Coronavirus Thread

  • Thread starter Deleted member 2897
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.

GT_EE78

Banned
Messages
3,605
>the future of dating?
> does this remind anyone of the "cone of silence" from Get Smart
upload_2020-4-27_18-22-18.jpeg
 

MWBATL

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,152
Monday afternoon thoughts.

Right now the weekly avg death rates are 60% higher than the historical norm.
Without addressing your entire post, this really caught my eye, as I have seen NO data to support such an assertion and would love to see what data you have to back this statement up.

Especially given the CDC data
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm

That data is behind in reporting deaths and covid deaths both...but there isn't the 60% surge you speak of....
 

armeck

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
357

MWBATL

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,152
Ah, so it is based on European data, not US data. I am less persuaded...and would love to see the underlying statistics and variations year-to-year to see how much variation there is in those countries. Comparisons to the average death rate may or may not be valid without also examining the year-to-year "normal" variations. I have seen that data for the US, but not for Europe.

Moreover, the article states 60%, but its own graphs and charts only support 49% increase, so I am less than impressed by their acumen with that type of mistake (if I am reading it correctly, of course).

But I do agree that the total death rate is the key to examine to really understand what is happening. I wonder why we are not yet seeing that in the USA. It may take time to see that data, but it is hard to see that it might match to the 60% rate suggested in that article or in Red's post.

And, as @RamblinRed himself said, we need to be careful with what facts we quote. For example, there is plenty of disagreement still about the mortality rate, and it is NOT a consensus that it is between 0.5-0.8% as Red stated. There is plenty of suggestion that it is much lower and much closer to 0.1% based on the studies released in California (2) , Florida (1) and now New York (1 updated today).
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/202...ount-coronavirus-infections-may-be-unreliable

I agree that the lockdowns, based on what we knew at that time, were the right steps to take. The biggest reason given...over and over again...was to avoid overwhelming our medical system. Well, outside on NYC, we have not seen our medical systems overwhelmed anywhere. Trump is correct when he states that not a single patient who needed a ventilator went without one. And, we have hundreds, no thousands, sitting in warehouses that will never be touched or used. Mission accomplished.

Now the question is next steps. The question really revolves around whether we can open the economy and yet still provide protections for those who are elderly or have underlying health conditions. This report form that bastion of conservatism The Guardian reports that not only did students not suffering's much themselves for the coronavirus, but they turned out to NOT be the carriers of the disease that everyone fears they are.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ays-study-cited-in-pms-push-to-reopen-schools

That REALLY STRONGLY suggests that we should re-open all schools in the Fall. Follow the science. I have yet to see anything besides models and assumptions that argue against this approach. Show me the studies that have shown that students are rabid carriers of the disease and could devastate older populations.

There are some arguments that lockdowns don't really save lives:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/do-loc...data-say-no-11587930911?mod=trending_now_pos3

That article points out that other factors seem more likely to explain the death stats, mostly to do with the proximity of people in heavy urban areas...not an overall lockdown itself.

Some of the points I have made are debatable and need more data, BUT I am beginning to become annoyed with repeating data that is NOT yet accepted by many in the field as if it were fact. If we are indeed to "follow the science", we MUST follow all of the science, and not JUST the science that we happen to agree with.
 

MWBATL

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,152
I think these death total numbers from the CDC were posted by someone previously, but they seem to show that we are a little low on total deaths in the US.

https://www.law.com/texaslawyer/202...verage-cdc-412-96700/?slreturn=20200327205657
I posted them previously, and @GTNavyNuke helped me out by pointing out that it states in the footnotes that deaths are not posted until death certificates are issued, which means a delay is the totals of both deaths and Covid deaths.

Means we really won’t know with precision how bad it is in this country for a few more weeks. And that was kinda my point....Europe may have certain data, but US data is not yet known.
 
Messages
899
Location
Savannah, GA
I posted them previously, and @GTNavyNuke helped me out by pointing out that it states in the footnotes that deaths are not posted until death certificates are issued, which means a delay is the totals of both deaths and Covid deaths.

Means we really won’t know with precision how bad it is in this country for a few more weeks. And that was kinda my point....Europe may have certain data, but US data is not yet known.

I think you might be misreading the footnote. It only applies to the last 2 weeks with the asterisk by them.
 
Messages
13,443
Location
Augusta, GA
Nevada doctors sue the governor of Nevada over his ban of doctors prescribing hydroxychloroquine ---
http://www.floppingaces.net/most-wa...a-sue-sisolak-over-ban-on-hydroxychloroquine/

A key paragraph in this article is
"The case is personal for him, too. Immediately before the ban, both of his parents were diagnosed with COVID-19, and prescribed hydroxychloroquine as a treatment. His father went from being horribly ill to doing remarkably better within hours of his first dose of the medication. Gilbert said 'I have seen this medicine work. Both my mother, and my father were extremely ill and getting worse. They were able to obtain the medicine because it was prescribed in the hours before the ban. Both of my parents have now recovered, and both credit their change in condition to hydroxychloroquine'".
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,522
I think you might be misreading the footnote. It only applies to the last 2 weeks with the asterisk by them.

No. The table that @GTNavyNuke posted from the CDC website specifically says that the deaths included in the chart can be delayed for up to eight weeks. It only includes deaths which have been registered. Because of differences in systems across the country, it can take that long for them to be available where the CDC gets the information. I believe @GTNavyNuke said that he was going to post that chart again this week to keep track of how the previous weeks are changing.

The CDC graph that shows newly diagnosed infections does have a 10-14 day window that indicates those numbers are preliminary, but that is different information.

EDIT: From that footnote:
This delay can range from 1 week to 8 weeks or more, depending on the jurisdiction, age, and cause of death.

EDIT 2: If you look at the data now compared to when it was posted last week: Week 3/28 increased by 1%. Week 4/4 increased by 2%. Week 4/11 increased by 7%. Week 4/18 increased by 12%.
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,522
I think you might be misreading the footnote. It only applies to the last 2 weeks with the asterisk by them.

I just understood that you were quoting a footnote from the article that you posted, which quotes data from the CDC website. However, the footnote for what information is accurate does not match the CDC website. If you look at the original source, which is what @GTNavyNuke posted: https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-Death-Counts-for-Coronavirus-Disease-C/hc4f-j6nb you will notice that the data doesn't match the current information, even for weeks that the article you posted says were settled.
 

LibertyTurns

Banned
Messages
6,216
I pulled up the CDC website and Florida was above the expected death rate for the state every year for 10 years. Call me crazy but half the years probably should be above the average & half below. You can’t have an average that’s lower than the lowest number presents & 100% of the numbers in the data set are above the average. Duh.
 

GTNavyNuke

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
9,905
Location
Williamsburg Virginia
I just understood that you were quoting a footnote from the article that you posted, which quotes data from the CDC website. However, the footnote for what information is accurate does not match the CDC website. If you look at the original source, which is what @GTNavyNuke posted: https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-Death-Counts-for-Coronavirus-Disease-C/hc4f-j6nb you will notice that the data doesn't match the current information, even for weeks that the article you posted says were settled.

Thanks for all the click bait on me. I'll update the estimate Saturday afternoon with a final projection for every week including the current ones. I'm looking forward to seeing what the results are too. One area of interpretation is that for whatever reason, the reported deaths in February were about 4% lower than the previous three years average for that week. So are the COVID-19 deaths from that base or 100%? Just want to give people something to "discuss".

And as @RonJohn said, I just copied the relevant footnotes from the CDC site. Death certificates can take a while. Last year, my mom's death certificate didn't get to to MD Vital Statistics for about 5 months. Long story but it's over (duh).

Peculiar thing. I got her $1200 stimulus check yesterday. Showed she was deceased and made out to me as personal rep. I haven't decided whether to 1) return it, 2) rip it up or 3) burn it since she was cremated.
 

gthxxxx

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
150
I pulled up the CDC website and Florida was above the expected death rate for the state every year for 10 years. Call me crazy but half the years probably should be above the average & half below. You can’t have an average that’s lower than the lowest number presents & 100% of the numbers in the data set are above the average. Duh.
Well, for something like forecasting the death rate of FL, if the model's expected value was able to land with half above and half below in a consecutive 10 years, I would call that either a remarkable stroke of luck or more likely somebody making adjustments to the algorithm after the fact. [Edit: Not that there's anything wrong with a feedback loop in a model, unless it was advertised to forecast that many years in advance.]
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top