ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 1538 of 2848
« First < 538103814381488152815341535153615371538 153915401541154215481588163820382538 > Last »
The Lounge>***NON-POLITICAL COVID-19 Discussion Thread***
JakeF 10:28 PM 02-26-2020
A couple of reminders...

Originally Posted by Bwana:
Once again, don't come in this thread with some kind of political agenda, or you will be shown the door. If you want to go that route, there is a thread about this in DC.
Originally Posted by Dartgod:
People, there is a lot of good information in this thread, let's try to keep the petty bickering to a minimum.

We all have varying opinions about the impact of this, the numbers, etc. We will all never agree with each other. But we can all keep it civil.

Thanks!

Click here for the original OP:

Spoiler!

[Reply]
dirk digler 01:00 PM 04-20-2020
Originally Posted by TLO:
MO DHSS numbers for yesterday

Cases in Missouri: 5,667

Total Deaths: 176

Patients tested in Missouri (by all labs): approximately 55,873
As of 2:00 p.m. CT, April 19

Numbers for today

Cases in Missouri: 5,807

Total Deaths: 177

Patients tested in Missouri (by all labs): approximately 55,873 (not yet updated for 4/20/20)

excellent
[Reply]
'Hamas' Jenkins 01:02 PM 04-20-2020
Originally Posted by mr. tegu:
You are welcome to explore the reasoning for the wide range of death rates. It would be interesting to see. Perhaps the suspected various strands plays a part. But the point is that at this time based on available numbers assuming equal death rates just doesnít work as an assumption. However, if you add a ton of cases then New York could be more equal to other places on the death rate, which would then support the idea put forth about many more infected.
Originally Posted by DaFace:
Possibly. :-)

Anyway, my point isn't that it's impossible that 32% of people in Boston have it - only that it seems very unlikely given what we're seeing in NYC. Time will tell.

This is why the numbers from the antibody study in Santa Clara don't match up. Boston, we'll see, but it's highly, highly unlikely.

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
As more information comes in our ability to refine predictions will obviously improve. I've mentioned this twice in the last day, but I think it bears repeating. Regardless of what you initially believed about the models, we are getting enough data in from New York and the infectiousness of the virus to make some baseline assumptions about the death toll that are fairly well grounded.

What we know:
*New York State has a population of 20,000,000
*New York has a death toll of 17,671 at this point
*Tests of suspected COVID patients in New York were 38% as of April 1
*Deaths usually lag about two weeks behind infections

What we are assuming based upon some clinical research:

The low end of the R0 is 2.2, the high end is over 8. One study put the R0 at 5.7

We can plug and chug to help us understand fatality rates, but this is still back of the napkin stuff:

Given that 38% of suspected COVID patients were positive in April (and those are the ones most likely to test positive) and the test has a false negative rate of 30%, at most 47% of people in New York (and I'm counting the entire state, which will greatly elevate the potential number of infected) would have been infected at that time.

That gives us a pool of 9.4 million infections in New York. Although this is highly, highly unlikely, it would give us a lower bound of a fatality rate. As of now it would be 0.19.

[Reply]
TLO 01:02 PM 04-20-2020
Originally Posted by dirk digler:
excellent
I'm thinking they might be asleep at the wheel. Every other site that tracks this has is around 200 deaths. Our total death count has been 1 for the past 2 days according to DHSS.
[Reply]
SAUTO 01:04 PM 04-20-2020
Originally Posted by TLO:
I'm thinking they might be asleep at the wheel. Every other site that tracks this has is around 200 deaths. Our total death count has been 1 for the past 2 days according to DHSS.
Iím curious to see how many tests that is from this yesterday
[Reply]
petegz28 01:07 PM 04-20-2020
Originally Posted by SAUTO:
Not sure where your getting numbers from

3-31 tues 914
4-1 w 1050
2 th 974
3 fr 1051
4 sat 1330
5 sun 1167 !!!
6 mon 1257 !!!
7 tues 1973
8 weíd 1943
9 th 1901
10 fri 2035
11 sat 1830
12 sun 1578!!!
13 mon 1535!!!
14 tues 2405
15 wed 2016
16 thurs 2176
17 fri 2578
18 sat 1867!!!
19 sun 1861!!!


See how Sunday and Mondays are consistently lower than any days around them???
Go back into March. And I understand what you are saying but the argument is anecdotal as far as I know save 4/5 which they said were errors in reporting.

Plus the argument was Sundays were lower. Today you introduced Mondays to that argument.

Again, anecdotal unless there is some specific reason you can point to.
[Reply]
TLO 01:08 PM 04-20-2020
Originally Posted by SAUTO:
Iím curious to see how many tests that is from this yesterday
Based on what we've been averaging lately, I'd say somewhere between 1000-1500. I'll update it as soon as they do.
[Reply]
petegz28 01:10 PM 04-20-2020
Originally Posted by TLO:
MO DHSS numbers for yesterday

Cases in Missouri: 5,667

Total Deaths: 176

Patients tested in Missouri (by all labs): approximately 55,873
As of 2:00 p.m. CT, April 19

Numbers for today

Cases in Missouri: 5,807

Total Deaths: 177

Patients tested in Missouri (by all labs): approximately 55,873 (not yet updated for 4/20/20)
Oddly enough Worldometers matches the number of cases with a difference in new cases and still shows 198 total deaths with 0 new deaths today so far.

Weird shit in Mo
[Reply]
SAUTO 01:10 PM 04-20-2020
Originally Posted by petegz28:
Go back into March. And I understand what you are saying but the argument is anecdotal as far as I know save 4/5 which they said were errors in reporting.

Plus the argument was Sundays were lower. Today you introduced Mondays to that argument.

Again, anecdotal unless there is some specific reason you can point to.
Uhhhh no. I Said Sundayís and Mondayís before today.


And itís because they are a day behind ( which Iím pretty sure youíve agreed with) and obviously everywhere isnít reporting on the weekends correctly. Thatís why it catches up on Tuesdays.
[Reply]
loochy 01:11 PM 04-20-2020
Originally Posted by petegz28:
Oddly enough Worldometers matches the number of cases with a difference in new cases and still shows 198 total deaths with 0 new deaths today so far.

Weird shit in Mo
It's not weird. Something happened with the reporting. Duh.
[Reply]
SAUTO 01:11 PM 04-20-2020
Originally Posted by SAUTO:
Sundayís and Mondays are always down. Weíve gone through this Pete
Here is my post from yesterday... just FTR . Mondays didnít just come up today.
[Reply]
petegz28 01:11 PM 04-20-2020
Originally Posted by TLO:
Based on what we've been averaging lately, I'd say somewhere between 1000-1500. I'll update it as soon as they do.
Worldometers shows zero change in total tests from yesterday to today
[Reply]
IowaHawkeyeChief 01:11 PM 04-20-2020
Originally Posted by TLO:
Ooooh. This is a good read. Much better than the news article I posted.
Since the article, the Stanford team released an appendix, and he addresses that at the bottom of the article, but I guess you guys didn't read down that far... I believe there is a bias for self selection, however, many of the other concerns were addressed.

Here is the author of the link with concerns on the study after the appendix came out...

Originally Posted by :
P.P.S. The authors provide some details on their methods here. Hereís whatís up:

Ė For the poststratification, it turns out they do adjust for every zip code. Iím surprised, as Iíd think that could give them some noisy weights, but, given our other concerns with this study, I guess noisy weights are the least of our worries. Also, they donít quite weight by sex x ethnicity x zip; they actually weight by the two-way margins, sex x zip and ethnicity x zip. Again, not the worldís biggest deal. They shouldíve adjusted for age, too, though, as thatís a freebie.

Ė They have a formula to account for uncertainty in the estimated specificity. But something seems to have gone wrong, as discussed in the above post. Itís hard to know exactly what went wrong since we donít have the data and code. For example, I donít know what they are using for var(q).


Here is the appendix:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medr...20062463-1.pdf
[Reply]
petegz28 01:12 PM 04-20-2020
Originally Posted by SAUTO:
Here is my post from yesterday... just FTR . Mondays didnít just come up today.
Excuse me, yesterday was the first time......:-)
[Reply]
TLO 01:14 PM 04-20-2020
Originally Posted by loochy:
It's not weird. Something happened with the reporting. Duh.
I've said this a few times but the Missouri DHSS has say always lagged behind other sites in the numbers of deaths. You'd think they'd be the ones with the most up to date info, but :-)

They seem to be petty good about the number of positive cases and tests run though.
[Reply]
SAUTO 01:15 PM 04-20-2020
Also using March doesn’t get you much. There weren’t hardly any deaths per day most of the month but the last week is the exact same. Lower on Sunday and Monday than tues...
[Reply]
Page 1538 of 2848
« First < 538103814381488152815341535153615371538 153915401541154215481588163820382538 > Last »
Up