Seattle Covid Response FTW

[kalm]

Oh look, CA testing (7-day avg) has fallen to near "pre-Thanksgiving Day" surge levels. Funny how the positivity rate follows the same curve as the tests issued curve.

Didn't some orange guy tell us not to test so much?

https://public.tableau.com/profile/ca.o ... Statistics

It’s killed 550,000 people even with loosely followed restrictions. Shouldn’t tests go down as new cases go down?

[SDHornet]

Oh look, CA testing (7-day avg) has fallen to near "pre-Thanksgiving Day" surge levels. Funny how the positivity rate follows the same curve as the tests issued curve.

Didn't some orange guy tell us not to test so much?

https://public.tableau.com/profile/ca.o ... Statistics

It’s killed 550,000 people even with loosely followed restrictions. Shouldn’t tests go down as new cases go down?

Data indicates otherwise. Wonder what the case load would look like had testing not decreased.

And how many people have died or had their lives ruined from other issues (alcoholism, depression, domestic violence, etc) related to the lockdowns?

[UNI88]

Oh look, CA testing (7-day avg) has fallen to near "pre-Thanksgiving Day" surge levels. Funny how the positivity rate follows the same curve as the tests issued curve.

Didn't some orange guy tell us not to test so much?

https://public.tableau.com/profile/ca.o ... Statistics

It’s killed 550,000 people even with loosely followed restrictions. Shouldn’t tests go down as new cases go down?

Is your response satire? I'm pretty sure SD is "asking" if new cases are going down because they're testing less (and the reporting guidelines changed).

Sitting here in my mushy middle, I believe that the virus is real and deadly and that we should be taking precautions. That doesn't however, mean that I don't wonder about:

1. The timing of the changes in reporting,
2. The timing of the easing of restriction when compared to the case counts and deaths. Things are better but not that much better than they were when greater restrictions were implemented.
3. Why the gap in deaths between the states that locked down vs those that didn't isn't significantly greater.

[SDHornet]

It’s killed 550,000 people even with loosely followed restrictions. Shouldn’t tests go down as new cases go down?

Is your response satire? I'm pretty sure SD is "asking" if new cases are going down because they're testing less (and the reporting guidelines changed).

Sitting here in my mushy middle, I believe that the virus is real and deadly and that we should be taking precautions. That doesn't however, mean that I don't wonder about:

1. The timing of the changes in reporting,
2. The timing of the easing of restriction when compared to the case counts and deaths. Things are better but not that much better than they were when greater restrictions were implemented.
3. Why the gap in deaths between the states that locked down vs those that didn't isn't significantly greater.

Exactly.

[kalm]

It’s killed 550,000 people even with loosely followed restrictions. Shouldn’t tests go down as new cases go down?

Is your response satire? I'm pretty sure SD is "asking" if new cases are going down because they're testing less (and the reporting guidelines changed).

Sitting here in my mushy middle, I believe that the virus is real and deadly and that we should be taking precautions. That doesn't however, mean that I don't wonder about:

1. The timing of the changes in reporting,
2. The timing of the easing of restriction when compared to the case counts and deaths. Things are better but not that much better than they were when greater restrictions were implemented.
3. Why the gap in deaths between the states that locked down vs those that didn't isn't significantly greater.

And hence my question. Shouldn’t demand for tests go down as cases go down? As they were predicted to go down? You’re going to get tested based on exposure, symptoms, or as a precaution when among larger groups (see sports and comedy shows). Is there evidence of state mandated reduction in testing?

The rest are fair questions. Possible answers:

Changes in reporting are inevitable as more is learned. Is there ever at really good time?

Easiest explanation is the backside of the curve and how steep the trend line is as well as environmental conditions and hospital preparedness.

We’ve talked about the gap often. Manipulated reporting (Cuomo is probably not the only one), climate, population density, culture, etc. no one has gone unscathed, but like the Seattle example suggests, if the country as a whole had adopted similar restrictions, we’d have no worse economic outcomes with 300,000 less deaths.

[SDHornet]

Is your response satire? I'm pretty sure SD is "asking" if new cases are going down because they're testing less (and the reporting guidelines changed).

Sitting here in my mushy middle, I believe that the virus is real and deadly and that we should be taking precautions. That doesn't however, mean that I don't wonder about:

1. The timing of the changes in reporting,
2. The timing of the easing of restriction when compared to the case counts and deaths. Things are better but not that much better than they were when greater restrictions were implemented.
3. Why the gap in deaths between the states that locked down vs those that didn't isn't significantly greater.

And hence my question. Shouldn’t demand for tests go down as cases go down? As they were predicted to go down? You’re going to get tested based on exposure, symptoms, or as a precaution when among larger groups (see sports and comedy shows). Is there evidence of state mandated reduction in testing?

The rest are fair questions. Possible answers:

Changes in reporting are inevitable as more is learned. Is there ever at really good time?

Easiest explanation is the backside of the curve and how steep the trend line is as well as environmental conditions and hospital preparedness.

We’ve talked about the gap often. Manipulated reporting (Cuomo is probably not the only one), climate, population density, culture, etc. no one has gone unscathed, but like the Seattle example suggests, if the country as a whole had adopted similar restrictions, we’d have no worse economic outcomes with 300,000 less deaths.

[UNI88]

Is your response satire? I'm pretty sure SD is "asking" if new cases are going down because they're testing less (and the reporting guidelines changed).

Sitting here in my mushy middle, I believe that the virus is real and deadly and that we should be taking precautions. That doesn't however, mean that I don't wonder about:

1. The timing of the changes in reporting,
2. The timing of the easing of restriction when compared to the case counts and deaths. Things are better but not that much better than they were when greater restrictions were implemented.
3. Why the gap in deaths between the states that locked down vs those that didn't isn't significantly greater.

And hence my question. Shouldn’t demand for tests go down as cases go down? As they were predicted to go down? You’re going to get tested based on exposure, symptoms, or as a precaution when among larger groups (see sports and comedy shows). Is there evidence of state mandated reduction in testing?

The rest are fair questions. Possible answers:

Changes in reporting are inevitable as more is learned. Is there ever at really good time?

Easiest explanation is the backside of the curve and how steep the trend line is as well as environmental conditions and hospital preparedness.

We’ve talked about the gap often. Manipulated reporting (Cuomo is probably not the only one), climate, population density, culture, etc. no one has gone unscathed, but like the Seattle example suggests, if the country as a whole had adopted similar restrictions, we’d have no worse economic outcomes with 300,000 less deaths.

The timing of the changes in the approach to testing, the reporting and the easing of restrictions are ...



They pretty much coincided with Biden's inauguration so it's fair to ask if it was because of "science" or if it was political and an opportunity to make Biden look good (and Trump bad in comparison).

And I don't disagree that reported numbers have been manipulated by both sides. They're still close enough that I have to wonder if the more stringent restrictions were worth it when you factor in the economic and psychological damage they caused. And to be clear, I'm not saying they weren't, I'm saying it's a reasonable question to ask.

[houndawg]

Too bad it isn't political in Brazil.

Who's talking about Brazil?

...thought you might like a counter-example of the same virus killing people where it isn't "political". No need to salute, I'll be in the area all day.

[houndawg]

Then tell me why calling it the "China Virus" or similar is racist but the UK variant isn't?

The Brazilians aren't nearly as good at manipulating public opinion as the Chinese so that's probably why the "Brazilian" variant hasn't been flagged as racist yet.

That’s better Captain No-Segue.

I’d not say calling it the China Virus is racist. I’m saying racists call it the China virus.

In wrestling that would be 2 pts. for a reversal

[houndawg]

Hey brain surgeon - there were surges after Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year's Eve (predicted) because people were stupid and couldn't hold off on big events.

New cases spiked on Jan 8th - about when you would expect the New year's spike to hit. Been trending down since.

Add the vaccination rollout/ramp up (cases in Nursing homes are down 85%) and finally having an adult in charge, with a coherent push to get the vaccine purchased and to the states, is helping as well.

The peak hit earlier than some predicted but that might be explained by increased voluntary social distancing and the post holiday hibernation period.

Tying the numbers to some coordinated political agreement once Biden took office is tin foil hat territory.

If anything, there’s a greater chance trumpofiles like DeSantis and Abbott are cooking the books similar to Cuomo to lower the case counts and death rates.

Plus there’s massive pressure to reopen quickly for all governors.

The parasites are losing money if somebody can't clock in because they have to stay home with little Johnny

[houndawg]

China owns over a trillion $$ of our debt, and a high percentage of pharmaceuticals that we consume. That's just a couple quick searches after a long bike ride.

And we should cancel that debt as payment for the costs incurred as a result of Covid.

Stiff them like we're Donald Trymp and they're the kid that just mowed our lawn.