COVID-19 Update - 05/07/2020

My own workup | 05/07/2020 | DoughtyOne

[mrsmith]

They also have reports from ILI-net.
Pretty much universal in the US.
Most helpful IMO. I remember Birx recommended it a while ago.
I think it is the predominant metric states are using for their reopening.
May also be the first indicator of an uptick in infections.

Despite the effect of inducements, it’s hard to believe covid deaths are being overreported with all the unaccounted for excess deaths.

[mrsmith]

https://public.tableau.com/views/Coronavirus-ChangeovertimeintheUSA/0_Home2?%3Aembed=y&%3AshowVizHome=no&%3Adisplay_count=y&%3Adisplay_static_image=y&%3AbootstrapWhenNotified=true

A site reporting positivity rates of testing in US.
Click on a state’s name to see up-to-date historical info.

Still a little early to be reliable (some places not enough testing) but should be very helpful soon.

[amorphous]

They also have reports from ILI-net.

Some craziness in the chart below from their report. Opposite of CV. Many more CV victims dying at home too.

I think it is the predominant metric states are using for their reopening. May also be the first indicator of an uptick in infections.

So why should they stop f'ning up now? Don't trust government - ANY government.

Despite the effect of inducements, it’s hard to believe covid deaths are being overreported with all the unaccounted for excess deaths.

Don't know. Maybe they're not.

While crunching some numbers this morning I ran across projection I had made on Texas on 23 April. Pretty close for today. I think we still have a problem and I think the problem is getting worse for the US as a whole. Maybe better in some states. Some are the same. I hope everyone continues wearing their PPE and using good prevention measures. We're not out of the woods yet, and this ain't over by a long shot.

[mrsmith]

Yeah, national statistics hide the problem by the influence of dropping rates from the high-population hot spots.
The rest of the US is surging or plateauing- but with low population.
In my rural county the count hasn’t changed since a week ago when they set up drive-in testing and found a couple. They haven’t come back so asymptomatics are not being found. LOL! In fact none have been found.
Testing is still spotty across the country.
(Also, people may be avoiding going to the hospital or doctor from fear of being infected).

Metrics based on deaths have been the best, but they lag by 2 or more weeks what’s actually going on. Hoping other metrics improve.

[mrsmith]

Just realized I’m on your thread.
Very good info from you!
But... (there’s always a “but”) more testing = more cases.
Would help if you accounted for that.

[amorphous]

Metrics based on deaths have been the best, but they lag by 2 or more weeks what’s actually going on. Hoping other metrics improve.

I've discovered case numbers are actually pretty darn accurate. And only lag about 4 days from actual time someone acquired the virus.

Below are two charts where I have offset the case date by 14 days forward to sync with fatalities. Top chart is for the US, bottom is Italy's numbers. We're twice as worse off as Italy, but Italy is ahead of us in dealing with CV by about two weeks. It's worrisome to me how our numbers seemed to have plateaued. Look how closely case numbers and fatality numbers track - especially in Italy's case. Mismatch in ending US deaths may be due to NY again dumping nursing home deaths into the bucket. Otherwise, US numbers may have tracked as well as Italy's.

Case numbers are a good indicator of how we're doing. Fatality numbers are an even better indicator, and the fastest indicator of effective treatments and cures.

[mrsmith]

But case numbers depend on testing.
That’s why I’m looking for positivity rates to, soon, be reliable indicators.

[amorphous]

I don’t have a good understanding of what a “case” is, and it likely varies. But from the numbers, I can tell whatever it is - guessing its when someone sees a doctor or goes to the hospital - it’s accurate; far too accurate to be testing as is currently being done, but admit I could be wrong.

[amorphous]

I might as well toss another chart your way... Not that there are that many more who seem interested in such. CV fatigue, I'm guessing.

Below is our case index graph. We seem to have plateaued. Barring more efficacious treatments, or a cure, the number of those dying from CV will track these numbers after a period of about two weeks - guaranteed. Those represented where infected about 4 days prior, on average.

[mrsmith]

Don’t agree that cases- a metric which is dependent upon testing- are accurate enough yet.

But, yeah, only treatments which affect deaths is important now.

Except for idiots that willfully get themselves infected by close contact with asymptomatlcs and symptomatics.

[amorphous]

I need to research “cases”. To satisfy my own need to know, if no other reason.

[mrsmith]

?ou can’t have a case without a test, from what I’ve seen.
And tests are variable.

[mrsmith]

At least, “living” ones.
After they die I have no idea of their classifisation.
But that’s not germane.

[amorphous]

But you can have a test without a case. And there are those who test positive who never go to the doc or hospital. So I’m not too sure what the exact definition of a case is in this case - but it does seem to be accurate - and you could be right. If get the opportunity I’m going to research the matter further.

[mrsmith]

If you want to go to that length, It’s appreciated- but unnecaesary.
I don’t think you can have a “case” without a test, except after death.

[amorphous]

Did a little bit of looking at what constitutes a "case". Apparently, as suspected, it varies. But then the large amount of data tends to average out the differences as usually happens. Some states overcount, some undercount. In the end most "cases" are symptomatic, most are lab validate, but some are diagnosed.

In conclusion, I think I'm right in my assumption that the great majority of cases, as reported, are symptomatic suffers who present for medical treatment. It's what CDC and other agencies around the world strive to use as a definition of those cases used to determine case fatality rates, not only for CV, but for influenza as well.

[amorphous]

I made a mistake on the last projection calculated on 7 May, when I added in the case history factor. I should have realized this when the final numbers were much higher than previous projections, but I didn't, this added factor has given me fits. Recent days numbers have dropped significantly for the US and worldwide. I suggest waiting for another day or two past the usual weekend drop, before getting too excited. I added an actual deaths plot line. Below is the corrected version:

Daily fatality index:

Case index offset for daily fatality index - deaths follow over time, barring cure or more efficacious treatment:

[mrsmith]

Trump up now.

“Testing” is a good subject to address. Media overblowing it’s importance , and overblowing it’s problems.
But it’s useful.