Coronavirus Numbers

[+ WilliamM]

To me, the real problem is protecting seniors and vulnerable populations. If you look at the numbers around the world, that is where the big numbers of deaths are coming from be it NYC or Sweden or Italy. If those populations had been successfully isolated, the whole society would not have needed to shut down with the collateral damage we see.

 

The numbers indicate that as we age, most people lose the effectiveness of his/her immune system. Mother Nature gives young children a strong system and this makes sense from a Darwinian point of view. As we grow older, past our reproductive age, like a wilting flower, our purpose is over as far as nature is concerned

 

I hope this lesson is remembered, at least for the short run. No doubt, just as we forget the lessons of the 1957 and 1968 pandemics, in time, we will forget the lessons of this one, too.

What pandemic in 1968? The political conventions took place during the Summer of 1968, even though it ruptured the Dems in Chicago.

 

The presidential election in 1968 went off as scheduled. President Johnson didn't try to cancel and there wasn't much need for voting by mail, except for the five hundred thousand military personnel in Vietnam.

 

George Jessel was on a USO tour of Southeast Asia. Bob Hope as well, on his usual Christmas USO tour.

[+ bigjoey]

What pandemic in 1968? The political conventions took place during the Summer of 1968, even though it ruptured the Dems in Chicago.

 

The presidential election in 1968 went off as scheduled. President Johnson didn't try to cancel and there wasn't much need for voting by mail, except for the five hundred thousand military personnel in Vietnam.

 

George Jessel was on a USO tour of Southeast Asia. Bob Hope as well, on his usual Christmas USO tour.

 

I have given links before

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1968-pandemic.html

 

Yes, it was an official pandemic and over 100,000 Americans died. When you adjust for population, that is the equivalent of about 160,000 people today. My point has been as you point out, life went along as normal for most people. The was no national lockdown. Google can provide more information. Not sure why you are in denial that there was a pandemic that year as well as 1957 which was even worse in terms of deaths. In both of those pandemics which occurred in our lifetimes, there was no media hype every day. I would gather that most people here do not remember the 1968 pandemic because while 100,000 Americans died, there was no 24/7 news to hype the story; as you point out, people had other concerns and with no lockdown, unless they knew someone who died, the pandemic was not an issue.

[+ WilliamM]

I have given links before

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1968-pandemic.html

 

Yes, it was an official pandemic and over 100,000 Americans died. When you adjust for population, that is the equivalent of about 160,000 people today. My point has been as you point out, life went along as normal for most people. The was no national lockdown. Google can provide more information. Not sure why you are in denial that there was a pandemic that year as well as 1957 which was even worse in terms of deaths. In both of those pandemics which occurred in our lifetimes, there was no media hype every day. I would gather that most people here do not remember the 1968 pandemic because while 100,000 Americans died, there was no 24/7 news to hype the story; as you point out, people had other concerns and with no lockdown, unless they knew someone who died, the pandemic was not an issue.

Well, I remember the 1968 "pandemic," I was in Vietnam. You are exaggerating what happened in 1957 and 1968, and can't back down now.

[+ bigjoey]

Well, I remember the 1968 "pandemic," I was in Vietnam. You are exaggerating what happened in 1957 and 1968, and can't back down now.

 

I am not exaggerating. I have provided the links to the figures of the people who died. The government officially called these pandemics. Not sure what you are talking about “backing down.”

 

You are the one who seems to be denying there were pandemics those years despite being so labeled by the government and listing the death counts.

It seems like you are the one in denial of history and do not want to back down.

 

Where you personally were located during the pandemic is of no interest as to the truth of what happened.

[+ WilliamM]

@bigjoey, why are trying to white wash this pandemic? First, you wanted to eliminate New York City's Novel coronavirus counts. Now, it is comparable counts with 1957 and 1968.

 

I know from watching you and my pal @Kenny that it is no use discussing this further.

[+ bigjoey]

@bigjoey, why are trying to white wash this pandemic? First, you wanted to eliminate New York City's Novel coronavirus counts. Now, it is comparable counts with 1957 and 1968.

 

I know from watching you and my pal @Kenny that it is no use discussing this further.

 

I am not trying to “white wash” anything.

 

I only mentioned eliminating NYC’s counts to get statistics that more accurately reflect the rest of the country. A common statistical practice to remove an outlier that distorts the total. If you read my posts, I said when comparing our counts to other countries, I would leave the NYC counts because the other countries counts include hot spots as well. I even said the totals and rates should be given both ways and let the reader select which figures to use.

 

Why not compare the current pandemic to the two most recent ones? Why not look at how the most recent ones were handled and compare those to our current one

 

Not sure why you denied there was a 1968 pandemic.

 

I do not see why you say I am “white washing” anything. I have multiple posts on the current pandemic and the havoc it is wrecking.

[Guest]

@WilliamM, the use of a trimmed average is a legitimate method in evaluating data. Especially when nearly 30% of American deaths from covid has been in just Manhattan (NY that is...deaths in Manhattan Ks are ZERO)

 

understanding that Manhattan Ks isn’t Manhattan/NYC is relevant. Manhattan (NY) is about 3% percent of the US Population but has nearly 30% of the US deaths...

 

edited to correct as noted below.

Edited May 10, 2020 by BnaC

[+ Pensant]

@WilliamM, the use of a trimmed average is a legitimate method in evaluating data. Especially when nearly 30% of American deaths from covid has been in just Manhattan (NY that is...deaths in Manhattan Ks are ZERO)

 

understanding that Manhattan Ks isn’t Manhattan/NYC is relevant. Manhattan (NY) is less than half a percent of the US Population but has nearly 30% of the US deaths...

Just a slight quibble: most of the NY deaths have been in Queens and The Bronx, I believe.

[Guest]

Just a slight quibble: most of the NY deaths have been in Queens and The Bronx, I believe.

Thank you. The death statistic I cited from Johns Hopkins was NYC, but I incorrectly cited Manhattan’s population. NYC’s population is about 3% of the US, not .5%

[+ WilliamM]

I have given links before

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1968-pandemic.html

 

Yes, it was an official pandemic and over 100,000 Americans died. When you adjust for population, that is the equivalent of about 160,000 people today. My point has been as you point out, life went along as normal for most people. The was no national lockdown. Google can provide more information. Not sure why you are in denial that there was a pandemic that year as well as 1957 which was even worse in terms of deaths. In both of those pandemics which occurred in our lifetimes, there was no media hype every day. I would gather that most people here do not remember the 1968 pandemic because while 100,000 Americans died, there was no 24/7 news to hype the story; as you point out, people had other concerns and with no lockdown, unless they knew someone who died, the pandemic was not an issue.

 

I remember both "pandemics." Right now is far, far worse.

 

Front page New York Times, May 10, 2020: A Bridge of Federal Relief May Crumble in Summer.

 

As the nation confronts unemployment not seen since the Great Depression, Congress and the Trump Administration face a pivotal choice: Continue to store up business and workers, or bet that business re-openinigs will jump- start the U.S. economy.

 

At least 20 million Americans are unemployed.

Edited May 10, 2020 by WilliamM

[+ bigjoey]

I remember both "pandemics." Right now is far, far worse.

 

Front page New York Times, May 10, 2020: A Bridge of Federal Relief May Crumble in Summer.

 

As the nation confronts unemployment not seen since the Great Depression, Congress and the Trump Administration face a pivotal choice: Continue to store up business and workers, or bet that business re-openinigs will jump- start the U.S. economy.

 

At least 20 million Americans are unemployed.

 

Great?. Since your post #360 you now admit there were pandemics even though you put the word in quotation marks which indicates you are still in denial.

 

However, your most recent post concentrates on how the collateral damage numbers to the economy are worse than those of the 1957 and 1968 pandemics. I agree. The job losses, bankruptcies, loss of educational opportunities, suicides and mental illness are all worse. The remedy being applied is not balanced and is making this worse on the social and economic side as you note. Thank you for illustrating my point?.

 

At this point, on the other side the death numbers are not worse and when adjusted for population, still have a way to go. Until a year or so from now we will not be able to make a comparison. As they say in opera, we need to wait until the fat lady sings.

 

As I have maintained, there is not a single choice between destruction of the economy and mass deaths of the vulnerable population. It is not just black and white. The answer lies in the gray area in between tries to minimize deaths and minimize harm to the economy.

 

Reasonable people will come down differently on where that balance lies. I believe there is no right answer for everyone when it comes to social policy.

 

Thank you for your support if my contention that the way this has been handled that is destroying the economy is making our lives worse than the two previous pandemics by the figures you post. Your help is appreciated.?

 

The Sunday morning talking heads were interesting about what to expect from the numbers to come (which is what this thread is about: Coronavirus Numbers). The news was not good with thousands more dying and approaching or exceeding the deaths in the other two recent pandemics. The shows made it clear that currently, our best immediate hope is a quick instant test and perhaps some effective medical therapies. In the meantime, as Peggy Noonan sadly put it, we will continue to just muddle through.

[BSR]

Great?. Since your post #360 you now admit there were pandemics even though you put the word in quotation marks which indicates you are still in denial.

 

However, your most recent post concentrates on how the collateral damage numbers to the economy are worse than those of the 1957 and 1968 pandemics. I agree. The job losses, bankruptcies, loss of educational opportunities, suicides and mental illness are all worse. The remedy being applied is not balanced and is making this worse on the social and economic side as you note. Thank you for illustrating my point?.

 

At this point, on the other side the death numbers are not worse and when adjusted for population, still have a way to go. Until a year or so from now we will not be able to make a comparison. As they say in opera, we need to wait until the fat lady sings.

 

As I have maintained, there is not a single choice between destruction of the economy and mass deaths of the vulnerable population. It is not just black and white. The answer lies in the gray area in between tries to minimize deaths and minimize harm to the economy.

 

Reasonable people will come down differently on where that balance lies. I believe there is no right answer for everyone when it comes to social policy.

 

Thank you for your support if my contention that the way this has been handled that is destroying the economy is making our lives worse than the two previous pandemics by the figures you post. Your help is appreciated.?

 

The Sunday morning talking heads were interesting about what to expect from the numbers to come (which is what this thread is about: Coronavirus Numbers). The news was not good with thousands more dying and approaching or exceeding the deaths in the other two recent pandemics. The shows made it clear that currently, our best immediate hope is a quick instant test and perhaps some effective medical therapies. In the meantime, as Peggy Noonan sadly put it, we will continue to just muddle through.

 

There is a stark difference between coronavirus deaths & collateral damage deaths. The coronavirus figure is assiduously tracked & published daily whereas the collateral damage (suicides, delayed/canceled chemotherapy, etc.) is impossible to pin down. This difference puts politicians in a bind because it makes the political price they pay for acknowledging collateral damage far steeper.

[samhexum]

Deaths from the coronavirus ticked higher in New York over the last 24 hours, but hospitalizations and new cases continued to decline, according to Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who warned Saturday about complacency amid data showing reason for optimism.

 

An additional 157 people died of COVID-19 Friday, 105 in hospitals and 52 in nursing homes, a jump from the 132 recorded the day before, the governor said during his coronavirus briefing in Albany. The state’s death toll now stands at 22,478.

 

“That number has been stubborn,” Cuomo said of the daily death toll. “We just need to make sure we don’t go back to the hell we’ve gone through.”

 

Hospitalizations fell to 6,220 — a level last seen at the start of the pandemic, and a third of the peak number.

 

New cases fell to 2,419, from 2,762 reported the day before, the governor said.

 

Five regions in the state were allowed to reopen for business Friday, and Cuomo said he expects to see an increase in cases as more areas are phased in.

 

“You’re in control of what happens. How you act will determine what happens,” he said. “If people are smart, then yes, you will see an increase in the numbers, but you won’t see a spike.”

 

“Be smart, be diligent and don’t underestimate this virus,” he added.

Nothing is certain with the coronavirus, said Cuomo, admitting his surprise when he learned that the majority of new cases were seen in people who left their homes to exercise, socialize or shop, rather than essential workers.

 

“That was exactly wrong,” he said. “The infection rate among essential workers is lower than the general population and those new cases are coming predominantly from people who are not working and they are at home.”

 

The state’s budget director, Robert Mujica, said officials expect to “learn a lot more” about how the virus travels from contact tracing over the next week.

 

Also Saturday, Suffolk and Westchester, were added to the list of those approved to begin elective surgeries and ambulatory care services.

 

“We want to make sure people who need medical services are getting medical services. There was a period when hospitals were dealing basically with COVID patients. We are past that period. If you need medical attention, if you need a medical procedure, you should get it,” Cuomo said.

 

“Hospitals are safe places to go to. The extent people are worried about going to hospitals, there is no reason,” he said, while still urging vigilance — and common sense.

[+ sniper]

It could simply be the case that the essential workers have already "taken the hit" and have almost all already had it/gotten over it. I expect going forward the fraction of deaths from nursing home victims will trend down for the same reason.

[+ bigjoey]

New problem: in some areas, more tests available than people wanting to be tested:

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/as-coronavirus-testing-expands-a-new-problem-arises-not-enough-people-to-test/2020/05/17/3f3297de-8bcd-11ea-8ac1-bfb250876b7a_story.html

[+ sniper]

New problem: in some areas, more tests available than people wanting to be tested:

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/as-coronavirus-testing-expands-a-new-problem-arises-not-enough-people-to-test/2020/05/17/3f3297de-8bcd-11ea-8ac1-bfb250876b7a_story.html

That article is misleading. It goes on to say that what's holding them up are things like.not having the swabs or other supplies to administer the test. If you don't have the supplies needed to test but just have the "test kit" piece, you do NOT have tests available.

[+ bigjoey]

That article is misleading. It goes on to say that what's holding them up are things like.not having the swabs or other supplies to administer the test. If you don't have the supplies needed to test but just have the "test kit" piece, you do NOT have tests available.

 

I said “in some areas” more tests are available than people wanting tests. The article said that describes the situation in about a dozen states. The article says it is not universal and some areas are short of supplies.

[BgMstr4u]

And this, raising important questions about the initial statistical modeling behind the coronavirus closures. I cite the Breitbart article because you can read it to the end. Unfortunately, the Daily Telegraph article it is based on is behind their firewall, which not all will want to breach through subscription:

 

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2020/05/18/telegraph-uk-lockdown-a-result-of-the-most-devastating-software-mistake-of-all-time/

[EZEtoGRU]

And this, raising important questions about the initial statistical modeling behind the coronavirus closures. I cite the Breitbart article because you can read it to the end. Unfortunately, the Daily Telegraph article it is based on is behind their firewall, which not all will want to breach through subscription:

 

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2020/05/18/telegraph-uk-lockdown-a-result-of-the-most-devastating-software-mistake-of-all-time/

I would take anything published in the Daily Telegraph or Breitbart with a grain of salt. I did get a huge laugh at reading the comments posters made following the Breitbart article. What a load of crazies. It just shows what kind of readers your dealing with in these right-wing extremist media organizations. Everything is a conspiracy! It was all planned! It's all a hoax!

 

I'll believe the story when a respected paper covers it.

[+ bigjoey]

I would take anything published in the Daily Telegraph or Breitbart with a grain of salt. I did get a huge laugh at reading the comments posters made following the Breitbart article. What a load of crazies. It just shows what kind of readers your dealing with in these right-wing extremist media organizations. Everything is a conspiracy! It was all planned! It's all a hoax!

 

I'll believe the story when a respected paper covers it.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. News should not be rejected out-of-hand just because of the source.

 

I think it is possible that governments panicked when they saw what was happening in Italy and did not question the modeling of the pandemic. For the drastic measures taken, there should have been a harder look at the model.

 

The story is not as crazy as it seems.

[MscleLovr]

It has been public knowledge in the UK for some time that the two main centers for medical science and epidemiology (Imperial College and Cambridge) are great rivals.

 

I can believe that the statistical modelling is rather faulty because so much about this virus is unknown. It’s why I prefer to see a range of estimates, and actively distrust very precise figures - the Federal Government in Germany publishes the R-number daily and I doubt its accuracy.

[EZEtoGRU]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. News should not be rejected out-of-hand just because of the source.

 

I think it is possible that governments panicked when they saw what was happening in Italy and did not question the modeling of the pandemic. For the drastic measures taken, there should have been a harder look at the model.

 

The story is not as crazy as it seems.

I never said the story was crazy. It could well be true. My point is I wouldn't give a second thought to anything appearing in either of those two rags. If legitimate/trusted media starts covering the story, I'll pay attention.