OT: Corona virus

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Lowpe, agreed that every number is suspect; and lots of variability between how jurisdictions report. Until we have a better source, Worldometers and Univ. of Wash. seem credible and have been used here from the start (or since first available, in the case of U. Wash.). If jurisdictions report differently, there is at least utility if each one is consistent in its own reporting.

Ah, I had said this some time back and it was waved away. Nice to see that you've realized this at last.

I doubt we'll see anything resembling standard reporting on this for a while yet, seeing the time taken to get things in operation for death certificate reporting. Even that suffers the classification problem, as I suspect there will not be one set way of determining a death related to Covid.

[Canoerebel]

I've said that all along, so try again.

[Canoerebel]

[:)]

ORIGINAL: durnedwolf

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Re: durnedwold: Yeah, the media is wonky...but they're mostly an educated wonky. At least, that's the case for the major newspapers/stations. Their issues don't arise from a lack of intelligence. [:)]

And I would just point out that an upper education does not necessarily provide evidence of an active and engaged mind. [;)]

[Canoerebel]

Major decline in reported deaths for UK today - 315. If that's the final tally, that's the lowest since March 29.

[obvert]

Sweden has become an interest of mine as we look for examples of easing measures and opening businesses. They have never closed most of them, and remain in a stable, if growing, position in relation to cases. The growth is slow, the percentage positive in testing is moderately high (~16), but mortality is not higher than many countries who have had much more strict lockdowns.

Interesting article on how and why this works in Sweden, but might not elsewhere.

Sweden's Deputy Prime Minister, Isabella Lovin, told the BBC's Andrew Marr on Sunday "it's a great myth that Sweden hasn't really taken very serious steps" to limit the spread of the virus.

"Every country needs to take its own measures according to its traditions and its systems of governance," Lovin said, a nod to the fact that Sweden's public health agency runs independently, so politicians never get to make decisions about Swedish health.

"It's a real fear that if you have too harsh measures, then they can't be sustained over time, and you can get a counter-reaction, and people would not respect the voluntary recommendations that will need to be respected for a very long time."

The economy has also taken a hit. The Swedish Public Employment Service said on April 20 that 8% of the country is now unemployed, a figure that's projected to continue to rise, possibly hitting 10% by this summer.

"This is not a strategy that has come without any impact on our economy, or on people's freedom," Lovin told the BBC. "We have more than 90,000 people who have been unemployed during these four or five weeks."

Trust in the public is high, and so is the public’s trust in the strategy. Swedes seem happy with the global attention. “Many countries are starting to come around to the Swedish way,” Anders Tegnell, the country’s chief epidemiologist, told USA Today.

But like so many stories of national exceptionalism in this crisis — the U.K. at one point was convinced it could avoid strict closures, painting them as unscientific, before eventually doing a U-turn — this one is debatable and premature.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

The news media picked up on the negative projections for the South and predicted the region would suffer disproportionately. Naturally, some forumites picked up on that. As weeks passed and data came in indicating this wasn't true, the forumites asked for "more time" to receive data. When a week passed, and then another, and then two more, the data continued to show it wasn't the South suffering disproportionately. Actually it was the North. The media (and concerned forumites) haven't addressed this. The misreporting simply faded into the past, unacknowledged. No effort to self-critique, clarify or contextualize.

What data shows that the South is not suffering disproportionately?

The statistic of real value in my mind would be the comparison of excess deaths for the month versus the past five year average. Anyone know where we can see that for the US (preferably broken down by state level, but smaller would be better)?

I have been looking for something like that number for a long time. The best I can come up with is the CDC has the US at 101, 115 and 119 (weekly number) percent above the prior three years average for a 3 week period before dropping back down to less than 100%. And for the year to date we are still under 99% of expected deaths. Data published May 1st.

Here is the data from FT on many countries including the US.

https://www.ft.com/content/6bd88b7d-338 ... 5c6fac846c

[obvert]

This is for cities.

[obvert]

The testing sorted by percentage. Again the UK drops a few percentage points and goes closer to the 10% line at 15.5%.

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: obvert


Here is the data from FT on many countries including the US.

https://www.ft.com/content/6bd88b7d-338 ... 5c6fac846c

I read that article when it initially came out...the jist of the article is that covid deaths could be under reported by as much as 60%.

I have serious questions about the validity of the numbers and presentation.

The horizontal plotting points are unclear. The x plane varies by country. We are comparing some short interval (week) to a four year average (what kind of average?), but at no point are we shown what the range of a standard deviation is for that average.

The small print below each graph is not enlightening.

Now don't get me wrong, I would be fairly surprised to see a lower death count, especially in the years comprising the average. Go back to 2008-2009, well, not so much. However, the excess deaths could as easily be coming from other sources.

Here is another very problematical analysis of numbers but with far different conclusions. It is by a Chartered Financial Advisor.

https://www.linkedin.com/content-guest/ ... cordle-cfa

[sPzAbt653]

The residents of Wuhan were also not allowed to leave the city without permission from the authorities. ... An estimated 300,000 people were reported to have left Wuhan by train alone before the 10 am lockdown.

Either a contradiction, or the authorities gave permission to the 300,000 [:(]

What they [the Chinese] did was campaign to NOT shut down international fights from elsewhere in China even though they knew perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands had already fled Wuhan.

Ah, ok that makes sense. Plus, for what it's worth, the US never 'banned' flights from China, Italy, nor anywhere else. The US asked international flyers to voluntarily self-quarantine. So, indeed China has some responsibility in spreading this thing around the globe, but the US also did nothing to prevent it until March when random businesses were closed and many states asked folks to stay at home [until ? ...].

[Lowpe]

Here we have another area where understanding how the numbers are counted is important...in Virginia.

That means if one person is tested three-times and all three tests come back positive, it counts as three instead of how the numbers were being counted before, which would have only been one because it was a single patient.

https://www.nbc12.com/2020/05/01/virgin ... d-testing/

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

the US never 'banned' flights from China, Italy, nor anywhere else. The US asked international flyers to voluntarily self-quarantine. So, indeed China has some responsibility in spreading this thing around the globe, but the US also did nothing to prevent it until March when random businesses were closed and many states asked folks to stay at home [until ? ...].

It did far more than ask flyers to voluntarily self quarantine. Read it for yourself.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential ... ronavirus/

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: obvert


Here is the data from FT on many countries including the US.

https://www.ft.com/content/6bd88b7d-338 ... 5c6fac846c

I read that article when it initially came out...the jist of the article is that covid deaths could be under reported by as much as 60%.

I have serious questions about the validity of the numbers and presentation.

The horizontal plotting points are unclear. The x plane varies by country. We are comparing some short interval (week) to a four year average (what kind of average?), but at no point are we shown what the range of a standard deviation is for that average.

The small print below each graph is not enlightening.

Now don't get me wrong, I would be fairly surprised to see a lower death count, especially in the years comprising the average. Go back to 2008-2009, well, not so much. However, the excess deaths could as easily be coming from other sources.

Here is another very problematical analysis of numbers but with far different conclusions. It is by a Chartered Financial Advisor.

https://www.linkedin.com/content-guest/ ... cordle-cfa

From what he says this is predictive, not analytical. He says "by our estimates there will be ..."

[obvert]

I looked around the map. The thing I'm most worried about in the US are these smaller outbreaks that look to be getting quite severe in many, many places. I'm looking at numbers of cases per capita, and the known cases in some areas are quite surprising. These are mostly rural counties.

With what we now hear form so many sources about 50 to 85 times the known cases being the actual number out there, these counties must be doing a lot of testing per capita but are possibly approaching herd immunity ranges. Anyone know anything about what's going on in Trousdale County, TN?

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: obvert


Here is the data from FT on many countries including the US.

https://www.ft.com/content/6bd88b7d-338 ... 5c6fac846c

I read that article when it initially came out...the jist of the article is that covid deaths could be under reported by as much as 60%.

I have serious questions about the validity of the numbers and presentation.

The horizontal plotting points are unclear. The x plane varies by country. We are comparing some short interval (week) to a four year average (what kind of average?), but at no point are we shown what the range of a standard deviation is for that average.

The small print below each graph is not enlightening.

Now don't get me wrong, I would be fairly surprised to see a lower death count, especially in the years comprising the average. Go back to 2008-2009, well, not so much. However, the excess deaths could as easily be coming from other sources.

Here is another very problematical analysis of numbers but with far different conclusions. It is by a Chartered Financial Advisor.

https://www.linkedin.com/content-guest/ ... cordle-cfa

From what he says this is predictive, not analytical. He says "by our estimates there will be ..."

My point being don't trust numbers when you can't understand how they are derived.

[Lowpe]

Trousdale is a prison. Prisons have super high infection rates, some approaching 95%. I posted a link about it several pages back, but they have exceptionally few cases requiring hospital care.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Trousdale is a prison. Prisons have super high infection rates, some approaching 95%. I posted a link about it several pages back, but they have exceptionally few cases requiring hospital care.

Makes sense. Big prison. Small population outside it.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: Lowpe



I read that article when it initially came out...the jist of the article is that covid deaths could be under reported by as much as 60%.

I have serious questions about the validity of the numbers and presentation.

The horizontal plotting points are unclear. The x plane varies by country. We are comparing some short interval (week) to a four year average (what kind of average?), but at no point are we shown what the range of a standard deviation is for that average.

The small print below each graph is not enlightening.

Now don't get me wrong, I would be fairly surprised to see a lower death count, especially in the years comprising the average. Go back to 2008-2009, well, not so much. However, the excess deaths could as easily be coming from other sources.

Here is another very problematical analysis of numbers but with far different conclusions. It is by a Chartered Financial Advisor.

https://www.linkedin.com/content-guest/ ... cordle-cfa

From what he says this is predictive, not analytical. He says "by our estimates there will be ..."

My point being don't trust numbers when you can't understand how they are derived.

The flu chart you posted earlier made me just wonder if Coronavirus was in NY a lot earlier than know, especially considering the subsequent outbreak.

We know all of this recently though is with distancing measures and closures in place, and they reduced the flu to nothing and have brought numbers of Covid cases down significantly in the NYC Met area.

The numbers of deaths are not accurate now, and probably will take a long time to figure out, but that isn't really that consequential either. We know this is some bad stuff, and unchecked it'll cause a lot more damage.

Now, we've got to figure out how best to open and get some jobs back to people.

[Nomad]

Blaine County, Idaho is where Sun Valley is. Lots of tourist traffic in the Winter, fairly small population supporting it.

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: obvert




From what he says this is predictive, not analytical. He says "by our estimates there will be ..."

My point being don't trust numbers when you can't understand how they are derived.

The flu chart you posted earlier made me just wonder if Coronavirus was in NY a lot earlier than know, especially considering the subsequent outbreak.

We know all of this recently though is with distancing measures and closures in place, and they reduced the flu to nothing and have brought numbers of Covid cases down significantly in the NYC Met area.

The numbers of deaths are not accurate now, and probably will take a long time to figure out, but that isn't really that consequential either. We know this is some bad stuff, and unchecked it'll cause a lot more damage.

Now, we've got to figure out how best to open and get some jobs back to people.

Here is what the CDC tells us about a H1N1 virus of 2009 (10 years later):

In the spring of 2009, a novel influenza A (H1N1) virus emerged. It was detected first in the United States and spread quickly across the United States and the world. This new H1N1 virus contained a unique combination of influenza genes not previously identified in animals or people. This virus was designated as influenza A (H1N1)pdm09 virus. From April 12, 2009 to April 10, 2010, CDC estimated that there were 60.8 million cases (range: 43.3-89.3 million), 274,304 hospitalizations (195,086-402,719), and 12,469 deaths (8,868-18,306) in the United States due to the (H1N1)pdm09 virus.* external icon

In addition the CDC estimates that from 2009 to 2018 H1N1 caused 75,000 deaths and 1,000,000 hospitalizations.

My point being if we can't have hard and fast numbers for a disease 10 years in the past, how in the world are we getting hard and fast numbers now?

In fact the influenza deaths each year is a math formula estimate.

My cynical view is that the economic lockdown is so ruinous, that our governments will make sure the numbers reported are bad enough to justify it.