Coronavirus COVID-19

[Ibanez]

The numbers either matter or they don't. They can't exist in a vacuum. If that's the case, then what the hell are we talking about here?!

Well, OK. Show me how they matter. Take a real number from the "new cases" data and show me how it matters to anything else.

I've already said it several times. Put the numbers in context. A virus that kills 10/2M tells me it's not as lethal as one that kills 10/1M.

And if the number of cases increases, yet the number of deaths don't then that further underscores how "benign" the virus really is.

[kalm]

The numbers either matter or they don't. They can't exist in a vacuum. If that's the case, then what the hell are we talking about here?!

Well, OK. Show me how they matter. Take a real number from the "new cases" data and show me how it matters to anything else.

So the death count would have been the same if no social distancing or treatment had occurred?

Ok

[CAA Flagship]

Well, OK. Show me how they matter. Take a real number from the "new cases" data and show me how it matters to anything else.

I've already said it several times. Put the numbers in context. A virus that kills 10/2M tells me it's not as lethal as one that kills 10/1M.

And if the number of cases increases, yet the number of deaths don't then that further underscores how "benign" the virus really is.

You are not using the numbers. You are just stating the formula and comparing the hypothetical results. Use the numbers so we can get to a resolution of this discussion.

With regard to your second sentence, that would discount the knowledge we now have on how to best treat patients, the drugs that are showing signs of effectiveness, the timing of treatment, etc.

[CAA Flagship]

Well, OK. Show me how they matter. Take a real number from the "new cases" data and show me how it matters to anything else.

So the death count would have been the same if no social distancing or treatment had occurred?

Ok

What?

[Ibanez]

I've already said it several times. Put the numbers in context. A virus that kills 10/2M tells me it's not as lethal as one that kills 10/1M.

And if the number of cases increases, yet the number of deaths don't then that further underscores how "benign" the virus really is.

You are not using the numbers. You are just stating the formula and comparing the hypothetical results. Use the numbers so we can get to a resolution of this discussion.

With regard to your second sentence, that would discount the knowledge we now have on how to best treat patients, the drugs that are showing signs of effectiveness, the timing of treatment, etc.

There are 110k deaths out of 1.9M total infections in the US. Separately, those numbers mean nothing. That's a 17K/474 increase since yesterday. Looking at the trends tells you more than those numbers on their own. Together, they tell a story. My point, which you're fighting me on, is that the 1.9M number doesn't mean anything. I disagree. Regardless of your view of on the virus, I think it does mean something.

[kalm]

So the death count would have been the same if no social distancing or treatment had occurred?

Ok

What?

You asked to be shown how the numbers matter. I gave you another example that was pretty clear I thought.

This discussion shows why engineers are some of the dumbest smart people around.

(I can say that...I have an engineer friend)

[CAA Flagship]

You are not using the numbers. You are just stating the formula and comparing the hypothetical results. Use the numbers so we can get to a resolution of this discussion.

With regard to your second sentence, that would discount the knowledge we now have on how to best treat patients, the drugs that are showing signs of effectiveness, the timing of treatment, etc.

There are 110k deaths out of 1.9M total infections in the US. Separately, those numbers mean nothing. That's a 17K/474 increase since yesterday. Looking at the trends tells you more than those numbers on their own. Together, they tell a story. My point, which you're fighting me on, is that the 1.9M number doesn't mean anything. I disagree. Regardless of your view of on the virus, I think it does mean something.

First of all, do you really believe there are only 1.9 million infections?

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

Second, take a look at the link. Scroll down to the Daily New Cases bar chart. Click on the 7 day moving average box.
Then scroll down to the Daily Deaths bar chart and click on the 7 day moving average box.
Now compare the trend lines. Note the Deaths are dropping faster than the Cases.

There are likely several reasons for this:
1. Under confirmation of cases early in the process
2. Better treatment methods and drugs
3. Better timing of treatment

I think #2 and #3 are indisputable. I would assume you would agree with that.
With regard to #1, I would think you would agree that many cases were not confirmed because of the testing issues. My point is, who is to say that we are capturing all of the cases today? The tests are better now, and there are more of them available, but that doesn't mean that we are capturing enough to provide an accurate analysis.

[Ibanez]

There are 110k deaths out of 1.9M total infections in the US. Separately, those numbers mean nothing. That's a 17K/474 increase since yesterday. Looking at the trends tells you more than those numbers on their own. Together, they tell a story. My point, which you're fighting me on, is that the 1.9M number doesn't mean anything. I disagree. Regardless of your view of on the virus, I think it does mean something.

First of all, do you really believe there are only 1.9 million infections?

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

Second, take a look at the link. Scroll down to the Daily New Cases bar chart. Click on the 7 day moving average box.
Then scroll down to the Daily Deaths bar chart and click on the 7 day moving average box.
Now compare the trend lines. Note the Deaths are dropping faster than the Cases.

There are likely several reasons for this:
1. Under confirmation of cases early in the process
2. Better treatment methods and drugs
3. Better timing of treatment

I think #2 and #3 are indisputable. I would assume you would agree with that.
With regard to #1, I would think you would agree that many cases were not confirmed because of the testing issues. My point is, who is to say that we are capturing all of the cases today? The tests are better now, and there are more of them available, but that doesn't mean that we are capturing enough to provide an accurate analysis.

No, I think there are more but I'm going by what is confirmed. I used the CDC site, they seem to be behind WorldoMeters.

I have no problem with the trend. I think that is what is tripping you all up. I'm merely stating that focusing on Death cases doesn't tell you the whole story. That new cases have a place in the discussion, even with a caveat or 2.

[CAA Flagship]

What?

You asked to be shown how the numbers matter. I gave you another example that was pretty clear I thought.

This discussion shows why engineers are some of the dumbest smart people around.

(I can say that...I have a few an engineer friend)

First, I have been saying all along here that deaths have been prevented from treatments.
Second, I never said anything about social distancing.

If patient #1 is isolated and never transmits the virus, there is absolutely no way to know how lethal the virus is, whether he lives or dies. So I don't know why you would bring up social distancing into this discussion of analyzing the New Case numbers.

[CAA Flagship]

First of all, do you really believe there are only 1.9 million infections?

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

Second, take a look at the link. Scroll down to the Daily New Cases bar chart. Click on the 7 day moving average box.
Then scroll down to the Daily Deaths bar chart and click on the 7 day moving average box.
Now compare the trend lines. Note the Deaths are dropping faster than the Cases.

There are likely several reasons for this:
1. Under confirmation of cases early in the process
2. Better treatment methods and drugs
3. Better timing of treatment

I think #2 and #3 are indisputable. I would assume you would agree with that.
With regard to #1, I would think you would agree that many cases were not confirmed because of the testing issues. My point is, who is to say that we are capturing all of the cases today? The tests are better now, and there are more of them available, but that doesn't mean that we are capturing enough to provide an accurate analysis.

No, I think there are more but I'm going by what is confirmed. I used the CDC site, they seem to be behind WorldoMeters.

I have no problem with the trend. I think that is what is tripping you all up. I'm merely stating that focusing on Death cases doesn't tell you the whole story. That new cases have a place in the discussion, even with a caveat or 2.

Caveat or 2?

If you tested twice as many people tomorrow than we did today, would the "New Cases" number be higher than if we tested the same number of people tomorrow? If you answer yes, then what good is the number if we don't test twice as many people tomorrow?

[Ibanez]

No, I think there are more but I'm going by what is confirmed. I used the CDC site, they seem to be behind WorldoMeters.

I have no problem with the trend. I think that is what is tripping you all up. I'm merely stating that focusing on Death cases doesn't tell you the whole story. That new cases have a place in the discussion, even with a caveat or 2.

Caveat or 2?

If you tested twice as many people tomorrow than we did today, would the "New Cases" number be higher than if we tested the same number of people tomorrow? If you answer yes, then what good is the number if we don't test twice as many people tomorrow?

I'm thinking something like if it's a new case but the person has been reinfected. New cases with pertinent info.

If cases go up but death counts don't that tells you something. This isn't a control study where every day for 2 months we test 100 people. It's real time analysis. We're use live ammo, here. You'll never get some perfect daily ratio. But that's not to say the numbers are meaningless.

[CAA Flagship]

Caveat or 2?

If you tested twice as many people tomorrow than we did today, would the "New Cases" number be higher than if we tested the same number of people tomorrow? If you answer yes, then what good is the number if we don't test twice as many people tomorrow?

I'm thinking something like if it's a new case but the person has been reinfected. New cases with pertinent info.

If cases go up but death counts don't that tells you something. This isn't a control study where every day for 2 months we test 100 people. It's real time analysis. We're use live ammo, here. You'll never get some perfect daily ratio. But that's not to say the numbers are meaningless.

Again, if you go back to where I first jumped in, I'm pretty sure my comment to a post about "New Cases" was something about "How may tests?". I'm not sure how you can analyze the New Cases without the number of tests. Not that the number of tests will shed all the light you need on the situation, but it is the only way, at this point in time, to glean anything from the New Case numbers.

[kalm]

You asked to be shown how the numbers matter. I gave you another example that was pretty clear I thought.

This discussion shows why engineers are some of the dumbest smart people around.

(I can say that...I have a few an engineer friend)

First, I have been saying all along here that deaths have been prevented from treatments.
Second, I never said anything about social distancing.

If patient #1 is isolated and never transmits the virus, there is absolutely no way to know how lethal the virus is, whether he lives or dies. So I don't know why you would bring up social distancing into this discussion of analyzing the New Case numbers.

You asked how death counts matter. They inform policy makers to take action like social distancing recommendations and treatment improvements. They will continue to. Some countries/states/counties/cities utilized them to prevent spread and additional deaths.

[SDHornet]

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/08/asympto ... ter%7Cmain

(SIAP)

[CAA Flagship]

First, I have been saying all along here that deaths have been prevented from treatments.
Second, I never said anything about social distancing.

If patient #1 is isolated and never transmits the virus, there is absolutely no way to know how lethal the virus is, whether he lives or dies. So I don't know why you would bring up social distancing into this discussion of analyzing the New Case numbers.

You asked how death counts matter. They inform policy makers to take action like social distancing recommendations and treatment improvements. They will continue to. Some countries/states/counties/cities utilized them to prevent spread and additional deaths.

When did I say that?

[∞∞∞]

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/08/asympto ... ter%7Cmain

(SIAP)

Why is that funny? That's some of the best (potential) news we've heard.

[kalm]

You asked how death counts matter. They inform policy makers to take action like social distancing recommendations and treatment improvements. They will continue to. Some countries/states/counties/cities utilized them to prevent spread and additional deaths.

When did I say that?

Ibanez wrote: ↑
CAA Flagship wrote: ↑

Forget about lethality. We are way past that. That number has always been a wild ass guess because we have never known a reasonable number to use for the number of infections. And now, patients are surviving from several drugs (Remdesivir that was approved and the ones that are showing success in the trials that have yet been completed).
The numbers either matter or they don't. They can't exist in a vacuum. If that's the case, then what the hell are we talking about here?!
Well, OK. Show me how they matter. Take a real number from the "new cases" data and show me how it matters to anything else.

[Baldy]

[kalm]

Why is that funny? That's some of the best (potential) news we've heard.

This might explain the containment in some places like Japan.

Potentially great news.

[CAA Flagship]

When did I say that?

Ibanez wrote: ↑
CAA Flagship wrote: ↑

Forget about lethality. We are way past that. That number has always been a wild ass guess because we have never known a reasonable number to use for the number of infections. And now, patients are surviving from several drugs (Remdesivir that was approved and the ones that are showing success in the trials that have yet been completed).
The numbers either matter or they don't. They can't exist in a vacuum. If that's the case, then what the hell are we talking about here?!
Well, OK. Show me how they matter. Take a real number from the "new cases" data and show me how it matters to anything else.

We were talking about New Case numbers. We weren't talking about death counts. Wake up and go to sleep.

[kalm]

Ibanez wrote: ↑
CAA Flagship wrote: ↑

Forget about lethality. We are way past that. That number has always been a wild ass guess because we have never known a reasonable number to use for the number of infections. And now, patients are surviving from several drugs (Remdesivir that was approved and the ones that are showing success in the trials that have yet been completed).
The numbers either matter or they don't. They can't exist in a vacuum. If that's the case, then what the hell are we talking about here?!
Well, OK. Show me how they matter. Take a real number from the "new cases" data and show me how it matters to anything else.

We were talking about New Case numbers. We weren't talking about death counts. Wake up and go to sleep.

I think that’s what you were missing. Ibanez was trying to explain that new case counts drive other numbers like death counts.

[CAA Flagship]

We were talking about New Case numbers. We weren't talking about death counts. Wake up and go to sleep.

I think that’s what you were missing. Ibanez was trying to explain that new case counts drive other numbers like death counts.

Not these case counts. That's the point. If you look at the trend line for new case counts, and the trend line for deaths, they are not tracking each other proportionally.

[kalm]

I think that’s what you were missing. Ibanez was trying to explain that new case counts drive other numbers like death counts.

Not these case counts. That's the point. If you look at the trend line for new case counts, and the trend line for deaths, they are not tracking each other proportionally.

They’re not supposed to (hopefully) because it was an overreaction/abundance of caution to a new disease that turns out not being as big a threat and/or mitigation and treatment measures were effective.

JFC!

[kalm]

Yikes. Arizona, caution flammable.

health director tells Arizona hospitals to 'fully activate' emergency plans
STEPHANIE INNES | ARIZONA REPUBLIC

As COVID-19 numbers in Arizona climbed last week, the state health director sent a letter to hospitals urging them to "fully activate" emergency plans.

Hospitals are also being asked to prepare for crisis care, and to suspend elective surgeries if they are experiencing a shortage of staff or bed capacity, Dr. Cara Christ, Arizona Department of Health Services director, says in the June 6 letter.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/lo ... 321075002/

[CAA Flagship]

Not these case counts. That's the point. If you look at the trend line for new case counts, and the trend line for deaths, they are not tracking each other proportionally.

They’re not supposed to (hopefully) because it was an overreaction/abundance of caution to a new disease that turns out not being as big a threat and/or mitigation and treatment measures were effective.

JFC!

You are hopeless.