So given the models have been adjusted downward thanks to effective measures being taken, is it safe to assume we're here already?
If it's anything less than 50k reported deaths in the US before May, I think you're going to see a lot of the "see it was no big deal" crowd. Never mind that the numbers don't show the real impact because testing can't/won't happen like it should.
I mean the radiation exposure at Chernobyl only showed 3.6R, so that wasn't so bad either. Nevermind the fact that the meter pegged out at 3.6.
I'm not talking about undercounts or mismeasurements, I mean if the actions taken by Newsom, Inslee, Cuomo, DeWine, Baker, etc actually prevent this from becoming a worst-case scenario pandemic, and we hold the deaths to a "reasonable" (for some fucked up definition of reasonable) number. How many people will assume that this was never a threat and that the actions that saved lives were unnecessary?
That’s essentially what I said in a post yesterday I think. That the catch 22 of good mitigation techniques will lead mostly Trump supporters to act like it was all overblown and also for Trump to claim some sort of victory.
Way too many. And they will pressure weak politicians. And there will be a second wave much much bigger than the first.
yeah that’s why we’re planning to keep up the quarantine practices as much as possible for as long as possible until the coast is completely clear. Unless something else comes our way, we can do this indefinitely in theory. Won’t be enjoyable, but the last thing I want is to get sick and need a hospital and all the sudden so does 80% of the community as well.
But how much was it forced down from the measures taken and how much was it because the initial data set was too small and the further additional testing, albeit still wholly incomplete, just gave us a better picture? Both can happen at the same time it isn’t mutual exclusive.
Literally happening as we speak. The WH received a "Return to Work" plan today, for review. I haven't seen it, but I bet the date on it says May 1. That's literally what's going on. Can't confirm a case if you can't test. Can't test the dead. Only the confirmed who die get added to the death count. Problem solved! By the time some school of public health studies the "actual" volume of deaths in this time, and compares to the expected, we'll be months away and this will all be history, sordid or splendid. Fuck. I am sick. What strikes you as more likely: we've done 2.2 million tests, and confirmed about 20% of the samples as cases, for about 475k confirmed cases. That 475k is 100% of all the cases and we know we are containing the spread. OR We've done 2.2 million tests, confirmed about 475k cases and can't really do more than 150k tests/day. The testing we're doing includes some folks getting tested twice, old samples that might not still be viable, bad lab work, etc. From a throughput perspective, we can't confirm much more than 30k cases per day due to issues around testing. Again, we've gone from 100 labs to 160 nationwide doing testing, so it will get better but.... If I don't trust the numbers, y'all shouldn't.
I put my music degree to use today while at work, where they were playing the SiriusXM "Pop2K" channel. Enjoy some random Weird Al-style parody. So We keep our hands far away from our face And we’re standing 6 feet away Washing our hands like yeah Scrubbin’ ‘em raw like yeah Throw your hands up, we’re losing our jobs Is the stimulus on its way? Yeeeeeaaaah it’s a virus in the USA
It's not a lack of trust in the numbers. It's that I think the numbers are completely wrong at this point. They're not just misleading or not trust-worthy -- I think they're artificially low to the point of showing something entirely different from reality. Am I wrong?
Also do we have any early estimates of "excess deaths" during this period, or do we have to wait for a longer term study to get those figures?
Got the word today my company is putting us on a furlough to June 30th. I work in the casino industry and this is apparently a mirror of what Las Vegas is doing as well. Obviously with a casino there are a lot of chances for people to transmit a virus with all of the machines/chips/money passing through so many hands, so it's not surprising they are going this aggressive with the timing. With this being a major source of state tax collection, I'm guessing Cuomo is going to announce at some time in the near future a similar date for NY as a whole to start bringing businesses back online. I can't imagine we'll be one of the last places to open with the type of revenue we bring in for the state.
I just wanna know if I’ll be making the wheels on the bus going round and round again before September or not. ( NY here )
Sigh. Are the confirmed cases 100% of the actuals? No. Are they in the high 90s? No. The issue is they were at one point: when there was 300 cases, it's pretty likely that those cases represented a high percentage of the actual cases. As the case count grew, we could track that with the death rate, and it all sort of jived with our models, and reports from the states. We tracked an exponential growth rate with the confirmed cases via the slope of the growth curve. A confirmed case has a relationship to actual cases, as does a death. For the bulk of the outbreak, that relationship was stable. We could argue if a confirmed case had a 1:1 relationship or a 1:5 relationship, but it was stable However in late March, the data started to get whacky. The confirmed cases hit a ceiling, so they no longer represent a big chunk of the actuals walking around. Deaths started to get whacky too. If we can only confirm 30k a day, the relationship is impossible to track now. So, it looks like the same amount of cases being confirmed every day, which is leading people to think we're slowing the spread. It's not, it's simply outpaced the ability to see with the testing we have. So, the assumption that has to change is a confirmed case indicates a smaller number of actual cases until we can do a LOT more testing.
We get it. Not enough tests, more testing needed. We don't trust infection rates or death numbers. What about the hospital census data? If infection rate is continuing to climb, why aren't the hospitals full? Hospital usage, ICU bed usage, intubation are all functions of infection, right? As more infection occurs, more need serious intervention; where are these people right now? https://www.military.com/daily-news...r-3-days-without-treating-single-patient.html There has been a lot of talk about the model and people don't understand models. Models are perfect, they will give you the exact data out based on the assumptions put in. If the assumption are wrong the model is worthless.
https://www.thelocal.de/20200402/ho...ers-on-coronavirus-in-countrys-worst-hit-spot I find this interesting if true. I watched Joe Rogan interview epidemiologist Michael Osterholm and he said he didn't think transmission from surfaces was a big risk factor. I wonder if the Korean data shows the same thing?