Page 26 of 53
RE: OT: Coronavirus 2, the No Politics Version
Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:59 am
by RangerJoe
ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth
Why should Montana with 19 counties reporting no Covid-19 cases have the same response as New York? UNITED states
The Health Departments are State and Local entities, are you going to do away with those and get a Federal one? What Federal one.? GLOBAL pandemic and the Federal Government has left the building and is not leading, has no national counting methodology and is making no countrywide initiatives to beat the virus.
Did you ever think that some of the results are because of the bureaucratic mindset?
Oh absolutely the are the result of one particular bureaucratic mindset. One particular mindset indeed. And that particulate mindset has put their head in sand and painted a false rosy picture in the hopes that the virus would go away. How is that working?
I don't know how that is working. I guess that you would have to go to places that don't even test.
The problem with
all of the test reporting that I see is the reference to positive and negative tests, there is nothing stating the number of people who have been tested and some people could have been tested multiple times. So until you are actually tracking the number of individuals who have and/or had Covid-19 and not just the number of tests done, you really don't have a clear picture of what is going on. Once you actually track the people and can rate the severity, then you can determine the risk factors for the severe reactions and have a proper medical response.
RE: OT: Coronavirus 2, the No Politics Version
Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2020 9:41 am
by Canoerebel
Georgia was not "CAUGHT" fudging numbers, as John D implies. It did make a mistake in tabulating numbers several months ago, readily acknowledged doing so, and corrected it.
So far as I know, most or all of the instances of other states supposedly "fudging" are similar.
There have been allegations of oddities the other way. In the previous thread, Lowpe and one other person noted that North Carolina and Virginia treat multiple tests of a single person with Covid as multiple "positives." Others have noted (there and in this thread) that states receive greater funding for each additional case, at least creating an incentive for higher reporting. I don't know if there is "fudging" in those instances, for the same reason I'm skeptical of most of the cases John D cites. I don't assume any malus (or fudging) there, either.
John, you're pretty partisan. You excuse and tout states with 10x morality while roasting those with 1/10th mortality. Yesterday, you posted a link and held it out to say something that it didn't say. And you're using obnoxious terms to refer to leaders that you disagree with.
When NY, NJ and other states (and countries) were getting crushed, there was essentially unanimous support for them and their leaders and their health departments. With one exception, members of this community did not demean any other country or state or its leaders. We understood that they were facing a novel, difficult and terrible crisis. There were many posts supporting John personally. But he (and some others) see things through partisan eyeglasses - to him, the Red States are mismanaging and fudging and so on.
They're still doing much better, and many of us (not all) agreed that remaining closed down indefinitely wasn't an option. So perhaps these states too will end up in similar situations as NY eventually. If so it'll mostly be because smart and caring people faced tough choices that didn't work out. Just like New York.
RE: OT: Coronavirus 2, the No Politics Version
Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:23 am
by Canoerebel
An illustration showing just how novel and surprising this was.
RE: OT: Coronavirus 2, the No Politics Version
Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2020 12:00 pm
by Canoerebel
In my county, the total deaths today (15) is the same as it was on May 26. No new deaths in more than a month. Ten people are hospitalized with the virus and we have two big hospitals here. Case numbers are rising but most appear to be mild or asymptomatic. It made sense to re-open things when it was done (back in late March), and it still does today.
Ditto my state. Case numbers are rising but mortality is steadily falling. It made sense to ease countermeasures when it was done and, to this point, the results have been good. Despite allegations to the contrary, there hasn't been any bad faith manipulation of numbers nor are stupid or evil people in charge.
Since Georgia isn't exceptional, I assume that similar circumstances led to similar decisions by similar people in other states. I haven't seen evidence that stupid or evil people are in charge anywhere. Surely there are some (the percentages would say so) but the misrepresentations here and in the media are extravagant. The hyper level of criticism and allegations of wrongdoing are unjustified.
RE: OT: Coronavirus 2, the No Politics Version
Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2020 12:09 pm
by RangerJoe
The only criticisms that I think are justified are the ones about sending Covid-19 patients to nursing homes and assisted living facilities, especially when those places were forced to take them. The ones that voluntarily took those patients and did not quarantine them properly should have a change in management. Maybe said management could become a guest of the county and/or state.
RE: OT: Coronavirus 2, the No Politics Version
Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2020 12:10 pm
by mind_messing
Georgia was not "CAUGHT" fudging numbers, as John D implies. It did make a mistake in tabulating numbers several months ago, readily acknowledged doing so, and corrected it.
See post #315
As of the time of posting this, viral and antibody tests are STILL being reported under the same total, despite being for clearly different purposes.
RE: OT: Coronavirus 2, the No Politics Version
Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2020 2:42 pm
by BBfanboy
ORIGINAL: mind_messing
Georgia was not "CAUGHT" fudging numbers, as John D implies. It did make a mistake in tabulating numbers several months ago, readily acknowledged doing so, and corrected it.
See post #315
As of the time of posting this, viral and antibody tests are STILL being reported under the same total, despite being for clearly different purposes.
Although US authorities are touting their large number of tests, the experts point out that they are still testing only people who already have symptoms or are known to have been in contact with infected individuals. To get a true picture of the situation you need to do far more
random sample testing to get a statistically valid rate of infection.
The antibody testing should be used as a measure of what happened
in the past, as the level of antibodies can indicate roughly when the person was infected. To the extent that the person is health enough to donate serum for immediate antibody therapy, that can be done too.
We also need to get some coordinated info on what is happening with people who are deemed "recovered" from the virus and not eligible for hospital care. We have conflicting info that "everyone is fine", "most people are fine", "most people have issues for a few weeks and then are fine", to "many people are having long term issues and even permanent organ damage". What is the true picture? We can't assess the true risk of the virus without knowing this part of the puzzle.
RE: OT: Coronavirus 2, the No Politics Version
Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2020 2:50 pm
by Canoerebel
Anybody that wants to get tested in Georgia can, so tests aren't limited to those who have symptoms or who have been in contact with positive cases. I'd be surprised if that wasn't the case elsewhere in the states.
RE: OT: Coronavirus 2, the No Politics Version
Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2020 2:51 pm
by BBfanboy
Canada is having issues with how to handle the migrant worker COVID cases. We need them for our agriculture work, but their employers keep them in bunkhouses which are cramped and crowded. They also get paid barely more than minimum wage - better than their home country would pay but not adequate to let them live off-farm to avoid the crowding. Then there is the issue of medical care; if they test positive for COVID19 they are sent back to their home country (mostly Mexico). I don't know how that is accomplished. All logic says they should be treated here rather than spread the virus between here and there.
All this stuff seems to be part of the lesson others have been preaching - if any group is not fully supported by their local community, the virus can make them a threat to their local community. Humanity for all humans seems to be the only real answer.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/l ... smsnnews11
RE: OT: Coronavirus 2, the No Politics Version
Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2020 3:00 pm
by Lokasenna
ORIGINAL: RangerJoe
ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
To BBfanboy: I doubt that's the case. I haven't heard anyone say anything like that. There are levels of responsibility and people defer to hierarchies, which are there for a reason, but to this point I've generally heard, "We'll help if needed and to the extent we can."
Signals are sent from the top. This fact is a key component of organizational psychology and culture. That's certainly as true of organizations like FEMA as it is for any other organization.
And what's the top doing? Cutting funding for testing and not taking it seriously, trying to wish it away or pretending it doesn't exist, and so on.
There has been no tangible federal response to COVID-19 that is worthy of mention. Please share what you've heard otherwise, as I'd be happy to be wrong... but aside from the CDC website I'm just not seeing it. The feds aren't physically doing anything of note.
What could they be doing? Certainly, for the most part states will have to manage on their own. But the feds
could contribute emergency/disaster resources and assets, like the Navy (belatedly) did for NYC with that hospital ship. The feds could've built up a stockpile of ICU/ventilator resources that could travel around the country to wherever the next hot spot is, such as Texas's situation right now, but they didn't. Those in charge seem to have purposefully made the "to the extent that we can" part of your synopsis mean "we can't help you because we don't have the capability."
To that end, where's the massive testing regime? There's no reason that the richest nation in the history of humanity couldn't have created a gigantic testing and contact tracing regime
at any point within the last 7 months if it had wanted to, with the resources coming from the federal level, that would have been able to be tapped into by the states as needed - and that would have us returning to a semblance of pre-COVID life sooner than whenever we're on track for now. Which is looking like "not until there's a vaccine."
California had a large stockpile of equipment but five million dollars per year was too much to maintain it. New York city had a stockpile, it disappeared before this time as well. Why should it be up to the Federal government?
I'd say that the examples you gave are a really good reason for why there should be resources at the federal level. Especially since the states you mentioned have constitutional mandates to have a balanced budget (which makes sense, since they can't control their own currency as they don't have one).
Anyway, what did they even have stockpiled?
RE: OT: Coronavirus 2, the No Politics Version
Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2020 3:03 pm
by Lokasenna
ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
Georgia was not "CAUGHT" fudging numbers, as John D implies. It did make a mistake in tabulating numbers several months ago, readily acknowledged doing so, and corrected it.
So far as I know, most or all of the instances of other states supposedly "fudging" are similar.
There have been allegations of oddities the other way. In the previous thread, Lowpe and one other person noted that North Carolina and Virginia treat multiple tests of a single person with Covid as multiple "positives." Others have noted (there and in this thread) that states receive greater funding for each additional case, at least creating an incentive for higher reporting. I don't know if there is "fudging" in those instances, for the same reason I'm skeptical of most of the cases John D cites. I don't assume any malus (or fudging) there, either.
John, you're pretty partisan. You excuse and tout states with 10x morality while roasting those with 1/10th mortality. Yesterday, you posted a link and held it out to say something that it didn't say. And you're using obnoxious terms to refer to leaders that you disagree with.
When NY, NJ and other states (and countries) were getting crushed, there was essentially unanimous support for them and their leaders and their health departments. With one exception, members of this community did not demean any other country or state or its leaders. We understood that they were facing a novel, difficult and terrible crisis. There were many posts supporting John personally. But he (and some others) see things through partisan eyeglasses - to him, the Red States are mismanaging and fudging and so on.
They're still doing much better, and many of us (not all) agreed that remaining closed down indefinitely wasn't an option. So perhaps these states too will end up in similar situations as NY eventually. If so it'll mostly be because smart and caring people faced tough choices that didn't work out. Just like New York.
So, they were caught having made a mistake. Semantics.
Here's a pic that singles out Georgia, along with a bunch of other states that aren't doing so hot (although this isn't adjusted for population size):
https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status ... 4413428738
ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
An illustration showing just how novel and surprising this was.
Haven't you (or at least other people around here) called out this particular instance of the WHO essentially engaging in BS artistry?
RE: OT: Coronavirus 2, the No Politics Version
Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2020 3:09 pm
by Lokasenna
Here's another state-by-state show of new cases that is adjusted for population.
https://twitter.com/DKThomp/status/1277306943007227904
RE: OT: Coronavirus 2, the No Politics Version
Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2020 3:34 pm
by Canoerebel
ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
....So, they were caught having made a mistake. Semantics.
...
Haven't you (or at least other people around here) called out this particular instance of the WHO essentially engaging in BS artistry?
1. We all know the difference between making a mistake, acknowledging it and correcting it, on the one hand, and "fudging" numbers (implying bad faith) on the other.
2. I don't understand your WHO comment/question.
RE: OT: Coronavirus 2, the No Politics Version
Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2020 4:17 pm
by BBfanboy
ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
....So, they were caught having made a mistake. Semantics.
...
Haven't you (or at least other people around here) called out this particular instance of the WHO essentially engaging in BS artistry?
1. We all know the difference between making a mistake, acknowledging it and correcting it, on the one hand, and "fudging" numbers (implying bad faith) on the other.
2. I don't understand your WHO comment/question.
At one point there were posts using the same graphic to pillory China and WHO as being disingenuous about the virus and deliberately suppressing the fact that it could spread person to person. Now you have used that same graphic to show that they were as mystified about the nature of the virus as we were. Same info, different interpretations.
RE: OT: Coronavirus 2, the No Politics Version
Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2020 4:31 pm
by Canoerebel
What I meant to convey is the level of uncertainty about what was going on. Across the nation. Across the political spectrum. A lot of bright and caring people (and a sprinkling of knaves and scoundrels) got it wrong, even while trying to balance the unknown against what seemed prudent.
I may not have conveyed that well. [:)]
RE: OT: Coronavirus 2, the No Politics Version
Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2020 4:35 pm
by Canoerebel
To Lokasenna's point, I've never posted negatively about China. I don't know what they knew when, so I never commented in the prior thread nor in this one (except to note on one occasion that if they did know and suppressed it that would in fact be shameful). That particular issue doesn't interest me, mainly because it's highly partisan and I don't have access to raw data that would allow me to form an independent, non-partisan opinion I would have confidence in.
RE: OT: Coronavirus 2, the No Politics Version
Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2020 4:38 pm
by Canoerebel
I wouldn't presume bad faith on the part of a Chinese official or agency, because I don't know anything about China. Others do and seem to have strong feelings, but my default is to not cast people in a bad light without specific, credible reasons for doing so. But I do know Americans pretty well.
RE: OT: Coronavirus 2, the No Politics Version
Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:30 pm
by Sammy5IsAlive
Politicians and Governments (at whatever level) are very rarely evil. I think that the vast majority are not stupid. Most try to act in what they see as the best interests of their 'constituents' (even if we might sometimes disagree significantly on the means by which that is achieved). But that doesn't mean that they are honest.
Looking at three examples from the UK:
1) For along time in our daily briefings from the government they were showing a slide comparing the UK with other European countries. It was frequently referred to as an example of how the UK response was performing well. When over time the UK overtook Italy/Spain/France the slide was discarded with and the political message changed to it being 'premature to draw country by country comparisions'
2) Our government set itself a target of performing 100k daily tests by a certain date. When it came towards that date the testing numbers shot up. It then became apparent that they were basing the numbers to a large extent on tests sent by post, many of which were faulty, many never returned.
3) The government's line is still that a 'protective ring' was placed around UK care homes. That is demonstrably false.
I don't dispute that the UK government has been trying to do it's best by the country. But the simple fact is that it is clear that they really dropped the ball. I would suggest that it is similarly clear that where possible they are trying to suppress that.
It's completely sensible to question the media and its motives as has been done at length in this thread and the previous one. But by the same measure it is completely naive to unquestioningly assume the honesty/probity of politicians, governments and the institutions under their control or influence (on both sides of the 'left/right' divide).
RE: OT: Coronavirus 2, the No Politics Version
Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:09 pm
by RangerJoe
ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
ORIGINAL: RangerJoe
ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
Signals are sent from the top. This fact is a key component of organizational psychology and culture. That's certainly as true of organizations like FEMA as it is for any other organization.
And what's the top doing? Cutting funding for testing and not taking it seriously, trying to wish it away or pretending it doesn't exist, and so on.
There has been no tangible federal response to COVID-19 that is worthy of mention. Please share what you've heard otherwise, as I'd be happy to be wrong... but aside from the CDC website I'm just not seeing it. The feds aren't physically doing anything of note.
What could they be doing? Certainly, for the most part states will have to manage on their own. But the feds could contribute emergency/disaster resources and assets, like the Navy (belatedly) did for NYC with that hospital ship. The feds could've built up a stockpile of ICU/ventilator resources that could travel around the country to wherever the next hot spot is, such as Texas's situation right now, but they didn't. Those in charge seem to have purposefully made the "to the extent that we can" part of your synopsis mean "we can't help you because we don't have the capability."
To that end, where's the massive testing regime? There's no reason that the richest nation in the history of humanity couldn't have created a gigantic testing and contact tracing regime at any point within the last 7 months if it had wanted to, with the resources coming from the federal level, that would have been able to be tapped into by the states as needed - and that would have us returning to a semblance of pre-COVID life sooner than whenever we're on track for now. Which is looking like "not until there's a vaccine."
California had a large stockpile of equipment but five million dollars per year was too much to maintain it. New York city had a stockpile, it disappeared before this time as well. Why should it be up to the Federal government?
I'd say that the examples you gave are a really good reason for why there should be resources at the federal level. Especially since the states you mentioned have constitutional mandates to have a balanced budget (which makes sense, since they can't control their own currency as they don't have one).
Anyway, what did they even have stockpiled?
They had ventilators, masks, and other equipment. I had posted on this previously. It would only have cost California five million US dollars per year to maintain the stockpile so don't tell me that California could not have afforded it. So why should the Federal government
control the resources when the state and local governments should have it so it can be immediately used if it is needed?
RE: OT: Coronavirus 2, the No Politics Version
Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:14 pm
by mind_messing
ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
....So, they were caught having made a mistake. Semantics.
...
Haven't you (or at least other people around here) called out this particular instance of the WHO essentially engaging in BS artistry?
1. We all know the difference between making a mistake, acknowledging it and correcting it, on the one hand, and "fudging" numbers (implying bad faith) on the other.
2. I don't understand your WHO comment/question.
CR, go look at Georgia's DPH webpage.
https://dph.georgia.gov/covid-19-daily-status-report
There it is, antibodies being reported as part of the total.
Now see point 7 in this report.
https://www.doh.gov.ph/sites/default/fi ... 0-0180.pdf
Now, Georgia DPH disaggregate the testing methods in their reporting, but if you think that they'll be reporting the disagg data rather than the headline, then I've some magic beans to sell you.
That, CR, is how you fudge the numbers.