Hey folks - as a member of the DawgNation community, please remember to abide by simple rules of civil engagement with other members:
- Please no inappropriate usernames (remember that there may be youngsters in the room)
- Personal attacks on other community members are unacceptable, practice the good manners your mama taught you when engaging with fellow Dawg fans
- Use common sense and respect personal differences in the community: sexual and other inappropriate language or imagery, political rants and belittling the opinions of others will get your posts deleted and result in warnings and/ or banning from the forum
- 3/17/19 UPDATE -- We've updated the permissions for our "Football" and "Commit to the G" recruiting message boards. We aim to be the best free board out there and that has not changed. We do now ask that all of you good people register as a member of our forum in order to see the sugar that is falling from our skies, so to speak.
- Please no inappropriate usernames (remember that there may be youngsters in the room)
- Personal attacks on other community members are unacceptable, practice the good manners your mama taught you when engaging with fellow Dawg fans
- Use common sense and respect personal differences in the community: sexual and other inappropriate language or imagery, political rants and belittling the opinions of others will get your posts deleted and result in warnings and/ or banning from the forum
- 3/17/19 UPDATE -- We've updated the permissions for our "Football" and "Commit to the G" recruiting message boards. We aim to be the best free board out there and that has not changed. We do now ask that all of you good people register as a member of our forum in order to see the sugar that is falling from our skies, so to speak.
Options
COVID-19 Check-in
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
In other words......if someone in Texas does test positive........you're saying there is a 97.5% chance of survival?
Again, not trying to suggest this isn't a big deal ....but we are choosing to destroy businesses and livelihoods for something that someone has a 97.5% chance of surviving.
Was just sitting here talking with my good friend. Waiting for our boys to get out of football practice.
He's head of acute care and head ER surgeon at the 2nd largest hospital and trauma center in Dallas county.
He said hospitals and ICUs in Dallas have plenty of room. It's always been a what if this......what if that.
On a random sample based on your data the positivity rate would be 0.7% but in fact was 9.3%. A good measure of testing is to have a positivity rate of less than 5%. This means your protocol is good enough to identify a broad spectrum of severe-mild cases but not "wasteful" . With regard to fatality rates it is important to remember that not all, if any, people will not drop down dead immediately on being diagnosed with the virus. My numbers are based on the number of deaths to date divided by the number of cases up to 20 days prior. The number could be higher if the average lag of the cases is 28 days. The lag will depend on the severity of the cases which in turn is dependent on the the positivity rate as that shows how widespread testing is available (greater availability = greater cases but lower pos rate and lower severity and hence lower mortality rate).
79% of hospitalization in Georgia are in the AA community. Comorbidities are a HUGE percentage of hospitalizations and deaths. How about painting with a more slender brush and target the neighborhoods being affected? Can the CDC really not narrow this down without affecting everyone? My zip code in Dekalb Co doesn’t have very many cases, yet Dekalb is a supposed “hotspot”.
@texdawg I think your percentages are off. It is more like 99.75 instead of 97.5
We are going to look back on this one day and ask.......what were we thinking?
I can't get over the idiocracy.
Your approach makes sense if the # of positive test results = the # of actual cases; but with the CDC reporting last week that that actual # of cases is 10x the confirmed cases why wouldn't we use that # as the numerator instead of total # of positives?
I agree with wearing a mask
It’s going to be a county by county, city by city approach from here on. Just because it’s not bad in one county doesn’t mean that another county in another state can’t have devastating effects. I can see Miami Dade county going into a lockdown again soon, but I’m reluctant to see the governor of Florida issue a state wide lock down.
The question then arises if Miami-Dade does go into a lockdown, what does that do to the schools like Miami and FIU? what happens when they go online classes only? But the rest of the ACC goes unscathed? Does Miami still play? do they forfeit all their games? How do they reschedule the season? So many questions running through my head everyday.
We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.
...
Expanded masking protocols’ greatest contribution may be to reduce the transmission of anxiety, over and above whatever role they may play in reducing transmission of Covid-19.
So... The New England Journal of Medicine is basically calling the mask wearers the snowflakes. Interesting.
it is harder to argue for a lockdown when your percentages start with a zero.
In the state of Florida, more people have died over the age of 100 (43) than under the age of 40 (41).
There have been more traffic fatalities in 2020 than Covid deaths under the age of 90. This is true even after relabeling some traffic deaths as covid related because the driver tested positive.
The CDC data is subjective and relates to past infections. As testing expands the multiplier decreases due to the fact that the number of infections is fixed but the number of cases increase with increased testing. I am not saying that the true mortality rate of the virus is 2.5%, just that if you want to project deaths from cases that is the factor of cases to deaths to use.
If the 10x is correct (personally think 3-4 times is now more likely) then yesterday for instance 500,000 people were infected and I would say that deaths would project at 500,000 x 0.25% = 1,250 in 20 days+/-. Using the 50,000 reported deaths are projected at 50,000 x 2.5% = 1,250.
The mortality rate of cases through April was calculated at 8% with a 9 day lag as only those with respiratory symptoms were being tested (most life threatening). In May as testing began to improve the MR calculates at 5.2% which is a combo of better treatment and the reduction of severity of cases due to the wider range of symptoms. June had mush better testing and the rate calculates at 3.5% which in large part is because of the increased number of cases relating to those with minor or asymptomatic cases. I am using 2.5% for July as currently the spread is occurring disproportionately in younger people. This could increase as the secondary spread starts to impact more elderly sections and treatment becomes more difficult to obtain in the early stages of the infection.
I accept that I could be wrong (won't be the first time) but that is my thoughts as someone with a non-medical, mathematical and analytical background.
There are also a lot that have it and don't die and aren't considered in the mortality rate as well because they weren't tested. This would skew the mortality rate. My sister-in-law one Sunday afternoon in January got short of breath and within hours was in the emergency room ended up on a ventilator for 3 days, high blood sugar, all tests were negative and she just got better and went home. For a month after she would complain of not being able to smell or taste food. Sounds like she had it and didn't know it.
The 10x multiplier also wouldn’t be consistent across all age groups. Known case rate for 60+ year olds is probably much closer to the true infection rate than for the 0-40 year old group.
Your numbers are definitely going to be put to the test Georgia just reported 2900 new cases this morning. A jump of over 1000 from yesterday.
I will say, comparing hospitalizations to deaths for those over 80 is pretty bad. 1707 hospitalizations to 1135 deaths.
This was originally written by a medical organization on April 1 during a time of extreme shortage of PPE. It couldn't have anything to do with trying to limit non-medical demand for masks could it?
Gov of SC said yesterday there will be NO FOOTBALL - college or HS - in this state unless the #'s turn around. Be responsible this weekend, guys!
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-about-masks-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-prevent
Exactly. As I said it is possible that early on there were many un-diagnosed cases and deaths. The number of presumptive deaths in the early days was much higher than current because of increased testing available. There are still infections that are "missed" which is why there is a multiplier to get from cases to infections. The CDC says that could be 10 which I could see being true in March/April but is lower now now as testing has increased. I said earlier that I think that's 3-4 currently. even though I use 2.5% mortality rate that is cases to deaths so the true mortality of infections to death I would think is in the 1% range (factoring in the understatement of deaths also). I would point out that 1% is indeed a low number but still means 2-2.5 million will die as a direct result of the virus before herd immunity is reached unless cure/vaccine is available. Also, there is no understanding as to how long an individual is protected from reinfection so it's possible that "herd" may never be naturally achieved.
This paper looks at excess deaths to get a better understanding of total deaths. Numbers aren't current though as they stop in May
That actually makes perfect sense. People have been saying for several months that the lockdown and economic impact could be responsible for as many or more deaths than the actual virus.