Coronavirus COVID-19

[Ibanez]

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.

Who said they had to be proportionate? You're thinking this is something that we can predict like the flu. OR something we understand like the flu. 514 new cases today doesn't necessarily = X deaths today. There are variables in place like the demographics, access to medicine, etc...

You don't think that 1,000 new cases in SC in the past 2 days (rough figure) will equal a death or two?

Death and Recovery are the outputs of New Cases. It's classic Cause and Effect.

[kalm]

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.

Go back a couple pages for context. I still love you.

[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.

Who said they had to be proportionate? You're thinking this is something that we can predict like the flu. OR something we understand like the flu. 514 new cases today doesn't necessarily = X deaths today. There are variables in place like the demographics, access to medicine, etc...

You don't think that 1,000 new cases in SC in the past 2 days (rough figure) will equal a death or two?

Death and Recovery are the outputs of New Cases. It's classic Cause and Effect.

Then why are you looking at daily case counts? By your own admission, they are not predictive, and they certainly are not capturing all new infections. So what's the point?

[kalm]

Who said they had to be proportionate? You're thinking this is something that we can predict like the flu. OR something we understand like the flu. 514 new cases today doesn't necessarily = X deaths today. There are variables in place like the demographics, access to medicine, etc...

You don't think that 1,000 new cases in SC in the past 2 days (rough figure) will equal a death or two?

Death and Recovery are the outputs of New Cases. It's classic Cause and Effect.

Then why are you looking at daily case counts? By your own admission, they are not predictive, and they certainly are not capturing all new infections. So what's the point?

You look at all numbers including rate of spread. It’s still at this point 10 times more deadly than the flu and it’s a bulk buyer. SARS 1 had a way higher death rate (15%) but only spread to 8100 people world wide.

As treatment continues to improve and testing and case counts increase the death rate should go down...hopefully to a more manageable level like the flu. But it’s rate of spread will still mean substantially more deaths. That’s what the wise guys who policy makers lean on are constantly looking at.

[Ibanez]

Who said they had to be proportionate? You're thinking this is something that we can predict like the flu. OR something we understand like the flu. 514 new cases today doesn't necessarily = X deaths today. There are variables in place like the demographics, access to medicine, etc...

You don't think that 1,000 new cases in SC in the past 2 days (rough figure) will equal a death or two?

Death and Recovery are the outputs of New Cases. It's classic Cause and Effect.

Then why are you looking at daily case counts? By your own admission, they are not predictive, and they certainly are not capturing all new infections. So what's the point?

I also said none of these numbers on their own mean anything. You have to look at the whole pictures. The inputs and outputs. The variables of demographics, ICU, beds used, treatments given.

Who cares if we had 50 less deaths today? If deaths are decreasing in relation to the new cases then that's something to examine. But to look at them on their own and say, " Look! This virus isn't that bad!" isn't taking the entire scope into context.


It's like saying, the Yankees are awesome because they won 50 games....and ignoring that there's 162 games in a season. Context, my brotha.

That's what I keep saying we need and you keep saying context doesn't matter.

[GannonFan]

Then why are you looking at daily case counts? By your own admission, they are not predictive, and they certainly are not capturing all new infections. So what's the point?

I also said none of these numbers on their own mean anything. You have to look at the whole pictures. The inputs and outputs. The variables of demographics, ICU, beds used, treatments given.

Who cares if we had 50 less deaths today? If deaths are decreasing in relation to the new cases then that's something to examine. But to look at them on their own and say, " Look! This virus isn't that bad!" isn't taking the entire scope into context.


It's like saying, the Yankees are awesome because they won 50 games....and ignoring that there's 162 games in a season. Context, my brotha.

That's what I keep saying we need and you keep saying context doesn't matter.

I think the point has been that we do need context and when we only report or only talk about the number of new cases, as even kalmie has done in this thread lately, it's being done in the absence of context as to whether the mortality rate is still constant or if it's dropped significantly over the past month. Since we're testing so many more people now, since we know there are significantly more asymptomatic folks than previously thought, and since we're doing a better job of isolating the at-risk populations (especially the elderly population that was so disproportionately impacted in the first wave), it's axiomatic that a rise in the number of infections is not as much as a cause of concern as it was in March, as we need to measure that number with the mortality rate going forward.

[CAA Flagship]

Then why are you looking at daily case counts? By your own admission, they are not predictive, and they certainly are not capturing all new infections. So what's the point?

I also said none of these numbers on their own mean anything. You have to look at the whole pictures. The inputs and outputs. The variables of demographics, ICU, beds used, treatments given.

Who cares if we had 50 less deaths today? If deaths are decreasing in relation to the new cases then that's something to examine. But to look at them on their own and say, " Look! This virus isn't that bad!" isn't taking the entire scope into context.


It's like saying, the Yankees are awesome because they won 50 games....and ignoring that there's 162 games in a season. Context, my brotha.

That's what I keep saying we need and you keep saying context doesn't matter.

I never said context doesn't matter. Where are you getting that from? Again, my first comment to a post about new cases was "how many tests?". And take a look at my very next post.

https://www.championshipsubdivision.com ... 2#p1317762

Go back and read the posts beginning with the one above. Not sure how you got so twisted up.

The bottom line is that "new cases" are nothing more than "confirmed cases". They are partial numbers based on viral spread and number of tests (assuming tests are accurate). Over time, the new cases number can be valuable but they are dependent on the number of tests. Are we there yet?

[kalm]

I also said none of these numbers on their own mean anything. You have to look at the whole pictures. The inputs and outputs. The variables of demographics, ICU, beds used, treatments given.

Who cares if we had 50 less deaths today? If deaths are decreasing in relation to the new cases then that's something to examine. But to look at them on their own and say, " Look! This virus isn't that bad!" isn't taking the entire scope into context.


It's like saying, the Yankees are awesome because they won 50 games....and ignoring that there's 162 games in a season. Context, my brotha.

That's what I keep saying we need and you keep saying context doesn't matter.

I think the point has been that we do need context and when we only report or only talk about the number of new cases, as even kalmie has done in this thread lately, it's being done in the absence of context as to whether the mortality rate is still constant or if it's dropped significantly over the past month. Since we're testing so many more people now, since we know there are significantly more asymptomatic folks than previously thought, and since we're doing a better job of isolating the at-risk populations (especially the elderly population that was so disproportionately impacted in the first wave), it's axiomatic that a rise in the number of infections is not as much as a cause of concern as it was in March, as we need to measure that number with the mortality rate going forward.

I’ve clarified the need to look at it all several times. Most of my responses have been when somebody wants to disregard infection rates and case counts. Forgive me for thinking their importance was self evident.

[CAA Flagship]

I think the point has been that we do need context and when we only report or only talk about the number of new cases, as even kalmie has done in this thread lately, it's being done in the absence of context as to whether the mortality rate is still constant or if it's dropped significantly over the past month. Since we're testing so many more people now, since we know there are significantly more asymptomatic folks than previously thought, and since we're doing a better job of isolating the at-risk populations (especially the elderly population that was so disproportionately impacted in the first wave), it's axiomatic that a rise in the number of infections is not as much as a cause of concern as it was in March, as we need to measure that number with the mortality rate going forward.

I’ve clarified the need to look at it all several times. Most of my responses have been when somebody wants to disregard infection rates and case counts. Forgive me for thinking their importance was self evident.

Oh FFS. How many real infections are there compared to the number of positive tests? Do you have that number? No, of course not. Nobody has that number. That number has to be estimated, and to do that, you have to know what the number of positive results are compared to the number of tests. Other assumptions must also be made but the number of tests are needed. There is no other way to do it.

[kalm]

I’ve clarified the need to look at it all several times. Most of my responses have been when somebody wants to disregard infection rates and case counts. Forgive me for thinking their importance was self evident.

Oh FFS. How many real infections are there compared to the number of positive tests? Do you have that number? No, of course not. Nobody has that number. That number has to be estimated, and to do that, you have to know what the number of positive results are compared to the number of tests. Other assumptions must also be made but the number of tests are needed. There is no other way to do it.

Huh? Who’s saying we don’t need as much testing as possible?

You run with the best evidence possible at the moment and continue to improve.

[Ibanez]

I also said none of these numbers on their own mean anything. You have to look at the whole pictures. The inputs and outputs. The variables of demographics, ICU, beds used, treatments given.

Who cares if we had 50 less deaths today? If deaths are decreasing in relation to the new cases then that's something to examine. But to look at them on their own and say, " Look! This virus isn't that bad!" isn't taking the entire scope into context.


It's like saying, the Yankees are awesome because they won 50 games....and ignoring that there's 162 games in a season. Context, my brotha.

That's what I keep saying we need and you keep saying context doesn't matter.

I never said context doesn't matter. Where are you getting that from? Again, my first comment to a post about new cases was "how many tests?". And take a look at my very next post.

https://www.championshipsubdivision.com ... 2#p1317762

Go back and read the posts beginning with the one above. Not sure how you got so twisted up.

The bottom line is that "new cases" are nothing more than "confirmed cases". They are partial numbers based on viral spread and number of tests (assuming tests are accurate). Over time, the new cases number can be valuable but they are dependent on the number of tests. Are we there yet?

Then why are you fighting me when I say look at all the numbers?

[CAA Flagship]

I never said context doesn't matter. Where are you getting that from? Again, my first comment to a post about new cases was "how many tests?". And take a look at my very next post.

https://www.championshipsubdivision.com ... 2#p1317762

Go back and read the posts beginning with the one above. Not sure how you got so twisted up.

The bottom line is that "new cases" are nothing more than "confirmed cases". They are partial numbers based on viral spread and number of tests (assuming tests are accurate). Over time, the new cases number can be valuable but they are dependent on the number of tests. Are we there yet?

Then why are you fighting me when I say look at all the numbers?

Because you have been mentioning rates as in "Infection rate" and "Death rate". They are all tied to a flawed number that is "Cases". The number of announced "cases" does not equal the total number of real infections. That is why throwing out the number of new cases (as Jelly did), by itself, is meaningless. This should not be hard to comprehend.

[Ibanez]

Then why are you fighting me when I say look at all the numbers?

Because you have been mentioning rates as in "Infection rate" and "Death rate". They are all tied to a flawed number that is "Cases". The number of announced "cases" does not equal the total number of real infections. That is why throwing out the number of new cases (as Jelly did), by itself, is meaningless. This should not be hard to comprehend.

I've been mentioning those rates because you're only focusing on the death rate.

CAA Flagship wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 3:01 pm
Ibanez wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 2:48 pm


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.

You're the one saying the number of infected people doesn't matter. Yet the number of deaths does.

I'm saying the # of deaths means nothing if you don't understand it in relation to how many were infected. This should not be hard to comprehend.

It took you 2 pages to clarify your problem - the number of new cases is flawed. I know you said it back there with about 693 words but that appears to the the crux of this disagreement. You see the #s as meaningless b/c they're "flawed."

[CAA Flagship]

Because you have been mentioning rates as in "Infection rate" and "Death rate". They are all tied to a flawed number that is "Cases". The number of announced "cases" does not equal the total number of real infections. That is why throwing out the number of new cases (as Jelly did), by itself, is meaningless. This should not be hard to comprehend.

I've been mentioning those rates because you're only focusing on the death rate.

CAA Flagship wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 3:01 pm
Ibanez wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 2:48 pm


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.

You're the one saying the number of infected people doesn't matter. Yet the number of deaths does.

I'm saying the # of deaths means nothing if you don't understand it in relation to how many were infected. This should not be hard to comprehend.

I never mentioned death rate. And I never said the number of infected people doesn't matter. I'm saying that we don't know the number of infected people. And "cases" is not the true number of infected people.

[Ibanez]

I've been mentioning those rates because you're only focusing on the death rate.


You're the one saying the number of infected people doesn't matter. Yet the number of deaths does.

I'm saying the # of deaths means nothing if you don't understand it in relation to how many were infected. This should not be hard to comprehend.

I never mentioned death rate. And I never said the number of infected people doesn't matter. I'm saying that we don't know the number of infected people. And "cases" is not the true number of infected people.

Maybe I misunderstood when you questioned why those numbers matter.

[CAA Flagship]

Most of my responses have been when somebody wants to disregard infection rates and case counts.

So what are the current infection rates? Tell me how you arrived at that number.

[CAA Flagship]

I never mentioned death rate. And I never said the number of infected people doesn't matter. I'm saying that we don't know the number of infected people. And "cases" is not the true number of infected people.

Maybe I misunderstood when you questioned why those numbers matter.

You must have. Between me and pwns and SDHornet, and even Gannon, we kept saying that the cases numbers, as announced, are nothing more than confirmed infections. They are likely, good hard numbers. But they are only a portion of the true number of infections. And the true number of infections are needed to help drive the death rate (assuming the deaths are close to accurate).

At this point, only antibody testing of people never included in the "new case" count can get us to the true infection number. But I'm sure, with more infection testing and looking at the rates of positive outcomes from those tests, the scientists can apply a reasonable multiplier to estimate the total number of infections, and thus the death rate.

[Ibanez]

Maybe I misunderstood when you questioned why those numbers matter.

You must have. Between me and pwns and SDHornet, and even Gannon, we kept saying that the cases numbers, as announced, are nothing more than confirmed infections. They are likely, good hard numbers. But they are only a portion of the true number of infections. And the true number of infections are needed to help drive the death rate (assuming the deaths are close to accurate).

At this point, only antibody testing of people never included in the "new case" count can get us to the true infection number. But I'm sure, with more infection testing and looking at the rates of positive outcomes from those tests, the scientists can apply a reasonable multiplier to estimate the total number of infections, and thus the death rate.

Has one here done antibody testing? I've been trying to get scheduled for 2 weeks now.

[Winterborn]

You must have. Between me and pwns and SDHornet, and even Gannon, we kept saying that the cases numbers, as announced, are nothing more than confirmed infections. They are likely, good hard numbers. But they are only a portion of the true number of infections. And the true number of infections are needed to help drive the death rate (assuming the deaths are close to accurate).

At this point, only antibody testing of people never included in the "new case" count can get us to the true infection number. But I'm sure, with more infection testing and looking at the rates of positive outcomes from those tests, the scientists can apply a reasonable multiplier to estimate the total number of infections, and thus the death rate.

Has one here done antibody testing? I've been trying to get scheduled for 2 weeks now.

A couple of my coworkers have, but it is on a case-by-case basis.

I have wanted to get tested as I am curious that with all my travel in Q4 and Q1 of this year, I had to be exposed.

[kalm]

Maybe I misunderstood when you questioned why those numbers matter.

You must have. Between me and pwns and SDHornet, and even Gannon, we kept saying that the cases numbers, as announced, are nothing more than confirmed infections. They are likely, good hard numbers. But they are only a portion of the true number of infections. And the true number of infections are needed to help drive the death rate (assuming the deaths are close to accurate).

At this point, only antibody testing of people never included in the "new case" count can get us to the true infection number. But I'm sure, with more infection testing and looking at the rates of positive outcomes from those tests, the scientists can apply a reasonable multiplier to estimate the total number of infections, and thus the death rate.

There’s the disconnect.

I agree...Infection rates ARE very low still in many places and as they increase through testing, yes, the death rate goes down.

That doesn’t mean the total deaths does and that’s what we’re seeing. IOW’s it can have a high infection rate, low death rate and still kill 10’s of millions and enough people in specific locations to further damage the economy regardless of re-opening due to perceived threat.

So it still comes down to number of deaths tolerance level vs economic hardship and related deaths. This is what you’re seeing in Sweden who’s economy has taken a bigger hit than its surrounding neighbors who locked down more. You can open it up but that still doesn’t mean the economy isn’t going to suffer.

The only work around’s are TTTQ (New Zealand has not had a new case in 3 weeks and is back to normal) which we seem to not have the culture, political geography, or discipline for and/or a successful vaccine.

BTW, not only is AZ in emergency hospital status (1st state) but India is running out of beds and South Africa is on fire as well.

Buckle up for the rollercoaster through at least the end of this year.

[Gil Dobie]

You must have. Between me and pwns and SDHornet, and even Gannon, we kept saying that the cases numbers, as announced, are nothing more than confirmed infections. They are likely, good hard numbers. But they are only a portion of the true number of infections. And the true number of infections are needed to help drive the death rate (assuming the deaths are close to accurate).

At this point, only antibody testing of people never included in the "new case" count can get us to the true infection number. But I'm sure, with more infection testing and looking at the rates of positive outcomes from those tests, the scientists can apply a reasonable multiplier to estimate the total number of infections, and thus the death rate.

There’s the disconnect.

I agree...Infection rates ARE very low still in many places and as they increase through testing, yes, the death rate goes down.

That doesn’t mean the total deaths does and that’s what we’re seeing. IOW’s it can have a high infection rate, low death rate and still kill 10’s of millions and enough people in specific locations to further damage the economy regardless of re-opening due to perceived threat.

So it still comes down to number of deaths tolerance level vs economic hardship and related deaths. This is what you’re seeing in Sweden who’s economy has taken a bigger hit than its surrounding neighbors who locked down more. You can open it up but that still doesn’t mean the economy isn’t going to suffer.

The only work around’s are TTTQ (New Zealand has not had a new case in 3 weeks and is back to normal) which we seem to not have the culture, political geography, or discipline for and/or a successful vaccine.

BTW, not only is AZ in emergency hospital status (1st state) but India is running out of beds and South Africa is on fire as well.

Buckle up for the rollercoaster through at least the end of this year.

Brazil may be the next country to have a million cases, 28,000+ today and over 1000 deaths.

[JohnStOnge]

You must have. Between me and pwns and SDHornet, and even Gannon, we kept saying that the cases numbers, as announced, are nothing more than confirmed infections. They are likely, good hard numbers. But they are only a portion of the true number of infections. And the true number of infections are needed to help drive the death rate (assuming the deaths are close to accurate).

At this point, only antibody testing of people never included in the "new case" count can get us to the true infection number. But I'm sure, with more infection testing and looking at the rates of positive outcomes from those tests, the scientists can apply a reasonable multiplier to estimate the total number of infections, and thus the death rate.

There’s the disconnect.

I agree...Infection rates ARE very low still in many places and as they increase through testing, yes, the death rate goes down.

That doesn’t mean the total deaths does and that’s what we’re seeing. IOW’s it can have a high infection rate, low death rate and still kill 10’s of millions and enough people in specific locations to further damage the economy regardless of re-opening due to perceived threat.

So it still comes down to number of deaths tolerance level vs economic hardship and related deaths. This is what you’re seeing in Sweden who’s economy has taken a bigger hit than its surrounding neighbors who locked down more. You can open it up but that still doesn’t mean the economy isn’t going to suffer.

The only work around’s are TTTQ (New Zealand has not had a new case in 3 weeks and is back to normal) which we seem to not have the culture, political geography, or discipline for and/or a successful vaccine.

BTW, not only is AZ in emergency hospital status (1st state) but India is running out of beds and South Africa is on fire as well.

Buckle up for the rollercoaster through at least the end of this year.

All indications are it has a higher death rate than influenza does. All indications is that it is more contagious than influenza is. All indications are that it is CERTAINLY going to result in more deaths in the United States than any pandemic has since 1918. It's a pretty good bet that it's going to do that in per capita terms as well (adjusting for population growth over time). I think the same thing can probably be said for any infectious disease since 1918 but can't confirm it.

The idea that this is overblown is just ridiculous at this point.

[BDKJMU]

There’s the disconnect.

I agree...Infection rates ARE very low still in many places and as they increase through testing, yes, the death rate goes down.

That doesn’t mean the total deaths does and that’s what we’re seeing. IOW’s it can have a high infection rate, low death rate and still kill 10’s of millions and enough people in specific locations to further damage the economy regardless of re-opening due to perceived threat.

So it still comes down to number of deaths tolerance level vs economic hardship and related deaths. This is what you’re seeing in Sweden who’s economy has taken a bigger hit than its surrounding neighbors who locked down more. You can open it up but that still doesn’t mean the economy isn’t going to suffer.

The only work around’s are TTTQ (New Zealand has not had a new case in 3 weeks and is back to normal) which we seem to not have the culture, political geography, or discipline for and/or a successful vaccine.

BTW, not only is AZ in emergency hospital status (1st state) but India is running out of beds and South Africa is on fire as well.

Buckle up for the rollercoaster through at least the end of this year.

All indications are it has a higher death rate than influenza does. All indications is that it is more contagious than influenza is. All indications are that it is CERTAINLY going to result in more deaths in the United States than any pandemic has since 1918. It's a pretty good bet that it's going to do that in per capita terms as well (adjusting for population growth over time). I think the same thing can probably be said for any infectious disease since 1918 but can't confirm it.

The idea that this is overblown is just ridiculous at this point.

I doubt it. To get to Hong Kong Flu per capita #s would have to hit about 165k estimated US deaths. To get to Asian Flu per capita #s would have to hit about 220k estimated deaths.

[Skjellyfetti]

I guess you're thinking this thing fizzles soon and there's no second wave in the fall/winter? Hope you're right.

[kalm]

I guess you're thinking this thing fizzles soon and there's no second wave in the fall/winter? Hope you're right.

Me too.