More interesting data regarding Covid

[former lurker]

OK. So show us (the whole state, not just one hospital that happens to be near a nursing home). I prefer to see real data, rather than speculation of what might or might not be. I have seen inflammatory reports with reporters going to a single hospital. No broad data, though.

 

I too prefer to see real data. Why, if that's your preference, do you present partial data when it suits your point of view?

[RealAvalon]

OK. I prefer to see real data, rather than speculation of what might or might not be. No broad data, though.

Seriously? How have you been able to avoid all the broad data available, in your searches for COVID information?

It's an infodemic of both broad and specific information, just naming two, from John Hopkins and CDC, without naming all of the different State data (except Florida of course).

Do you need help with science-based sources, so you can inform yourself?

Edited June 18, 2020 by RealAvalon

[Guest]

Two problems with your point. Deaths are a lagging indicator. The spike is in new cases of people contracting the virus. Second, the spikes are regional not nation wide.

First of all, there is no spike in new cases. There's been a bit of an increase in "cases" (that is, positive tests, not hospitalizations or even symptomatic illnesses) in 20 states, a bit of a decrease in 22 states, and the rest have been pretty flat. Only Arizona has had a significant number of increased diagnoses (again, not serious illness). And yes, deaths are a lagging indicator. That means that things got better weeks ago, even with opening up occurring in most states. If you have data to prove me otherwise, please provide it, or keep quiet. It's silly to "argue" against data-less sound bites.

[RealAvalon]

First of all, there is no spike in new cases. There's been a bit of an increase in "cases" (that is, positive tests, not hospitalizations or even symptomatic illnesses) in 20 states, a bit of a decrease in 22 states, and the rest have been pretty flat. Only Arizona has had a significant number of increased diagnoses (again, not serious illness). And yes, deaths are a lagging indicator. That means that things got better weeks ago, even with opening up occurring in most states. If you have data to prove me otherwise, please provide it, or keep quiet. It's silly to "argue" against data-less sound bites.

You really haven't paid attention to the news today. North Carolina, Florida, Texas (Houston) all have spikes and increased hospitalizations. For someone that really seems to want to know information, how are you missing all of this obvious information, it's almost hard to avoid finding out about it.

[Guest]

You really haven't paid attention to the news today. North Carolina, Florida, Texas (Houston) all have spikes and increased hospitalizations. For someone that really seems to want to know information, how are you missing all of this obvious information, it's almost hard to avoid finding out about it.

I get it. You don't want to look at hard data and facts. You just want to blurt out sound bites you heard regarding 3 of the 50 states (plus territories) that you heard on the news because it fits your narrative. Have you heard the proverb: "Wise men base their opinions on facts. Fools communicate with hot air coming out of their rear ends."?

[RealAvalon]

I get it. You don't want to look at hard data and facts. You just want to blurt out sound bites you heard regarding 3 of the 50 states (plus territories) that you heard on the news because it fits your narrative. Have you heard the proverb: "Wise men base their opinions on facts. Fools communicate with hot air coming out of their rear ends."?

Question is why do you avoid hard facts? Your post #287 is baseless, has no facts or evidence provided. None. Step it up.

[Populist Fury]

Sure anarchy is very cool.

 

 

Opposing draconian lockdown measures that violate our rights/civil liberties isn't anarchy, it's called being pro-freedom.

 

I was DONE with the lockdown BS the moment government thugs started threatening people with fines & jail time simply going outside. It went from "public safety concerns" to we are now a Police State.

[former lurker]

First of all, there is no spike in new cases. There's been a bit of an increase in "cases" (that is, positive tests, not hospitalizations or even symptomatic illnesses) in 20 states, a bit of a decrease in 22 states, and the rest have been pretty flat. Only Arizona has had a significant number of increased diagnoses (again, not serious illness). And yes, deaths are a lagging indicator. That means that things got better weeks ago, even with opening up occurring in most states. If you have data to prove me otherwise, please provide it, or keep quiet. It's silly to "argue" against data-less sound bites.

 

Agree with your last sentence, but you do so with partial bits all the time and have on this point. No, it's not one state, and yes it's not national as I said. The increases in cases in Arizona, North Carolina, Florida, all are in states that were less rigorous with social distancing and other mitigation measures. Some of those measures were adopted slowly and removed too soon. Florida is now seeing the need to close down bars, etc, that they had allowed to reopen.

 

It's a sure sign that you've got nothing of substance to say when you start telling others to be quiet.

[former lurker]

I get it. You don't want to look at hard data and facts. You just want to blurt out sound bites you heard regarding 3 of the 50 states (plus territories) that you heard on the news because it fits your narrative. Have you heard the proverb: "Wise men base their opinions on facts. Fools communicate with hot air coming out of their rear ends."?

 

Pot, meet kettle. Your national chart of new deaths fits your criteria for hard data and facts how? It's a snapshot of one metric nationally when the virus keeps impacting regionally. Some of the businesses reopened (restaurants and bars, in particular) have had to close again as employees and patrons contract the virus. The virus is "rolling", picking up in the locations that didn't initially face large outbreaks and have been less vigilant about mitigation.

 

Several studies have shown that the rate of infection is continuing to be positive (as in increasing), but that in areas where there is widespread use of masks and observance of distancing there is a decline in the numbers of new cases.

 

Florida, Arizona, North Carolina, Texas (Houston and Austin areas), Alabama, South Carolina all reporting an outbreak of new cases. Nationally,150,000 new cases diagnosed a day are being diagnosed. This is occurring as some states tentatively open up restaurants, bars, theaters, and other indoor gathering places, but before we hit traditional flu season and face the potential reopening of schools, etc.

[MikeBiDude]

You really haven't paid attention to the news today. North Carolina, Florida, Texas (Houston) all have spikes and increased hospitalizations. For someone that really seems to want to know information, how are you missing all of this obvious information, it's almost hard to avoid finding out about it.

And @Unicorn is a doctor, right? Interesting he picks/chooses data rather than be 100% objective.

[+ Charlie]

But where is the data about "areas where there is widespread use of masks and observance of distancing"? Those conditions seem to be anecdotal and impressionistic, not statistically verified. Masks and distancing may be required, or more frequently "recommended," in many jurisdictions, but there is plenty of verbal and photographic evidence that they are often not observed or enforced. There is a lot of fuzzy cause-effect analysis being done on all sides.

[former lurker]

But where is the data about "areas where there is widespread use of masks and observance of distancing"? Those conditions seem to be anecdotal and impressionistic, not statistically verified. Masks and distancing may be required, or more frequently "recommended," in many jurisdictions, but there is plenty of verbal and photographic evidence that they are often not observed or enforced. There is a lot of fuzzy cause-effect analysis being done on all sides.

 

A doctor on tv this am said the areas experiences what he said was undeniably an outbreak were southern and/or rural areas where the initial wave of the virus didn't hit hard, and where people are not following the advice to wear masks, limit going to crowded spaces, and observe social distancing. That's still anedotal, but it's a correlation that makes sense. In Texas, for example, a lot of the people who've contracted the virus in the Austin area are younger folks and they've been going to local bars that have been fairly crowded.

[+ Charlie]

A doctor on tv this am said the areas experiences what he said was undeniably an outbreak were southern and/or rural areas where the initial wave of the virus didn't hit hard, and where people are not following the advice to wear masks, limit going to crowded spaces, and observe social distancing. That's still anedotal, but it's a correlation that makes sense. In Texas, for example, a lot of the people who've contracted the virus in the Austin area are younger folks and they've been going to local bars that have been fairly crowded.

"A lot," "younger folk," "fairly crowded" are pretty vague generalizations. Admittedly, I use such language myself all the time in my own comments, but they are not the kind of hard data on which I would want to base a firm conclusion.

[former lurker]

"A lot," "younger folk," "fairly crowded" are pretty vague generalizations. Admittedly, I use such language myself all the time in my own comments, but they are not the kind of hard data on which I would want to base a firm conclusion.

 

But they are evidence nonetheless, and can and should inform the approach taken. They're sufficient for Texas to be imposing limits on the number of people allowed in bars (50% or less of capacity) and for Florida to re-close some establishments. With a virus that spreads so easily, and without extensive tracing, how else are we supposed to proceed. We look at the information available.

[former lurker]

"A lot," "younger folk," "fairly crowded" are pretty vague generalizations. Admittedly, I use such language myself all the time in my own comments, but they are not the kind of hard data on which I would want to base a firm conclusion.

 

Young folk refers to college and recent post college aged young professions in the Austin, TX area. Fairly crowded is more than 50% of capacity pre-Covid.

[+ WilliamM]

But they are evidence nonetheless, and can and should inform the approach taken. They're sufficient for Texas to be imposing limits on the number of people allowed in bars (50% or less of capacity) and for Florida to re-close some establishments. With a virus that spreads so easily, and without extensive tracing, how else are we supposed to proceed. We look at the information available.

Thanks for a clear logical response:.

 

"We look at information available."

[RealAvalon]

"A lot," "younger folk," "fairly crowded" are pretty vague generalizations. Admittedly, I use such language myself all the time in my own comments, but they are not the kind of hard data on which I would want to base a firm conclusion.

It's a novel corona virus. It's new. And public health has been saying over and over again, in Canada anyway, that each jurisdiction is going to have its own pandemic experience. We started with no hard data, and there is more and more all the time, but there is still a lot of educated guess work I expect. We just don't know all we need to about the virus. We are learning all the time, and know a lot more now, than we did four months ago.

 

I don't know if this is similar or different from your experience. Where I live the public health decisions that the political folks are following, is based on modelling (essential educated guess work based on the best information available). At the height of the shut down the modelling said we were at 30% of normal social interaction levels. Then public health went through different modelling exercises for opening up different sections of the economy, to reach 40% interaction levels, 50% and 60%. From this, public health modelled out the number of cases that would emerge from each level of re-opening, and at what level the health care system could manage without being overwhelmed.

 

With the current model, they've determined its about 60% of normal social interaction levels that we can manage, after that the virus replication rate goes above 1% (i.e. one person will infect up to one other person) to 1.1% and this becomes an exponential rate. Angela Merkel has a speech about 1 1/2 months ago about the same modelling done in Germany (it probably helps Germany, that she has a doctoral degree in chemistry). Here anyway, the economic opening is based on the modelling public health has done on viral spread. The model is continually updated, as new information is gleaned from managing and treating this virus. And these updates are shared at daily press conferences by the Provincial Health Officer and Minister of Health.

 

Angela Merkle, addressing the nation explaining what individual citizens can do to help prevent spread:

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/03/angela-merkel-nails-coronavirus-speech-unlike-trump.html

 

Continually updating the science based modeling, and explaining these changes to the public, is about as much as I think we can expect of public health.

Edited June 19, 2020 by RealAvalon

[+ sync]

The sad reality for the United States is that for too long in the game we were warming the bench while other countries were on the field playing against C19.

[+ BenjaminNicholas]

The sad reality for the United States is that for too long in the game we were warming the bench while other countries were on the field playing against C19.

 

That's the way the US almost always handles problems.

The American way is to treat the symptom, not to practice preventative care.

[marylander1940]

Thanks, @former lurker

 

It is very important to correct misstated opinions.

 

Actually misstated facts.

[former lurker]

It's a novel corona virus. It's new. And public health has been saying over and over again, in Canada anyway, that each jurisdiction is going to have its own pandemic experience. We started with no hard data, and there is more and more all the time, but there is still a lot of educated guess work I expect. We just don't know all we need to about the virus. We are learning all the time, and know a lot more now, than we did four months ago.

 

I don't know if this is similar or different from your experience. Where I live the public health decisions that the political folks are following, is based on modelling (essential educated guess work based on the best information available). At the height of the shut down the modelling said we were at 30% of normal social interaction levels. Then public health went through different modelling exercises for opening up different sections of the economy, to reach 40% interaction levels, 50% and 60%. From this public health modelled out the number of cases that would emerge from each level of re-opening, and at what level the health care system could manage without being overwhelmed.

 

In the current model they've determined its about 60% of normal social interaction levels that we can manage, after that the virus replication rate goes above 1% (i.e. one person will infect up to one other person) to 1.1% and this becomes an exponential rate. Angel Merkel has a speech about 1 1/2 months ago about the same modelling done in Germany. Here anyway, the economic opening is based on the modelling done on viral spread. The model is continually updated, as new information is gleaned from managing and treating this virus. And these updates are shared at daily press conferences by the Provincial Health Officer and Minister of Health.

 

Continually updating the science based modeling, and explaining these changes to the public, is about as much as I think we can expect of public health.

 

The 1% threshold was discussed this am on the news in the U.S. The states with the new outbreaks (Texas, the Carolinas, Florida, and a few others) all are above the 1.1% transmission rate in the areas with the outbreaks.

[SirBillybob]

To my way of thinking a spike generally represents an increase (worsening) in prevalence of active cases following a decrease (improvement). A continuous increase to the same endpoint as the apparent spike may be worse for morbidity and mortality but somehow a spike becomes more newsworthy. I think the narrative around a spike is one of greater import because it assumes behavioural error, prematurity, etc, and because losing something you gained may feel worse than no change in terms of loss or gain.

 

Easing confinement followed by either trend is difficult to interpret because it may have impeded a natural reduction or have spurred an increase that might not have otherwise occurred.

 

I do not know that there is consensus on definitional criteria of a spike. What seems to be described as a spike can be, it seems to me, either steady continuous worsening or two consecutive directional shifts on a graph (a visual draws the eye to the image of a spike).

 

What seems apparent for USA, in contrast to Canada for example, is a May 29th peak in active cases was followed by a steady decline by 5.9% to a trough about 6 days later, followed by a nullification of improvement about 9 days after that (as though steady state) and a current increase of 8.6% above the June 4th trough and 2.2% above the May 29th peak.

 

Call me crazy, but I think I would deem a spike in this context, while suspending temporality, as an equal degree rebound back from any drop point to the peak preceding it, followed by an increase equal to the breadth of the previous drop ... essentially 5.9% above the May 29th peak. As such, 69,000 more active cases compared to today. Suspending recovery tallies, that would occur in about 4 days, obviously longer depending on outcomes relative to incidence.

Edited June 18, 2020 by SirBIllybob

[RealAvalon]

The 1% threshold was discussed this am on the news in the U.S. The states with the new outbreaks (Texas, the Carolinas, Florida, and a few others) all are above the 1.1% transmission rate in the areas with the outbreaks.

That means exponential growth.

 

More concern about the Canada/USA border today with information on testing and increasing cases in Washington State.

 

Background: British Columbia and Washington State, same geography and climate, and similar economies. Washington State has about 1 1/2 times as many people as British Columbia. Vancouver and Seattle are almost the same population, with Seattle more sprawled development.

 

Since June 8, there have been almost 1,800 COVID-19 cases reported in Washington plus 56 deaths, compared to 50 cases in B.C. and one death.

 

Washington state is doing more testing for the virus than B.C. (about 450,000 to almost 170,000), so American health authorities are bound to find more cases. However, here is a worrisome fact: Washington test positives are coming back at 5.9 per cent of those tested, more than three times the infection rate in B.C. (currently about 1.7 per cent). You'd expect with wider testing, beyond the outbreak sites, that rates should have gone down NOT up.

 

And the higher testing levels do not explain a much grimmer statistical difference: as of last Sunday, more than 1,200 people had died from COVID-19 in Washington, compared to 167 in B.C.

 

American tourists have been found circumventing the border closure rules. They are saying that they are traveling through BC to get from the southern 48 states to get to Alaska. But they don't leave. And they don't comply with the 14 day quarantine rules for foreign travel. And they could be subject to fines and charges.

[former lurker]

That means exponential growth.

 

More concern about the Canada/USA border today with information on testing and increasing cases in Washington State.

 

Background: British Columbia and Washington State, same geography and climate, and similar economies. Washington State has about 1 1/2 times as many people as British Columbia. Vancouver and Seattle are almost the same population, with Seattle more sprawled development.

 

Since June 8, there have been almost 1,800 COVID-19 cases reported in Washington plus 56 deaths, compared to 50 cases in B.C. and one death.

 

Washington state is doing more testing for the virus than B.C. (about 450,000 to almost 170,000), so American health authorities are bound to find more cases. However, here is a worrisome fact: Washington test positives are coming back at 5.9 per cent of those tested, more than three times the infection rate in B.C. (currently about 1.7 per cent). You'd expect with wider testing, beyond the outbreak sites, that rates should have gone down NOT up.

 

And the higher testing levels do not explain a much grimmer statistical difference: as of last Sunday, more than 1,200 people had died from COVID-19 in Washington, compared to 167 in B.C.

 

American tourists have been found circumventing the border closure rules. They are saying that they are traveling through BC to get from the southern 48 states to get to Alaska. But they don't leave. And they don't comply with the 14 day quarantine rules for foreign travel. And they could be subject to fines and charges.

 

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.

[+ honcho]

In case anyone feels like panicking in the streets about the daily news reports that "Coronavirus cases are spiking":

 

Source: New York Times

 

I believe that graph is nationwide. A graph of % occupancy of hospitals and ICU's in Arizon and Texas might look a little different.

 

OK. So show us (the whole state, not just one hospital that happens to be near a nursing home). I prefer to see real data, rather than speculation of what might or might not be. I have seen inflammatory reports with reporters going to a single hospital. No broad data, though.

 

As Governor Newsome reminds us frequently: "Visit covid19.ca.gov". In particular, from the statewide page

(https://update.covid19.ca.gov/#top ) we have near the top:

 

California now has 161,099 confirmed cases of COVID-19, resulting in 5,290 deaths. The number of COVID-related deaths increased by 1.6 percent from Tuesday's total of 5,208.

 

California’s hospitalizations due to COVID-19 increased by 18 from Tuesday.

 

Further down on the page it has a graph of ICU state-wide occupancy for the past two weeks. It is an active page element and I can't figure out how to provide the URL for that, but it shows a local maximum on 5/31, and a secondary hump at 6/14 Occupancy today is about the same as it was on 5/2.

 

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.

 

As I stated in my earlier posting, I believe that ICU utilization is a fairer measure of prevalence given that the amount of testing is being increased.

 

Now, what data would you like to present to refute this and allay my concern?