(07-27-2020 09:51 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-26-2020 10:42 PM)banker Wrote:  The thing that has been interesting to me with this "second wave, Covid surge" is the strange divergence between cases and deaths. We don't hear much about deaths anymore, just the cases.

Below are all the top states for number of cases. The number beside each represents the number of cases per death, simply if they had 100 cases and ten deaths their number would be 10.

Texas - 77.2
Florida - 72.4
California - 54.3
Arizona - 49.0
Georgia - 48.0
Illinois - 22.7
Massachusetts- 13.6
New York - 13.5
New Jersey- 11.7

So, what exactly causes people in the northeast to die at such an elevated rate? The numbers say that if you get the Covid in NJ it's about 7 times more likely to kill you than if you got it in Texas. That just seems very odd.

Some possibilities -

Maybe it has mutated and isn't as deadly any more
Maybe all this "positive" tests aren't really Covid positives at all
Maybe the NE states grossly inflated their deaths attributed to Covid
Maybe the further north you go, the easier you die.

What I can surmise it isn't is the level of testing. All those states have done a ton of testing. So why this huge difference?

Banker... I'm not questioning you, but do you have the source for this data? I'd like to look more indepth to actually try and answer this question.

My gut reaction has to do with whom, why and when we're testing... By that I mean, NY probably missed tens of thousands of early, low symptom illnesses as we were shutting down... and Texas is catching all of them as we try and open back up. People who got it in NYC in April would now have antibodies in July and not test positive for a viral test. Mildly symptomatic people who got it in Texas in July are getting tested as part of their return to work protocols.

It was difficult to obtain a test in March and April. You often needed to have THREE moderately severe symptoms to qualify to be tested (or be a wealthy and high-profile athlete, politician or celebrity). In March and April, the US averaged about 150K tests per day and the positive test rate was about 20%.

Now, it's fairly easy to get a test if you just have a mild sore throat or the sniffles...or if you just need a test for a non-COVID medical procedure, to return to work, etc., and end up an asymptomatic positive. In July, the US averages about 750K tests per day and the positive test rate is about 8%.

https://covidtracking.com/data/us-daily

I note that from mid-March to Mid-May (about 2 months), the US had averaged about 1,500-2,000 *DEATHS* per day.

From June to now (about 2 months), we've averaged about 500-1,000deaths per day.

It's no surprise that we are finding more cases; and it's no surprise that the mortality rate has significantly dropped.

(07-27-2020 10:30 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 09:51 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-26-2020 10:42 PM)banker Wrote:  The thing that has been interesting to me with this "second wave, Covid surge" is the strange divergence between cases and deaths. We don't hear much about deaths anymore, just the cases.

Below are all the top states for number of cases. The number beside each represents the number of cases per death, simply if they had 100 cases and ten deaths their number would be 10.

Texas - 77.2
Florida - 72.4
California - 54.3
Arizona - 49.0
Georgia - 48.0
Illinois - 22.7
Massachusetts- 13.6
New York - 13.5
New Jersey- 11.7

So, what exactly causes people in the northeast to die at such an elevated rate? The numbers say that if you get the Covid in NJ it's about 7 times more likely to kill you than if you got it in Texas. That just seems very odd.

Some possibilities -

Maybe it has mutated and isn't as deadly any more
Maybe all this "positive" tests aren't really Covid positives at all
Maybe the NE states grossly inflated their deaths attributed to Covid
Maybe the further north you go, the easier you die.

What I can surmise it isn't is the level of testing. All those states have done a ton of testing. So why this huge difference?

Banker... I'm not questioning you, but do you have the source for this data? I'd like to look more indepth to actually try and answer this question.

My gut reaction has to do with whom, why and when we're testing... By that I mean, NY probably missed tens of thousands of early, low symptom illnesses as we were shutting down... and Texas is catching all of them as we try and open back up. People who got it in NYC in April would now have antibodies in July and not test positive for a viral test. Mildly symptomatic people who got it in Texas in July are getting tested as part of their return to work protocols.

It was difficult to obtain a test in March and April. You often needed to have THREE moderately severe symptoms to qualify to be tested (or be a wealthy and high-profile athlete, politician or celebrity). In March and April, the US averaged about 150K tests per day and the positive test rate was about 20%.

Now, it's fairly easy to get a test if you just have a mild sore throat or the sniffles...or if you just need a test for a non-COVID medical procedure, to return to work, etc., and end up an asymptomatic positive. In July, the US averages about 750K tests per day and the positive test rate is about 8%.

https://covidtracking.com/data/us-daily

I note that from mid-March to Mid-May (about 2 months), the US had averaged about 1,500-2,000 *DEATHS* per day.

From June to now (about 2 months), we've averaged about 500-1,000deaths per day.

It's no surprise that we are finding more cases; and it's no surprise that the mortality rate has significantly dropped.

Also, the reporting has been a mess in Florida and Texas. Orlando was only reporting positive tests. In San Antonio they were reporting suspected cases as positive tests.

I found some more info.... Let me give an example of what I consider to be misleading statistics:

Given the headlines, we are to believe that Texas, CA and Fl are 'the new NY' for Covid... we are shown that CA now has 452k cases which is more than NY... FL at 423k cases has surpassed NY... and TX is right behind at 394k. FTR, NJ is 5th at only 179k cases. All of this is true.

What we don't talk about is the fact that 'deaths per 100,000' for NY and NJ are 168 and 178, while for the other states, they are fewer than 30. That's a HUGE difference
We also don't talk about 'deaths per case' (because we're being told that higher cases leads to higher deaths) for CA, FL and TX are all consistently below 2%, while for NY it's almost 8% and NJ, almost 9. Those are also HUGE differences...

and we're being told that it is mostly because of 'poor local responses/rush to reopen' etc.

Some possibilities that come to my mind... and of course it could be 'a combination' and other possibilities
1) the older tests didn't catch minor infections and the newer ones do
2) the original strain was much deadlier than the newer ones
3) NY/NJ hit their peak early as we began to shut down... so most of the people being tested were highly symptomatic. Fl, Ca and Tx are peaking as we're beginning to open up, as more people are being tested to go back to work... and we're catching vastly more asymptomatic/low infection people as a result. NY and NJ now would likely see vastly more antibodies, but we aren't testing as many for that.
4) Summer MAY be weakening the disease greatly.... just not eradicating it. Maybe the original, deadly strain is gone, but the one that is surviving the heat is much less deadly.

The number varies, but the reported number of deaths from flu per case of flu is in that same 1-2% range that southern states are seeing for covid. That doesn't mean it isn't deadlier... NY certainly implies that it is much deadlier... what it means is that the current strains/the ones that went south aren't as deadly.

And more importantly, I think it says that NY/NJ didn't really flatten their curve as much as 'the virus' simply did what viruses do.

Of course the rate for southern states could still rise, but its got a long way to go before we're seeing 180 deaths per 100,000 people and 8-9% death rates per positive test.

(07-27-2020 11:23 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I found some more info.... Let me give an example of what I consider to be misleading statistics:

Given the headlines, we are to believe that Texas, CA and Fl are 'the new NY' for Covid... we are shown that CA now has 452k cases which is more than NY... FL at 423k cases has surpassed NY... and TX is right behind at 394k. FTR, NJ is 5th at only 179k cases. All of this is true.

What we don't talk about is the fact that 'deaths per 100,000' for NY and NJ are 168 and 178, while for the other states, they are fewer than 30. That's a HUGE difference
We also don't talk about 'deaths per case' (because we're being told that higher cases leads to higher deaths) for CA, FL and TX are all consistently below 2%, while for NY it's almost 8% and NJ, almost 9. Those are also HUGE differences...

and we're being told that it is mostly because of 'poor local responses/rush to reopen' etc.

Some possibilities that come to my mind... and of course it could be 'a combination' and other possibilities
1) the older tests didn't catch minor infections and the newer ones do
2) the original strain was much deadlier than the newer ones
3) NY/NJ hit their peak early as we began to shut down... so most of the people being tested were highly symptomatic. Fl, Ca and Tx are peaking as we're beginning to open up, as more people are being tested to go back to work... and we're catching vastly more asymptomatic/low infection people as a result. NY and NJ now would likely see vastly more antibodies, but we aren't testing as many for that.
4) Summer MAY be weakening the disease greatly.... just not eradicating it. Maybe the original, deadly strain is gone, but the one that is surviving the heat is much less deadly.

The number varies, but the reported number of deaths from flu per case of flu is in that same 1-2% range that southern states are seeing for covid. That doesn't mean it isn't deadlier... NY certainly implies that it is much deadlier... what it means is that the current strains/the ones that went south aren't as deadly.

And more importantly, I think it says that NY/NJ didn't really flatten their curve as much as 'the virus' simply did what viruses do.

Of course the rate for southern states could still rise, but its got a long way to go before we're seeing 180 deaths per 100,000 people and 8-9% death rates per positive test.

Nice summary.

Could be a lot of things. Better or more available testing, a mutation that weakens it, better containment policies and behaviors, not sure. It still should be taken seriously until there's a vaccine, though. It could mutate towards being deadly again. We're not out of the woods until we clear our own way out of them.

I'm just as worried about debilitation as death, myself. A bunch of people getting their lungs scarred up to where they're spending their whole life with COPD or emphysema would do a number on our workforce and healthcare system. We'd be creating a bunch of net economic negatives because people are bored and hate seeing those below them get treated well by the government.

(07-27-2020 11:33 AM)Mav Wrote:  Could be a lot of things. Better or more available testing, a mutation that weakens it, better containment policies and behaviors, not sure. It still should be taken seriously until there's a vaccine, though. It could mutate towards being deadly again. We're not out of the woods until we clear our own way out of them.

I'm just as worried about debilitation as death, myself. A bunch of people getting their lungs scarred up to where they're spending their whole life with COPD or emphysema would do a number on our workforce and healthcare system. We'd be creating a bunch of net economic negatives because people are bored and hate seeing those below them get treated well by the government.

Right now we're all getting screwed by the government.

my daughter and roommate just tested +....she got a quick crash course dose of why that's a good thingy...

it's an amazing thingy people are a viral incubator....and the frenzy of stupid can sway volume....

#acefrehleyshockme

did I mention they merely feel like "crap"...lol

yeah, I don't pull punches in any arena....

(07-27-2020 11:59 AM)Bronco14 Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 11:33 AM)Mav Wrote:  Could be a lot of things. Better or more available testing, a mutation that weakens it, better containment policies and behaviors, not sure. It still should be taken seriously until there's a vaccine, though. It could mutate towards being deadly again. We're not out of the woods until we clear our own way out of them.

I'm just as worried about debilitation as death, myself. A bunch of people getting their lungs scarred up to where they're spending their whole life with COPD or emphysema would do a number on our workforce and healthcare system. We'd be creating a bunch of net economic negatives because people are bored and hate seeing those below them get treated well by the government.

Right now we're all getting screwed by the government.

wrong...the msm/corporates ARE fk'n ya up your arse with a smile....

muh gubbmint is simply the drug dealer...wtf do you think DJT IS TRYING TO TELL ONE?!!!!!!

(07-27-2020 11:33 AM)Mav Wrote:  Could be a lot of things. Better or more available testing, a mutation that weakens it, better containment policies and behaviors, not sure. It still should be taken seriously until there's a vaccine, though. It could mutate towards being deadly again. We're not out of the woods until we clear our own way out of them.

I'm just as worried about debilitation as death, myself. A bunch of people getting their lungs scarred up to where they're spending their whole life with COPD or emphysema would do a number on our workforce and healthcare system. We'd be creating a bunch of net economic negatives because people are bored and hate seeing those below them get treated well by the government.

Uh, if it mutates then any vaccine developed wouldn't be effective. It will be just like the regular flu where the shot has to be constantly changed based on what strain you think you will see.

As far as lingering effects, I believe you are worrying way too much there. This will never be a measurable fraction compared to lung cancer and other lung issues we already have and that doesn't overwhelm the system.

(07-27-2020 11:33 AM)Mav Wrote:  Could be a lot of things. Better or more available testing, a mutation that weakens it, better containment policies and behaviors, not sure. It still should be taken seriously until there's a vaccine, though. It could mutate towards being deadly again. We're not out of the woods until we clear our own way out of them.

I'm just as worried about debilitation as death, myself. A bunch of people getting their lungs scarred up to where they're spending their whole life with COPD or emphysema would do a number on our workforce and healthcare system. We'd be creating a bunch of net economic negatives because people are bored and hate seeing those below them get treated well by the government.

I don't disagree with this... I just don't like being told that it's because NY has gotten it under control while Fl has not... when it took 180 people per 100k dying and 10% of those infected dying for NY to flatten their curve. Well yeah, I suppose if you kill off all the unhealthy people, you'll flatten the curve.

I do take some issue with the 'better/more available testing' depending on how you mean it. If you mean Fl is testing more and with a better test than NY did during their peak, I'd agree.... but I'm concerned with the idea that NY is getting lower numbers than before because they aren't testing as much or still using a poor test. My contention is that they're getting lower results because they're only testing for active viruses, and I think their actual number of previous infections is a multiple of what was originally reported.

Said differently... in order to make their 180/100k more in line with the rest of the country... They'd have to have over 3mm positive tests as opposed to <500k.
In order to make their '8% of infected' be more like everyone else's 1.25%, they'd have to have similar numbers.

FTR, the flu vaccine only really helps people who have high exposure risks.
The 'baseline' for flu infections is about 80 per 4,000.... and the vaccine takes it to about 40 per 4,000. It's a 50% reduction, but from a relatively low number to begin with. Especially virulent years (like last year) or people who have high exposure in their life (healthcare workers, people with compromised situations or those who attend/visit them) are at risk. A farmer in rural Idaho who doesn't attend large functions isn't really at much risk.