COVID-19 Outbreak (Update: More than 2.9M cases and 132,313 deaths in US) (6 Viewers)

[DaveXA]

to be honest, I didn't think that there was anything "petty" in what Silver was doing. And it certainly wasn't my intention.

I would hope that my participation in this thread would have made that clear.

It was my understanding that both of these dynamics had already taken place in this thread.

I'll elaborate.

First, the tweet broke down by geographic region.

South, NYC, West, Northeast, etc. We've been talking about that in this thread. State cases. NOLA cases. Washington. California. NYC.

What's the objection to the first tweet?

The second, I understand the objection a bit more - but I didn't see it as deliberately being inflammatory.

I didn't think that it was supposed to be a case of "Trump states are dumb and Clinton states are not."

I mean, he made it clear that NYC has the most cases and is increasing at an alarming amount. It's not as if he is hiding that fact or downplaying it. People like @HburgSaints made the comment as if he didn't make it clear that NYC was increasing in cases. He 100% was.

So I'm not sure why it was interpreted another way.

We've also talked in this thread about people who are more likely to brush off the dangers of the virus because they are buying into White House 'noise' versus what's coming from Fauci, for example.

That's been in this thread. Maybe it's been less explicit, but I've seen it - and I didn't see anyone objecting to it.

Now, I'm not going to defend the tweet as being necessary to the discussion if people really got rankled over it.

I'm fine taking the second one down.

I just didn't feel that it made the commentary that some people felt and, further, that it was somehow not in this thread prior.

Personally, I think the info is interesting, but not really sure what to do with it other than filing it away.

 

[RazorOye]

here's a follow up to Silver's tweet by someone else, who is tracking state by state data.

Hopefully this doesn't offend anyone. I think it's helpful and - as Silver pointed out - also becomes relevant as we talk about testing disparity in terms of how this data comes about.

 

[RazorOye]

Personally, I think the info is interesting, but not really sure what to do with it other than filing it away.

well, we've been talking about how different regions and states and cities have been handling this in the thread - I felt it was totally in line with that discussion. Whatever value you think is in those posts, I assumed it would automatically apply to that one and the one above with the state by state data

and because - as he explained - it deals with, in part, 'evening out disparities in testing rates'

He's says so in the tweet, explicitly - and I've gone back and changed my post to include only this single tweet:

 

[DaveXA]

because - as he explained - it deals with, in part, 'evening out disparities in testing rates'

He's says so in the tweet, explicitly - and I've gone back and changed my post to include only this single tweet:

The percentage increase in detected cases may or may not be indicative of testing rates. Meaning that two states could have similar numbers of detected cases but may have a large difference in testing rate. I just wonder how consistent testing criteria are from state to state, or even from hospital to hospital. Maybe a a matrix of several variables might give us a bit more useful info.

Not to say his data isn't useful, but I think there's more going on than what we see here. Just a thought.

 

[Saint_Ward]

That's really cool but it's wrong due to testing bias.

I guarantee NYC and the West coast both had cases growing nearly simultaneously.

I am not smart enough in biology to refute this, but it looks like they've been tracking mutations / genome, so maybe they can tell what order it showed up in places?

NYC likely got hit with two versions.. one from Asia, via the West Coast, and then later through Europe.

 

[Saint_Ward]

Why are there still no recovered numbers showing for the US?

619 from John Hopkins.

 

[LuvNOLA]

If they don't medically need a ventilator, then you'll just do damage to their lungs for no gain.

I'm sure initial treatment is some sort of inhaler, antibiotics (to stave off Pneumonia), and something for the cough or to keep the congestion loose and productive.

Intermediate, which can be done at some Urgent Care centers, would be an oxygen treatment to help "dry out" the lungs (I think it helps a bit with that), but mainly to keep your oxygen levels high, since lung function will diminish. And it's not callous to be put on an O2 Tank and lug it around, that's what the elderly with lung problems do now. It's not easy, but it's not callous.

If it's in their lungs so bad they need to be intubated and put on a ventilator, then you do it, because the damage isn't as bad as death.

The point is the American public is kinda stupid. Too many people rush to the ER for treatment that can be better handled by your own doctor, or a much cheaper urgent care center. I will say that a lung CT scan is better than a normal X-ray, but a doctor listening to your lungs is a better judge of what you need to do, than our own uneducated (Medically) selves. The last thing you want to do, if you have mild symptoms is to go to the hospital first.. all you do is expose yourself to a higher potential of COVID-19 (like if you don't actually have it, but another respiratory illness), or you risk many other people who don't it to whatever you have.

Don't wait until you're turning blue or on death's door to go though. But don't rush there either.

Great write up!

I have a friend who was very sick with a cold/flu like symptoms, a couple of weeks ago. Her doctor put her on antibiotics etc & sent her home. My friend continued to get worse, so her daughters took her back to the doctor. The doctor changed her antibiotics & of course, by then her husband was sick as well. Anyway, the point is, a doctor was listening to her lungs & monitoring her disease progression. She is now recovered & doing well again.

Ergo.......I don't believe that ANYONE should be given an "oxygen tank & tubing" and then kicked out the door, to be their own health care provider.

 

[bclemms]

not so sure of that. New York is way more densely populated. Also, SF where this started in California had employers going remote for employees and they shirt down the SF bay region really quick. While NY was saying party on it’s not a worry the 5 counties were already locked down.

That's because California was doing testing. No state found cases until they tested for them.

 

[LuvNOLA]

Gov. Cuomo says Covid patients are requiring ventilation for an average of 11 - 20 days.

WOW!!!! 11-20 days??? By that time aren't their lungs pretty well shot??? I thought the respiratory experts in this thread said that it is not healthy to be on a vent too long, because of the trauma to the lungs & then the residual effects later on???

 

[Sun Wukong]

WOW!!!! 11-20 days??? By that time aren't their lungs pretty well shot??? I thought the respiratory experts in this thread said that it is not healthy to be on a vent too long, because of the trauma to the lungs & then the residual effects later on???

This is actually what some are saying leads to permanent lung damage after recovery if you have to go on a ventilator for a prolonged period of time. But I dont know that there's enough data in on that yet.

 

[LuvNOLA]

This is actually what some are saying leads to permanent lung damage after recovery if you have to go on a ventilator for a prolonged period of time. But I dont know that there's enough data in on that yet.

Thanks!

 

[0rion]

to be honest, I didn't think that there was anything "petty" in what Silver was doing. And it certainly wasn't my intention.

I would hope that my participation in this thread would have made that more than clear.

I was responding to a post about breaking down data by region/state. And I came across that tweet and felt like it merited inclusion. It was my understanding that both of these dynamics had already taken place in this thread.

I'll elaborate.

First, the tweet broke down by geographic region.

South, NYC, West, Northeast, etc. We've been talking about that in this thread. State cases. NOLA cases. Washington. California. NYC.

What's the objection to the first tweet?

The second, I understand the objection a bit more - but I didn't see it as deliberately being inflammatory.

I didn't think that it was supposed to be a case of "Trump states are dumb and Clinton states are not."

I mean, he made it clear that NYC has the most cases and is increasing at an alarming amount. It's not as if he is hiding that fact or downplaying it. People like @HburgSaints made the comment as if he didn't make it clear that NYC was increasing in cases. He 100% was.

So I'm not sure why it was interpreted another way.

We've also talked in this thread about people who are more likely to brush off the dangers of the virus because they are buying into White House 'noise' versus what's coming from Fauci, for example.

That's been in this thread. Maybe it's been less explicit, but I've seen it - and I didn't see anyone objecting to it.

Now, I'm not going to defend the tweet as being necessary to the discussion if people really got rankled over it.

I'm fine taking the second one down.

I just didn't feel that it made the commentary that some people felt and, further, that it was somehow not in this thread prior.

I apologise....that was a response to the tweet and stat and not directed at you personally. We need to suck it up and work as 1 team right now and that tweet is actively trying to divide people. Just doesn't serve any good towards helping us as a country right now. I don't care who voted for who at this moment...I only want us all to focus on the tragedy at hand and the one facing us over the next few months.

 

[0rion]

This is actually what some are saying leads to permanent lung damage after recovery if you have to go on a ventilator for a prolonged period of time. But I dont know that there's enough data in on that yet.

I have some personal experience with this via my brother. My brother was in an extended Care place 2 years ago and was in a coma for awhile. He was on the vent for ~ 3 weeks which was very concerning. At one point he had pneumonia. He just wasn't tolerating coming off the vent so it was a long slow process getting him off of it. I will say he seems to be fine 2 years later. Only 1 person so probably not super helpful but in his case it did work out fine

 

[bclemms]

I have some personal experience with this via my brother. My brother was in an extended Care place 2 years ago and was in a coma for awhile. He was on the vent for ~ 3 weeks which was very concerning. At one point he had pneumonia. He just wasn't tolerating coming off the vent so it was a long slow process getting him off of it. I will say he seems to be fine 2 years later. Only 1 person so probably not super helpful but in his case it did work out fine

Depends a lot on age and underlying health as well.

 

[RazorOye]

The percentage increase in detected cases may or may not be indicative of testing rates. Meaning that two states could have similar numbers of detected cases but may have a large difference in testing rate. I just wonder how consistent testing criteria are from state to state, or even from hospital to hospital. Maybe a a matrix of several variables might give us a bit more useful info.

Not to say his data isn't useful, but I think there's more going on than what we see here. Just a thought.

again, this points to why I did not automatically think Silver was being 'divisive' in his tweet.

We've been talking about this general thing in this thread. More testing will mean: (1) more positive, confirmed, overall cases and (2) a lower percentage of actual infection and confirmed cases.

Correct? I mean, that tended to be the conclusion most people have been drawing - and not just for the US. It's been going on for a while.

So, if we assume that the statistics are going to be equitable - I mean, Booker replied saying this:

Yeah, I don't think the virus checks for political affiliation.

I mean, that's exactly the point. Incidence of virus is going to be stable across the general population - eventually, once we reach a critical mass.

And so, if you have a region that is reporting something statistically awry, then that's related - at least in large part - to testing.

And if we have been talking about the importance of testing, this sort of data is important to have.

If we are going to hold Silver's tweet up to the "there's more to the story" scrutiny, that's fine. But we should be applying it to all reported data - that just hasn't been entirely the case. As a result, I felt like the conclusion of testing frequency related to reporting of numbers was material, since we've been doing it.

I didn't think Silver was making the case that the virus knows politics.

Like I said, I didn't see what was offensive about it when I posted it - or I wouldn't have. And I've since taken it down and tried to explain where I'm coming from with how this data breakdown - which was mentioned in the original response I quoted - means something relevant to what we are discussing.