Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 244

Thread: Covid Discussion

  1. #101
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,238

    Default

    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.

    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?

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    5,733

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scrooner View Post
    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)

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    1,231

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zagceo View Post
    I consider these flu outbreaks to be huge

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

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    1,231

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MDABE80 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by LTownZag; 05-18-2020 at 07:01 PM.

  5. #105
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    13,366

    Default

    Sorry LT. I just think they’re wrong. Overly enthusiastic. Media driven....perhaps ? It’s. Big ball of cht!

  6. #106
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    1,231

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MDABE80 View Post
    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?

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,639

    Default

    https://www.coloradoan.com/story/new...ed/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.

  8. #108
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    13,366

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Markburn1 View Post
    https://www.coloradoan.com/story/new...ed/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

  9. #109
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    1,231

    Default

    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/inves...094_story.html

  10. #110
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    13,366

    Default

    You are not required to have corona infection (COVID)proven
    to be counted as a COVID death.
    Last edited by MDABE80; 05-18-2020 at 11:11 PM.

  11. #111
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    5,733

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MDABE80 View Post
    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/ho...9-death-count/

  12. #112
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Opportunity, WA
    Posts
    1,927

    Default

    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.
    Agent provocateur

  13. #113
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    17,089

    Default Covid Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by JPtheBeasta View Post
    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/ho...9-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.
    '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

  14. #114
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    5,733

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kitzbuel View Post
    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).

  15. #115
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Opportunity, WA
    Posts
    1,927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JPtheBeasta View Post
    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.

    Agent provocateur

  16. #116
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    17,089

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JPtheBeasta View Post
    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/c...ess_deaths.htm
    '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. #117
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    5,733

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sonuvazag View Post
    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
    Last edited by JPtheBeasta; 05-19-2020 at 12:40 PM.

  18. #118
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Opportunity, WA
    Posts
    1,927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JPtheBeasta View Post
    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/st...19636036096002

    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.
    Agent provocateur

  19. #119
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    5,733

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sonuvazag View Post
    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/st...19636036096002
    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?

  20. #120
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    13,366

    Default

    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....

  21. #121
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    1,231

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kitzbuel View Post
    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.

  22. #122
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    13,366

    Default

    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.

  23. #123
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    17,089

    Default Covid Discussion

    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
    '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

  24. #124
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    13,366

    Default

    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!

  25. #125
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Opportunity, WA
    Posts
    1,927

    Default

    The CDC's 60-page roadmap reopening America was just posted:
    https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/19/polit...ing/index.html
    Agent provocateur

Posting Permissions

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