Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 244

Thread: Covid Discussion

  1. #76
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    15,673

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scrooner View Post
    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.

    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.
    'I found it is the small everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay… small acts of kindness and love.'
    - Gandalf the Grey

    ________________________________



    Foo Time

  2. #77
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,412

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scrooner View Post
    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.

    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.

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    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.

  4. #79
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,412

    Default

    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.”

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,412

    Default Bill Maher

    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.

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    15,673

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Markburn1 View Post
    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.
    'I found it is the small everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay… small acts of kindness and love.'
    - Gandalf the Grey

    ________________________________



    Foo Time

  7. #82
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    4,997

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scrooner View Post
    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.

    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.

  8. #83
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    4,997

    Default

    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.

  9. #84
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    4,997

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Markburn1 View Post
    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.

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Markburn1 View Post
    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.








    Quote Originally Posted by MDABE80 View Post
    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.

  11. #86
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    7,178

    Default

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

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...tware-mistake/

  12. #87
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    15,673

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zagceo View Post
    computer modeling used by many countries to shut down was flawed....says this coder.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...tware-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.
    'I found it is the small everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay… small acts of kindness and love.'
    - Gandalf the Grey

    ________________________________



    Foo Time

  13. #88
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    This model/projector from an MIT data scientist 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zagceo View Post
    computer modeling used by many countries to shut down was flawed....says this coder.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...tware-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)




  14. #89
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    7,178

    Default

    Would we have shut down our economy based on these current accurate projections?

  15. #90
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zagceo View Post
    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.

  16. #91
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    15,673

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zagceo View Post
    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.
    'I found it is the small everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay… small acts of kindness and love.'
    - Gandalf the Grey

    ________________________________



    Foo Time

  17. #92
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    7,178

    Default

    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

  18. #93
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    12,531

    Default

    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!!!

  19. #94
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    1,373

  20. #95
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zagceo View Post
    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.

    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.

  21. #96
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    7,178

    Default

    I consider these flu outbreaks to be huge

    https://weather.com/health/cold-flu/...recent-history

  22. #97
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    12,531

    Default

    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........

  23. #98
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    12,531

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LTownZag View Post
    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.

    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.

  24. #99
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    12,531

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zagceo View Post
    computer modeling used by many countries to shut down was flawed....says this coder.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...tware-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.

  25. #100
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    7,159

    Default

    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.
    Hoping you have a sense of humor too!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •