Coronavirus Outbreak...

[shunyadragon]

I didn't say New York.

The main example was New York, and if you read the article other cities are described, New York is where the best data is that demonstrates that it is demonstrations did not contribute to the spread of COVID-19, but nonetheless there is a lot of evidence and tracking that by far the majority of the cases spread in groups inside pubs, bars, churches, prisons, parties, meetings, conventions and other gathering inside buildings where masks are not worn and social distancing does not take place, and then the infected goes home and COVID-19 spreads..

[oxmixmudd]

The biggest problem with the counting of cases is that we don't know how many of these people would have tested positive three months ago. All we have are these "big" numbers. They have no indication of how many people will become ill. I showed numbers on Dallas County where a newstory was done about the increased cases. Yet, the deaths in that county were less than flu deaths -- as counted over 90 days of the 6 month season.

Don't go by the case numbers. It is the number of deaths (when counted properly) that are important for determining whether there is a problem or not.

It doesnt matter mike. People get tested who have symptoms, it's the same as it was in march in that regard, except now more people are coming up positive than ever before. And that means more deaths, over 3% excepting a change in the age distribution of the positive cases. Those people and many more will need ICU care, of which there is limited supply. If we overrun the medical system, then many of those that would survive if they got hospital care will die, driving mortality up. Not to mention more patients means tired or sick doctors and nurses, adding to the existing strain on the system.

[mikewhitney]

It doesnt matter mike. People get tested who have symptoms, it's the same as it was in march in that regard, except now more people are coming up positive than ever before. And that means more deaths, over 3% excepting a change in the age distribution of the positive cases. Those people and many more will need ICU care, of which there is limited supply. If we overrun the medical system, then many of those that would survive if they got hospital care will die, driving mortality up. Not to mention more patients means tired or sick doctors and nurses, adding to the existing strain on the system.

Not to worry. The hospitals after 3months still are not being overcrowded. The case counts are unscientific in every fashion and thus are useless.
If you want to remain scared or if you want to have an excuse not to go to work, then use the scary numbers. If you want to live based on normal flu statistics, we can have our open economy again (except that unemployed people may still be dying at greater rates than the coronavirus caused).

Checkout the thread for Dallas County on Jul 22: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...514#post753514

[oxmixmudd]

Not to worry. The hospitals after 3months still are not being overcrowded. The case counts are unscientific in every fashion and thus are useless.
If you want to remain scared or if you want to have an excuse not to go to work, then use the scary numbers. If you want to live based on normal flu statistics, we can have our open economy again (except that unemployed people may still be dying at greater rates than the coronavirus caused).

Checkout the thread for Dallas County on Jul 22: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...514#post753514

you remind me of John Martin. Oh well.

[mikewhitney]

you remind me of John Martin. Oh well.

I have no idea what you are talking about. But I do await some defense how you expect a supernatural jump in the rate of deaths per day when places have continued (whether in quarantine or not) at steady death rates (but lower than the flu death rate). You are the one who has to explain how a sudden great increase can happen here. You have to explain why you don't use normal rate-of-death calculations of deaths per 10,000 or deaths per million people over a year. You have to explain why deaths were not high in Dallas County before people went into quarantine and soon afterward -- since lots of people would have had the virus by then. (They would not have known to stay isolated.)

It seems you will have to create a new scientific field to justify such crazy numbers. Here is the Dallas County death chart again.
DallasCountyDeathsUptoJune26.jpg

[oxmixmudd]

I have no idea what you are talking about. But I do await some defense how you expect a supernatural jump in the rate of deaths per day when places have continued (whether in quarantine or not) at steady death rates (but lower than the flu death rate). You are the one who has to explain how a sudden great increase can happen here. You have to explain why you don't use normal rate-of-death calculations of deaths per 10,000 or deaths per million people over a year. You have to explain why deaths were not high in Dallas County before people went into quarantine and soon afterward -- since lots of people would have had the virus by then. (They would not have known to stay isolated.)

It seems you will have to create a new scientific field to justify such crazy numbers. Here is the Dallas County death chart again.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]46057[/ATTACH]

I have explained it. You are not understanding what mortality as it is applied to disease pathology means. Mortality is the ratio of deaths to total cases, not total population. If a town has 50,000 people and 5000 get sick and 500 die, the mortality for that disease in that town is 10%, not 1%. Until you grasp that simple distinction and why 10% is the correct value you will be forever wrong in your assessments of what is happening.

[carpedm9587]

I have explained it. You are not understanding what mortality as it is applied to disease pathology means. Mortality is the ratio of deaths to total cases, not total population. If a town has 50,000 people and 5000 get sick and 500 die, the mortality for that disease in that town is 10%, not 1%. Until you grasp that simple distinction and why 10% is the correct value you will be forever wrong in your assessments of what is happening.

Well...maybe a bit over simplistic. There are a LOT of different measurements of death rate. What you are calling "mortality" is actually called the "death-to-case ratio." The mortality or death rate or crude death rate is actually measured against population. Then there is the cause-specific morality rate. The CDC has a good summary here. Ultimately, as long as you are talking about the same numbers, what it is called is probably not as important. But any claim that the flu has a higher mortality rate than SARS Coronavirus 2 ignores a GREAT deal of information.

[mikewhitney]

Well...maybe a bit over simplistic. There are a LOT of different measurements of death rate. What you are calling "mortality" is actually called the "death-to-case ratio." The mortality or death rate or crude death rate is actually measured against population. Then there is the cause-specific morality rate. The CDC has a good summary here. Ultimately, as long as you are talking about the same numbers, what it is called is probably not as important. But any claim that the flu has a higher mortality rate than SARS Coronavirus 2 ignores a GREAT deal of information.

What numbers do your calculations show for the percent of Dallas County Texans would die from flu in this period against the percent that are dying from COVID-19 in this period?

[oxmixmudd]

Well...maybe a bit over simplistic. There are a LOT of different measurements of death rate. What you are calling "mortality" is actually called the "death-to-case ratio." The mortality or death rate or crude death rate is actually measured against population. Then there is the cause-specific morality rate. The CDC has a good summary here. Ultimately, as long as you are talking about the same numbers, what it is called is probably not as important. But any claim that the flu has a higher mortality rate than SARS Coronavirus 2 ignores a GREAT deal of information.

Mike needs it reduced to its simplest terms carpe.

[mikewhitney]

Mike needs it reduced to its simplest terms carpe.

I just want to see how he explains what you failed to figure out. Your numbers make it sound like coronavirus is killing more people (and will kill more people) than a bad (or double of bad) flu season. The problem is that the overall death rate has not been anywhere near what has been advertised in the media. Maybe carpe can explain the relation of number of coronavirus-ascribed deaths in Texas to the fear factor generated by the media.

[firstfloor]

The US is adopting a very different strategy to Europe, driven mostly by the need to keep economic activity going. To me, this is a reasonable strategy provided businesses are adopting sensible precautions against virus spread. Only in the long term, perhaps two years from now, will we know who had the better response.

[JimL]

The US is adopting a very different strategy to Europe, driven mostly by the need to keep economic activity going. To me, this is a reasonable strategy provided businesses are adopting sensible precautions against virus spread. Only in the long term, perhaps two years from now, will we know who had the better response.

Actually the US response under Trump has been all over the place. Denial, false messaging, failure to act, late response, lack of testing and tracing, shut down, open up, shut down again. Basically a failure of leadership at the top.

[carpedm9587]

I just want to see how he explains what you failed to figure out. Your numbers make it sound like coronavirus is killing more people (and will kill more people) than a bad (or double of bad) flu season. The problem is that the overall death rate has not been anywhere near what has been advertised in the media. Maybe carpe can explain the relation of number of coronavirus-ascribed deaths in Texas to the fear factor generated by the media.

I am coming in late to the discussion, so I have no idea what Texas data you are referring to. However, I will note that cherry picking one location that might have data that shows a lower coronavirus death rate so you can hold a position is disingenuous at best. The deaths ascribed to coronavirus globally and nationwide continue to show that this illness is more deadly than the worst flu season by far. Nationally, the worst year of the flu kills approximately 61,000 people over the 6-month flu season, and that is without the social isolating and mask usage that were put in place (imperfectly) for this disease.

So far, coronavirus has killed 128,243 people in the U.S. (as of this posting), and the disease was first detected in late January, so we are about five months in. Most epidemiologists are clear that they believe these numbers are an under-count, because they primarily include deaths of those confirmed to have had the virus. Most cities in the U.S. have seen a surge in EMT DOA calls that are believed to be directly due to this virus because it is the primary differentiation between this year and previous years.

And remember that these numbers are WITH a massive effort to social distance that has had significant implications for employment and our economy in general, something we do not see happen for the flu. Without those efforts, the numbers would have been significantly higher. Indeed, it looks like we're going to get a chance to see just how bad the numbers can get as the virus re-surges across most of the U.S.

[oxmixmudd]

I just want to see how he explains what you failed to figure out. Your numbers make it sound like coronavirus is killing more people (and will kill more people) than a bad (or double of bad) flu season. The problem is that the overall death rate has not been anywhere near what has been advertised in the media. Maybe carpe can explain the relation of number of coronavirus-ascribed deaths in Texas to the fear factor generated by the media.

128,000 > 2* 61,000

[Bill the Cat]

“You need to know the exact number of tests not the number of people who had tests,” Dr. Daniel Carey, Virginia Secretary of Health and Human Resources, told reporters.

As such, the Virginia Department of Health announced that it will begin counting the number of positive tests, not the number of people who test positive. So, if the same person is tested more than once and all of those tests come back positive, they will be added to the overall ‘positive’ test count, which makes for a major inaccuracy.