Not a CBCS member yet? Join now »
CBCS Comics
Not a CBCS member yet? Join now »

Coronavirus - tracking the numbers.11505

Collector EbaySeller private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkseid_of_town
This from the CDC archives gives quite a bit about H1N1

https://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/estimates/April_March_13.htm



this one seems to have everything you are wanting


Thanks for the link. Looks like they used a multiple of 79 for H1N1, much higher than I would have expected. Meaning for every 1 case diagnosed they assume 79 cases went un-diagnosed...in the US. They assume the actually hospitalization rate was 2.7 to every 1 reported. This is my overall point on current death rate vs future: While the death rate has some reasonable relationship to what is being reported, we will eventually determine that the current infection rate has almost no tether whatsover to the current diagnosis number.

I do want to add, I'm not looking to downplay the danger with these numbers. In fact that 79x number is pretty frightening. The idea that for every diagnosed person there could be 79 un-diagnosed people walking around. I doubt the number is there yet, but it could quickly get there without the precautions being taken.
Post 51 IP   flag post
Collector EbaySeller private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by flanders
I'm not sure what both the media and the Obama Administration were doing at the time. Maybe they more focused on starting the recovery process from the recession and didn't believed that having a similar response to COVID-19 would've been more detrimental to the country and cost many more lives.


@flanders Thank goodness the Obama administration did not shut the country down while just starting out of the recession. When I put all the numbers together, I think the difference is that Bird Flu didn't run the risk of overwhelming the Health Care system the way Corona Virus does. Although the estimate is 61,000,000 infected, it seems that only 1 in 79 or 800,000 were sick enough to seek medical attention. The other 60,200,000 appear to be just an estimate of infected who did not seek treatment. And that was over the course of a year, so 800,000 was probably manageable.
Post 52 IP   flag post
Collector Darkseid_of_town private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by EbaySeller
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkseid_of_town
This from the CDC archives gives quite a bit about H1N1

https://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/estimates/April_March_13.htm



this one seems to have everything you are wanting


Thanks for the link. Looks like they used a multiple of 79 for H1N1, much higher than I would have expected. Meaning for every 1 case diagnosed they assume 79 cases went un-diagnosed...in the US. They assume the actually hospitalization rate was 2.7 to every 1 reported. This is my overall point on current death rate vs future: While the death rate has some reasonable relationship to what is being reported, we will eventually determine that the current infection rate has almost no tether whatsover to the current diagnosis number.

I do want to add, I'm not looking to downplay the danger with these numbers. In fact that 79x number is pretty frightening. The idea that for every diagnosed person there could be 79 un-diagnosed people walking around. I doubt the number is there yet, but it could quickly get there without the precautions being taken.
You are quite welcome ebayseller, once you told me what numbers you were wanting, finding the correct archive was simple enough for me.
I did find the fact they used the figure of 79 to hold frightening repercussions if applied to this virus...imagine 79 people infected for each one we are aware of...insane.
Post 53 IP   flag post
Collector Wraith private msg quote post Address this user
anyone else notice that worldometer no longer tracks % of deaths for the USA closed cases. ( still does for all the other countries.)

( Its currently at 66% if do the maths )

doesnt track mild to critical cases... data coming in too fast atm ?
Post 54 IP   flag post
Collector flanders private msg quote post Address this user
It looks like within the next two weeks restrictions may be eased and more businesses will start to open in the U.S.. Here's a brief article about the issue's facing the country:

clickable text

This virus will be a threat to the world until a vaccine is discovered. Since I'm immunosuppressed I may consider relocating to a rural area in hopes that it will decrease my chances of contracting the virus until a vaccine is available.
Post 55 IP   flag post


Collector xkonk private msg quote post Address this user
@Tedsaid My main point is that these are really best-guess estimates, and there's a range of possibilities both for a single guess and across guesses. I don't think the experts would feel very certain about saying "if I guessed too low by X%, you should multiple by N to get a better guess". Although that was what I kind of suggested I would think that if the average guess for one question is too low you should start looking at the higher guesses for other questions, but they might not relate to each other that cleanly.
Post 56 IP   flag post
Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock Tedsaid private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by flanders
I'm not sure what both the media and the Obama Administration were doing at the time. Maybe they were more focused on starting the recovery process from the recession and believed that having a similar response to COVID-19 would've been more detrimental to the country and cost many more lives.

"Though the H1N1 virus had begun spreading in Mexico, the first case in the United States was detected on April 15, 2009, in a 10-year-old patient in California. Two days later, CDC laboratory testing confirmed a second infection in an 8-year-old also living in California. Within one week, the CDC had activated its Emergency Operations Center to respond to what it had identified as an emerging public health threat.

"Before the end of April, the government had declared a public health emergency and started releasing medical supplies and drugs from the CDC’s Strategic National Stockpile. The real-time PCR test developed by CDC was cleared for use by diagnostic laboratories by FDA under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) on April 28, 2009, less than two weeks after identification of the new pandemic virus.

" 'The test developed by the CDC was created quickly. It was accurate. And it was shared with governments around the world,' [Kathleen Sebelius] said. 'The capacity of CDC at that point to make and develop and quickly turn out a test was vastly different than what we saw occurring' with the coronavirus, Sebelius said.

"In an interview, Dr. Tom Frieden, who was CDC director under Obama, said testing for H1N1 and the United States’ willingness to share its test with other countries was a success. 'I traveled all over the world and for years afterward even very hostile governments were saying thank you for sending it to us.' ”
Post 57 IP   flag post
Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock Tedsaid private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by xkonk
@Tedsaid My main point is that these are really best-guess estimates, and there's a range of possibilities both for a single guess and across guesses. I don't think the experts would feel very certain about saying "if I guessed too low by X%, you should multiple by N to get a better guess". Although that was what I kind of suggested I would think that if the average guess for one question is too low you should start looking at the higher guesses for other questions, but they might not relate to each other that cleanly.

Oh, okay, I see what you are saying. Yeah, the 538 article - and the underlying research - is doing a lot of statistical modeling, and taking into account various uncertainties. But that article was a jumbled mess. It just needs editing; 538 are excellent at statistics, but sometimes their writing is lacking. I think they expected the numbers would drastically change, given the rapid increase in testing, but they sure didn't express that very well.
Post 58 IP   flag post
Collector Scifinator private msg quote post Address this user
Did anyone see The Epoch Times article on 21 Million Chinese cell phone accounts disappearing? Makes one wonder just how exponentially China and their lackey World Heath Organization under-reported infections and actual deaths. Further, how long before the head of China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology disappears for the reporting of these numbers?

For those that do not what to register with TheEpochTimes.com here is an alternate link to what was reported:

clickable text
Post 59 IP   flag post
Collector EbaySeller private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scifinator
Did anyone see The Epoch Times article on 21 Million Chinese cell phone accounts disappearing?


@Scifinator Just read your link. Definitely intriguing, but the most likely answer would be economics. Families staying home from work can save money by consolidating down to one phone, since they are together all the time. Kind of amazing to see that 1.2 million is basically a rounding error in the population of Chinese cell phone users.
Post 60 IP   flag post
Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock Tedsaid private msg quote post Address this user
Tuesday night update.

To recap, last Tuesday I pointed out that preliminary evidence shows the number of infected in the US doubles every three days. Due to a rapid increase in testing those numbers were way too low, so we reset on Friday ... prediction was 13,000 for Friday, but the reality was ~20,000. Continuing from there, Monday's prediction was 40,000 (which was a little low), this coming Thursday should be 80,000, and we should have 320,000 by April 1st (original projection was ~100,000.)

Here is the progression:

Tuesday (~9:00 pm):
Johns Hopkins University: 6362
Worldometer: 6468

Wednesday (9.30 pm):
Johns Hopkins University: 7786
Worldometer: 9301

Thursday (9:45):
Johns Hopkins University: 13,678
Worldometer: 13,847

Friday (9:30):
Johns Hopkins University: 19,285
Worldometer: 19,573

Saturday (9:30):
Johns Hopkins University: 25,493
Worldometer: 26,685

Sunday (9:30):
Johns Hopkins University: 33,276
Worldometer: 33,546

Monday (9:30):
Johns Hopkins University: 43,901
Worldometer: 43,734

Tuesday (9:40):
Johns Hopkins University: 53,740
Worldometer: 54,808

I'm also tracking mortality, which I started last Thursday. Here are those numbers.

Thursday as of 9:43 pm: 200 dead in the US (Johns Hopkins)
As of 8:15 pm: 209 dead in the US (Worldometer)

Friday as of 9:13 pm: 249 dead in the US (Johns Hopkins)
As of 9:25 pm: 262 dead in the US (Worldometer)

Saturday as of 9:13 pm: 307 dead in the US (Johns Hopkins)
As of 9:25 pm: 340 dead in the US (Worldometer)

Sunday as of 9:13 pm: 417 dead in the US (JH)
As of 9:03 pm: 419 dead in the US (Worldometer)

Monday as of 9:13 pm: 557 dead in the US (JH)
As of 9:21 pm: 553 dead in the US (Worldometer)

Tuesday as of 7:41 pm: 780 dead in the US (JH)
As of 9:14 pm: 775 dead in the US (Worldometer)

Taking 200 as the start number, that would be 400 by Sunday night (passed it), 800 on Wednesday night, and 3200 by March 31st, assuming a doubling every three days. We are ahead of our projections.

Good news is, total testing each of the last two days has hit ~65,000. That's fantastic, that it has grown so much. We really need more testing.
Post 61 IP   flag post
Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock Tedsaid private msg quote post Address this user
Wednesday night update.

To recap, last Tuesday I pointed out that preliminary evidence shows the number of infected in the US doubles every three days. Due to a rapid increase in testing those numbers were way too low, so we reset on Friday ... prediction was 13,000, but the reality was ~20,000. Continuing from there, Monday was 40,000 (which was a little low), this coming Thursday should be 80,000, and we should have 320,000 by April 1st (original projection was ~100,000.)

Here is the progression:

Tuesday (~9:00 pm):
Johns Hopkins University: 6362
Worldometer: 6468

Wednesday (9.30 pm):
Johns Hopkins University: 7786
Worldometer: 9301

Thursday (9:45):
Johns Hopkins University: 13,678
Worldometer: 13,847

Friday (9:30):
Johns Hopkins University: 19,285
Worldometer: 19,573

Saturday (9:30):
Johns Hopkins University: 25,493
Worldometer: 26,685

Sunday (9:30):
Johns Hopkins University: 33,276
Worldometer: 33,546

Monday (9:30):
Johns Hopkins University: 43,901
Worldometer: 43,734

Tuesday (9:40):
Johns Hopkins University: 53,740
Worldometer: 54,808

Wednesday (9:25):
Johns Hopkins University: 66,132
Worldometer: 66,048

I'm also tracking mortality, which I started last Thursday. Here are those numbers.

Thursday as of 9:43 pm: 200 dead in the US (Johns Hopkins)
As of 8:15 pm: 209 dead in the US (Worldometer)

Friday as of 9:13 pm: 249 dead in the US (Johns Hopkins)
As of 9:25 pm: 262 dead in the US (Worldometer)

Saturday as of 9:13 pm: 307 dead in the US (Johns Hopkins)
As of 9:25 pm: 340 dead in the US (Worldometer)

Sunday as of 9:13 pm: 417 dead in the US (JH)
As of 9:03 pm: 419 dead in the US (Worldometer)

Monday as of 9:13 pm: 557 dead in the US (JH)
As of 9:21 pm: 553 dead in the US (Worldometer)

Tuesday as of 7:41 pm: 780 dead in the US (JH)
As of 9:14 pm: 775 dead in the US (Worldometer))

Wednesday as of 8:44 pm: 947 dead in the US (JH)
As of 9:19 pm: 944 dead in the US (Worldometer)

Taking 200 as the start number, that would be 400 by Sunday night (passed it), 800 on Wednesday night (passed it, too), and 3200 by March 31st, assuming a doubling every three days. We are ahead of our projections.

My previous numbers for testing were off a bit. Accidentally added 10,000 two days ago, made it too big. But the progression is actually good: 27,000, 34,000, 44,000, 46,000, 54,000, 65,000, and 74,000.

However, I don't think it is good enough. I was curious, so I calculated the ratio of positive tests to negative tests. What we want is for this ratio to get smaller ... meaning, we are "over testing" more often. I.e., If the percentage of positive results to negative results gets smaller and smaller, then that's good - it means, relative to where we were, we are more often testing people that are less sick and therefore less likely to have the virus.

But that's not what is happening so far. Here is the graph over time. Doesn't seem to be going higher or lower, overall. We need it to go down.




But the last 9-10 days of this graph does track one thing I heard, anecdotally ... and that is, we are starting to be less likely to test sick people, because the diagnosis - positive or negative - wouldn't change the treatment. We already know they are sick, and we just treat that ... it doesn't matter what is causing it. And we still need to ration tests, unfortunately.
Post 62 IP   flag post
Collector xkonk private msg quote post Address this user
NJ has been sending daily updates on test results, and the number of new positive tests has been steady in the 700-800 range the past few days. I assume that's more a sign of how quickly they can give and process tests than a sign that infections are staying steady.
Post 63 IP   flag post
Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock Tedsaid private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by xkonk
NJ has been sending daily updates on test results, and the number of new positive tests has been steady in the 700-800 range the past few days. I assume that's more a sign of how quickly they can give and process tests than a sign that infections are staying steady.

The website I use tracks testing data supplied by each of the state health agencies. The data for NJ says that there have been 14,854 tests so far, of which 4,402 have been positive.

But there was a big change in the data between March 23rd (3,203 tests total) and March 24th (12,000 tests total). I don't think it's likely that the number jumped so much but rather the data was finally collected. Perhaps going forward the data will be updated more frequently?
Post 64 IP   flag post
Collector Drogio private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedsaid
But the last 9-10 days of this graph does track one thing I heard, anecdotally ... and that is, we are starting to be less likely to test sick people, because the diagnosis - positive or negative - wouldn't change the treatment. We already know they are sick, and we just treat that ... it doesn't matter what is causing it. And we still need to ration tests, unfortunately.


Yes, I believe they are testing (or prioritizing test results) to determine where to put you in the hospital. If you’re Covid-19 positive, you get a bed with all the other covid-19 positives. If you’re negative, you go to another area with not as much infectious disease controls in place.

Otherwise why are you here? Go home and rest...come back when you’re really sick and we’ll test you.

Unfortunately that’s the position a lot of places are in...sending people home to quarantine without knowing if they are carriers. And as testing numbers go up you’ll likely see a higher percentage of positives and even percentage deaths....but just know the worst places aren’t testing the milder symptoms.

The people tested last Wednesday at my work called the supervisor the other day to see if he had heard a status of their results....so our company is making statements like “no confirmed cases” yet after a week all 50+ tests have no status and 200+ “Essential” people remain out of work in quarantine, likely all but a few innecessarily.

It’s crazy.
Post 65 IP   flag post
Collector xkonk private msg quote post Address this user
An update from the survey that 538 is keeping tabs on. Basically, still a lot of uncertainty but all the expert estimates have gotten worse compared to last week https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/experts-say-the-coronavirus-outlook-has-worsened-but-the-trajectory-is-still-unclear/
Post 66 IP   flag post
299114 66 16
Thread locked. No more posts permitted. Return home.