Coronavirus COVID-19

[kalm]

The article mentions that.

I am talking about something different.

Ok...is weird?

[SeattleGriz]

Hmm. I seem to remember a certain someone mentioning weeks ago the financial incentive for listing a death as COVID and the subsequent skewing of data.

[Winterborn]

I am talking about something different.

Ok...is weird?

Nope and valid question.

Actually it is pretty simple. Each sate/area needs to go through its own "initial phase" and due to less travel happening that varies from area to area. States that were not affected in the first wave, are now going through their own first wave. Normally treating the U.S. as a homogeneous landmass works with how Americans travel, but due to the government locking things down, that is no longer the case.

Herd immunity is being achieved despite the best efforts of the government, it is just going to vary from area to area.While some spots flare up in areas that have already have gone through Covid, it is not as bad as the initial round. Areas that are hot now, are areas that never had it bad back in April/May. Some areas have had a slow simmer (the Midwest comes to mind) instead of a spike but that is due to "flattening the curve" actions.

Overall the trend seems like that you can either let it go intentionally (Sweden and others) or through incompetence (New York) or have a slow and steady influx of positive tests (flattening the curve) due to restrictions. Every area is on a different timeline so to speak, due to the conditions in that area (population, government actions, travel, etc.). The media reports it as "waves" but in reality it is one wave happening in different areas due to outside conditions.

[HI54UNI]

Florida - down > 70%
Texas - Down More than 50%
California - Down Almost 50%
Georgia - Down > 40%
Arizona - Down > 80%
Louisiana - Down 75%

Honestly, at this point, why is ANY state in lockdown? If we’re going to allow Marches on Washington...If we’re going to make exceptions so all the Hollywood stars can attend the VMA’s...if we’re going to make exceptions so that famous people (or black criminals) can have great big hairy funerals...if we’re going to condone/incite protests and riots every night in every major city....why in the flying fuck is ANY business shut down or limiting their capacity at this point?

Because we’re still learning. It’s good that numbers are plateauing in many places but that doesnt mean we’re out of the woods. South Korea is seeing a new significant spike and Nevada is on fire.

Then there’s Iowa where they just had a 75% positive test rate and 2600 new cases over a 24 hour period.

https://www.thegazette.com/subject/news ... s-20200828

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.desmoi ... 5646260002

Rollercoaster will continue.

Agree on the hypocrisy of gatherings.

The article says, "Johnson County, home to the University of Iowa in Iowa City, reported 247 new cases Friday, its second highest 24-hour total behind Thursday’s 338. Friday’s positivity rate was 55.5 percent, an increase from Thursday’s 47.6 percent."

This is where using percentages is deceptive. Compare the Thursday and Friday percentage to their actual case numbers. More cases on Thursday but Thursday had a lower percentage because they tested more people. But people just see the percentage numbers and freak out. Plus 131,000 people live in Johnson County. So they tested about 710 people on Thursday and 445 people on Friday. So they tested a half percent of the population on Thursday and 3/10 of 1 percent on Friday. 4/10 of 1 percent of the total population tested positive on those 2 days.

And there is a mask mandate in Johnson County so how can we be having these spikes?

[Gil Dobie]

In the last month, Minnesota active cases has gone up 33%

[AZGrizFan]

In the last month, Minnesota active cases has gone up 33%

7-day moving average of new cases up from 712 to 801. a little more than 12%.

[SeattleGriz]

In the last month, Minnesota active cases has gone up 33%

What is the ratio of active cases per tested and what methodology was used? If you don't include those, your statement doesn't mean much.

[Gil Dobie]

In the last month, Minnesota active cases has gone up 33%

What is the ratio of active cases per tested and what methodology was used? If you don't include those, your statement doesn't mean much.

The total number of active cases compared to the total number of active cases from 2 different dates.

[Gil Dobie]

In the last month, Minnesota active cases has gone up 33%

7-day moving average of new cases up from 712 to 801. a little more than 12%.

you are comparing all cases over 7 days. Not active cases from a month.

[SeattleGriz]

What is the ratio of active cases per tested and what methodology was used? If you don't include those, your statement doesn't mean much.

The total number of active cases compared to the total number of active cases from 2 different dates.

Exactly.

Let's say on day 1, you test 100 people and 10 test positive for active cases. That's 10%.

On day 2, you test 300 people and 30 test positive for active cases. That's 10% as well, but the increase in active cases is 200%. The active infection rate didn't change, simply the amount of testing.

You saying a 33% increase means nothing without context. It's simply fear mongering.

[kalm]

Hmm. I seem to remember a certain someone mentioning weeks ago the financial incentive for listing a death as COVID and the subsequent skewing of data.

Very misleading.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... eeted/amp/

[SeattleGriz]

Hmm. I seem to remember a certain someone mentioning weeks ago the financial incentive for listing a death as COVID and the subsequent skewing of data.

Very misleading.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... eeted/amp/

It's only misleading to those who don't understand comorbidities. It's no worse than quoting positives without context, except this included context.

I also mentioned comorbidities earlier as well.

There is also the BIG issue of the testing being used. Using a test that is not designed for diagnostic testing.

[kalm]

Very misleading.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... eeted/amp/

It's only misleading to those who don't understand comorbidities. It's no worse than quoting positives without context, except this included context.

I also mentioned comorbidities earlier as well.

There is also the BIG issue of the testing being used. Using a test that is not designed for diagnostic testing.

What’s not to understand?

They had prexisting conditions before Covid or...they were developed while being infected as the article points out.

What killed him? Covid?

Nah...he died of respiratory distress syndrome while in the hospital.

Oh...but he would have eventually died, right?

We all do Larry at some point...could be years down the road. But this wasn’t Covid.

Btw...the original Q post failed to mention that context.

[Gil Dobie]

The total number of active cases compared to the total number of active cases from 2 different dates.

Exactly.

Let's say on day 1, you test 100 people and 10 test positive for active cases. That's 10%.

On day 2, you test 300 people and 30 test positive for active cases. That's 10% as well, but the increase in active cases is 200%. The active infection rate didn't change, simply the amount of testing.

You saying a 33% increase means nothing without context. It's simply fear mongering.

It's just simple daily stats, no fear mongering. It's what other people make of the stats. You can't go by testing either, my daughter had been tested twice for work, both negative. I haven't seen anyone include multiple test in their statistics.

[SeattleGriz]

It's only misleading to those who don't understand comorbidities. It's no worse than quoting positives without context, except this included context.

I also mentioned comorbidities earlier as well.

There is also the BIG issue of the testing being used. Using a test that is not designed for diagnostic testing.

What’s not to understand?

They had prexisting conditions before Covid or...they were developed while being infected as the article points out.

What killed him? Covid?

Nah...he died of respiratory distress syndrome while in the hospital.

Oh...but he would have eventually died, right?

We all do Larry at some point...could be years down the road. But this wasn’t Covid.

Btw...the original Q post failed to mention that context.

This post right here shows you need to stay out of the COVID discussion. The context is in the statement.

It's saying that if you are healthy, you have a very slim chance of dying from COVID.

Why do you think I mentioned previously that I would worry more about those with high blood pressure or diabetes?

COVID obviously makes certain conditions worse.

The CDC (Q) statement:

Table 3 shows the types of health conditions and contributing causes mentioned in conjunction with deaths involving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death

[SeattleGriz]

Exactly.

Let's say on day 1, you test 100 people and 10 test positive for active cases. That's 10%.

On day 2, you test 300 people and 30 test positive for active cases. That's 10% as well, but the increase in active cases is 200%. The active infection rate didn't change, simply the amount of testing.

You saying a 33% increase means nothing without context. It's simply fear mongering.

It's just simple daily stats, no fear mongering. It's what other people make of the stats. You can't go by testing either, my daughter had been tested twice for work, both negative. I haven't seen anyone include multiple test in their statistics.

The problem is nobody can make anything of the stat without knowing the average active case rate.

How are you going to know if the value is derived from more testing or if there is an actual increase in the percentage of active cases?

It's a meaningless stat. So as said, it's used for fear mongering.

[kalm]

What’s not to understand?

They had prexisting conditions before Covid or...they were developed while being infected as the article points out.

What killed him? Covid?

Nah...he died of respiratory distress syndrome while in the hospital.

Oh...but he would have eventually died, right?

We all do Larry at some point...could be years down the road. But this wasn’t Covid.

Btw...the original Q post failed to mention that context.

This post right here shows you need to stay out of the COVID discussion. The context is in the statement.

It's saying that if you are healthy, you have a very slim chance of dying from COVID.

Why do you think I mentioned previously that I would worry more about those with high blood pressure or diabetes?

COVID obviously makes certain conditions worse.

The CDC (Q) statement:

Table 3 shows the types of health conditions and contributing causes mentioned in conjunction with deaths involving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death

Taken out of context to confirm the Covid - is no big deal - mindset.

Of course Covid is more dangerous with pre-existing conditions.

Read the Forbes article for more information.

[UNI88]

What’s not to understand?

They had prexisting conditions before Covid or...they were developed while being infected as the article points out.

What killed him? Covid?

Nah...he died of respiratory distress syndrome while in the hospital.

Oh...but he would have eventually died, right?

We all do Larry at some point...could be years down the road. But this wasn’t Covid.

Btw...the original Q post failed to mention that context.

This post right here shows you need to stay out of the COVID discussion. The context is in the statement.

It's saying that if you are healthy, you have a very slim chance of dying from COVID.

Why do you think I mentioned previously that I would worry more about those with high blood pressure or diabetes?

COVID obviously makes certain conditions worse.

The CDC (Q) statement:

Table 3 shows the types of health conditions and contributing causes mentioned in conjunction with deaths involving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death

I wouldn't argue with the bolded points.

Does the tweet (or the study) distinguish between additional conditions that were pre-existing and those that were new? If COVID caused respiratory distress or something else that was listed as an additional condition and there were no pre-existing conditions then it is misleading to lump them all together and try to make it aooear that a death was to an unhealthy person.

[Winterborn]

I wouldn't argue with the bolded points.

Does the tweet (or the study) distinguish between additional conditions that were pre-existing and those that were new? If COVID caused respiratory distress or something else that was listed as an additional condition and there were no pre-existing conditions then it is misleading to lump them all together and try to make it aooear that a death was to an unhealthy person.

Interesting word choice. Do you have a definition?

[UNI88]

I wouldn't argue with the bolded points.

Does the tweet (or the study) distinguish between additional conditions that were pre-existing and those that were new? If COVID caused respiratory distress or something else that was listed as an additional condition and there were no pre-existing conditions then it is misleading to lump them all together and try to make it aooear that a death was to an unhealthy person.

Interesting word choice. Do you have a definition?

Oops - appear

[Winterborn]

Interesting word choice. Do you have a definition?

Oops - appear

There goes my new word of the day. Way to kill my Monday, 88........

[UNI88]

Oops - appear

There goes my new word of the day. Way to kill my Monday, 88........

We can make it a sniglet.

[Winterborn]

There goes my new word of the day. Way to kill my Monday, 88........

We can make it a sniglet.

And just like that, my Monday is looking better.

[Gil Dobie]

It's just simple daily stats, no fear mongering. It's what other people make of the stats. You can't go by testing either, my daughter had been tested twice for work, both negative. I haven't seen anyone include multiple test in their statistics.

The problem is nobody can make anything of the stat without knowing the average active case rate.

How are you going to know if the value is derived from more testing or if there is an actual increase in the percentage of active cases?

It's a meaningless stat. So as said, it's used for fear mongering.

There is no way to be more accurate than comparing actual counts. Number of test included in any calculation is meaningless unless you add in the number of people tested, being many people being test 2-3 times or more. If a person is tested 3 times and is positive once, does that count as 1 out of 3 people tested are positive? The average person on the street is not being tested unless they have symptoms or were near a person that tested positive. The other test are job related, and even that is based on being in the same area as a positive test. There are 10x more people recovered tested cases in Minnesota, than we have active tested cases. Each recovered person may have been tested twice.

[UNI88]

We can make it a sniglet.

And just like that, my Monday is looking better.

Good! We wouldn't want you to feel like a zerblot.