OT: Corona virus

[USSAmerica]

ORIGINAL: Wuffer

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Unsure if posted already - well worth a read.

Also, I was impressed with the quality of the data viz - an example of charts done right

https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavi ... 9337092b56

The most thorough I've seen and the best at showing this through visuals. Thanks

+1

+2

[Wuffer]

ORIGINAL: ITAKLinus


On a side note.
We, Italians, we are the worst possible ambassadors of our country, because we always tend to give extremely negative impressions of it around the world when it comes to things like this emergency.
In reality, I think that the country is managing the emergency in a surprisingly efficient and organised way. Also, it looks like the population is respecting the quarantine quite well, all considered. Of course, we are far from the "chinese way", but I think that in western societies that would have been impossible. Finally, I think that even the Chinese have experienced many, many troubles in the logistics when they had to lockdown Hubei.
The biggest issue is probably the economy, since it's quite likely that the "nordic club" (Netherlands and Germany in primis) within the EU won't help us much (if at all).

My deepest condolence.
Let's hope it will chance now and even if it's only symbolic, like a few transfered patients.

It's not the time to go into details, but we could be sure that some... foreign provocateurs had their finest hour :-/ as well as greedy businessmen ;-(
Thank you for open words.
Best wishes for you, your family and Italia!!

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: ITAKLinus

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

That's another drop in daily mortality for Italy. Good news, if trending (but last week the numbers flattered only to deceive).

Mortality is a lagging indicator of the leading edge of the infection 'wave'. Those that die from this virus and its complications were infected some weeks ago. I too want to see the mortality drop off, but I'm more interested in the waning of 'new cases' to track the progression of the virus through a given population.

Also, I've been following Japan more closely. They've got one of the oldest populations on the planet and they've had comparatively few cases to date, in spite of widespread testing. As far as I'm concerned, they're the champs at social distancing and 'flattening the curve'-a model for others. I'd like to hear more about how they've successfully stemmed the tide so far.

Of course, they're an island. Relatively xenophobic culture. Social distancing is their normative behavior anyways. No PDAs or touchy-feely in public. Perhaps that's the key to all this.

There is a major flaw in this reasoning. It relies on a number, the new infections, that is not really reliable.
Deaths are much easier to count and are "certain" by definition (unless the population starts to massively hide dead bodies, something I find quite... unlikely).

Now, it's probable that the number of infected people is grossly underestimated and that it reflects more the capability of a system (region/city/country) to test its citizens. Basically, if I have 10.000 positive people per-day and I can do 3.000 tests, I will never ever be able to track/test all of the 10.000.

On the other side, deaths are very easy to track even if the information we receive is delayed.


I suppose another important indicator is the number of people who got accepted in intensive care units. Still, also there, there can be under-tracking due to the fact that some people don't reach the hospital etcetc. Also, since the number of ICUs is finite, we can have that the number represents more the capacity of the hospitals, rather than information about the spreading of the virus.



I'm a strong proponent of deaths as the most reliable information. Secondarily, people admitted to ICUs and hospitalized.

You raise some good points. But if you want to use deaths (post awareness) as the most reliable indicator of successful implementation of an interventional strategy then you again need to look at Japan as a best-case scenario.

Their first case was identified on January 21. Their total deaths attributed to COVID-19 stands, as of today, at 41, with 235 recovered. Granted, their histogram of new confirmed cases has increased over the last 30 days, but its still less than 100/day. I understand that their testing is not as widespread as, say, South Korea. So maybe the 'other shoe has yet to drop', but it's worth looking at their (intrinsic?) social distancing as a means of preventing BOTH initial cases as well as the inherent mortality associated with those cases. Could the much ballyhooed South Korean response have benefited similarly? It bears more discovery.

I also assume from your comments that you mean people admitted to ICUs and hospitalized that *also happened to have COVID-19* (read: confirmed cases of COVID-19)? Tracking raw seasonal ICU visits / hospitalizations without the rationale for why they were hospitalized assumes too much causality to COVID-19. You will also be left with data confounders such as other respiratory diseases, age of the population at large and accessibility of hospital beds / ICU visits.

It is tempting to follow mortality from COVID-19 cases as a tracking measure. It's always been harder to 'hide the bodies' than it is to hide/ignore/understate/not find/not look for confirmed disease cases. But I'm old enough to remember the stigma associated with the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s. Death certificates ('cause of death') were routinely restated to avoid the social stigma of having a loved one associated with dying from AIDS. As a result, 'official' causes of death of Pneumocyctis carinii or Kaposi's Sarcoma or Cryptosporidiosis or other atypical diseases common in terminally immunosuppressed AIDS patients dramatically increased.

My father died from idiopathic chronic interstitial pulmonary fibrosis in 2017. He had a gradual decrease over about 5 years in his ability to breathe and oxygenate. His lungs effectively were scar tissue with insufficient lung function. "Idiopathic" means 'uncertain etiology/cause'. We worried a lot about him during a typical seasonal flu for the years he was sick, as any little respiratory ailment would have thrown him over the edge. He died from a massive heart attack. Had he instead picked up a fatal pneumococcus bacterial pneumonia or seasonal influenza or COVID-19, what should his death certificate had read? I believe that, in spite of his history of his disease (that disease is incurable and only goes 'one way') had he died in hospital today and be tested positive for COVID-19, that that's what would be on his death certificate. Unless there was a social stigma associated with it, in which cause of death verity may have come through.

I was reading about a man in Thailand that died in hospital with COVID-19. He was only in his 50s. Of course, he was originally in the hospital for Dengue. But I guess that got subsumed in the mortality reporting. We'd have never heard about his death unless he tested positive for COVID-19. And, by its mere presence, it became the presumptive cause of death.

So I believe that too many cases of co-morbidity are being wrapped into "COVID-19 mortality". Parsing out the details and sticking to some global system for ascribing official causality is far too cumbersome to already overworked hospital staff. At least with an RT-PCR test result, you have >95% chance of a "real" test result (positives are positives and negatives are negative). I don't think the same verity in the details is in the reported mortality for COVID-19.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

Its expected that Boris will announce much stricter rules tonight. I hope he doesn't go so far as the Belgians - although at least they are trying to be sensible about it. It's only non-essential threesomes that are a problem. Phew.... that's a relief.

Aye. But what it *you* are the non-essential member of that threesome?

[MakeeLearn]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

Its expected that Boris will announce much stricter rules tonight. I hope he doesn't go so far as the Belgians - although at least they are trying to be sensible about it. It's only non-essential threesomes that are a problem. Phew.... that's a relief.

Aye. But what it *you* are the non-essential member of that threesome?

Change positions.

[Sammy5IsAlive]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


I also assume from your comments that you mean people admitted to ICUs and hospitalized that *also happened to have COVID-19* (read: confirmed cases of COVID-19)? Tracking raw seasonal ICU visits / hospitalizations without the rationale for why they were hospitalized assumes too much causality to COVID-19. You will also be left with data confounders such as other respiratory diseases, age of the population at large and accessibility of hospital beds / ICU visits.

It is tempting to follow mortality from COVID-19 cases as a tracking measure. It's always been harder to 'hide the bodies' than it is to hide/ignore/understate/not find/not look for confirmed disease cases. But I'm old enough to remember the stigma associated with the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s. Death certificates ('cause of death') were routinely restated to avoid the social stigma of having a loved one associated with dying from AIDS. As a result, 'official' causes of death of Pneumocyctis carinii or Kaposi's Sarcoma or Cryptosporidiosis or other atypical diseases common in terminally immunosuppressed AIDS patients dramatically increased.

My father died from idiopathic chronic interstitial pulmonary fibrosis in 2017. He had a gradual decrease over about 5 years in his ability to breathe and oxygenate. His lungs effectively were scar tissue with insufficient lung function. "Idiopathic" means 'uncertain etiology/cause'. We worried a lot about him during a typical seasonal flu for the years he was sick, as any little respiratory ailment would have thrown him over the edge. He died from a massive heart attack. Had he instead picked up a fatal pneumococcus bacterial pneumonia or seasonal influenza or COVID-19, what should his death certificate had read? I believe that, in spite of his history of his disease (that disease is incurable and only goes 'one way') had he died in hospital today and be tested positive for COVID-19, that that's what would be on his death certificate. Unless there was a social stigma associated with it, in which cause of death verity may have come through.

I was reading about a man in Thailand that died in hospital with COVID-19. He was only in his 50s. Of course, he was originally in the hospital for Dengue. But I guess that got subsumed in the mortality reporting. We'd have never heard about his death unless he tested positive for COVID-19. And, by its mere presence, it became the presumptive cause of death.

So I believe that too many cases of co-morbidity are being wrapped into "COVID-19 mortality". Parsing out the details and sticking to some global system for ascribing official causality is far too cumbersome to already overworked hospital staff. At least with an RT-PCR test result, you have >95% chance of a "real" test result (positives are positives and negatives are negative). I don't think the same verity in the details is in the reported mortality for COVID-19.

I was reading this morning something along these lines - that the Italians are essentially categorising every death where the deceased has tested positive for CV19 as a 'Coronavirus death'. Other countries (I think an example was Germany but can't be sure from memory) are taking a higher threshold and only counting a death towards the statistic when they believe that the CV19 infection was the primary cause of death.

Unfortunately because every media outlet has a hour by hour flood of Coronavirus articles I can't find the article to link - I am 99% sure it was in the UK Guardian. It might even have been on here and I am repeating somebody else's post [&:]

[Canoerebel]

Yahoo News is carrying an article about a "Nobel Laureate from Stanford" who correctly estimated the extent of the outbreak in China and is optimistic about how things will turn out elsewhere.

The beginning of the article is excerpted, below. Here's the link: https://news.yahoo.com/why-nobel-laurea ... 18391.html

[Sammy5IsAlive]

The John Hopkins site is definitely behaving a bit odd - all of the US cases have disappeared from their lists and they currently seem to have assigned all of France's deaths and recoveries to French Polynesia.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

Its expected that Boris will announce much stricter rules tonight. I hope he doesn't go so far as the Belgians - although at least they are trying to be sensible about it. It's only non-essential threesomes that are a problem. Phew.... that's a relief.

Aye. But what it *you* are the non-essential member of that threesome?

warspite1

Well allow me if you will, the following, of course, purely hypothetical situation. The threesome involves a dashing, witty, bon viveur and international lover (lets call him mr w1), and two dark haired impossibly pretty young ladies (lets go with miss B and miss c - I can't possibly imagine who they may be referring to, can you?). I put it to you that in such a scenario, there really is at no point a non-essential member (fnarr, fnarr) so to speak.

I would make so bold as to venture that the above scenario is essential in all and every scenario - indoors, outdoors, wherever - and indeed should be compulsory. So with the greatest respect Ms Health Minister I don't believe a ban would apply here.

[Canoerebel]

...another excerpt. The Stanford guy finds useful the same statistic portrayed in the chart posted yesterday that drew sharp criticism from a couple of gents.

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

Its expected that Boris will announce much stricter rules tonight. I hope he doesn't go so far as the Belgians - although at least they are trying to be sensible about it. It's only non-essential threesomes that are a problem. Phew.... that's a relief.

Aye. But what it *you* are the non-essential member of that threesome?

warspite1

Well allow me if you will, the following, of course, purely hypothetical situation. The threesome involves a dashing, witty, bon viveur and international lover (lets call him mr w1), and two dark haired impossibly pretty young ladies (lets go with miss B and miss c - I can't possibly imagine who they may be referring to, can you?). I put it to you that in such a scenario, there really is at no point a non-essential member (fnarr, fnarr) so to speak.

I would make so bold as to venture that the above scenario is essential in all and every scenario - indoors, outdoors, wherever - and indeed should be compulsory. So with the greatest respect Ms Health Minister I don't believe a ban would apply here.

I feel compelled to point out that 'miss B' is in fact, 'mrs B'. Which is not to say that I object to adultery, but 'mr B' might.
There are many other single and available young women who would happily partake in such an arrangement (see the AB thread).

[Canoerebel]

A third and final excerpt.

It's interesting to see the occasional positive report. I heard the Italy news (2nd consecutive day, etc.) on national radio today. So a trickle of positive reports. A week ago, there was a post the positive news might begin appearing "in a week or so." Nothing definitive taking place yet, but glimmers of hope, here and there.

I talked to a prominent businessman in Atlanta today. He was audibly shocked to hear some encouraging tidbits, as we've touched on in here. He said the news in Atlanta is 100% negative and panicky. I've heard similar reports from 20-somethings fixated on social media.

If Italy has indeed turned, we're seeing the light at the end of a still-long tunnel.

[durnedwolf]

ORIGINAL: ITAKLinus

Today's data:

+3.780 infections
+602 deaths
+408 cured

Hi ITAKLinus,

I wonder if some of this is living-style? Here in America, it's rare to have more than a nucleus family (parents and kids) living in the same household. Does Italy still have multi-generations (like maybe grandparents, parents, and kids) as kind of the norm within their household?

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

A third and final excerpt.

It's interesting to see the occasional positive report. I heard the Italy news (2nd consecutive day, etc.) on national radio today. So a trickle of positive reports. A week ago, there was a post the positive news might begin appearing "in a week or so." Nothing definitive taking place yet, but glimmers of hope, here and there.

It talked to a prominent businessman in Atlanta today. He was audibly shocked to hear some encouraging tidbits, as we've touched on in here. He said the news in Atlanta is 100% negative and panicky. I've heard similar reports from 20-somethings fixated on social media.

It Italy has indeed turned, we're seeing the light at the end of a still long tunnel.

I get that you're on the optimism train and going and full speed, but take care.

Wishful thinking undermines the massive seriousness of the situation.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: ITAKLinus

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

That's another drop in daily mortality for Italy. Good news, if trending (but last week the numbers flattered only to deceive).

Mortality is a lagging indicator of the leading edge of the infection 'wave'. Those that die from this virus and its complications were infected some weeks ago. I too want to see the mortality drop off, but I'm more interested in the waning of 'new cases' to track the progression of the virus through a given population.

Also, I've been following Japan more closely. They've got one of the oldest populations on the planet and they've had comparatively few cases to date, in spite of widespread testing. As far as I'm concerned, they're the champs at social distancing and 'flattening the curve'-a model for others. I'd like to hear more about how they've successfully stemmed the tide so far.

Of course, they're an island. Relatively xenophobic culture. Social distancing is their normative behavior anyways. No PDAs or touchy-feely in public. Perhaps that's the key to all this.

There is a major flaw in this reasoning. It relies on a number, the new infections, that is not really reliable.

Deaths are much easier to count and are "certain" by definition (unless the population starts to massively hide dead bodies, something I find quite... unlikely).

Now, it's probable that the number of infected people is grossly underestimated and that it reflects more the capability of a system (region/city/country) to test its citizens. Basically, if I have 10.000 positive people per-day and I can do 3.000 tests, I will never ever be able to track/test all of the 10.000.

On the other side, deaths are very easy to track even if the information we receive is delayed.

I suppose another important indicator is the number of people who got accepted in intensive care units.

I'm a strong proponent of deaths as the most reliable information. Secondarily, people admitted to ICUs and hospitalized.

warspite1

But it could be that deaths are unreliable too? I've no idea if this is true but there is talk of the way the Germans are dealing with deaths and whether they count as coronavirus victims. I would love to know more on this as, whichever way one tries to rationalise it, Germany's deaths and intensive care/critical numbers just seem totally at odds with the likes of Italy or Spain.

[Canoerebel]

MindMessing, I'm not on any "train." These are mostly my thoughts, but it is encouraging to see that there are others. And this thing will end eventually, and the news will too. When is the question.

Not very open-minded to characterize my analysis as "wishful thinking," any more than it would be for me to call yours "irrational hysteria" (I wouldn't, because I don't think that.)

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive

The John Hopkins site is definitely behaving a bit odd - all of the US cases have disappeared from their lists and they currently seem to have assigned all of France's deaths and recoveries to French Polynesia.

Hackers sow chaos wherever they find a chink ...

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: durnedwolf

ORIGINAL: ITAKLinus

Today's data:

+3.780 infections
+602 deaths
+408 cured

Hi ITAKLinus,

I wonder if some of this is living-style? Here in America, it's rare to have more than a nucleus family (parents and kids) living in the same household. Does Italy still have multi-generations (like maybe grandparents, parents, and kids) as kind of the norm within their household?

Yes, Italy has a lot of extended family situations, especially in the northern areas and smaller towns and villages. Spain apparently also has this custom (or so someone posted recently).

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: ITAKLinus

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy




Mortality is a lagging indicator of the leading edge of the infection 'wave'. Those that die from this virus and its complications were infected some weeks ago. I too want to see the mortality drop off, but I'm more interested in the waning of 'new cases' to track the progression of the virus through a given population.

Also, I've been following Japan more closely. They've got one of the oldest populations on the planet and they've had comparatively few cases to date, in spite of widespread testing. As far as I'm concerned, they're the champs at social distancing and 'flattening the curve'-a model for others. I'd like to hear more about how they've successfully stemmed the tide so far.

Of course, they're an island. Relatively xenophobic culture. Social distancing is their normative behavior anyways. No PDAs or touchy-feely in public. Perhaps that's the key to all this.

There is a major flaw in this reasoning. It relies on a number, the new infections, that is not really reliable.

Deaths are much easier to count and are "certain" by definition (unless the population starts to massively hide dead bodies, something I find quite... unlikely).

Now, it's probable that the number of infected people is grossly underestimated and that it reflects more the capability of a system (region/city/country) to test its citizens. Basically, if I have 10.000 positive people per-day and I can do 3.000 tests, I will never ever be able to track/test all of the 10.000.

On the other side, deaths are very easy to track even if the information we receive is delayed.

I suppose another important indicator is the number of people who got accepted in intensive care units.

I'm a strong proponent of deaths as the most reliable information. Secondarily, people admitted to ICUs and hospitalized.

warspite1

But it could be that deaths are unreliable too? I've no idea if this is true but there is talk of the way the Germans are dealing with deaths and whether they count as coronavirus victims. I would love to know more on this as, whichever way one tries to rationalise it, Germany's deaths and intensive care/critical numbers just seem totally at odds with the likes of Italy or Spain.

Similar to how the Germans and Allies counted 'wounded' differently in WWII.

[Canoerebel]

Still, though, mortality would seem to be the most useful statistic, as long as the counting method doesn't change mid-stream. If Germany consistently approaches deaths via A, and Italy B, and UK C, but those methods are consistent, the data will be useful.