Coronavirus pandemic

[wxfree]

Assuming the same test positivity rate

Yeah, see, the problem is this is a flawed assumption, because who gets tested is not chosen at random. When fewer tests are available they are rationed in a way that reserves them for people more likely to test positive. So no, you can't just linearly scale this and assume Florida would have been finding 10,000 daily positives in April if they were testing as much then as now.

A safe assumption is that Florida would never be reporting 15,300 daily cases today if they were still only testing 14,426 people a day.  Here is a simple scenario (somewhat similar to Florida):

April:
10,000 tests a day
1,000 positive cases
10% positivity rate

July:
100,000 tests a day
30,000 positive cases
30% positivity rate

In this scenario, cases jumped from 1,000 a day to 30,000.  Assuming 10k tests a day with a 30% positivity rate, that would equate to 3,000 cases not 30,000.  That means the remaining 27,000 cases (90%) can be attributed to the 10X increase in testing.

Your point that you can't get more positive results than tests is obvious, but to assume that means that the increase in positives is because of the increase in tests is incorrect.  If the virus weren't spreading, we wouldn't be finding those positives.  If you increase testing and the positives go up and the positivity rate goes down, that increase may be attributable to the increase in testing and may not reflect faster spread.  If you test more, and get more positives, and the positivity rate goes up, that means the actual increase in spread is more than the increase in testing.

Refusing to take a pregnancy test is not an effective means of contraception.

[ftballfan]

My small town had a drive-thru test a couple of weeks ago. The local paper had a big headline saying that nine positive cases were founded. The fine print below the headline says that around 600 tests were administered, for a positivity rate of around 1.5%.

The county two counties to the south of mine has had a big outbreak (around 400 cases in a county of less than 30,000 population), mostly attributed to agricultural workers that live and work closely together.

[kphoger]

An outbreak of plague in Inner Mongolia (as well as Mongolia) is another story. 

There's a bubonic plague 'outbreak' in that part of the world all the time.  Heck, there are around a dozen or two cases of it in the USA every year too.  For some reason, though, headlines occasionally pop through as if that weren't the case.

The idea that we wouldn't have already had a recession with 135,000 consumers suddenly removed from the economy over the space of five months is absurd. If your primary concern is the economy, you should favor virus containment issues, because the dead spend no money.

Not even close to the same numbers.  Weekly unemployment claims in the USA average between 200k and 250k per week.  These days, California alone exceeds that in initial claims.  For week ending 27-JUN-2020, there were 1,421,058 initial unemployment claims nationwide.

Why anyone is gambling in a pandemic in the first place, though, is beyond me.

I'm not interested in gambling, never have been.  But, two possible answers:

(1)  Gambling is an addiction, and they're addicted.

(2)  Their finances have not been affected by the pandemic, they don't consider being at the casino to be a significant health risk, and they needed to use up some PTO.

[kphoger]

Nope. The unemployment is being caused by the pandemic.  Not your governor.

Wrong. The virus didn't order businesses to shut down or operate at reduced capacity. Each individual state's governor issued those orders. More governors could have chosen to do what South Dakota's did -- not order closures, and let people and businesses make their own decisions about whether to stay open and at what level of service, whether or not to patronize open businesses, etc. The virus didn't cause any of this. The response to the virus did.

You are wrong. several states chose not to close or open way too early. that led to the businesses trying to make money at the expense of health issues and people not giving a shit whatsoever about the pandemic and states turning a blind eye to it all.

Which does not contradict what hbelkins said.

[SEWIGuy]

The idea that we wouldn't have already had a recession with 135,000 consumers suddenly removed from the economy over the space of five months is absurd. If your primary concern is the economy, you should favor virus containment issues, because the dead spend no money.

That's not the main reason the economy is bad.  In fact that is a very small reason it is bad.

The biggest reason is that otherwise healthy people aren't engaging is as much economic activity.  They aren't going out to eat, etc. due to fears of the virus.  Furthermore, the lack of economic activity, combined with increases in unemployment, is causing people to stop spending in case they face tougher economic circumstance.

My wife and I have both faced pay cuts, yet our savings account balance has increased since March.  Not caused by tax returns or stimulus - simply spending less and saving more.

[kalvado]

An outbreak of plague in Inner Mongolia (as well as Mongolia) is another story. 

There's a bubonic plague 'outbreak' in that part of the world all the time.  Heck, there are around a dozen or two cases of it in the USA every year too.  For some reason, though, headlines occasionally pop through as if that weren't the case.

Close, but not exactly. THere are slower times in terms of plague and flare-outs. Animal to human and human to human transmission are two options, second one being more dangerous - and I believe they have that dangerous option right now.
On the same page - covid  was originally believed to be animal-to-human disease, so not warranting highest alert. 

[NE2]

I heard parclo B4s spread Covid. Hoax?

[kalvado]

I heard parclo B4s spread Covid. Hoax?

Almost. Someone was standing there with a cardboard sign at the interchange. Not sure if that was "unemployed and evicted" or "Biden 2020" - but apparently that person was without a mask.

[LM117]

The governor of Oklahoma has tested positive.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/15/politics/kevin-stitt-oklahoma-governor-coronavirus/index.html

[jdb1234]

Alabama has issued a statewide mask order:

https://www.al.com/news/2020/07/gov-ivey-covid-update-today-press-conference-planned-for-11-am-watch-live.html

I wonder if it is too little too late. 

[kphoger]

too late

Is that possible?  Isn't something more effective than nothing?

[ozarkman417]

The governor of Oklahoma has tested positive.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/15/politics/kevin-stitt-oklahoma-governor-coronavirus/index.html

While he may have attended the Trump Rally, that was 25 days ago while the incubation period is 2-14 days. So unless he was asymptomatic for the time between the rally and testing, it would be a different cause.

[Roadgeekteen]

Walmart is requiring masks in all its stores:

https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/coronavirus-walmart-sams-club-face-mask-shop

[kalvado]

too late

Is that possible?  Isn't something more effective than nothing?

Case count may go up for another 15-20 days, potentially by as much as a factor of 100 total. So with a 1600 cases latest daily number, having 100's thousand sick (out of 5M population) by the end of the month is pessimistic estimate. Realistically, 2-3 k/daily for the next two weeks mean 30k active cases by the end of month - and I wonder if AL can handle that case load.  0.3% fatality rate is only realistic with good care.

[jeffandnicole]

Alabama has issued a statewide mask order:

https://www.al.com/news/2020/07/gov-ivey-covid-update-today-press-conference-planned-for-11-am-watch-live.html

I wonder if it is too little too late. 

I don't think it's too late, but as other states have shown it will help bring down the cases over time.

[kphoger]

as other states have shown it will help bring down the cases over time.

Does anyone here know what caused the following:

Alaska – After having about three weeks of really low numbers in May, subsequently bouncing back up ever since then?

Hawaii – After having about four weeks of really low numbers in May, subsequently bouncing back up ever since then?

Montana – After having about four weeks of really low numbers in April-May, subsequently bouncing back up ever since then?

[Scott5114]

The governor of Oklahoma has tested positive.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/15/politics/kevin-stitt-oklahoma-governor-coronavirus/index.html

Oklahoma had its first day of over 1,000 new cases today as well. In the same press conference where Stitt announced he was carrying the virus, he also declined to enact any change to state policies such as a mandatory mask order or stay-at-home order, saying Oklahoma is doing better than other states and that shutting down again won't get rid of the virus.

Stitt was photographed in an Oklahoma City Walmart on Saturday not wearing a mask.

[tradephoric]

Your point that you can't get more positive results than tests is obvious, but to assume that means that the increase in positives is because of the increase in tests is incorrect.  If the virus weren't spreading, we wouldn't be finding those positives.  If you increase testing and the positives go up and the positivity rate goes down, that increase may be attributable to the increase in testing and may not reflect faster spread.  If you test more, and get more positives, and the positivity rate goes up, that means the actual increase in spread is more than the increase in testing.

Keep the math simple and assume the virus isn't spreading.  The public hears cases have gone up from 1,000 a day to 10,000 and they assume the virus is 10X worse than before.  The public is duped into believing the virus is out of control because the media focuses nearly all of their attention on daily case counts.  In the scenario below, 100% of the additional cases is due to increased testing.  That's why news headlines like "37 states are seeing rise in cases" is totally ambiguous.

April:
10,000 tests a day
1,000 positive cases
10% positivity rate

July:
100,000 tests a day
10,000 positive cases
10% positivity rate

[Scott5114]

Keep the math simple and assume the virus isn't spreading.

It is, though, despite your desire to keep the math simple.

[SEWIGuy]

Your point that you can't get more positive results than tests is obvious, but to assume that means that the increase in positives is because of the increase in tests is incorrect.  If the virus weren't spreading, we wouldn't be finding those positives.  If you increase testing and the positives go up and the positivity rate goes down, that increase may be attributable to the increase in testing and may not reflect faster spread.  If you test more, and get more positives, and the positivity rate goes up, that means the actual increase in spread is more than the increase in testing.

Keep the math simple and assume the virus isn't spreading.  The public hears cases have gone up from 1,000 a day to 10,000 and they assume the virus is 10X worse than before.  The public is duped into believing the virus is out of control because the media focuses nearly all of their attention on daily case counts.  In the scenario below, 100% of the additional cases is due to increased testing.  That's why news headlines like "37 states are seeing rise in cases" is totally ambiguous.

April:
10,000 tests a day
1,000 positive cases
10% positivity rate

July:
100,000 tests a day
10,000 positive cases
10% positivity rate

The scenario you are detailing above means the virus is spreading further.  This is bad.  The tests per day should be increasing, but the positivity rate should be decreasing.  Not staying the same.  This is what is happening in the countries that are handling this better than we are.

[tradephoric]

The virus is less widespread in this country today than it was back in April.  We just think the virus is so much worse because the daily numbers are so high (due to the fact we are testing 7x more people today than we were back in April). 

[SEWIGuy]

The virus is less widespread in this country today than it was back in April.  We just think the virus is so much worse because the daily numbers are so high (due to the fact we are testing 7x more people today than we were back in April). 

Uh. No.  That's simply not the case.  If the daily positive tests are increasing, it means that it is more widespread.

How could you anecdotally even say that?  It makes so sense.

It's like you know the names of statistics, but have no idea what they mean.

[Scott5114]

This is the same guy who believes that you can predict stocks by drawing flagging pennants on them or whatever the fuck. Best to not take him seriously, especially now that he's spreading dangerous misinformation.

[kphoger]

If the daily positive tests are increasing, it means that it is more widespread.

To be fair, that statement isn't actually true.  Positive tests are only a subset of total tests, and therefore they are not an absolute measure of how widespread the virus is.

I'm not saying tradephoric is on the right track, though.

[tradephoric]

Here is the national overview of new tests, new cases, current hospitalizations, and new deaths.  While daily cases are 83% higher today than they were during April's peak, hospitalizations are down over 10% and deaths are down by over 70%.  Ultimately deaths are nowhere near where they were back in April which is really good news.  As bad as thing are in Florida right now, at least we aren't seeing 1000 deaths a day like we were in New York back in April (and both states have similar populations).