More interesting data regarding Covid

[NJF]

Here is a link to the covid 19 track data base:

https://covidtracking.com/data

And here is the link to a photo showing the trend of daily new cases up to June 16:

[MEDIA=twitter]1273729724129218561[/MEDIA]

The case counts are clearly surging in CA, FL, TX and AZ

[SirBillybob]

How are Americans explaining to Canadian Border Services getting from BC to Alaska considering the BC/Yukon border remains closed? Are their vehicles amphibious at Prince Rupert?

[RealAvalon]

How are Americans explaining to Canadian Border Services getting from BC to Alaska considering the BC/Yukon border remains closed? Are their vehicles amphibious at Prince Rupert?

They would drive through BC to the Alaska Highway, and take that through northern BC, Yukon and into Alaska. It was built during WWII to provide supplies to Alaska. They'd have 24 hours to make it across Yukon, from BC to Alaska. It's 929 kilometres, so 24 hours is lots of time.

 

• transiting through Yukon to a neighbouring jurisdiction (24-hour limitation);
  

 

https://yukon.ca/en/health-and-wellness/covid-19-information/borders-and-travel-covid-19/border-enforcement-during-covid-19

[RealAvalon]

I wonder what the demographics are in Washington State vs. BC. Although Seattle has the rep of a younger city, I suspect a lot of the population in Wa. State is older than in BC. That's not an informed opinion, just an impression.

 

The travel restriction circumvention, and failure to observe the quarantine period, is troubling. The former reminds me of how U.S. citizens wanting to travel to Cuba used to stay in Canada for a bit -- not sure how that worked given they still were using US passports. As to the 14 day quarantines, my cousin's son is in grad school at Virginia and was going to work in programs in India this summer. The programs were cancelled, but the classes are still happening online. He moved up to live for the summer with my cousin/his aunt, and the family are anxious to see him, but we're all abiding by the 14 day quarantine.

BC has a large number of elderly residents, it's a retirement destination from across Canada, especially the Prairies. Victoria in particular, is known as a place for "newly weds and nearly deads." But the demographic that seems to be of most interest to health researchers, in terms of mortality rates from COVID, is not not age, gender or racial, it's obesity. Washington State has an obesity rate of 29%, and BC's is 19%. Obesity is a risk factor with COVID mortality.

 

Everything is connected.

Edited June 19, 2020 by RealAvalon

[Guest]

....

Visiting https://covid19.ca.gov/roadmap-counties/#track-data, and choosing Alameda county in which you live (and I'm only about a mile north of along the bay instead of over the hills), show a net increase in ICU occupance of 11 beds (28%) for the last two weeks. I don't believe anybody has made the claim that this resulted from a single senior facility outbreak.

Thank you for posting actual facts/data. With you, I can actually have an intelligent conversation, rather than trying to deal with the vapid rhetoric I was getting from @RealAvalon . As you probably know, Alameda County has had the tightest lockdown in the US. While one cannot conclude that Alameda County's unusual increase in ICU admissions (I presume with Covid diagnoses) was caused by the tight lockdown, they certainly don't point to its efficacy, either. It almost seems like a counter-argument. I certainly would agree with continuing to dis-allow crowded indoor situations. From all the data which we have, though, very tight lockdowns do not appear to be significantly more effective than looser restrictions. Among states who've loosened restrictions, there still is a greater number who've noted a drop in cases than an increase (per the graphs I've been posting). We now have tons of data going on over a period of months. Picking outliers to support one's belief doesn't seem rational to me.

[former lurker]

Thank you for posting actual facts/data. With you, I can actually have an intelligent conversation, rather than trying to deal with the vapid rhetoric I was getting from @RealAvalon . As you probably know, Alameda County has had the tightest lockdown in the US. While one cannot conclude that Alameda County's unusual increase in ICU admissions (I presume with Covid diagnoses) was caused by the tight lockdown, they certainly don't point to its efficacy, either. It almost seems like a counter-argument. I certainly would agree with continuing to dis-allow crowded indoor situations. From all the data which we have, though, very tight lockdowns do not appear to be significantly more effective than looser restrictions. Among states who've loosened restrictions, there still is a greater number who've noted a drop in cases than an increase (per the graphs I've been posting). We now have tons of data going on over a period of months. Picking outliers to support one's belief doesn't seem rational to me.

 

Sit back and await data provided by others, then, because the "data" you cite is cherry picked, partial and mischaracterized by your usage. You're treating the graphs you posted as if they provide detail they don't, reading your own assumptions into them and then reasoning from the facts you imagined were behind the graphs.

 

As to the efficacy of the lockdowns argument you are making, your again making unwarranted assumptions. Increases in areas with previous declines may be the result of restrictions being eased following an abatement, meaning the baseline from which the new cases are measured is lower because of the efficacy of lockdowns. Meanwhile, focusing on Alameda and ignoring Austin & Houston, both Carolinas, Florida, etc., certainly helps with your mantra that lockdowns are ineffective or counterproductive, but that's accomplished by ignoring the counterevidence.

 

It appears from your posts you're not really all too interested in the facts and the data, only in finding and filtering them to fit a view you've decided upon in advance of such data.

Edited June 19, 2020 by former lurker

[+ honcho]

Thank you for posting actual facts/data. With you, I can actually have an intelligent conversation..

Thank you for the expression of trust.

As you probably know, Alameda County has had the tightest lockdown in the US.

Until very recently, it was more-or-less in lock step with San Francisco county. For a while, Santa Clara county was

more restrictive than both.

While one cannot conclude that Alameda County's unusual increase in ICU admissions (I presume with Covid diagnoses) was caused by the tight lockdown, they certainly don't point to its efficacy, either.

But increases started occuring mid-to-late may after some restrestrictions were lifted.

. I certainly would agree with continuing to dis-allow crowded indoor situations.

I'm glad we can agree on that much.

From all the data which we have, though, very tight lockdowns do not appear to be significantly more effective than looser restrictions. Among states who've loosened restrictions, there still is a greater number who've noted a drop in cases than an increase (per the graphs I've been posting). We now have tons of data going on over a period of months. Picking outliers to support one's belief doesn't seem rational to me.

 

I'll politely disagree about the amount the data we have, since the period in which the loosing of restrictions is only about 1/3 of the time spent in much greater lockdown, and hospitalizations in general, and ICU occupancy in particular lags spikes of infection. I think that memorial day weekend was really the first surge of folks really beginning to interact again.

[RealAvalon]

Thank you for posting actual facts/data. With you, I can actually have an intelligent conversation, rather than trying to deal with the vapid rhetoric I was getting from @RealAvalon .

You're seem stuck; you show no interest in learning from other experiences, only complaining about your own. Many of us have provided data and descriptions of other jurisdictions.

 

If you're a doctor, I would love to read your Yelp reviews.

Edited June 19, 2020 by RealAvalon

[RealAvalon]

I'll politely disagree about the amount the data we have, since the period in which the loosing of restrictions is only about 1/3 of the time spent in much greater lockdown, and hospitalizations in general, and ICU occupancy in particular lags spikes of infection. I think that memorial day weekend was really the first surge of folks really beginning to interact again.

Tight lock downs have worked in New Zealand, Australia, British Columbia, all of Atlantic Canada, Uruguay. It has been demonstrated, repeatedly, that if the lock down was quick and clear, with lots of public education and buy in, they worked.

 

In the USA that model may no longer be relevant, whether a person acknowledges that it has worked other places, or even possible. The virus seems to be so wide spread in the USA, demonstrated that with an increased number of tests happening, which should lead to reduced rates of positive tests, that the positive test rates are increasing. From the CDC website data today, as of June 12th, perhaps there will be better news tomorrow. It looks like the vast majority of testing is done in commercial laboratories.

 

The overall percentage of respiratory specimens testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 increased slightly from week 22 (6.0%) to week 23 (6.3%) nationally driven by increases in four regions. National percentages by type of laboratory:

 

• Public health laboratories – decreased from 5.8% during week 22 to 5.0% during week 23;
  
• Clinical laboratories – decreased from 5.5% during week 22 to 5.3% during week 23;
  
• Commercial laboratories – increased from 6.1% during week 22 to 6.5% during week 23.
  

 

I guess the question for the USA is, are their other countries that also botched the initial response, that have figured out how to get a handle on the viral spread and reduce death rates? Is Italy an example? Or Spain, or France, or New York/New Jersey?

 

Reading posts from you guys in the USA, the initial national response was so botched in the USA, it's sounding like some of you feel like you're bailing just to get to shore, forget about saving the boat.

Edited June 19, 2020 by RealAvalon

[+ bigjoey]

Tight lock downs have worked in New Zealand, Australia, British Columbia, all of Atlantic Canada, Uruguay. It has been demonstrated, repeatedly, that if the lock down was quick and clear, with lots of public education and buy in, they worked.

 

In the USA that model may no longer be relevant, whether a person acknowledges that it has worked other places, or even possible. The virus seems to be so wide spread in the USA, demonstrated that with an increased number of tests happening, which should lead to reduced rates of positive tests, that the positive test rates are increasing. From the CDC website data today, as of June 12th, perhaps there will be better news tomorrow. It looks like the vast majority of testing is done in commercial laboratories.

 

The overall percentage of respiratory specimens testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 increased slightly from week 22 (6.0%) to week 23 (6.3%) nationally driven by increases in four regions. National percentages by type of laboratory:

 

• Public health laboratories – decreased from 5.8% during week 22 to 5.0% during week 23;
  
• Clinical laboratories – decreased from 5.5% during week 22 to 5.3% during week 23;
  
• Commercial laboratories – increased from 6.1% during week 22 to 6.5% during week 23.
  

 

I guess the question for the USA is, are their other countries that also botched the initial response, that have figured out how to get a handle on the viral spread and reduce death rates? Is Italy an example? Or Spain, or France, or New York/New Jersey?

 

Reading posts from you guys in the USA, the initial national response was so botched in the USA, it's sounding like some of you feel like you're bailing just to get to shore, forget about saving the boat.

 

A big part of the problem in the US is that each state is responding differently. The states are at different places in the time of the infection and different as to populations. While there has been some guidance from the federal government, the responsibility for execution lies at the state level (even then, there are state and local fights over what to do like Cuomo and DeBlasio). In looking at the US, it is more like looking at all of Europe where Norway responded differently than Spain.

[+ pitman]

A big part of the problem in the US is that each state is responding differently. The states are at different places in the time of the infection and different as to populations. While there has been some guidance from the federal government, the responsibility for execution lies at the state level (even then, there are state and local fights over what to do like Cuomo and DeBlasio). In looking at the US, it is more like looking at all of Europe where Norway responded differently than Spain.

I have not been following this thread closely so this may have already been discussed. It seems to me a good comparison would be the US vs EU.

Similar sized populations, similar sized area, different responses in different jurisdictions. I have not seen much data on the EU as a whole. The only thing I have seen is a chart of cases which shows a sharp decline in the EU over the past couple months while the US has remained at a high plateau.

[+ Charlie]

I have not been following this thread closely so this may have already been discussed. It seems to me a good comparison would be the US vs EU.

Similar sized populations, similar sized area, different responses in different jurisdictions. I have not seen much data on the EU as a whole. The only thing I have seen is a chart of cases which shows a sharp decline in the EU over the past couple months while the US has remained at a high plateau.

The EU with or without the UK? It would make a difference.

[SirBillybob]

They would drive through BC to the Alaska Highway, and take that through northern BC, Yukon and into Alaska. It was built during WWII to provide supplies to Alaska. They'd have 24 hours to make it across Yukon, from BC to Alaska. It's 929 kilometres, so 24 hours is lots of time.

 

• transiting through Yukon to a neighbouring jurisdiction (24-hour limitation);
  

——-

 

Right, thanks, I’d have assumed the Alaska Hwy route. Since the BC-Yukon border opens soon (July 1?), I wonder if Americans will thus travel within for longer periods with informal impunity.

[SirBillybob]

I have not been following this thread closely so this may have already been discussed. It seems to me a good comparison would be the US vs EU.

Similar sized populations, similar sized area, different responses in different jurisdictions. I have not seen much data on the EU as a whole. The only thing I have seen is a chart of cases which shows a sharp decline in the EU over the past couple months while the US has remained at a high plateau.

 

Sorry, ignore, just trying to figure out in what order to put +/- quote and reply. I now have the mnemonic ‘q precedes r’ anchored, I hope.

[RealAvalon]

A big part of the problem in the US is that each state is responding differently. The states are at different places in the time of the infection and different as to populations. While there has been some guidance from the federal government, the responsibility for execution lies at the state level (even then, there are state and local fights over what to do like Cuomo and DeBlasio). In looking at the US, it is more like looking at all of Europe where Norway responded differently than Spain.

The USA is similar, but different, to Australia and Canada, in being a federation of states/provinces. And the Canadian confederacy definitely impacted the ability to have a truly national response. There isn't the same 'states rights' movement as the USA, but there's a continual federal/provincial jurisdictional argument. And Quebec, is more than a 'states rights' situation. Going back to the Quebec Act of 1774, Quebec has been recognized as a unique society (different language, religion and legal code) within the Canadian confederation.

 

With natural disasters, which COVID is one, Federal assistance is often delayed until it's unavoidable in Quebec. This time, the Canadian Army was eventually called in, so that their medical personnel could help with elder care in Quebec nursing homes it was getting so bad.

https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/covid-19-canada-sends-army-to-quebec-care-homes-starting-saturday/

 

Outside of Quebec, in ROC (that's the 'rest of Canada' colloquially) amongst 27 million people, Canada has had:

45,000 cases (with 34,000 of those in Ontario)

3,000 deaths (with 2,600 of those in Ontario, with the majority concentrated in private for-profit nursing homes)

 

One thing we've definitely learned, in every country that COVID has hit, is that this virus exposes each of our societal weaknesses. In Canada, that's clearly elder care, and there will be a national commission on that, once this is all over. There needs to be federal standards with federal dollars for the provinces. And the efficacy of for profit seniors care needs to be discussed. There has been a much higher rate of infection and death in private facilities, than in publicly operated ones.

 

Question to Americans: What societal weaknesses has COVID exposed in the USA? And what is the action needed to address those weaknesses?

 

It's wrong to focus simply on a lock down, separate from all the other measures needed to respond to COVID. A lock down isn't/wasn't a "silver bullet" solution, separate from all the other actions taken/needed. Talking about the "Swedish Model" and limiting that to "herd immunity" is at best ingenuous and at worst, deliberately ignorant. The "Swedish Model" is also, universal free quality publicly run health insurance, extensive sick leave benefits, an economy with high quality jobs where people can work from home, a social ethos where wearing a mask is part of a person's social responsibility not "oppression". If someone wants to cherry pick "herd immunity" in absence of everything else, then talk about Brazil.

Edited June 20, 2020 by RealAvalon

[former lurker]

In general, I'd say elder care facilities have been an area of weakness/challenge in the U.S. Some places have had more trouble than others, so they may be special situations and not generically true of the system as a whole. For example, on facility in Massachusetts for older Veterans had a slew of cases and deaths. Some of the issue there was staffing, and some was lingering problems with the VA systems that have been papered over to make it appear they've made progress in dealing with failures that have been highlighted for years.

 

More broadly, the division of care into different types of facilities needs better rationalization. A lot of it is driven by efforts to restrain the growth in Medicare costs as the U.S. population ages. It's standard here to try and move people out of hospitals as soon as possible and send them to less expensive facilities, like rehab centers, rather than keep them in the hospital until they are well enough to go home. If people are not able to rehab enough to live independently, they are often sent to long term facilities (assisting living if their semi-independent, nursing homes if they need more continuous care). When Covid hit, it threw this system into a bit of disarray. Some nursing homes had Covid cases spread rapidly and a lot of resultant deaths. Nursing homes stopped accepting new patients from hospitals and rehabs, and some rehabs stopped taking patients from hospitals.

 

My uncle was living in assisted living, but took a sharp decline. He had lived with cancer for years, and treatment of the cancer was no longer effective, so it was a matter of months he was expected to live. Still, he plugged along. Then Covid hit, and when he did take a turn for the worse, it was touch and go for a few days. The assisted living facility wanted to send him to the hospital, his cancer doctor said if he was admitted to the hospital he'd never be allowed in rehab or the hospice facility. They treated him at the assisting living place for a few days while they arranged transfer to hospice. His daughter was very engaged with his medical care, and because of her field, has lots of contacts in the elder care universe. She was able to get the arrangements made. Someone less engaged or aware would have likely been stuck with a bad situation made worse.

[Guest]

...

But increases started occuring mid-to-late may after some restrestrictions were lifted.

Factually incorrect. Until this week, Alameda County had essentially the strictest restrictions in the US (even compared with the rest of California).

[+ sniper]

The fact is we don't HAVE a "System" of elder care in this country. We have a patchwork of distinct systems(government, private pay, Veterans, "charity"), that barely talk to each other and often contradict each other, everyone playing a game of hot potato to not be the one who pays, and people generally don't plan, so when the need arises to navigate this system, they have no idea what the hell to do, and suboptimal decisions are made all over the place. And it's generally something you only do once in your life, so you don't even get a chance to use what you learn about it. It's horrific.

[Guest]

Sit back and await data provided by others, then, because the "data" you cite is cherry picked, partial and mischaracterized by your usage...

That's a despicable lie, all the more despicable because that's the opposite of what I'm doing as opposed to what others are doing. I have presented the data of all 50 states plus territories, including dates the restrictions were loosened. Others have said "Well, what about Arizona, Texas, and Florida?" If someone wants to argue that the data from those states are more relevant than other 40+ states, that's fine, but the crux of the argument would have to be why those states are more important.

[Guest]

Tight lock downs have worked in New Zealand, Australia, British Columbia, all of Atlantic Canada, Uruguay. It has been demonstrated, repeatedly, that if the lock down was quick and clear, with lots of public education and buy in, they worked.

...

I agree with you there, but it's too late for that in the US. The question is what to do now. I object to reports in the press which alarmingly refer to increases in asymptomatic cases in some states as "spikes," first of all which they are not, and second of all which misrepresent the total picture. Of course, you could also have mentioned Iceland, which has a total population of 365,000 and gets essentially no visitors in March. It was able to test and isolate, leading to getting rid of the virus problem on that island. To label modest increases in diagnoses in a few states as "spikes" without mentioning the broader picture (including the fact that deaths are dropping) is misleading at best. Of course, maybe the Trump rallies will lead to deaths of thousands of Trump supporters?

Even in Sweden, which reprehensibly did nothing, not even protect Seniors, death rates are falling

 

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-covid-deaths-per-million-7-day-average

Edited June 20, 2020 by Unicorn

[former lurker]

The fact is we don't HAVE a "System" of elder care in this country. We have a patchwork of distinct systems(government, private pay, Veterans, "charity"), that barely talk to each other and often contradict each other, everyone playing a game of hot potato to not be the one who pays, and people generally don't plan, so when the need arises to navigate this system, they have no idea what the hell to do, and suboptimal decisions are made all over the place. And it's generally something you only do once in your life, so you don't even get a chance to use what you learn about it. It's horrific.

 

I agree. I've seen this play out with my father and my uncle, with mixed results. The financial incentives can be perverse. Hospitals are loath to admit elderly patients because they often take longer to get well enough to discharge, and because Medicare adopted reforms to rein in costs that are often counterproductive. For example, Medicare wanted to discourage sending patients home prematurely, so they it won't reimburse hospitals for readmission to treat the same condition within a certain time period. The result is hospitals resist those readmissions. A nurse who saw my father when he was home, told us her father was prematurely discharged when he had pneumonia. When it recurred, they wouldn't take him back, insisting he was fine. She took him to a different hospital which admitted him.

 

Hospitals look to shuttle older patients to rehab, then the rehabs look to hand them off to nursing homes or back home after how ever many weeks Medicare will cover before agitating for discharge or tangible evidence of progression. Longer term rehab cases pose real challenges for families.

 

I'm an attorney, and comfortable arguing with hospital personnel. I can't tell you the number of times they wanted to send my father home rather than admit him, or send him to a rehab, when he medical attention in the hospital. Fortunately, I was able to convince them he belonged in the hospital. The first time, he had an internal bleed that required admission after he lost a lot of blood through his stool. They sent him home, the problem recurred that night, we brought him back and they resisted. The blood levels were borderline for admission. I convinced them to admit him. He lost more blood that night and required two rounds of transfusions. Decades later, he was quite frail due to kidney failure. He developed a persistent infection. They want to divert him to a rehab. I convinced the doctors that rehab wasn't an option -- either he needed medical attention, in the hospital, or he could be at home. They admitted him. They then wanted him to go to a rehab, and we'd been through that before. The rehab didn't help, in fact it broke his spirit, so we insisted they keep him until he could come directly home. That meant an extra day in the hospital, but avoided a month in a rehab.

 

The rehabs and nursing homes are their own cottage industry. Some are better run than others, and often it's trial and error. If the senior has family that's close by and attentive, they can advocate relocation. If the senior is more on his/her own, s/he's often at the mercy of happenstance.

[former lurker]

That's a despicable lie, all the more despicable because that's the opposite of what I'm doing as opposed to what others are doing. I have presented the data of all 50 states plus territories, including dates the restrictions were loosened. Others have said "Well, what about Arizona, Texas, and Florida?" If someone wants to argue that the data from those states are more relevant than other 40+ states, that's fine, but the crux of the argument would have to be why those states are more important.

 

No, it's not. You may have convinced yourself of that, but what you've done is pick apart the sufficiency of the data you don't like while cherry picking partial data you do. As for the prevalence of cases in some states and not others, you've either deliberately forgotten or failed to notice that the disease has developed regionally, and that we lack any thorough national response. There is going to be variation among the states as they have taken different approaches.

[Guest]

At least it certainly seems as if the case fatality rate is dropping. Whether it's because of changes in the weather, changes in the virus, or other factors remains to be seen.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/total-deaths-and-cases-covid-19

[former lurker]

At least it certainly seems as if the case fatality rate is dropping. Whether it's because of changes in the weather, changes in the virus, or other factors remains to be seen.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/total-deaths-and-cases-covid-19

 

How does this chart fit your criteria for "hard data"? It's worldwide, and doesn't say which countries (and which approaches) correlate to lower vs. higher death rates. More important, the chart is labelled as being "challenged" by the inability to assign causes of death -- that's a fairly big hole in the data.

[Populist Fury]

Even in Sweden, which reprehensibly did nothing, not even protect Seniors, death rates are falling

 

 

Sweden didn't do "nothing". That's the propaganda lockdown alarmists in the "news" media want people to believe. They want people to think that everyone is dying over there, that old & sick people are being dragged out of their homes & into the streets to get infected.

 

The reality is Sweden took a reasonable/responsible approach to deal with SARS-CoV-2 that worked well enough for them, better than our fear-based approach worked here, that's for sure!

 

Alarmists were initially predicting Sweden to suffer 75K-100K deaths without embracing draconian lockdown measures... I just checked, & their Covid death number is 5,053 or 0.05% of their population. The U.S. Covid death rate is already up to 0.037%, & that's WITH creepy authoritarian lockdown orders that resulted in millions of people becoming unemployed + a crippled economy rivaling the Great Depression. Sweden's economy actually grew slightly in the first 2020 Q, their people weren't forced to lose their jobs, their kids didn't have to miss school, + none of their citizen rights/freedoms were violated by their government, like we had ours violated here.

 

Where Sweden failed was in not doing enough to protect old people in nursing homes, about half their Covid deaths came from those places. That's something the U.S. & other countries around the world also failed to do tho.