story sourced via data from Harvard's Chair of Department of Data Science (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/13/opinion/coronavirus-us-deaths.html))

LTownZag
05-18-2020, 12:41 PM
Sweden chose another path ....

I recall some on this board predicted huge losses.....even with “stay at home” policy.



Sweden's rate of COVID death is 4x-8x that of similar nearby nations Denmark, Norway, and Finland. Their death rate is even 30% higher than ours in the USA. (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/total-covid-deaths-per-million)

I predicted USA deaths would tragically total over 200,000 within a year from when user NEC26 called me alarmist early on and we subsequently placed a public bet for charity, which was in early March.

What case number or death number do you predict by Aug1, Oct 1, or March1?

Does not our current death toll already represent "huge losses"? If not, I'm curious what adjectives you would describe the death totals from September 11th or the Vietnam War.

Zagceo
05-18-2020, 01:12 PM
I consider these flu outbreaks to be huge

https://weather.com/health/cold-flu/news/2020-01-31-5-worst-flu-outbreaks-in-recent-history

MDABE80
05-18-2020, 01:22 PM
And Hopkins is only as good as the data is what I also said......as it turns out, even the most eyecatching graphs which you readily supply are not accurate either.

Unknowable is the best assessment. 25%-50% off. WHy? bad reporting , bad coding and there is now a bias in the system. You've never done a discharge summary so I wouldn't expect you to know anything but what you're told (media info). It's in the mechanics of how the system works. I don't think we're getting accurate data......most inflated.
I do not know how to correct the system. i wouldn't be hanging on every word though........

MDABE80
05-18-2020, 01:25 PM
Sweden's rate of COVID death is 4x-8x that of similar nearby nations Denmark, Norway, and Finland. Their death rate is even 30% higher than ours in the USA. (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/total-covid-deaths-per-million)

I predicted USA deaths would tragically total over 200,000 within a year from when user NEC26 called me alarmist early on and we subsequently placed a public bet for charity, which was in early March.

What case number or death number do you predict by Aug1, Oct 1, or March1?

Does not our current death toll already represent "huge losses"? If not, I'm curious what adjectives you would describe the death totals from September 11th or the Vietnam War.

You don't get it even now LTown....you're predictions are inaccurate because of what I posted to day. Read it. You mimic the media stuff picked up. It's inaccurate. Even the medical data is shaky. Nothing personal but you're only as good as what the media is telling you. Hopkins is best but even that may not be accurate. CDC is not...and NIH has quit using CDC as a source.

And now, the DX of COVID is changing. I do think DX has been so loose ( yeilding such high numbers without accuracy) the numbers are shifting. If history proves right, more testing will increase numbers, but the death numbers will drop ( becuase the DX is becoming more rigorous) . It might be good to go back and read JP's numbers. Many will likely has some low titers (but called positive) but few ill die ( as it is now). CDC's numbers are questionable but they're good for something........just know the accuracy is limited.

MDABE80
05-18-2020, 01:46 PM
computer modeling used by many countries to shut down was flawed....says this coder.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2020/05/16/neil-fergusons-imperial-model-could-devastating-software-mistake/


CEO if we all could go back and read Kitz's post on what he does and what he knows about model, you would soon see why the modeling is inaccurate. Maybe Kitz would be so kind to repost how modeling is really done. He really explains a lot in terms of why the models produced so far cannot be accurate. UW's guy (Fergussen) just out front of the data. WHo knows his motivation but the media ( in their usual silliness) began quoting him like he was THEE authority. He wasn't and isn't..at least so far.

Take a look at Kitz's post. It's really an eyeopener.

willandi
05-18-2020, 02:49 PM
I did read somewhere that one of the ways they have been coming up with deaths attributed to Covid is to look at the average number of deaths, per day, in each locale, and the number above that can be attributed, without having a test to actually prove it.
That model only works in larger metropolitan areas where there are enough deaths to be a statistical probability. Small rural towns where there aren't deaths on a regular basis, it doesn't fly. In cities like New York, where the average daily death toll has been 2000 (I picked that number out of the air) for the last 10 years, if the death toll daily becomes 2500, and the primary difference is the virus, the are using that newer figure.
Just something I read.

scrooner
05-18-2020, 03:44 PM
Data is mixed but it does look like the number of new cases has been cut in half compared to Early March.

I daily new case rate is falling and it's falling quickly. But, then again, it varies by region.

Asking again: Can you clarify these statements? Where is the drastic reduction in new cases taking place?

JPtheBeasta
05-18-2020, 04:54 PM
Asking again: Can you clarify these statements? Where is the drastic reduction in new cases taking place?

Covidtracking.com has a lot of raw data. There is a graph on the main page that shows the increase in cases starting in mid March. Johns Hopkins has graphs of new cases. Cases were very low in March and started to rise then.

If you look around mid March, the percent of tests that were coming back positive were in the 15% ballpark, and now they are coming in at 5-6%. (Daily new cases/daily tests)

LTownZag
05-18-2020, 05:03 PM
I consider these flu outbreaks to be huge

https://weather.com/health/cold-flu/news/2020-01-31-5-worst-flu-outbreaks-in-recent-history

Then it would be consistent to consider COVID-19 losses as huge as well. In 10 weeks it has killed as many ( or more ) Americans than 3 of the 5 famous influenza outbreaks at your link. (1957, 1968 Hong Kong, and recent H1N1)

It would obviously be unreasonable to consider those multi year events and their death totals as huge, while downplaying already similar deaths over just 3 months despite for greater mitigation.

LTownZag
05-18-2020, 05:11 PM
And Hopkins is only as good as the data is what I also said......as it turns out, even the most eyecatching graphs which you readily supply are not accurate either.

Unknowable is the best assessment. 25%-50% off. WHy? bad reporting , bad coding and there is now a bias in the system. You've never done a discharge summary so I wouldn't expect you to know anything but what you're told (media info). It's in the mechanics of how the system works. I don't think we're getting accurate data......most inflated.
I do not know how to correct the system. i wouldn't be hanging on every word though........

Abe, I’ll accept your premise that domestic covid deaths are officially overcounted by 25-50%.

You would then need to explain what’s causing all the tens of thousands of excess respiratory related deaths from the past 8 weeks among a demographic group identical to those we know from tests had covid-19 and died.


Either you are saying USA (and Belgium's and Spain's and Italy's, etc) total deaths numbers are being faked, these tens of thousands of people are still alive, or else you’d need to explain, if not covid, why so many more people than the last few March or Aprils have died.

MDABE80
05-18-2020, 05:53 PM
Sorry LT. I just think they’re wrong. Overly enthusiastic. Media driven....perhaps ? It’s. Big ball of cht!

LTownZag
05-18-2020, 06:05 PM
Sorry LT. I just think they’re wrong. Overly enthusiastic. Media driven....perhaps ? It’s. Big ball of cht!

Overly enthusiastic about faking the death of the elderly?

Markburn1
05-18-2020, 06:36 PM
https://www.coloradoan.com/story/news/2020/05/16/colorado-changes-how-coronavirus-deaths-state-counted/5198485002/

This is what people are referring to when they say bad data is prevalent and skews the numbers on charts, graphs, tables, boxscores…

Colorado changed the way they counted Covid deaths and came up with 25% less deaths actually caused by the virus. That's correct. Their death toll went down. If you don't think this is happening in other states, you aren't living in reality. New York is one of the worst.

MDABE80
05-18-2020, 07:27 PM
https://www.coloradoan.com/story/news/2020/05/16/colorado-changes-how-coronavirus-deaths-state-counted/5198485002/

This is what people are referring to when they say bad data is prevalent and skews the numbers on charts, graphs, tables, boxscores…

Colorado changed the way they counted Covid deaths and came up with 25% less deaths actually caused by the virus. That's correct. Their death toll went down. If you don't think this is happening in other states, you aren't living in reality. New York is one of the worst.
Amen to your post Mark. For most in the know, it’s beyond argument. And we all heard it first right here;)

LTownZag
05-18-2020, 07:34 PM
Thanks for that link, Mark. All 300 of those dead people had Covid at the time of death and had been counted as dead due to COVID but the state decided to change their causes of deaths to something else.

It is obviously an inexact science to determine which of a couple different maladies is responsible for killing someone. Maybe the reality is that often any one of them alone wouldn't have done it.

Here's a relevant article from a month ago. It's worth noting that at the time Trump was touting the accuracy of the USA's death counts. I wonder if Trump still believes our official counts.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/which-deaths-count-toward-the-covid-19-death-toll-it-depends-on-the-state/2020/04/16/bca84ae0-7991-11ea-a130-df573469f094_story.html

MDABE80
05-18-2020, 08:31 PM
You are not required to have corona infection (COVID)proven
to be counted as a COVID death.

JPtheBeasta
05-19-2020, 07:31 AM
You are not required to have corona infection (COVID)proven
to be counted as a COVID death.

To wit:

In cases where a definite diagnosis of COVID–19 cannot
be made, but it is suspected or likely (e.g., the circumstances
are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty), it
is acceptable to report COVID–19 on a death certificate as
“probable” or “presumed.” In these instances, certifiers should
use their best clinical judgement in determining if a COVID–19
infection was likely.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/vsrg/vsrg03-508.pdf

If my coworkers in other areas of the hospital are being furloughed, and/or my hospital is facing the prospect of closing its doors because there is not enough non-Covid-19 traffic, it would be very tempting to classify as many deaths as possible as Covid-19 deaths. If I also had a political or moral agenda, it would be even more tempting.

In case anyone wants to challenge the reality that hospitals are getting paid more for Covid-19:

It is true, however, that the government will pay more to hospitals for COVID-19 cases in two senses: By paying an additional 20% on top of traditional Medicare rates for COVID-19 patients during the public health emergency, and by reimbursing hospitals for treating the uninsured patients with the disease (at that enhanced Medicare rate).
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/04/hospital-payments-and-the-covid-19-death-count/

sonuvazag
05-19-2020, 07:50 AM
The CDC says the number of confirmed and probable deaths is probably an undercount.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6919e5.htm


Counting only confirmed or probable COVID-19–associated deaths, however, likely underestimates the number of deaths attributable to the pandemic. The counting of confirmed and probable COVID-19–associated deaths might not include deaths among persons with SARS-CoV-2 infection who did not access diagnostic testing, tested falsely negative, or became infected after testing negative, died outside of a health care setting, or for whom COVID-19 was not suspected by a health care provider as a cause of death.


Monitoring of all-cause deaths and estimating excess mortality during the pandemic provides a more sensitive measure of the total number of deaths than would be recorded by counting laboratory-confirmed or probable COVID-19–associated deaths.

kitzbuel
05-19-2020, 08:18 AM
To wit:


https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/vsrg/vsrg03-508.pdf

If my coworkers in other areas of the hospital are being furloughed, and/or my hospital is facing the prospect of closing its doors because there is not enough non-Covid-19 traffic, it would be very tempting to classify as many deaths as possible as Covid-19 deaths. If I also had a political or moral agenda, it would be even more tempting.

In case anyone wants to challenge the reality that hospitals are getting paid more for Covid-19:

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/04/hospital-payments-and-the-covid-19-death-count/

Why is the substantial increase in deaths when compared to historic averages so consistent across so many different regions and countries across the world? The whole world doesn't get Federal Covid-19 funding nor do they all have the same political agendas as the US. That doesn't seem to compute to me just from a simple Occam's razor analysis.

JPtheBeasta
05-19-2020, 08:54 AM
Why is the substantial increase in deaths when compared to historic averages so consistent across so many different regions and countries across the world? The whole world doesn't get Federal Covid-19 funding nor do they all have the same political agendas as the US. That doesn't seem to compute to me just from a simple Occam's razor analysis.

Persons outside of the U.S. have referenced similar concerns about no differentiation between "death with Covid" versus "death from Covid." This dynamic is not an isolated one (I don't know about issues about funding or potential motives). I agree with Sonuvazag that excess mortality is the best way of knowing what is truly going on. The caveat, as I see it, is that we were in the midst of a flu season as bad as 2018 before Covid-19 happened. Influenza deaths are estimated because it is rarely put on death certificates as the cause of death. The CDC has the unenviable task of sorting out what excess mortality is from influenza vs. Covid-19. If we are using excess mortality to estimate influenza numbers already, the reasoning could end up somewhat circular. I think that it is inevitable that these numbers will be contested. These numbers are subject to change and we probably won't have an official tally for months when the cloud of war has abated(using the 2018 flu as an example, I read an article that referenced a large death number that was later officially changed. I am not questioning the validity of doing so, but just mention this to say that I know it happens).

sonuvazag
05-19-2020, 09:14 AM
Persons outside of the U.S. have referenced similar concerns about no differentiation between "death with Covid" versus "death from Covid." This dynamic is not an isolated one (I don't know about issues about funding or potential motives). I agree with Sonuvazag that excess mortality is the best way of knowing what is truly going on. The caveat, as I see it, is that we were in the midst of a flu season as bad as 2018 before Covid-19 happened. Influenza deaths are estimated because it is rarely put on death certificates as the cause of death. The CDC has the unenviable task of sorting out what excess mortality is from influenza vs. Covid-19. If we are using excess mortality to estimate influenza numbers already, the reasoning could end up somewhat circular. I think that it is inevitable that these numbers will be contested. These numbers are subject to change and we probably won't have an official tally for months when the cloud of war has abated(using the 2018 flu as an example, I read an article that referenced a large death number that was later officially changed. I am not questioning the validity of doing so, but just mention this to say that I know it happens).

It is unavoidable that there will be some uncertainty about the conclusions that are made about the impact of COVID-19, but when I look at NYC's mortality data over the last 20 years up until early April, I just can't help but be convinced that COVID has been a unique factor.

https://i.imgur.com/G5rcn3o.png

kitzbuel
05-19-2020, 09:42 AM
Persons outside of the U.S. have referenced similar concerns about no differentiation between "death with Covid" versus "death from Covid." This dynamic is not an isolated one (I don't know about issues about funding or potential motives). I agree with Sonuvazag that excess mortality is the best way of knowing what is truly going on. The caveat, as I see it, is that we were in the midst of a flu season as bad as 2018 before Covid-19 happened. Influenza deaths are estimated because it is rarely put on death certificates as the cause of death. The CDC has the unenviable task of sorting out what excess mortality is from influenza vs. Covid-19. If we are using excess mortality to estimate influenza numbers already, the reasoning could end up somewhat circular. I think that it is inevitable that these numbers will be contested. These numbers are subject to change and we probably won't have an official tally for months when the cloud of war has abated(using the 2018 flu as an example, I read an article that referenced a large death number that was later officially changed. I am not questioning the validity of doing so, but just mention this to say that I know it happens).

My understanding of the argument is : A death with COVID would also likely be a death with influenza. Therefore there are a set of deaths that are deaths with COVID that are not out of the norm because they would happen anyway.

So there is then still another set of deaths that are occurring above the death with COVID set. That set is causing the current substantial increase in deaths compared to baseline. There is also a subset of the deaths with COVID set that are those that likely would not have happened this year. Does this subset merit inclusion in the set of deaths causing the increase above the baseline?

We are substantially above the seasonal threshold and above the 2018 Influenza driven surge. We are also off of the seasonal flu death surge which further removes impact of flu on current death increases. So the bulk of the deaths with COVID likely to be a death with influenza are part of the subset that would not have happened this year.

The one way we will be able to test this I guess is to see if there is a decrease in deaths with influenza next flu season. The logic being that those people were taken a year early.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

JPtheBeasta
05-19-2020, 11:03 AM
It is unavoidable that there will be some uncertainty about the conclusions that are made about the impact of COVID-19, but when I look at NYC's mortality data over the last 20 years up until early April, I just can't help but be convinced that COVID has been a unique factor.


I agree that Covid-19 has been a unique factor and have never been an outright Covid-19-denier. I have, admittedly, been skeptical of the impact on the population and the rationale for the severe measures we took.

Total pneumonia and influenza deaths are up from the most recent high:
https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/fluview/mortality.html

sonuvazag
05-19-2020, 11:47 AM
I agree that Covid-19 has been a unique factor and have never been an outright Covid-19-denier. I have, admittedly, been skeptical of the rationale for the severe measures we took.

Total pneumonia and influenza deaths are up from the most recent high:
https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/fluview/mortality.html

No question there is difficulty picking apart the pneumonia and influenza deaths from the COVID deaths. I remember in March there was a reporter closely tracking the pneumonia and influenza deaths to see if there was maybe a spike of deaths that might suggest misattributed COVID deaths.

As for the severe measures, it was an emergency response and I am all for reevaluating what we do going forward based on new information, with the hope that most people will join in whatever course is decided (as Mark Few says, it helps when everyone is pulling the rope in the same direction.) If the Sweden model is where we're going, for example, there is still a ton of social sacrifice that will be required to make it work. I prefer the test trace isolate model that focuses on isolating the infected instead of the vulnerable (which I believe is a bigger cohort than many expect), but neither choice requires all of us to stay sheltered in place forever.

I saw a tweet thread this morning from the Chair of New York City Council health committee that suggested in the face of coming quarantine fatigue, it would be helpful for us all to get more specific information about the risks of transmission in certain activities compared to others.
https://twitter.com/MarkLevineNYC/status/1262719636036096002


It’s time to update the all-or-nothing messaging on Covid-19 risk.

Let’s give people the tools to understand that the riskiness of social activities lies on a spectrum.

We are staring quarantine fatigue in the face. We need new guidance--and policies--to meet this challenge.

JPtheBeasta
05-19-2020, 01:20 PM
No question there is difficulty picking apart the pneumonia and influenza deaths from the COVID deaths. I remember in March there was a reporter closely tracking the pneumonia and influenza deaths to see if there was maybe a spike of deaths that might suggest misattributed COVID deaths.

As for the severe measures, it was an emergency response and I am all for reevaluating what we do going forward based on new information, with the hope that most people will join in whatever course is decided (as Mark Few says, it helps when everyone is pulling the rope in the same direction.) If the Sweden model is where we're going, for example, there is still a ton of social sacrifice that will be required to make it work. I prefer the test trace isolate model that focuses on isolating the infected instead of the vulnerable (which I believe is a bigger cohort than many expect), but neither choice requires all of us to stay sheltered in place forever.

I saw a tweet thread this morning from the Chair of New York City Council health committee that suggested in the face of coming quarantine fatigue, it would be helpful for us all to get more specific information about the risks of transmission in certain activities compared to others.
https://twitter.com/MarkLevineNYC/status/1262719636036096002

I agree that it would be very helpful to get a better idea what activities are high risk. For example, how much does talking to someone six feet away from them without a mask on put them at risk for contracting the disease from someone of know or unknown risk?

MDABE80
05-19-2020, 01:37 PM
And with all the differing numbers of new cases and mortality, what does this show us? CDC is acclaimed as inaccurate..and so ae many others.
SO what does all these differing numbers tell us? NOBODY KNOWS for sure. Few have even defined what counts as a covid death. Because of an impossible testing chore, we in the US don't know the prevalence of the disease because we don't know the true number.

For me, I've cut back on this these posts because things do change and even the sampling method changes. It's just a crazy way to approach a disease sent our way. Mayhem results and I suspect that was the idea all along. No reason fur members of this board to argue over what we don't know.

JP's data from CDC looks reasonable in terms of who dies. I can see that daily. Older. sicker, infirm ( all criteria for nursing homes). young and healthy..not so much. So you do what you do which is the best you can knowing full well that our knowledge is lacking. We do know where it came from..but even then, some members on this board doubt it came from China. So what do you do with that type of logic?? lol Not much.

Be well friends. mask up, stay away from sick people and wash your hands...…..so what's new?? It's what we always do. Let's get back to work.. The media has driven us nuts with iffy assertions and data that is more opinion than facts. When the media goes wild, the politicians have to do something.....something....even if it's the not so correct thing. Even if one person had died, someone would assert someone else is at fault. It's just the way it is these days. Nobody will accept blame….it would end their careers and because it probably would be wrong to accept some form of blame
This will get over.....like many before it'll mutate and the thirst for a given host will drop. More to come....

LTownZag
05-19-2020, 03:11 PM
Why is the substantial increase in deaths when compared to historic averages so consistent across so many different regions and countries across the world? The whole world doesn't get Federal Covid-19 funding nor do they all have the same political agendas as the US. That doesn't seem to compute to me just from a simple Occam's razor analysis.

Kitzbuel nails the crux of the argument.

States and regions with high official COVID deaths similarly report very high total numbers of deaths above their average April or may.

States with little COVID, even huge states who locked down early (Ohio, CA) report almost no excess or above average mortality.

If MDABE80 or other covid number skeptics want to explain these excess deaths without citing COVID as their cause, they needs to tell an explanation for why the excess mortality exactly tracks COVID outbreak geography rather than being anything close to evenly spread, or representative per-capita across the country or world, or more correlated with strict lockdowns and no COVID (California, Australia, South Korea, Greece). If lockdowns themselves caused death spikes by limiting medical care or something, we’d see excess mortality in Florida or Arizona or Israel or New Zealand. We don’t. We see it in New Jersey and Massachusetts and Madrid.

MDABE80
05-19-2020, 03:42 PM
No. I don’t need to explain the bad and horrible record keeping. I’m not working the data. The record keepers and diagnosticians should be glad I’m not! What don’t you “get” when the state of the art isn’t.

kitzbuel
05-19-2020, 04:45 PM
Abe, I am not convinced that the whole world started keeping records badly all at the same time three months ago.

Unless perhaps COVID 19 is a cognitive virus.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

MDABE80
05-19-2020, 05:48 PM
Well I usually don’t like universal statements and I didn’t say the whole world was wrong or inaccurate. But when a disease is more or less smuggled in you just can’t know. Worse when testing wasn’t done and then the accuracy of the tests is still in development. Kitz,See where I’m going? Nobody knew. Nobody knew then and now who has corona... not by tests or a clinical picture. Add to that lots of people buried with a SC if covid but not tested. To this day. We don’t know. There is no gold standard. With the above. The whole world didn’t all at once go south simultaneously but the certitude has fallen a lot.

It reminds me if how we determined who had normal thyroid function . I can’t remember if Sili was around then. But here’s how it went... since we didn’t know who had normal limits., we just picked out 50 normal looking men and women and measured thyroid hormone... then Forms of thyroid which we didn’t know existed till we looked harder. And that was that. Normal thyroid function!
In some ways this is kinda like that. Lots of guys with normal and abnormal test who look healthy and probably are!
Who can tell?
So to shorten this up, you can see why even a lab tool for covid may be less useful. 20 tests are now in development. Who’s best is unknown till we measure thousands more. Or those who think they can tell by clinical exam... right!

And then the money incentive yields its head. No. The whole world wasn’t wrong simultaneously. But they weren’t right either. Just get a mask. Wash ur hands and keep ur distance as best you can!

sonuvazag
05-19-2020, 06:37 PM
The CDC's 60-page roadmap reopening America was just posted:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/19/politics/cdc-guidance-on-reopening/index.html

LTownZag
05-19-2020, 07:32 PM
Well I usually don’t like universal statements and I didn’t say the whole world was wrong or inaccurate. But when a disease is more or less smuggled in you just can’t know. Worse when testing wasn’t done and then the accuracy of the tests is still in development. Kitz,See where I’m going? Nobody knew. Nobody knew then and now who has corona... not by tests or a clinical picture.



We actually do know to a high degree, certainly far higher than any historical global pandemic.
(https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6919e5.htm)
From March 11 to May2 there were 24,200 more deaths in NYC than the average of those dates from recent years. Of those 24,000 dead people, 13,800 (57% of excess deaths, 72% of counted COVID deaths) were given a COVID lab test and tested positive. Another 5,000 dead people were listed as probably COVID. These folks didn't get tested, but often had close associations (spouse, etc) with those who already tested positive. These people did not test negative, and they died of COVID associated symptoms. Those two cohorts, which comprise the official COVID count from NYC, account for 78% of the total excess mortality in NYC over that 7 week period. The other 5,300 people (22% of the excess mortality) are not counted as Covid deaths. Perhaps more than 0, the current number, actually died of that cause.

You previously suggested our domestic Covid death toll is falsely inflated by 25-50%. Well in NYC, 72% of their counted official toll had positive lab tests, and the remainder did not test negative.


https://i.imgur.com/NqHnokF.png

MDABE80
05-19-2020, 08:04 PM
Pretty pictures don’t t tell the story. The sources use the inaccurate data. Might make feel could good to post garbage but it’s wrong when it’s based on inaccurate assumptions. But it’s been your way from Day 1. So be it. You and I are like oil and water. You have no particular credential and your obnoxious ways have gotten you corner time twice. In many ways, it's just not worth my time to talk to someone who obviously wants to make an impact but doesn't have the goods. I have been locked down for weeks at a time by your faithful friend Long Island Zag. I'm not going to unload on you. I like this board (even if it's not basketball) but getting shown the door for some odd provoked (by you) reason is just not worth it to me.

Good luck with your goofy light weight info. You don't even know how minimal your knowledge is. I love listening to Kitz, Jazz, Tex, CDC, JP (amazing smart guy) Mark and quite a few others ( the list is long). Decades long friends. You're just not worth it.

LTownZag
05-19-2020, 09:11 PM
Why are you personalizing my linking the cdc report of the NYC data?

Literally nothing I wrote and none of the evidence I provided is dependent on me or anyone’s personal identity. You could address the data or attack personalities as a way to avoid confronting the data.

willandi
05-19-2020, 09:25 PM
This is how all the other Covid threads got locked. People bickering back and forth.
Please present your ideas. If someone else has a different one. let them No need for attacks and name calling.

This one has made it into a 6th page. Lets keep sharing the data and ideas. Please.

MDABE80
05-19-2020, 09:58 PM
Will you are correct. That's why I posted what I did. L town always blows up threads. He's done it 4 times by my count. That's why I bailed. It's like talking to a fire hydrant who talks back.

willandi
05-20-2020, 06:15 AM
"For now, the tests are most helpful for researchers trying to track how the virus spreads in communities."


https://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/wireStory/covid-19-antibody-test-us-70770743?cid=clicksource_4380645_7_heads_posts_hea dlines_hed

Markburn1
05-20-2020, 08:15 AM
Estimates. Caveats. Might Not. Great Unknowns. Crude.

https://spectator.us/stanford-study-suggests-coronavirus-deadly-flu/

Those are just a few of the words included in this article.

My takeaway? Nobody knows. Data is woefully incomplete. Everybody is guessing.

The worst part is the politicizing of the numbers from all sides. Not helpful.

None of that precludes me from the opinion that the cure is worse than the disease in the long term. Short term it helped to mitigate a rapid spread that was thought to ease pressure on hospitals. After that was accomplished the goalposts were moved and those posts continue to migrate while people's lives are torn apart. It's arrogant to think we will be able to stop this without considering nature will run it's course. It's time to protect the most vulnerable and the rest of us need to go to work.

JPtheBeasta
05-20-2020, 08:31 AM
Things to at least consider when thinking about the excess death/all cause mortality numbers, in my opinion:
- We were having a really bad flu season on the level of the most recent really bad one.
- There are multiple reports that very sick persons are not seeking care for non-Covid illness. There are good reasons to think that someone could be dying unnecessarily because of fear of going to the hospital. This impact is hard or nearly impossible to quantify
- Excess mortality has been high in nursing homes and there are other factors that can contribute, like poor access to medical care as doctors avoid these facilities or under appreciated contributors such as depression or stress. This is also hard or nearly impossible to quantify.

sonuvazag
05-20-2020, 08:43 AM
Things to at least consider when thinking about the excess death/all cause mortality numbers, in my opinion:
- We were having a really bad flu season on the level of the most recent really bad one.
- There are multiple reports that very sick persons are not seeking care for non-Covid illness. There are good reasons to think that someone could be dying unnecessarily because of fear of going to the hospital. This impact is hard or nearly impossible to quantify
- Excess mortality has been high in nursing homes and there are other factors that can contribute, like poor access to medical care as doctors avoid these facilities or under appreciated contributors such as depression or stress. This is also hard or nearly impossible to quantify.

I agree but would add that most of these are still an indication of the overall impact of COVID-19 to a hard hit community.

LTownZag
05-20-2020, 09:08 AM
Will you are correct. That's why I posted what I did. L town always blows up threads. He's done it 4 times by my count. That's why I bailed. It's like talking to a fire hydrant who talks back.

Have I ever personally attacked or insulted you, even by insinuation? Even when I asked about your incorrect predictions I asked specifically about the mental model or insider medical information or unique assumptions behind those predictions. I’m interested in ideas not personalities. Meanwhile you’ve insulted me with every name in the book.

How is linking to a CDC summary of NYC testing data a form of “blowing up threads”?

Mark (and others) who correctly and respectfully assert that there are still so many unknowns:

I agree 100% humility is important. We do not know 100% of things, that does not mean we know 0% of things.

There’s a huge difference between those two statements. The second one, carried to an extreme, leads to innumerate nihilism and belief in a subjective version of reality and “my truth” vs “ your truth”.

We know, for instance, that 72% of NYC’s covid counted deaths had positive covid lab tests. We know the remaining 28% did not receive a negative, they just weren’t tested. We know in addition that these two groups only represent 78% of NYC’s unprecedented spike in deaths from 3-11 to 5-2. And we know excess mortality numbers, which far exceed official covid deaths, are geographically, temporary, and demographically correlated with lab test confirmed covid outbreaks, not government lockdowns or population size.

sonuvazag
05-20-2020, 09:30 AM
Have I ever personally attacked or insulted you, even by insinuation? Even when I asked about your incorrect predictions I asked specifically about the mental model or insider medical information or unique assumptions behind those predictions. I’m interested in ideas not personalities. Meanwhile you’ve insulted me with every name in the book.

How is linking to a CDC summary of NYC testing data a form of “blowing up threads”?

Mark (and others) who correctly and respectfully assert that there are still so many unknowns:

I agree 100% humility is important. We do not know every thing, that does not mean we know 0 things.

There’s a huge difference between those two statements. The second one, carried to an extreme, leads to innumerate nihilism and belief in a subjective version of reality and “my truth” vs “ your truth”.

We know, for instance, that 72% of NYC’s covid counted deaths had positive covid lab tests. We know the remaining 28% did not receive a negative, they just weren’t tested. We know in addition that these two groups only represent 78% of NYC’s unprecedented spike in deaths from 3-11 to 5-2. And we know excess mortality numbers, which far exceed official covid deaths, are geographically, temporary, and demographically correlated with lab test confirmed covid outbreaks, not government lockdowns or population size.

I know this won't appeal to your sense of fair play, but for the good of the order, may I suggest you refrain from quoting MDAbe or addressing him in any way. I appreciate the COVID discussions, including your contributions and I'd prefer not to see another go kaput.

LTownZag
05-20-2020, 09:42 AM
I know this won't appeal to your sense of fair play, but for the good of the order, may I suggest you refrain from quoting MDAbe or addressing him in any way. I appreciate the COVID discussions, including your contributions and I'd prefer not to see another go kaput.

Thanks for the suggestion - I'll try that. Sonuvazag, your inbox is full also.

Again, please point out if any of the links or assertions I make are proven incorrect or even become more questionable as new information emerges, as I would happily edit or delete them and don't want to be incorrect any longer than needed. And please mention if any of my comments are ever addressed at attacking personalities, or insulting even by insinuation.


Here's a relevant (and timely, it came out yesterday) article from Scientific American about how COVID-19 deaths are counted. (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-covid-19-deaths-are-counted1/)

Much like our national elections, the national death counts are truly a compilation of dozens of state totals which are each compiling dozens of smaller locality totals.

sonuvazag
05-20-2020, 02:28 PM
Spokane County's Bob Lutz issues countywide directive issued for masks when at indoor or confined public settings when they will be within six feet of another person who they don’t live with.
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2020/may/20/masks-mandatory-in-spokane-after-health-officer-is/

willandi
05-20-2020, 04:13 PM
Spokane County's Bob Lutz issues countywide directive issued for masks when at indoor or confined public settings when they will be within six feet of another person who they don’t live with.
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2020/may/20/masks-mandatory-in-spokane-after-health-officer-is/

I understand why there will be no enforcement, but that means that those that already won't wear a mask, won't change a thing.
There should be repercussions for failing to follow the directive. Maybe a ticket that starts at a low end, say $1.00, but doubles every time another is issued.
I also know that most will disagree with me, but why bother with a directive that most people won't abide by if there is not some penalty. It is just a waste of effort.

sonuvazag
05-20-2020, 05:32 PM
I understand why there will be no enforcement, but that means that those that already won't wear a mask, won't change a thing.
There should be repercussions for failing to follow the directive. Maybe a ticket that starts at a low end, say $1.00, but doubles every time another is issued.
I also know that most will disagree with me, but why bother with a directive that most people won't abide by if there is not some penalty. It is just a waste of effort.

I hear you, but the good news is a decent chunk of the public see wearing a mask as respectful. And the downside of any enforcement is you'll see people crying about being oppressed on social media.
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5ec584fcc5b642a7d150e103

3zagda
05-21-2020, 07:58 PM
Someone(JP?) stated, or at least implied we need to know more about the epidemiology of Covid-19.
This was sent to me by a physician associate of mine, and it is posted by a Dartmouth biologist: https://www.erinbromage.com/post/the-risks-know-them-avoid-them?fbclid=IwAR0S8K6dBX2Sfs1yO2A5p9iCa3Sbmr_Y4DT-b3Jwwomx_I-4BqxJOCrDsBU
Its fascinating how contagious Covid-19 is in close quarters and confined spaces.
I suppose Abe or others that live in Washington may already know the story of the Washington choir "cluster" described in Bromage's blogpost. Incredibly 45 of the 60 choir members attending fell ill after a single 2hour practice.

JPtheBeasta
05-21-2020, 08:46 PM
Covid-19 doesn't spread easily via contact with contaminated surfaces, per the CDC:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/how-covid-spreads.html

JPtheBeasta
05-21-2020, 09:19 PM
t
Someone(JP?) stated, or at least implied we need to know more about the epidemiology of Covid-19.
This was sent to me by a physician associate of mine, and it is posted by a Dartmouth biologist: https://www.erinbromage.com/post/the-risks-know-them-avoid-them?fbclid=IwAR0S8K6dBX2Sfs1yO2A5p9iCa3Sbmr_Y4DT-b3Jwwomx_I-4BqxJOCrDsBU
Its fascinating how contagious Covid-19 is in close quarters and confined spaces.
I suppose Abe or others that live in Washington may already know the story of the Washington choir "cluster" described in Bromage's blogpost. Incredibly 45 of the 60 choir members attending fell ill after a single 2hour practice.

Interesting article. Thanks for posting

ZagaZags
05-22-2020, 01:38 AM
Covid-19 doesn't spread easily via contact with contaminated surfaces, per the CDC:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/how-covid-spreads.html

They were wrong? W.H O said we didn't need masks. New York Governor issues directive for nursing homes to admit Covid patients ( oops ) March 13th CDC predicts ( worst case ) 1.7 million deaths in USA. New York City Officials recommend public going to a Luner Parade in February. So many people were wrong.

JPtheBeasta
05-22-2020, 06:11 AM
Someone(JP?) stated, or at least implied we need to know more about the epidemiology of Covid-19.
This was sent to me by a physician associate of mine, and it is posted by a Dartmouth biologist: https://www.erinbromage.com/post/the-risks-know-them-avoid-them?fbclid=IwAR0S8K6dBX2Sfs1yO2A5p9iCa3Sbmr_Y4DT-b3Jwwomx_I-4BqxJOCrDsBU
Its fascinating how contagious Covid-19 is in close quarters and confined spaces.
I suppose Abe or others that live in Washington may already know the story of the Washington choir "cluster" described in Bromage's blogpost. Incredibly 45 of the 60 choir members attending fell ill after a single 2hour practice.

The article does make a major assumption about how much virus is needed to cause an infection, but the principle discussed is intuitive. It makes sense that viral load times length of exposure, and not just viral load, is important to consider.

If the information here is generally accepted, it rules against a general lockdown and even ubiquitous mask use. If risk of infection is a product of viral load in the air plus length of exposure, this changes the calculus a lot. Restaurants and sporting events would be very high risk compared to a quick trip to the grocery store or gas station, or even a 5 minute conversation with someone at normal distance and speaking volume. Even an outdoor sporting event with good ventilation might be safe, given that the author calls the outdoors safe due to the infinite (relatively speaking) volume of air outside (although the soccer/football match in Italy was seen as a superspreader event). Loud talking/yelling produces more respiratory droplets than normal speaking, so we'd all have to ask ourselves if we want to be behind a bunch of yelling fans; this risk wouldn't be as high as it was for the persons in that choir practice in an enclosed place, but it still seems worse than passing by someone at a store.

An implication of the article is that although a sneeze or cough is bad, if someone covers it well wearing a mask may not be necessary.

It will be interesting to see how openings of restaurants across the country change the numbers. So far so good, as it seems that we are awaiting a second spike in infections (I have downplayed the risk of Covid-19 but have still expected a second spike).

It is also worth considering that the population of persons going to a sporting event are not generally in the high risk category, and high-risk persons can choose to stay home. The players and the Kennel club would be fine, but what about the referees, coaches, staff, etc? If sports were to pick up in the fall, I think some tough decisions have to be made. If the show must go on, so to speak, many higher-risk persons will be faced with the potential need to opt out of working these events.

JPtheBeasta
05-22-2020, 06:14 AM
They were wrong? W.H O said we didn't need masks. New York Governor issues directive for nursing homes to admit Covid patients ( oops ) March 13th CDC predicts ( worst case ) 1.7 million deaths in USA. New York City Officials recommend public going to a Luner Parade in February. So many people were wrong.

"They were wrong" is not a terrible conclusion because we have been learning on the fly. The concern I have is that the fear persons have needs to be based on current information, and not what we thought we knew 2-3 months ago.

kitzbuel
05-22-2020, 07:16 AM
The article does make a major assumption about how much virus is needed to cause an infection, but the principle discussed is intuitive. It makes sense that viral load times length of exposure, and not just viral load, is important to consider.

If the information here is generally accepted, it rules against a general lockdown and even ubiquitous mask use. If risk of infection is a product of viral load in the air plus length of exposure, this changes the calculus a lot. Restaurants and sporting events would be very high risk compared to a quick trip to the grocery store or gas station, or even a 5 minute conversation with someone at normal distance and speaking volume. Even an outdoor sporting event with good ventilation might be safe, given that the author calls the outdoors safe due to the infinite (relatively speaking) volume of air outside (although the soccer/football match in Italy was seen as a superspreader event). Loud talking/yelling produces more respiratory droplets than normal speaking, so we'd all have to ask ourselves if we want to be behind a bunch of yelling fans; this risk wouldn't be as high as it was for the persons in that choir practice in an enclosed place, but it still seems worse than passing by someone at a store.

An implication of the article is that although a sneeze or cough is bad, if someone covers it well wearing a mask may not be necessary.

It will be interesting to see how openings of restaurants across the country change the numbers. So far so good, as it seems that we are awaiting a second spike in infections (I have downplayed the risk of Covid-19 but have still expected a second spike).

It is also worth considering that the population of persons going to a sporting event are not generally in the high risk category, and high-risk persons can choose to stay home. The players and the Kennel club would be fine, but what about the referees, coaches, staff, etc? If sports were to pick up in the fall, I think some tough decisions have to be made. If the show must go on, so to speak, many higher-risk persons will be faced with the potential need to opt out of working these events.


However the population of season ticket holders and boosters are more generally in the high risk category. Schools need those folks involved somehow to keep their programs afloat.

sonuvazag
05-22-2020, 07:28 AM
They were wrong? W.H O said we didn't need masks. New York Governor issues directive for nursing homes to admit Covid patients ( oops ) March 13th CDC predicts ( worst case ) 1.7 million deaths in USA. New York City Officials recommend public going to a Luner Parade in February. So many people were wrong.

I'm not so sure how far off 1.7 million deaths is for a worst case scenario. We're at nearly 100,000 deaths and, unless we're closer than 1/10 of the way to herd immunity, a worst case scenario of over 1,000,000 deaths still seems plausible. That's not what I expect to happen since I imagine we'd take measures to avoid it getting that bad and do a better job protecting vulnerable populations going forward, but still, in a scenario where we do nothing to mitigate the impact ...

JPtheBeasta
05-22-2020, 07:46 AM
However the population of season ticket holders and boosters are more generally in the high risk category. Schools need those folks involved somehow to keep their programs afloat.

Tricky situation, indeed. Do you shut down athletics because your handful of high donors can’t go to games? Maybe we need a handful of Covid-19 protection suites for these folks.

LTownZag
05-22-2020, 07:50 AM
They were wrong? W.H O said we didn't need masks. New York Governor issues directive for nursing homes to admit Covid patients ( oops ) March 13th CDC predicts ( worst case ) 1.7 million deaths in USA. New York City Officials recommend public going to a Luner Parade in February. So many people were wrong.

Your list seamlessly mixes 2 local political policies with 2 virus biology predictions or viral mitigation methods.

I agree (and think 99% of people would agree) that were many poor political choices made at nearly all level of USA politics and our regulatory agencies (FDA/CDC) as well as in most other countries. Up through the second week in February, Trump was still effusively praising China's leader and China's response, and saying this would soon disappear. He wasn't alone in such sentiments.

I agree (and think 99% of people would agree) that initial health agency suggestions to not bother with masks or which minimized airborne human spread were counterproductive to fighting COVID. How much of his was based on well-intentioned ignorance vs unethical political calculations, I don't know.

NYC, as part of NY state, must follow that state's constitution which requires the state government to house and home (with a bed) everyone in the state every night. It's a foolish political policy, in my opinion, but leaves the sitting governor with few options when it comes to finding a willing facility to accept a recovering homeless person or recovering senior citizen with COVID. With NYC hospitals at or near full in April, recovering patients had to be discharged and there were not step-down severity clinics willing or able to accept these folks.

Was 1.7 million American deaths (over a time horizon of years) really incorrect as a worst-case scenario? With no lockdowns, large gathering bans, or major social distancing or masking, what percentage of the country do you think would get infected in 24 months from March 2020? If it's half the country and there's an infected death rate of 1%, that is 1.7million deaths. I don't think we'll end up nearly that high, but I hardly see it as an unreasonable or baseless "worst case scenario".

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

There's a kind of nihilism at hand among many who are having their initial predictions and worldview challenged by the state of reality today. An attitudinal fallback to universal distrust when the median stat or trend line isn't what they would have expected.

"We don't know many things, so I don't trust any data"
"Some were prominently wrong so now all the stats are crooked, all the viral research is wrong, we don't know enough to make any conclusions"

I'm a skeptical person and sympathetic to some of this worldview, but you must ask yourself if it's selective:

If COVID had been far less deadly than the media first predicted, and Trump's predictions domestically and faith in China's leadership had proven well-founded, would you still be equally as skeptical of any stats showing a hypothetical low transmission and very few deaths? Or would you more easily believe those hypothetical low stats produced by the same agencies, universities, testing systems, etc that you now doubt?

If an Obama, or Hillary Clinton, or Bernie Sanders, or (Insert any team you hate here) presidential administration had been in charge right now, and had publicly downplayed the threat, how much more would you believe the accuracy of current high death counts or possibly higher deaths from all-cause mortality increases, if you knew that such tragedy would be politically blamable on "the other team" which you previously disliked?

To be skeptical is to be wise. To be selectively skeptical is to be... human? And for the record I am not immune from this selectivity.

kitzbuel
05-22-2020, 08:02 AM
Tricky situation, indeed. Do you shut down athletics because your handful of high donors can’t go to games? Maybe we need a handful of Covid-19 protection suites for these folks.

Maybe give them an optional high-quality stream and charge others for the stream. Season ticket holders would get bandwidth priority.

Interestingly, NBA is looking at bringing all its teams to Orlando and playing out the season/playoffs on the ESPN Wide World of Sports Complex at Walt Disney World Resort according to Seth Davis on his The Athletic podcast.

JPtheBeasta
05-22-2020, 08:31 AM
There was little evidence for mask wear prior to Covid-19. There are newer studies on both sides of the equation. Necessary mask use by non-sick persons in the general public is controversial for good reasons.

kitzbuel
05-22-2020, 11:48 AM
There was little evidence for mask wear prior to Covid-19. There are newer studies on both sides of the equation. Necessary mask use by non-sick persons in the general public is controversial for good reasons.

I will wear a mask at stores or if in close contact with non-family members, but I don't wear them when I run or cycle, it is too hard to breathe. That is a good technique for simulating training at altitude, though.

JPtheBeasta
05-22-2020, 02:31 PM
I will wear a mask at stores or if in close contact with non-family members, but I don't wear them when I run or cycle, it is too hard to breathe. That is a good technique for simulating training at altitude, though.

That article above should make you feel better about exercising outdoors without one. (The low exposure time conversation)

Markburn1
05-22-2020, 03:51 PM
Your list seamlessly mixes 2 local political policies with 2 virus biology predictions or viral mitigation methods.

I agree (and think 99% of people would agree) that were many poor political choices made at nearly all level of USA politics and our regulatory agencies (FDA/CDC) as well as in most other countries. Up through the second week in February, Trump was still effusively praising China's leader and China's response, and saying this would soon disappear. He wasn't alone in such sentiments.

I agree (and think 99% of people would agree) that initial health agency suggestions to not bother with masks or which minimized airborne human spread were counterproductive to fighting COVID. How much of his was based on well-intentioned ignorance vs unethical political calculations, I don't know.

NYC, as part of NY state, must follow that state's constitution which requires the state government to house and home (with a bed) everyone in the state every night. It's a foolish political policy, in my opinion, but leaves the sitting governor with few options when it comes to finding a willing facility to accept a recovering homeless person or recovering senior citizen with COVID. With NYC hospitals at or near full in April, recovering patients had to be discharged and there were not step-down severity clinics willing or able to accept these folks.

Was 1.7 million American deaths (over a time horizon of years) really incorrect as a worst-case scenario? With no lockdowns, large gathering bans, or major social distancing or masking, what percentage of the country do you think would get infected in 24 months from March 2020? If it's half the country and there's an infected death rate of 1%, that is 1.7million deaths. I don't think we'll end up nearly that high, but I hardly see it as an unreasonable or baseless "worst case scenario".

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

There's a kind of nihilism at hand among many who are having their initial predictions and worldview challenged by the state of reality today. An attitudinal fallback to universal distrust when the median stat or trend line isn't what they would have expected.

"We don't know many things, so I don't trust any data"
"Some were prominently wrong so now all the stats are crooked, all the viral research is wrong, we don't know enough to make any conclusions"

I'm a skeptical person and sympathetic to some of this worldview, but you must ask yourself if it's selective:

If COVID had been far less deadly than the media first predicted, and Trump's predictions domestically and faith in China's leadership had proven well-founded, would you still be equally as skeptical of any stats showing a hypothetical low transmission and very few deaths? Or would you more easily believe those hypothetical low stats produced by the same agencies, universities, testing systems, etc that you now doubt?

If an Obama, or Hillary Clinton, or Bernie Sanders, or (Insert any team you hate here) presidential administration had been in charge right now, and had publicly downplayed the threat, how much more would you believe the accuracy of current high death counts or possibly higher deaths from all-cause mortality increases, if you knew that such tragedy would be politically blamable on "the other team" which you previously disliked?

To be skeptical is to be wise. To be selectively skeptical is to be... human? And for the record I am not immune from this selectivity.

Two things. The initial model that most all of the political decisions were made included mitigation efforts including social distancing and predicted your 1.7 to 2.2 million deaths.

The political calculations of the team out of power included accusations of racism for banning flights from China, encouragements to visit restaurants in Chinatown, admonishments for suggesting European travel was not smart and all manner of “Don’t panic, this is nothing.” Lots of revisionist history going on.

Neither “ team” got it all right or anywhere near. Suggesting anyone could have done better with the available information is a fool’s game.

bballbeachbum
05-22-2020, 06:24 PM
[QUOTE=Markburn1;1519512Suggesting anyone could have done better with the available information is a fool’s game.[/QUOTE]

too wide a brush stroke seems to me. yes, difficult calls, but some appear to have listened to the experts while others did not. Nothing revisionist about it, just different calls made with the same data

https://www.propublica.org/article/two-coasts-one-virus-how-new-york-suffered-nearly-10-times-the-number-of-deaths-as-california

bballbeachbum
05-22-2020, 06:41 PM
re. masks, I wear one to protect my fellow citizens, not to protect myself; I wear it so I don't spread it if I have it, not so I don't get it. The data is pretty clear on that. So when folks are out in those situations with no mask, they aren't being brave and risking their own health, lol; they are putting others at risk with fake bravado.

Let's say I think my freedom includes driving 100mph, but since it endangers the freedoms of others, there are restrictions on my speed. Same with driving drunk. Same with polluting waterways up river; if my freedoms put others at risk, there are restrictions. It's not a new thought. I can't just go grab a woman to express my freedom becasue it infringes on hers. I could literally go on and on.

But the leadership on this was so divisive that not wearing a mask is somehow about freedom...what a sad joke. reveals a basic lack of understanding about why to wear a mask seems to me, and the total politicization of it.

and before you start, I've been for reopening for some time...but not stupid and uninformed as if this is about freedom. Is freedom ordering meat plant workers back to infested sites? Is it authorizing warrantless spying on US citizens? Now that stuff is about freedom in my humble opinion

LTownZag
05-22-2020, 07:42 PM
Two things. The initial model that most all of the political decisions were made included mitigation efforts including social distancing and predicted your 1.7 to 2.2 million deaths.

The political calculations of the team out of power included accusations of racism for banning flights from China, encouragements to visit restaurants in Chinatown, admonishments for suggesting European travel was not smart and all manner of “Don’t panic, this is nothing.” Lots of revisionist history going on.

Neither “ team” got it all right or anywhere near. Suggesting anyone could have done better with the available information is a fool’s game.

And not suggesting that there could be anyone (out of 300 million) who could have done better than Trump and his team isn't a fool's game?

I definitely think *somebody* could have done better than our national status quo even given the limited info. Look to New Zealand, Australia, Greece, South Korea, Germany, etc. Or simply take your current most favored governor, imagine them as president or ambassador to China, or head of the CDC or FDA, and extrapolate from there. I have a hard time imaging that the median republican governor or senator wouldn't have done better.

At no point did I say or imply that either conventional political left-right team got it all, or even mostly right. The "team" that got it right more than anyone were the smart silicon valley venture capitalists, nerdy tech disagreeable coder types, iconoclast economists, and others who make their living thinking exponentially and finding phenomena that begin small and have the traits to grow huge.

Mark, what was the model (name? source?) predicting 1.7-2.2million domestic deaths even with social distancing mitigation? I'd love to go back and read about it.

ZagaZags
05-22-2020, 08:30 PM
Dr. Fauci Says Staying Closed Too Long Could Cause Irreversible Damage, But Urges States To Take ‘Very Significant Precautions’

sonuvazag
05-23-2020, 08:21 AM
Dr. Fauci Says Staying Closed Too Long Could Cause Irreversible Damage, But Urges States To Take ‘Very Significant Precautions’

That's basically what I believe. Fauci has been on point the whole time and he says very positive things about his Jesuit education which is an extra plus in my book.

kitzbuel
05-23-2020, 02:29 PM
re. masks, I wear one to protect my fellow citizens, not to protect myself; I wear it so I don't spread it if I have it, not so I don't get it. The data is pretty clear on that. So when folks are out in those situations with no mask, they aren't being brave and risking their own health, lol; they are putting others at risk with fake bravado.

Let's say I think my freedom includes driving 100mph, but since it endangers the freedoms of others, there are restrictions on my speed. Same with driving drunk. Same with polluting waterways up river; if my freedoms put others at risk, there are restrictions. It's not a new thought. I can't just go grab a woman to express my freedom becasue it infringes on hers. I could literally go on and on.

But the leadership on this was so divisive that not wearing a mask is somehow about freedom...what a sad joke. reveals a basic lack of understanding about why to wear a mask seems to me, and the total politicization of it.

and before you start, I've been for reopening for some time...but not stupid and uninformed as if this is about freedom. Is freedom ordering meat plant workers back to infested sites? Is it authorizing warrantless spying on US citizens? Now that stuff is about freedom in my humble opinion

Agreed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LTownZag
05-23-2020, 07:46 PM
Agreed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bballbeachbum - excellent post.

Markburn1
05-24-2020, 08:47 AM
https://youtu.be/Fn8MxJx_erk

willandi
05-24-2020, 09:51 AM
https://abcnews.go.com/US/coronavirus-updates-wuhan-lab-director-calls-virus-leak/story?id=70855815&cid=clicksource_4380645_2_heads_hero_live_twopack_ hed

"12:50 p.m.: New York sports teams can train again
New York professional sports leagues can begin spring training, Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced on Sunday.

That includes teams and athletes part of MLB, the NBA, WNBA, NFL, NHL, U.S. Tennis Association and Major League Soccer.

The teams must follow appropriate health protocols, the governor said.

Last week, Cuomo encouraged major sports teams in the state to reopen without fans, a point he repeated at Sunday's daily press briefing.

"I believe sports can come back without having people in the stadium and in the arena," Cuomo said. "Work out the economics if you can. We want people to be able to watch sports, to the extent people are staying home. It gives people something to do and is a return to normalcy."

Most live sports have been shut down since March due to the coronavirus pandemic. Last Sunday, NASCAR held its first race since lockdown measures began in South Carolina.

New York continues to reopen its economy this week. Campgrounds can reopen on Monday, followed by veterinarian offices on Tuesday, Cuomo said.

The mid-Hudson region and Long Island are still on track to reopen Tuesday and Wednesday, respectively, the governor said.

There were 109 daily deaths in the state from COVID-19 in the last 24 hours, Cuomo said Sunday."

MDABE80
05-24-2020, 11:19 AM
Beach says "But the leadership on this was so divisive that not wearing a mask is somehow about freedom...what a sad joke. reveals a basic lack of understanding about why to wear a mask seems to me, and the total politicization of it." I f you have something somewhere that confirms this, I would be surprised. I don't see division from leadership ( I do see whatever "leadership" you're referring to being attacked incessantly by majority of media) but NOBODY I've seen says not wearing a mask is about freedom...……<--this is where my comment on Beach's post stops.

_---------> this is where a new general comment begins...Everyone I know of recommends distancing and masks......and nobody's said don't wear a mask. Almost universally leadership and anyone with a brain has said wear masks! Where did you get this idea??I have seen statements to the effect wherein" you do not HAVE to wear a mask".....and you don't. Never yet have I seen the grotesque idea that mixes politics with mask wearing. Maybe there some confusion over reopening the country for business and mask wearing. Media's made that a political item. "you care about money more than health" lol.....

WEAR a mask! But there are 8 states who've done nothing and they do have low low infection and death rates (for whatever death rates mean in these confusing data sets) . Most people don't require commands from on on high to wear a mask in an infectious environment. Just common sense. No offense intended but I had to drop a note on this one.

JPtheBeasta
05-24-2020, 05:34 PM
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2766367


In this community seroprevalence study in Los Angeles County, the prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 was 4.65%. The estimate implies that approximately 367 000 adults had SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, which is substantially greater than the 8430 cumulative number of confirmed infections in the county on April 10.3 Therefore, fatality rates based on confirmed cases may be higher than rates based on number of infections. In addition, contact tracing methods to limit the spread of infection will face considerable challenges.

This study took some steps to remediate some of concerns persons had about the USC and Santa Clara studies, but with similar results. In places where ubiquitous PCR nasal/throat swab was done, such as Vo, Italy, or New Rochelle, NY, you also get much higher infection rates than you currently see (which are the result of testing the patients you suspect have the disease, as it only detects active infection). The implication is that a lot of people mounted a defense to this disease. The comment above about the difficulty of contact tracing all 367,000 persons with Covid-19 in L.A. would be very difficult.

You can multiply the population of Washington State (or the U.S., or wherever) by 4.65% to get the denominator. Divide the the total deaths in Washington (or the respective area) from Covid by this number. That is the death rate for total cases of Covid in that area, and you will get a much lower death rate than we currently have. I did this for AZ and it drops the death rate to 0.3%.

MDABE80
05-24-2020, 06:53 PM
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2766367



This study took some steps to remediate some of concerns persons had about the USC and Santa Clara studies, but with similar results. In places where ubiquitous PCR nasal/throat swab was done, such as Vo, Italy, or New Rochelle, NY, you also get much higher infection rates than you currently see (which are the result of testing the patients you suspect have the disease, as it only detects active infection). The implication is that a lot of people mounted a defense to this disease. The comment above about the difficulty of contact tracing all 367,000 persons with Covid-19 in L.A. would be very difficult.

You can multiply the population of Washington State (or the U.S., or wherever) by 4.65% to get the denominator. Divide the the total deaths in Washington (or the respective area) from Covid by this number. That is the death rate for total cases of Covid in that area, and you will get a much lower death rate than we currently have. I did this for AZ and it drops the death rate to 0.3%.
Is that we’re getting g a better look at this disease. naps I come. Odds to. Also worth a look is the Hoover Institute data. It’s a revisit of the Johns Hopkins data. An eye opener. This disease is very. As for the elderly with other diseases. We knew that whT we did not know is that it seems pretty benign for normal people who don’t have predisposed other diseases. Pretty much like influenza. Certainly nothing like the beast the media has indicated.

Masks and distance is all that’s needed. Let’s play ball! B

sonuvazag
05-24-2020, 07:05 PM
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2766367



This study took some steps to remediate some of concerns persons had about the USC and Santa Clara studies, but with similar results. In places where ubiquitous PCR nasal/throat swab was done, such as Vo, Italy, or New Rochelle, NY, you also get much higher infection rates than you currently see (which are the result of testing the patients you suspect have the disease, as it only detects active infection). The implication is that a lot of people mounted a defense to this disease. The comment above about the difficulty of contact tracing all 367,000 persons with Covid-19 in L.A. would be very difficult.

You can multiply the population of Washington State (or the U.S., or wherever) by 4.65% to get the denominator. Divide the the total deaths in Washington (or the respective area) from Covid by this number. That is the death rate for total cases of Covid in that area, and you will get a much lower death rate than we currently have. I did this for AZ and it drops the death rate to 0.3%.

I wouldn't assume just because one county has 4.65% seroprevalence that the same value can be carried over to any other area in the US.

With the New York City serology studies providing a different conclusion about the death rate, there's only a few plausible explanations. The LA county study is overestimating the seroprevalance, the reported deaths in New York City are overestimated, or there are different strains with different IFRs.

The calculation of estimated deaths and estimated seroprevance in NYC gives us an IFR of 1.4%:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-rate/

MDABE80
05-24-2020, 07:46 PM
IN NYC, we knew the elderly would have the highest victims......especially with the "stuffing" of the elderly in high risk nursing homes. I agree it's a big number. For the under 60 crown who are healthy at entry are very low risk. The one thing in the NY data is the absence of confirmed data and the over estimation of who had the disease. In a few more months, we'll know more.

Most recent data is from Hoover Inst. THis dease is way oversold..media scared everyone when they had little data. Projects now show that 1/10th of one percent of the under 60 group with no other disease will be infected or die. Hoover took the Johns Hopkins data ( the best data around as far as I can tell) and takes hard focused looked at the overall and the subgroups.

Politics fails the test when the data is known. We're getting better at the latter. A lot better. All those predictions were not worth a keystroke without accurate information which is only coming out now. Media say we're approching 100 K death but only half that number is confirmed as diseased from COVID. EVen if the 100 K death is accurate, we also know the majority of the elderly ( 80-90% of the deaths) had other major diseases that killed them. COVID was just an add on.

Lets play ball. !!

bballbeachbum
05-24-2020, 09:04 PM
Beach says "But the leadership on this was so divisive that not wearing a mask is somehow about freedom...what a sad joke. reveals a basic lack of understanding about why to wear a mask seems to me, and the total politicization of it." I f you have something somewhere that confirms this, I would be surprised. I don't see division from leadership ( I do see whatever "leadership" you're referring to being attacked incessantly by majority of media) but NOBODY I've seen says not wearing a mask is about freedom...……<--this is where my comment on Beach's post stops.

_---------> this is where a new general comment begins...Everyone I know of recommends distancing and masks......and nobody's said don't wear a mask. Almost universally leadership and anyone with a brain has said wear masks! Where did you get this idea??I have seen statements to the effect wherein" you do not HAVE to wear a mask".....and you don't. Never yet have I seen the grotesque idea that mixes politics with mask wearing. Maybe there some confusion over reopening the country for business and mask wearing. Media's made that a political item. "you care about money more than health" lol.....

WEAR a mask! But there are 8 states who've done nothing and they do have low low infection and death rates (for whatever death rates mean in these confusing data sets) . Most people don't require commands from on on high to wear a mask in an infectious environment. Just common sense. No offense intended but I had to drop a note on this one.

No offense taken.

Let's look at it the other way then...the leadership has been unifying on this issue.

So for just one example, when VP Mike Pence, the leader of President Trump's coronavirus task force, chose not to wear a mask when he visited the Mayo Clinic on April 28, where one was required to wear a mask to enter Mayo by that point...that was a gesture of unification? to demonstrate to all that if you are required to wear a mask, you actually don't have to, and so we are better unified! And it had nothing to do with politics.


Never yet have I seen the grotesque idea that mixes politics with mask wearing

LTownZag
05-24-2020, 09:20 PM
Everyone I know of recommends distancing and masks......and nobody's said don't wear a mask. Almost universally leadership and anyone with a brain has said wear masks! Where did you get this idea??I have seen statements to the effect wherein" you do not HAVE to wear a mask".....and you don't. Never yet have I seen the grotesque idea that mixes politics with mask wearing. Maybe there some confusion over reopening the country for business and mask wearing. Media's made that a political item. "you care about money more than health" lol.....

WEAR a mask! But there are 8 states who've done nothing and they do have low low infection and death rates (for whatever death rates mean in these confusing data sets) . Most people don't require commands from on on high to wear a mask in an infectious environment. Just common sense. No offense intended but I had to drop a note on this one.

The vice president infamously refused to wear a mask while touring the Mayo Clinic while it had COVID patients.

Has the president ever worn as mask in public? He refused to wear a mask while on a tour of the large Honeywell mask factory. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/06/new-questions-arise-about-trumps-event-honeywell-mask-factory/) When he first mentioned masks at his press briefing, he emphasized that he himself would not be wearing one:


“It’s going to be really a voluntary thing,” Trump said during a White House briefing with reporters.

“You can do it. You don't have to do it. I'm choosing not to do it, but some people may want to do it, and that's OK,” he said. (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/491108-trump-recommends-face-masks-but-says-its-voluntary-and-he-wont-do-it)


As far as republican or conservative leaders explicitly criticizing masks, as opposed to prominently and uniformly not wearing them on the senate floor, etc, the editor of the american conservative magazine "First Things" (Russell Reno) just wrote:


By the way, the WWII vets did not wear masks. They're men, not cowards. Masks=enforced cowardice.


Just to reinforce. Talked to my son in Seattle. The mask culture if fear driven. Masks+cowardice. It's a regime dominate by fear of infection and fear of causing of infection. Both are species of cowardice.


Look, let's face it. There are those who are terrified, and those who are not. Where do you stand? Terror or a more reasonable position? Will you visit our mother? If so, the mask is a PC gesture. If not, you are a moral monster.



MDABE80, I am glad you support mask wearing and think it is wise and shouldn't be seen as a political partisan issue. That's something you and I agree on and I am encouraged by that agreement. Currently democrat-identifying people are 20% more likely than republican identifying people to wear masks. (https://tompepinsky.com/2020/05/13/yes-wearing-a-mask-is-partisan-now/)

LTownZag
05-24-2020, 09:52 PM
IN NYC, we knew the elderly would have the highest victims......especially with the "stuffing" of the elderly in high risk nursing homes. ... EVen if the 100 K death is accurate, we also know the majority of the elderly ( 80-90% of the deaths) had other major diseases that killed them.


NYC has had a relatively high number of young deaths and a low percent of its deaths occur among retired folks or anyone old enough for a nursing home. It's a strange USA outlier for the young age of the victims. Majority dead have been under 75. (https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data-deaths.page)

Many foreign, especially poorer countries are also seeing younger-skewing deaths (similar or even younger than NYC) (https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/05/in-developing-countries-the-coronavirus-deaths-are-younger.html)


In Brazil, 15 percent of deaths have been people under 50 — a rate more than 10 times greater than in Italy or Spain. In Mexico, the trend is even more stark: Nearly one-fourth of the dead have been between 25 and 49. In India, officials reported this month that nearly half of the dead were younger than 60. In Rio de Janeiro state, more than two-thirds of hospitalizations are for people younger than 49.

-People under 75 made up just over half of of NYC's deaths as of 5/13. (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/)

-People under 75 consistently make up a 35-40% of national deaths (SEE JP's chart below). (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm)

-People under 65 account for 29% of Texas deaths. (https://www.statesman.com/news/20200521/fact-check-how-many-coronavirus-deaths-in-texas-are-people-over-65)

Unless you classify elderly as persons in their 60s, I don't believe any state or country in the world has had 80%+ deaths among the elderly.

JPtheBeasta
05-24-2020, 10:02 PM
I wouldn't assume just because one county has 4.65% seroprevalence that the same value can be carried over to any other area in the US.

With the New York City serology studies providing a different conclusion about the death rate, there's only a few plausible explanations. The LA county study is overestimating the seroprevalence, the reported deaths in New York City are overestimated, or there are different strains with different IFRs.

The calculation of estimated deaths and estimated seroprevalence in NYC gives us an IFR of 1.4%:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-rate/

Population demographics seem to play into the death rate, if it is accurate that places with higher numbers of African American patients have the highest death rates.

I agree that generalizability of the data is a caveat, although everywhere these studies look it suggests a higher prevalence than the PCR tests suggest, which is the major point. This is except for the study of MLB employees, which was much lower (I think 0.7% prevalence). It stands to reason that the prevalence is more than is detected by PCR when many persons are asymptomatic or have very mild symptoms to the tune of 80%. It's a crude calculation that oversimplifies the data but one could divide the total number of PCR-confirmed cases and divide by .2 to get a ballpark of what the actual cases might be in this country. The antibody numbers were obviously worse in New York, and at a homeless shelter in Boston, and I would never use these numbers to extrapolate out to the rest of the country.

In regard to NYC, the 1% death rate is much lower than the case fatality rate of 6.5% that is produced when looking at the PCR numbers. New York is tough, in my opinion, because it has been an outlier. I never assumed that their antibody numbers could be generalized to the rest of the country. California has numbers that are more in line with other antibody testing areas, or areas when closer to universal PCR testing was done.

California has had one of the most strict lockdowns, so there's some conversation that will be had about that, I'm sure.

MDABE80
05-24-2020, 10:20 PM
NYC has had a relatively low percent of its deaths occur among retired folks or anyone old enough for a nursing home. It's a strange outlier for the young age of the victims. Most have been under 75. (https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data-deaths.page)

People under 75 made up just over half of of NYC's deaths as of 5/13. (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/)
People under 75 consistently make up a 30-35% of national deaths. (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm)
People under 65 account for 29% of Texas deaths. (https://www.statesman.com/news/20200521/fact-check-how-many-coronavirus-deaths-in-texas-are-people-over-65)

Unless you classify elderly as persons in their 60s, I don't believe any state or country in the world has had 80%+ deaths among the elderly.

I think u need some references on these statements. So go find solid references and get back to us.

JPtheBeasta
05-24-2020, 10:27 PM
NYC has had a relatively low percent of its deaths occur among retired folks or anyone old enough for a nursing home. It's a strange outlier for the young age of the victims. Most have been under 75. (https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data-deaths.page)

People under 75 made up just over half of of NYC's deaths as of 5/13. (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/)
People under 75 consistently make up a 30-35% of national deaths. (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm)
People under 65 account for 29% of Texas deaths. (https://www.statesman.com/news/20200521/fact-check-how-many-coronavirus-deaths-in-texas-are-people-over-65)

Unless you classify elderly as persons in their 60s, I don't believe any state or country in the world has had 80%+ deaths among the elderly.

According to the Beer's criteria, as provided by the American Geriatric Society, anyone over 65 is included in the "older adult" population. The Merck manual also accepts this definition when discussing geriatrics.

I've include the following chart again so persons don't get distracted by your switching of data sets between NY, the U.S. and Texas.

Covid Deaths By Age Group:

Data from the CDC website, accessed 5/17/2020 [https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm]




Age Group
Covid Deaths
Population
Percent of All Covid Deaths
Percent of Age Group
Deaths Per 100K Persons


<1
4
3,848,208
0.01%
0.00%
0.10


1-4
2
15,962,067
0.00%
0.00%
0.01


5-14
6
41,075,169
0.01%
0.00%
0.01


15-24
59
42,970,800
0.11%
0.00%
0.14


25-34
388
45,697,774
0.71%
0.00%
0.85


35-44
973
41,277,888
1.77%
0.00%
2.36


45-54
2,772
41,631,699
5.05%
0.01
6.658


55-64
6,725
42,272,636
12.26%
0.02%
15.91


65-74
11,524
30,492,316
21.01%
0.04%
37.79


75-84
14,930
15,394,374
27.21%
0.10%
96.98


85<
17478
6,544,503
31.86%
0.27%
267.06


All
54861
327,167,434
100%
0.02%
16.77

MDABE80
05-24-2020, 10:40 PM
Hugely important data JP. I do not trust flimsy references like often comes from LTown. What you just posted tracks nicely with the cumulative Johns Hopkins data.

ZagaZags
05-25-2020, 02:34 AM
I will wear a mask out of respect for others. I am no coward.

willandi
05-25-2020, 06:58 AM
According to the Beer's criteria, as provided by the American Geriatric Society, anyone over 65 is included in the "older adult" population. The Merck manual also accepts this definition when discussing geriatrics.

I've include the following chart again so persons don't get distracted by your switching of data sets between NY, the U.S. and Texas.

Covid Deaths By Age Group:

Data from the CDC website, accessed 5/17/2020 [https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm]




Age Group
Covid Deaths
Population
Percent of All Covid Deaths
Percent of Age Group
Deaths Per 100K Persons


<1
4
3,848,208
0.01%
0.00%
0.10


1-4
2
15,962,067
0.00%
0.00%
0.01


5-14
6
41,075,169
0.01%
0.00%
0.01


15-24
59
42,970,800
0.11%
0.00%
0.14


25-34
388
45,697,774
0.71%
0.00%
0.85


35-44
973
41,277,888
1.77%
0.00%
2.36


45-54
2,772
41,631,699
5.05%
0.01
6.658


55-64
6,725
42,272,636
12.26%
0.02%
15.91


65-74
11,524
30,492,316
21.01%
0.04%
37.79


75-84
14,930
15,394,374
27.21%
0.10%
96.98


85<
17478
6,544,503
31.86%
0.27%
267.06


All
54861
327,167,434
100%
0.02%
16.77



Is the rate of death per age group for among those infected with Covid? That is what I have assumed.

It makes limiting the infection paramount. If the overall death rate of 16.7 per 100K is accurate (and I have no reason to assume it is not) trying to get to the 80% for herd immunity implies a very large final loss of life number, unless my feeble brain is missing something or I am overthinking this.

Nonetheless, I am and will be, wearing a mask, for now and the foreseeable future.

willandi
05-25-2020, 07:11 AM
https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/2020/05/24/teenager-leon-county-tests-positive-coronavirus/5252408002/?fbclid=IwAR26KoroWKcd101p6Iwrnro8aBNHZf4idN10E0Vb _p0geTyuNp6ojDEehxE

"The number of COVID-19 cases in the United States continues to climb as more states are easing isolation restrictions. The total number of confirmed cases in the U.S. exceeded 1.5 million on Monday. According to Reuters, American deaths now total more than 91,000 due to the novel coronavirus. 13 states saw a rise in infections this week, with Tennessee seeing the biggest weekly surge of 33%. Louisiana saw a surge in cases of 25%, and Texas reported 22% more cases than in the first week of May. Michigan saw new cases climb by 18% after five weeks of declines."

JPtheBeasta
05-25-2020, 07:22 AM
Is the rate of death per age group for among those infected with Covid? That is what I have assumed.

It makes limiting the infection paramount. If the overall death rate of 16.7 per 100K is accurate (and I have no reason to assume it is not) trying to get to the 80% for herd immunity implies a very large final loss of life number, unless my feeble brain is missing something or I am overthinking this.

Nonetheless, I am and will be, wearing a mask, for now and the foreseeable future.

I added the deaths per 100k because the numbers are often reported that way and I thought it would be helpful for comparison. The percent of age group is the Covid deaths in the age group divided by the number of persons in that age group. The comments that I think relate to your concerns that I would make are: The 16.77 deaths per 100k is skewed greatly by the higher risk age groups. You would not try to get herd immunity via that group. You want the low risk persons— all of the those 54 and under, and even the older folks with no comorbidities*— to get the disease. This would protect the vulnerable population. You would still take measures to protect those higher risk groups.

This assumes that getting the disease confers immunity to the person, which is the principal behind vaccines and is what happens with every other disease. This doesn’t have to be total immunity, but could be the difference between a bad infection and a light one. The reason this virus was so scary at the start is because it was different enough that we weren’t supposed to have any defense against it, but this should be different the next go around, say next fall.

*Death and hospitalization data shows that at least one, and most often two or more comorbidities are present).

LTownZag
05-25-2020, 07:43 AM
According to the Beer's criteria, as provided by the American Geriatric Society, anyone over 65 is included in the "older adult" population. The Merck manual also accepts this definition when discussing geriatrics.

I've include the following chart again so persons don't get distracted by your switching of data sets between NY, the U.S. and Texas.

Covid Deaths By Age Group:

Data from the CDC website, accessed 5/17/2020 [https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm]




Age Group
Covid Deaths
Population
Percent of All Covid Deaths
Percent of Age Group
Deaths Per 100K Persons


<1
4
3,848,208
0.01%
0.00%
0.10


1-4
2
15,962,067
0.00%
0.00%
0.01


5-14
6
41,075,169
0.01%
0.00%
0.01


15-24
59
42,970,800
0.11%
0.00%
0.14


25-34
388
45,697,774
0.71%
0.00%
0.85


35-44
973
41,277,888
1.77%
0.00%
2.36


45-54
2,772
41,631,699
5.05%
0.01
6.658


55-64
6,725
42,272,636
12.26%
0.02%
15.91


65-74
11,524
30,492,316
21.01%
0.04%
37.79


75-84
14,930
15,394,374
27.21%
0.10%
96.98


85<
17478
6,544,503
31.86%
0.27%
267.06


All
54861
327,167,434
100%
0.02%
16.77



Thanks for the totals chart, JP. That is very clear and easy to read. It is the same CDC data (in table form rather than line graph) I had linked to above.

20% of deaths in folks younger than 65 and 41% of deaths in folks younger than 75.

LTownZag
05-25-2020, 08:05 AM
Is the rate of death per age group for among those infected with Covid? That is what I have assumed.

It makes limiting the infection paramount. If the overall death rate of 16.7 per 100K is accurate (and I have no reason to assume it is not) trying to get to the 80% for herd immunity implies a very large final loss of life number, unless my feeble brain is missing something or I am overthinking this.

Nonetheless, I am and will be, wearing a mask, for now and the foreseeable future.

You're misunderstanding the deaths per 100K people on the CDC table JP linked. It's a growing cumulative total. It was 0/100k 3 months ago and grows every day.

That's not a generalized death rate or infected fatality rate of the disease, it's just the number (as of 5/17) killed divided by the number of all people in a group. (country as a whole, or a given age range slice).

For example - the CDC says we have 6,544,503 (6.5million) residents older than 85 and in the last 3 months 17,478 have officially died of COVID.

17,478 (dead in that group)/6.5 million (total in that group) = .00267 which can be expressed as .267% of that group, or as 267 out of every 100,000. Just over a quarter of one percent. So that's dividing official dead by every human, not by official cases. If every person in that group were to have gotten inected, rather than 4-10% thus far, you can multiply deaths upward accordingly.

If the overall death rate (infected fatality rate) from cases of COVID were a mere 16.7 per 100k (or .0167% of those infected died, less than one fifth of one percent) then this truly would be similar, mortality wise, to the flu. Unfortunately it's about 4-8x that deadly in western countries with non-overwhelmed health care systems.


A quick estimate of deaths if the disease spreads through the USA population broadly enough to reach herd immunity.

170 million (half the country) x 1/2 of 1 percent (.005) = 850,000.

sonuvazag
05-25-2020, 08:51 AM
Population demographics seem to play into the death rate, if it is accurate that places with higher numbers of African American patients have the highest death rates.

I agree that generalizability of the data is a caveat, although everywhere these studies look it suggests a higher prevalence than the PCR tests suggest, which is the major point. This is except for the study of MLB employees, which was much lower (I think 0.7% prevalence). It stands to reason that the prevalence is more than is detected by PCR when many persons are asymptomatic or have very mild symptoms to the tune of 80%. It's a crude calculation that oversimplifies the data but one could divide the total number of PCR-confirmed cases and divide by .2 to get a ballpark of what the actual cases might be in this country. The antibody numbers were obviously worse in New York, and at a homeless shelter in Boston, and I would never use these numbers to extrapolate out to the rest of the country.

In regard to NYC, the 1% death rate is much lower than the case fatality rate of 6.5% that is produced when looking at the PCR numbers. New York is tough, in my opinion, because it has been an outlier. I never assumed that their antibody numbers could be generalized to the rest of the country. California has numbers that are more in line with other antibody testing areas, or areas when closer to universal PCR testing was done.

California has had one of the most strict lockdowns, so there's some conversation that will be had about that, I'm sure.

My point was seroprevalance studies for some areas like NYC have of 20% while others like Boise have 1.7%. So you can't take LA County's number and use it to make calculations for Arizona or Washington which is what it seems you did.


You can multiply the population of Washington State (or the U.S., or wherever) by 4.65% to get the denominator.

Everything I have read suggests false positives in these studies are a very real problem that can potentially inflate the numbers quite dramatically, but more dramatically in areas that have lower seroprevalence, so the NYC numbers are probably more solid, it being a harder hit area where false positives would impact the numbers less.

JPtheBeasta
05-25-2020, 09:10 AM
The deaths would be much lower in the scenario I suggested because you would be developing herd immunity in the low risk population and doing other things to protect the elderly. Your number includes the hardest hit demographic.

Per the New York Times, 1/3 of Covid deaths were of nursing home residents or workers. If we do a better job at the nursing homes (including not putting Covid-19 patients from the hospital into nursing homes), this would be a start. If mom, dad, and kids get Covid and recover, they are not as likely to give it to grandma. If they can do this sooner than later, grandma will be happier, to boot.

sonuvazag
05-25-2020, 09:31 AM
The deaths would be much lower in the scenario I suggested because you would be developing herd immunity in the low risk population and doing other things to protect the elderly. Your number includes the hardest hit demographic.

Per the New York Times, 1/3 of Covid deaths were of nursing home residents or workers. If we do a better job at the nursing homes (including not putting Covid-19 patients from the hospital into nursing homes), this would be a start. If mom, dad, and kids get Covid and recover, they are not as likely to give it to grandma. If they can do this sooner than later, grandma will be happier, to boot.

One problem I have with this theory is that we don't know a lot about the more widespread nonfatal consequences of COVID-19, even to otherwise healthy people. What we do know is enough to give me pause.
https://www.vox.com/2020/5/8/21251899/coronavirus-long-term-effects-symptoms

Also, I have seen a lot of people say you can't trust a serology test as proof that you can no longer be infected/infectious.

JPtheBeasta
05-25-2020, 10:11 AM
One problem I have with this theory is that we don't know a lot about the more widespread nonfatal consequences of COVID-19, even to otherwise healthy people. What we do know is enough to give me pause.
https://www.vox.com/2020/5/8/21251899/coronavirus-long-term-effects-symptoms

Also, I have seen a lot of people say you can't trust a serology test as proof that you can no longer be infected/infectious.

The specificity of the test they used, as well the confidence interval of values are given, so you can get a good idea of the low and high end of the range of results. I don’t know enough about the “bootstrap method” and other things they do to weight the results and normalize the results. The take home message for me continues to be that PCR testing of sick individuals underestimates the prevalence of this disease.

I would expect a place with lower death rates to either have a healthier population or a lower prevalence within the population. I would expect Boise to be lower than Los Angelas. I expect Phoenix metro area to be closer to LA than Boise. Spokane might be closer to Boise than LA. Seattle... LA, etc.

MDABE80
05-25-2020, 10:26 AM
Reported yesterday...….deaths up from older infections ( still a problem with correct diagnoses) but surprisingly the more testing done is yielding less positive results. Usually the more testing finds more positives. Not last week. I haven't seen an explanation yet.

sonuvazag
05-25-2020, 04:35 PM
The take home message for me continues to be that PCR testing of sick individuals underestimates the prevalence of this disease.
I don't see anyone who is arguing otherwise. The question of how much more prevalent, however, is still very much a matter of debate. The conclusions you can draw from 5x are very different from 50x. I believe it's typically 10x, but it depends on the testing criteria for a region.

Hoopaholic
05-25-2020, 06:48 PM
This should not be political. No one is trying to do the wrong thing. Most leaders have a reason for wanting what they're asking for and few are doing it for a personal agenda. Just what they believe is right.

Economists should not be ignored in the least, nor should the epidemiologists.

Whatever the data is on any given today is a snapshot of that day, and the future is contingent upon behaviors and the virus, neither are that predictable.

I applaud everyone for keeping any agenda out of this, no one wants anything but to go back to normal, from there is all a sense of what one sees as dangerous, etc. We're helping care for an elderly, sharp but ailing woman. My priorities will be very different, but keep in mind that what others decide (to go to church) impacts me.

On the school/sports side? I think it's far smarter to plan to be there (with adjustments such as starting early) and planning as responsibly as possible. But I say that for the simple reason that it's far easier to cancel plans than build them. So plan, hope for the best, and see what happens.

For the kids I desperately hope that this season is as normal as possible. None of them are really in danger. The older guy cleaning the halls is the one we worry about.

Take care everyone.
Really
Like governor Inslee saying he is keeping Washington state closed so he can revamp the economy to align with his green deal

GonzaGAW
05-25-2020, 07:30 PM
- or like govenor newson (california) and cuomo (new york), who say because of the virus they must fundamentally change our way of life and adapt to a new normal.........that fits their political agenda.
- i do not want to take sides, or make a sports arena more than just a sport areana.........but left or right, decisions affecting sports are being made by politicians and they will make them to benefit their own ends..........all the while saying its all for the best of everyone.

LTownZag
05-25-2020, 07:46 PM
I'm starting to see folks waving signs and gathering on street corners to protest the state shutdown rules. I am not interested in a discussion about WA's required lockdown rules but it did prompt the question in my mind:

Does anyone know if other countries (many in western Europe have more deaths per capita) are seeing widespread political divisions regarding gov imposed shutdowns? I looked around online and couldn't find any reference to any similar divisions or protests.

Also here's a interesting map.

https://i.redd.it/5esqccp34kx41.png

kitzbuel
05-25-2020, 07:58 PM
I'm starting to see folks waving signs and gathering on street corners to protest the state shutdown rules. I am not interested in a discussion about WA's required lockdown rules but it did prompt the question in my mind:

Does anyone know if other countries (many in western Europe have more deaths per capita) are seeing widespread political divisions regarding gov imposed shutdowns? I looked around online and couldn't find any reference to any similar divisions or protests.



This is from Germany
https://www.dw.com/en/germany-politicians-worry-about-radicalization-at-anti-lockdown-protests/a-53388404

Markburn1
05-25-2020, 09:36 PM
Me going to church doesn’t affect anyone or their grandma in the least if they don’t want it to. If you keep your distance, six feet, ten feet or whatever from me or anyone else, you won’t be in any danger of getting infected or taking it home to your grandma.

I am NOT putting anyone at risk, especially if proper precautions are taken during services and your risk is zero if you take proper precautions when at the grocery store or any other public place. If you still think I and others are a risk to you, don’t venture out. Simple.

willandi
05-25-2020, 10:27 PM
Me going to church doesn’t affect anyone or their grandma in the least if they don’t want it to. If you keep your distance, six feet, ten feet or whatever from me or anyone else, you won’t be in any danger of getting infected or taking it home to your grandma.

I am NOT putting anyone at risk, especially if proper precautions are taken during services and your risk is zero if you take proper precautions when at the grocery store or any other public place. If you still think I and others are a risk to you, don’t venture out. Simple.

If you think you and others are not a risk, why take any precautions?

Religious contacts have proven fertile ground in more than one situation.

Just stay home is as naive as Just Say No to using drugs, or don't drink to an alcoholic.

Markburn1
05-26-2020, 02:19 AM
If you think you and others are not a risk, why take any precautions?

Religious contacts have proven fertile ground in more than one situation.

Just stay home is as naive as Just Say No to using drugs, or don't drink to an alcoholic.

I am no risk to you if YOU take precautions.

Why is just stay home naive? Unless you have an emergency and need assistance there is no need to interact with any human without keeping your distance. It’s your decisions that will affect you. If I become infected at church and you keep your distance you aren’t in any danger. I would prefer not to get sick so I take care of myself. I don’t rely on others for my personal wellbeing. I’m not fearful when I go out because I don’t put myself in dangerous situations. Because of that, nobody should be afraid of me or anyone else that chooses to attend church.

Not to put too fine a point on it but early Christians were in more danger of getting killed by the authorities just for worshipping together than being a victim of this virus.

By the way, I haven’t been inside a retail establishment, including grocery stores for at least eight weeks. There is no need. We order online, pull up in the parking lot, pop the back door, kid loads the groceries and we drive home. Home Depot, Amazon Prime , UPS, FedEx, etc. drop stuff off at our home on a regular basis. Staying isolated hasn’t been an issue.

I ride a bike 25-50 miles a day with my son. I walk 5-7 miles a day with my wife. I always distance myself from any other humans doing the same. I am no threat to anyone.

Markburn1
05-26-2020, 08:24 AM
https://www.wsj.com/articles/more-people-are-taking-drugs-for-anxiety-and-insomnia-and-doctors-are-worried-11590411600

willandi
05-26-2020, 09:44 AM
I am no risk to you if YOU take precautions.

Why is just stay home naive? Unless you have an emergency and need assistance there is no need to interact with any human without keeping your distance. It’s your decisions that will affect you. If I become infected at church and you keep your distance you aren’t in any danger. I would prefer not to get sick so I take care of myself. I don’t rely on others for my personal wellbeing. I’m not fearful when I go out because I don’t put myself in dangerous situations. Because of that, nobody should be afraid of me or anyone else that chooses to attend church.

Not to put too fine a point on it but early Christians were in more danger of getting killed by the authorities just for worshipping together than being a victim of this virus.

By the way, I haven’t been inside a retail establishment, including grocery stores for at least eight weeks. There is no need. We order online, pull up in the parking lot, pop the back door, kid loads the groceries and we drive home. Home Depot, Amazon Prime , UPS, FedEx, etc. drop stuff off at our home on a regular basis. Staying isolated hasn’t been an issue.

I ride a bike 25-50 miles a day with my son. I walk 5-7 miles a day with my wife. I always distance myself from any other humans doing the same. I am no threat to anyone.

Thank you for your dedication and diligence. If all people were the same, there would be no fear.

Again. If there had been a nationwide lockdown for 3 weeks, only medical, pharmacy and food/necessities being exempt, we would be over the major threat. Yes, there would be remote areas that were still a danger, but they are not in the US.

The problem in church, as discussed in this artical and as evidenced in this image https://www.erinbromage.com/post/the-risks-know-them-avoid-them?fbclid=IwAR1G1k1dm0zND2aq8uzqjpZJeTW-JAl83qAttxg58vSUfJEkTJdA-UM1xsQ
are that many, unknown to you and themselves, may be infected, and transmit it to you. The danger is made worse by the poor wearing of their masks, but masks in and of themselves, when both parties aren't wearing properly, give a false sense of security.
I still do go out. I wear a mask and have a jar of alcohol in my car. When I get back to my car, i dip both hands in and allow it to air dry. I also dip a rag or napkin in and wipe down what I can.
https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/100090056_10222424077661625_5525551507354681344_n. jpg?_nc_cat=106&_nc_sid=1480c5&_nc_ohc=Xg89bxrUmJsAX_BIm_o&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=abf49f3f951dfba186dc865260fe4e26&oe=5EF11AEDhttps://external-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?d=AQCeJeufjnf75KbE&w=540&h=282&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwp-media.patheos.com%2Fsubdomain%2Fsites%2F8%2F2020%2 F05%2FYorkMasksWhat.png&cfs=1&upscale=1&fallback=news_d_placeholder_publisher&_nc_hash=AQDDeU-luD_-egKY

Zagceo
05-27-2020, 08:07 AM
https://youtu.be/LsrCS7WFktk

willandi
05-27-2020, 09:39 AM
I wonder if I need to get my eyebrows darkened?

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/100090056_10222424077661625_5525551507354681344_n. jpg?_nc_cat=106&_nc_sid=1480c5&_nc_ohc=Xg89bxrUmJsAX_BIm_o&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=abf49f3f951dfba186dc865260fe4e26&oe=5EF11AED

GU69
05-27-2020, 01:12 PM
https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/100090056_10222424077661625_5525551507354681344_n. jpg?_nc_cat=106&_nc_sid=1480c5&_nc_ohc=Xg89bxrUmJsAX_BIm_o&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=abf49f3f951dfba186dc865260fe4e26&oe=5EF11AED

This is a fascinating image. What is the source? How accurate are its percentages? What's the transmission probability from without mask to without mask?

Markburn1
05-27-2020, 01:26 PM
This is a fascinating image. What is the source? How accurate are its percentages? What's the transmission probability from without mask to without mask?

Distance between people and length of time spent with them matters a great deal as well.

LTownZag
05-27-2020, 03:56 PM
This is a fascinating image. What is the source? How accurate are its percentages? What's the transmission probability from without mask to without mask?

I don't know the answer, but that graphic and its probabilities are massively oversimplified and ignore important things.

For instance, one's contagious is highly variable depending on if you just contracted COVID, have had it for 3 days, or have had it for 3 weeks.

willandi
05-27-2020, 08:04 PM
I don't know the answer, but that graphic and its probabilities are massively oversimplified and ignore important things.

For instance, one's contagious is highly variable depending on if you just contracted COVID, have had it for 3 days, or have had it for 3 weeks.

The source of that image was that bastion of knowledge, the internet. It is just one of many. How accurate it is depends on so many factors, but the idea is that wearing a mask helps, both parties wearing a mask helps more.

Here is another bit of internet wisdom on protecting ones self in contact: https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/100818037_10218702624056242_962777843509493760_n.j pg?_nc_cat=101&_nc_sid=8024bb&_nc_ohc=yXcakcdOQacAX_Dbftq&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=a31b66291218d479d405282ce98979bc&oe=5EF4D6AD

willandi
05-27-2020, 08:31 PM
https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/99118090_10157440628894423_1123196091785805824_n.j pg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_sid=110474&_nc_ohc=Rj95j6IPdjkAX_JA-4W&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=77d1ada2a3f3a0b442bd6b8503340928&oe=5EF35F3B

Zagceo
05-28-2020, 05:57 PM
California country decides

https://news.yahoo.com/orange-county-authorities-wont-enforce-224850419.html

willandi
05-28-2020, 08:31 PM
From the San Francisco Chronical detailing how the cases of Covid have risen since the loosening of the stay at home restrictions.https://external-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?d=AQCRuKBnthBoelIz&w=540&h=282&url=https%3A%2F%2Fs3.amazonaws.com%2Fprod-cust-photo-posts-jfaikqealaka%2Fc2c94032-e299-a018-704b-d71b6d8eaec4.jpg&cfs=1&upscale=1&fallback=news_d_placeholder_publisher&_nc_hash=AQAUCbnJKCZXlrEp

Markburn1
05-28-2020, 09:25 PM
From the San Francisco Chronical detailing how the cases of Covid have risen since the loosening of the stay at home restrictions.https://external-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?d=AQCRuKBnthBoelIz&w=540&h=282&url=https%3A%2F%2Fs3.amazonaws.com%2Fprod-cust-photo-posts-jfaikqealaka%2Fc2c94032-e299-a018-704b-d71b6d8eaec4.jpg&cfs=1&upscale=1&fallback=news_d_placeholder_publisher&_nc_hash=AQAUCbnJKCZXlrEp

That chart is woefully incomplete. It’s simply a raw number of cases. There has more than likely been a tremendous increase in testing resulting in more positive results. It doesn’t show increase or decrease in hospitalization or deaths.

If you are looking for a reason to be scared you can find a graph to confirm your fears.

Markburn1
05-28-2020, 10:00 PM
“In states such as Tennessee and Florida, where lockdowns are ending, infection rates are declining, not increasing, as JPMorgan Chase found, “even after allowing for an appropriate measurement lag.” Rising case counts, where they occur, have more to do with increases in testing capacity than renewed outbreaks.“ City-Journal

The states that have taken a more aggressive reopening policy are doing way better than fear mongers in the media wanted them too. Remember the headlines. “Georgia Experiments in Human Sacrifice “? Predictions of body bags in the street just haven’t come to fruition much to the dismay of some folks. We should be celebrating the slow recovery of our lives.

This virus is a terrible thing. We’ve lost some precious people. But, fear mongering has been an unfortunate part of the reporting. And a lot of it is political.

MDABE80
05-29-2020, 12:02 AM
https://am.jpmorgan.com/us/en/asset-management/institutional/insights/market-insights/eye-on-the-market/coronavirus-covid-19-research-compilation/

THis is a very authoratative compilation of corona . Its recent but it's got more facts than any other I've seen. It takes a while plow through the data but it's a clarification of the Johns Hopkins info to date. Hopkins has stayed away from the politics and slanted views engendered by the CDC collection of facts, non facts and confusing facts.

As it turns out, things are getting better in the overall. Not all places are but most are. Still obfuscating are the deaths which , at least for the first month, were and continue to be confusing. Sick people already picked off by Covid cassified as "COVD killed them" when COVID was the last straw to end an older life ( Nursing home types already sicker than hell or they wouldn't be in a nursing home) plagued byt already present disease or older people who had immunodeficiency as part of aging ( Our immunity drops off quite a big with age), and not to forget that much of the NJ and NY cases were given the DX but never had a test confirming Corona but "thought to be" a victim of the virus.

THen come the unreliability of the tests, with poor sensitivity, specificity and that leads to substandard predictive value...... THen comes the major additional funding if the DX on your certificate read Corona........$13 K more, and $39 K more if placed on a ventilator.

And thencomes the boats with 1000 beds and only 10% of the beds were used. THe media has been a trainwreck this entire time./to the point wheere nobody knows the real numbers. Hopkins is closest to reality though but even they admit their info has liitations.
COmforting to know that the under 60 yrs old crew has a lesser chance of getting Covid than the Flu.

Anyway, make up your own minds. Draw you r own conclusions...Best wishes and good luck. A word: do not let anyone tell you what to think. Surely do not let anyone tell you whatever based on media or weak databases.

I have hopes that this will just mutate and go away as it's denied a host. SARS did that. Masks, distance , wash hands, etc. It may not help a ton but it won't hurt. I think it helps.

LTownZag
05-29-2020, 07:30 AM
That chart is woefully incomplete. It’s simply a raw number of cases. There has more than likely been a tremendous increase in testing resulting in more positive results. It doesn’t show increase or decrease in hospitalization or deaths.

If you are looking for a reason to be scared you can find a graph to confirm your fears.

I've (generally) been more worried about COVID than Mark, and expected (expect) it to be a bigger loss of life than he did. That said, I agree with Mark 100% that this graph alone is close to meaningless since it doesn't say how many tests were being given, or to whom (random sample? all patients admitted to hospitals? evenly distributed across these counties per-capita?). The story of that graph alone could be as basic as that the Alameda county health department had a very very small testing system in place, and has been rapidly expanding their tests per day much faster than other nearby counties.

The hospitalization numbers and deaths number (3-4weeks out) are much more indicative of the rate of spread, not the rate of test-taking.

LTownZag
05-29-2020, 07:46 AM
I have hopes that this will just mutate and go away as it's denied a host. SARS did that. Masks, distance , wash hands, etc. It may not help a ton but it won't hurt. I think it helps.

SARS didn't mutate and go away. It only ever existed in humans for about 200 days in 8,000 people.

Its carriers were all traced and isolated, then either cured (their bodies killing off the virus) or died in hospitalization, snuffing out the virus from infecting others. This is how COVID has been handled in New Zealand or Taiwan for example. 7 and 44 days in those 2 places now with no new cases, but it didn't "mutate and go away".

This was made easier by the fact that SARS presents with violent symptoms in 24-72 hours, and only 8,000 people were ever infected. 9% of them died.
It also appears that SARS was far deadlier than COVID-19 but less contagious. It literally killed off its hosts (or alerted its hosts to seek isolation or help) much faster than COVID-19.



78% of the NYC COVID deaths have had positive COVID lab tests. (https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page) The other 22%, the probable category, did not get tested but had close contact with COVID infected people, and presented with COVID symptoms. Even if literally every single one of these "probable" deaths were NOT COVID, and none of the thousands of other NYC excess mortality deaths were COVID, NYC could only be over counting by 22%. And again, that would be if there wasn't a single person who died of COVID from the "never tested, but probable" category.

MDABE80
05-29-2020, 12:30 PM
https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-reaches-coronavirus-case-milestone-declines-11590766723?mod=hp_lead_pos6

And right on schedule, this virus is dying out in the worst infected state ( New York). If you all remember I said it would be a gonner withing 3 months, SOme remains but this does show the usual behavior of an epidemic. This is America. Masks, distance and other maneuvers seem to be working.in NY anyway. Might well be that the oldsters and other predisposed groups have died off (Sounds harsh but it's usually what happens,,,with viral mutation.

Let's play ball!!

3zagda
05-29-2020, 04:59 PM
I am going to have to agree with Ltown on this one, SARS did not mutate and go away. According to the quote below from a Lancet article from early March:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30129-8/fulltext
"The severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak in 2003 resulted in more than 8000 cases and 800 deaths(worldwide)... By interrupting all human-to-human transmission, SARS was effectively eradicated...SARS was eventually contained by means of syndromic surveillance, prompt isolation of patients, strict enforcement of quarantine of all contacts, and in some areas top-down enforcement of community quarantine. By contrast, by Feb 28, 2020, within a matter of 2 months since the beginning of the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), more than 82 000 confirmed cases of COVID-19 have been reported with more than 2800 deaths."
Sadly today 5.8 million cases globally, 360K deaths, with over 100K deaths in the US.

MDABE80
05-29-2020, 05:17 PM
There SARS l and SARS ll. Which are you referring to?? Be clear please..

MDABE80
05-29-2020, 07:48 PM
In 2003 SARS mysteriously disappeared. There was never a agreed reason for it to just go away . WHO ( and Lancet which is a very good journal) claim isolation etc ( no mention of masks), hand washing and distancing did the trick. It looks like nobody knows for sure why the viral infections simply stopped. I’d have to guess both mutation and public health measures worked. We worked o that 17 years ago and back then mitation was was the explanation. When an RNA virus changes, so does mortality as there generally aren't victims.....so it just goes away.

Back then WHO never had much to say about it other than it just stopped. RNA viruses such as this do change and we know it can change 40 times in a meer 2 days. No matter what the current Lancet article says,....nowadays Im sure they give credit to isolationmeasures but that what they say now. Likely it's both. Ltown knows very little. Without giving others credit (which is a big no no on this site) he would have you believe he's the source of his statements.

Looking back 17 years ago, mutation was the agreed upon mechanism. We're in a different era.....ask yourself this: what eveidence from back then was there or is there now that mere isolation was responsible. It was an idea.kinda like staying away from people with colds. Never proven though. Just a common sense idea sorta like distancing of 6 ft. Why not 4, 8, etc.? Nobody knows. It's just a common sense idea based on droplets distances when one speaks, coughs, etc.

Sorta like COVID being infective on a surface. This idea has generated wiping down everything/. Does it work? who knows. ON a hard surface, data shows the virus dies off quickly./

Lots to be learned about this present epidemic. When a population is in the throes of a tranmissable disease, it's diffult to test ideas. More so when the media is in the "scare you" mode.

3zagda
05-29-2020, 09:33 PM
Sorry if that was confusing.
The Lancet article quote starting with "The severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak in 2003" is about about both SARS COV-I and SARS-COV-2.
Here is the reference again: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...129-8/fulltext
The point is the original SARS in 2003 was eliminated the old fashioned way, it was quarantined and isolated out of existence.
The CDC timeline for SARS is interesting as well: https://www.cdc.gov/about/history/sars/timeline.htm

willandi
06-01-2020, 07:05 AM
All the discussion and arguments, either way, will be exposed soon. Within 2 weeks to a month, after all the protesting/rioting of this week, we will know if the threat of Covid has passed, or if it is the start of the second wave.

Either way. We should know.

Markburn1
06-01-2020, 09:27 AM
All the discussion and arguments, either way, will be exposed soon. Within 2 weeks to a month, after all the protesting/rioting of this week, we will know if the threat of Covid has passed, or if it is the start of the second wave.

Either way. We should know.

That’s certainly an optimistic viewpoint.

No matter what happens, rationalizations will make their way into the news cycles that support political agendas. I predict this virus “crisis” will continue through the November election even if the death toll is close to zero. Already there is talk of another shutdown during annual flu season because coronavirus will reappear.

willandi
06-01-2020, 12:55 PM
Not really optimistic as much as practical, IMO.

hundreds of thousands, at many locations and many without masks , shoulder to shoulder for fairly extended times.

If we see a spike, it will be obvious that we are not past the virus. If it stays the same, it will indicate, not prove, that the virus is on the decline.

LTownZag
06-01-2020, 12:59 PM
All the discussion and arguments, either way, will be exposed soon. Within 2 weeks to a month, after all the protesting/rioting of this week, we will know if the threat of Covid has passed, or if it is the start of the second wave.

Either way. We should know.

I disagree.

1. Being outside in the open air, and then not being stationary but walking and running around are both major mitigating factors for catching a respiratory illness from someone else. That's the nature of how most of the protestors are behaving. The protestors are also demographically skewed young and able-bodied.

2. I don't think we have very good estimates on the absolute number of people involved in these protests, but it's sure far far fewer than the total number of students who are currently out of school (and may return by September) or even probably just the total of all people employed by schools and universities who are currently laid off and may return.

It's a big news story in its own right, but isn't going to be some massive rosetta stone which clarifies our otherwise murky COVID knowledge.

Zagceo
06-01-2020, 02:21 PM
Folks young and old are eating drinking and gambling in close proximity in Palm Desert Indian Casinos....in defiance of Governors recommendation.

willandi
06-02-2020, 06:20 AM
I disagree.

1. Being outside in the open air, and then not being stationary but walking and running around are both major mitigating factors for catching a respiratory illness from someone else. That's the nature of how most of the protestors are behaving. The protestors are also demographically skewed young and able-bodied.

2. I don't think we have very good estimates on the absolute number of people involved in these protests, but it's sure far far fewer than the total number of students who are currently out of school (and may return by September) or even probably just the total of all people employed by schools and universities who are currently laid off and may return.

It's a big news story in its own right, but isn't going to be some massive rosetta stone which clarifies our otherwise murky COVID knowledge.


Not really optimistic as much as practical, IMO.

hundreds of thousands, at many locations and many without masks , shoulder to shoulder for fairly extended times.

If we see a spike, it will be obvious that we are not past the virus. If it stays the same, it will indicate, not prove, that the virus is on the decline.

Read my post before yours.

I understand that they are in the open air and, according to the article we read here, and I shared elsewhere, one has to inhale 1000 of the 'microbes', and that is harder to do in open air.

BUT, if there is a spike in two weeks, we will KNOW that we are NOT past the virus. No spike and it will indicate, not prove, that we may be past the worst.

That MIGHT mean that open air, large gatherings might be allowed. It might not.

There are no certainties. All we can do is wait and see. I am opening my small shop today, one group of customers at a time, masks required (we will provide one if you don't have one), required to use sanitizer upon entry, and we will wipe down with alcohol after you have left and before the next people have come in.
I am not positive that it is safe to do so. I only know that, if we want to make any effort to remain viable as a business, it is now. I am trying to stay positive, to stay safe and, especially, to not bring anything home to my compromised immune system wife.

I hope that all will go well. To show my concern, I have thrown some rolls of paper towels.

willandi
06-03-2020, 09:34 AM
https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/101961157_3205440532899188_289526674591055872_n.jp g?_nc_cat=100&_nc_sid=110474&_nc_ohc=pv0ZAWvjNIoAX-gXtNf&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=802a3887344f87319d05200aa384d6cb&oe=5EFCC819

MDABE80
06-08-2020, 04:12 PM
https://www.bing.com/covid/local/unitedstates?form=msntrk

Looks like the deaths count is going down. Cyclical but still headed in the right direction like due to those elderly hosts dying off. The weak and elderly always go first.
Sad to say. Metabolically and immunologically, the elders systems to manage infections fade.

willandi
06-08-2020, 09:20 PM
"approximately 517 nursing home residents and care providers have died EVERY DAY — 46,000 in total — since the World Health Organization declared the coronavirus a pandemic."
From my AARP daily newsletter.

It seems like us older folk still need to worry. I'm not in a nursing home or care facility, but it is still scary.

MDABE80
06-09-2020, 11:03 AM
Will , remember those nursing home people are very old, have major comorbid diseases and have covid delivered to them. As it turns out, the worst case was brought to the bedside. SO don't go to bed either!. Stay safe.

LTownZag
06-09-2020, 01:01 PM
And right on schedule, this virus is dying out in the worst infected state ( New York). If you all remember I said it would be a gonner withing 3 months, SOme remains but this does show the usual behavior of an epidemic.

You said in early May that "the present COVID threat was fizzling out" and in late may you wrote "I said it would be a goner within 3 months".

If July has more deaths than May or June, and if September and October each have more deaths than May or June or July, should we expect any kind of acknowledgement?

Any self-reflection or self-awareness or acknowledgement about what part of your mental model of the pandemic was incorrect?

If your predictions of fizzling out or being a goner within 3 months of May are correct, I will be very grateful!

MDABE80
06-09-2020, 01:18 PM
No to anything and everything authored by you......... it IS fizzling. all data shows it. And it's consistent. If things take a turn for the worse ( won't happen), we'll deal with that if it happens. The hosts are dying off......what don't you get about older people being dead??? ( if it was indeed COVID that killed them) . On this go round, the targets are leaving us. We do keep producing older people.. Hopefully the olders are now being protected. What I don't understand is why you keep harping on me acknowledging something..youu have an answer for that? It's been months and you really have nothing new to say. So what's your point Bub??

MDABE80
06-13-2020, 11:06 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdN--11btc0&list=PLtoX6L88vjkeom-8rYnV_WlGJHumatZCT&fbclid=IwAR2B0Qc4oFBI9Pcsfsi8nxUWAY5mCcbIjkr4n-OUw326Od9tx5JCXN7_FAU

Persistent problem with false positives.....when you have a positive test, half are wrong. Quite the problem. the test result is positive but the patients doesn't have the disease half the time. Make one wonder what data they're using as COMID falls per testing and mortality/admissions to the hospital, etc...

LTownZag
06-13-2020, 08:08 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdN--11btc0&list=PLtoX6L88vjkeom-8rYnV_WlGJHumatZCT&fbclid=IwAR2B0Qc4oFBI9Pcsfsi8nxUWAY5mCcbIjkr4n-OUw326Od9tx5JCXN7_FAU

Persistent problem with false positives.....when you have a positive test, half are wrong. Quite the problem. the test result is positive but the patients doesn't have the disease half the time. Make one wonder what data they're using as COMID falls per testing and mortality/admissions to the hospital, etc...

No problem, MDABE80.

I'll happily evaluate your claims from 6 weeks ago about how COVID "is fizzling out" and "dying out" by purely looking at the deaths, not the infected numbers. If you're right, we'll see a "fizzled" amount of COVID deaths, and no significant increases in mortality due to respiratory illness.

Of course if you are wrong, we'll see significant increases in mortality specifically among the age groups and in the places that report large COVID outbreaks.

But either way, we won't need to rely on the active/new infection numbers which you describe being skeptical of. So that's great!

LTownZag
06-13-2020, 09:46 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdN--11btc0&list=PLtoX6L88vjkeom-8rYnV_WlGJHumatZCT&fbclid=IwAR2B0Qc4oFBI9Pcsfsi8nxUWAY5mCcbIjkr4n-OUw326Od9tx5JCXN7_FAU

Persistent problem with false positives.....when you have a positive test, half are wrong. Quite the problem. the test result is positive but the patients doesn't have the disease half the time. Make one wonder what data they're using as COMID falls per testing and mortality/admissions to the hospital, etc...

She's not saying (even back on April 20) that half of the positive tests are false positives. That's an internet conspiracy misrepresentation of her claim, using a clip with no context, that's been passed around among far-right fringe circles of extremist websites. It's not what she's saying or said, or what Fauci is saying or said.


Here's the full transcript (https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-coronavirus-press-conference-transcript-april-20)
Here's the full video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdT6GPSIki8)

She's just making a semi-irrelevant aside about how when you are randomly testing everyone from a population that's 99% healthly, that it's mathematically possible for a 99% specific test to coexist with 50% false positives, since the actual (and false) positive number is tiny.

But such coexistence is mathematically impossible if even just 2% of those being tested are actually sick.

Specificity = (negative on both test and reality) / (negative on both test and reality + false positive test)

So a world with 2% sick but 50% false positives would yield: 96/96+2 = 98% specificity test.



79% of NYC's reported COVID dead people had a positive lab blood test.
The other 21% did NOT test negative, they were not given a blood test but symptoms of COVID, personal interactions or lived with someone testing positive, etc. (https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page)

And their demographic makeup matches the confirmed COVID deaths. Before you start up with reports about how every senior citizen respiratory death is called COVID and the financial incentives to encourage inflation are creating these numbers, please be aware that NYC has now repeated zero of single-digit COVID deaths daily for several days. Maybe the virus was actually terrible there and is now mostly under control, because the financial and other incentives you point to haven't changed or gone away but somehow seem to magically have stopped causing doctors to code deaths as COVID.

Of course as an MD I'm sure you know know how specificity is calculated already, so if I'm missing something and 99% specific test with 50% false positive rate co exist when even 2% of the pool of those tested are actually sick, please show us. Thanks.

MDABE80
06-13-2020, 09:53 PM
She said it alright. Not sure it still applies. We are still pagued by false positives...........and I don't think it's right. THe left is frothing over this data. Seems like the most current data a fews ago showed slower recurrence in 12 states. today it's 24. Possibly due to letting up on the distancing and relaxation of masking. Major concerns but i also think the testing is still not good enough. Time will tell.
It's a confusing picture. TOny thinks he'll have a vaccine by December.

willandi
06-16-2020, 01:56 PM
Coronavirus breakthrough: dexamethasone is first drug shown to save lives


https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01824-5?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_campaign=7fb7c54efa-briefing-dy-20200616&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c9dfd39373-7fb7c54efa-45349030

MDABE80
06-17-2020, 10:46 AM
1THis is a trial in end stage and severe form requiring ventilation. I wonder if this drug would work in early onset (
within 10 hrs of symptoms) people with seropositive or throat swabs that confirm the disease is present WITH symptoms....

Decadron is among the purest anti inflammatory drugs we have. It's not worked well in ARDS due to bacteria or mixed flora causing respiratory failure. We meed to know more... good thing something worked though.

LTownZag
06-18-2020, 10:02 AM
Major "superspreader" events account for huge numbers (probably over half) of all COVID infections. Common traits of superspreader events: indoors, prolonged exposures, close proximity, yelling or singing.
Sound like a basketball stadium? COVID is/was not "fizzling out" in May, and will not "be a goner" by july or August.



I think the best realistic hope for next season is to hope for games without fans attending, or with very few fans all mandatorily masked. I find it almost unimaginable that we'd have anything close to capacity crowds.

Here are a couple notes about recent superspreading events (one in Florida, one in Oregon): (https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1273018142076407808)

https://i.imgur.com/ZZVu4mz.png

https://i.imgur.com/tWTzY8Z.png

MDABE80
06-19-2020, 11:35 AM
LTown the number of infectious, hospitalizations, mortality , bent use and requirements have fizzled since May and continue in June in the overall. There are some surges but the few cases that recurr are limited in numbers and are nothing compared to case numbers 90 or more days ago. These are facts. Period.
There are some states where cases recur and the consequences are dropping and in a good way.
Try to remember too that 82% of deaths are over 65 and have other serious diseases. Ie co morbid problems.
The newest liklike of people’s le under 25 acquiring the disease is running at 0.3 per 1000 {very very low).
Well have a good season on the court. Masks, distance and hand washing still rule. By mid Denver there will be over 200 million vaccine doses available with more to come.

You’re just so wrong and yet so negative over COVID. Take a deep breath behind you mask. Things are getting better... not perfect but better.
This is America, not some 3rd rate place. Not China. A first rate nation. We got this! Lol

LTownZag
06-19-2020, 09:40 PM
the number of infectious, hospitalizations, mortality , bent use and requirements have fizzled since May and continue in June in the overall.

Here's the data - if that's your version of "fizzled out" I'd hate to see what you think "steady" looks like. Note that the Hopkins numbers are the same as the "our world in data" numbers.

https://i.imgur.com/OW63pCW.png

https://i.imgur.com/QNwz14F.png

https://i.imgur.com/Q2PaoWI.png




There are some surges but the few cases that recurr are limited in numbers and are nothing compared to case numbers 90 or more days ago.

90 days ago was March 20 and we'd had under 200 total deaths, and had never seen 50 deaths in a day. Our daily confirmed deaths this past week averaged 800. How is the death of 800 people per day "nothing compared to case numbers 90 or more days ago." (which were averaging less than 50/day?)


This is America, not some 3rd rate place. Not China. A first rate nation. We got this! Lol

Being a wealthy or powerful or not a "3rd rate place" is not what is keeping people alive across the world. The top 10 countries by deaths per capita include Andorra, Belgium, Netherlands, Sweden, USA, France, and UK. Meanwhile many of the much poorer countries in Europe (Poland, Greece, Slovakia, Bulgaria) are doing far better. There are absolutely some wealthy advanced economies doing great (Singapore, Australia, South Korea) and other nearby poorer nations (Thailand) also doing well. Mortality has not been particularly correlated to quality of government or standard of living. (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deaths-worldwide-per-million-inhabitants/)

MDABE80
06-19-2020, 11:19 PM
Your data is wrong . Not in the US. I dunno who or what you're quoting. It's not in synch with the Hopkins data. It's always the same with you....... in the US ( who knows what the WORLD is doing)..all measures are in a favorable trend in the overall. ALways will be or might be a few hot spots.......I explained that to you 90 days ago. . Best wishes.

LTownZag
06-20-2020, 07:05 AM
Your data is wrong . Not in the US. I dunno who or what you're quoting. It's not in synch with the Hopkins data. It's always the same with you....... in the US ( who knows what the WORLD is doing)..all measures are in a favorable trend in the overall. ALways will be or might be a few hot spots.......I explained that to you 90 days ago. . Best wishes.

It's the same data. From the same source/s. Literally the same numbers on the same dates, displayed by two separate nonprofit data visualization websites.


Hopkins and "Our World in Data" also make all their raw inputs and (same) sources open and available to the public. Anyone can view or suggest errors in their numbers, and they have things completely transparent via updated and archives GitHub sites with their code open sourced.

Both Johns Hopkins, which you suggest, and "Our World in Data" which you attack as wrong, primarily source death and new cases data from the same health agencies.

Both cite the US CDC and the Euro CDC (European Centre for Disease prevention and control) as their primary sources.


What you are doing is equivalent to claiming you don't like the Gonzaga box score as reported on ESPN.COM and you only trust the gonzaga box score reported on FoxSports.com, meanwhile both show the same box score, and both websites simply display the score automatically fed to them by the scorekeepers working the games for the WCC.



https://i.imgur.com/DTY0tLH.png


https://i.imgur.com/LfwmBED.png

LTownZag
06-20-2020, 07:20 AM
Your data is wrong . Not in the US. I dunno who or what you're quoting. It's not in synch with the Hopkins data. It's always the same with you....... in the US ( who knows what the WORLD is doing)..all measures are in a favorable trend in the overall.

"My" data is EXACTLY in sync with the "Hopkins data" down to the single digit. Here Is Hopkins and "Our World In Data" showing the EXACT SAME daily and year-to-date cumulative deaths as of 6/20.

https://i.imgur.com/m2CrRtQ.png

https://i.imgur.com/Uban7Bb.png

https://i.imgur.com/v78eQYj.png

MDABE80
06-20-2020, 12:07 PM
Its too bad that you don't critically read or understand these graphs ( which look like you forged them with an etchosketch machine) From both posts, the comments are on worldwide cumulative.......or Europe or Brazil. Your last graph of the US proves my point. Just go sit quietly and review it. US data is what matters. Nobody, even Hopkins ) can vouch for the Euro or Brazil info. Might be that we're somewhat talking past each other.

LTownZag
06-20-2020, 03:36 PM
Its too bad that you don't critically read or understand these graphs ( which look like you forged them with an etchosketch machine) From both posts, the comments are on worldwide cumulative.......or Europe or Brazil. Your last graph of the US proves my point. Just go sit quietly and review it. US data is what matters. Nobody, even Hopkins ) can vouch for the Euro or Brazil info. Might be that we're somewhat talking past each other.

I’m only speaking about USA numbers.

Ignore the Brazil half of the screenshots if you want to.
Or cover that half of your monitor with a post-it.

“Our world in data” and Hopkins and basically every other major covid tracking page with graphs all have and use the same CDC and Euro CDC data.

What are you talking about with this claim of forged etchasketch?

MDABE80
06-20-2020, 05:53 PM
I most your data is actually European data . I
The one graph that applies to the USA is the last one . That proves my statement is absolutely cotton. Aren’t you getting tired of trying to be something you’re not nor will you ever be. And admitting you are wrong and incompetent to understand explain data is just not your long suit. And yet, as a pestering Jim Acosta type, you continue. Lolol.

LTownZag
06-20-2020, 09:36 PM
I would love to read a poll or responses of others who read the above page of back-forth, regarding which of the two of us is demonstrating incompetence in understanding or explaining data.