The Next Pandemic: SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19

[SoCal Deek]

11 minutes ago, shoshin said:

The cdc official stats update very slowly. They are much more meticulous in counting deaths than the sites like worldometer. So you can’t look at the CDC’s more recent data as complete. It is accurate as far as it’s been counted but it’s not all counted. 
 

Looking at the CDC for demographic trends is the best. 

I assumed as much but even looking at the trend, the numbers are way, way down from the peak. Keeping everyone shut in their homes all over the country seems beyond nutty at this point.

[shoshin]

Just now, Magox said:

You missed the point entirely aside from the data.

 

Its about a double standard and pointing it out with facts.  It’s about how the media covers Cuomo in the most glowing of terms despite his numerous missteps as opposed to “But Florida Beaches” relentless negative coverage of the Republican Trump supporting DeSantis who has handled this crisis as well as anyone despite all the teeth gnashing from the media.   It’s about not being a punching bag and letting your enemies (which is the press when it comes to conservative politicians) and anyone who says otherwise is either being dishonest or naive, not allowing the media to punch you without punching them back in the jaw with the facts.

 

This lack of kumbaya sentiment that you speak of ended the day that the media weaponized this virus.

 

 

Florida is doing better. That’s great. So is New York. That’s great. I don’t want to weaponize good news. I’m just happy to see it. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

7 minutes ago, Magox said:

You missed the point entirely aside from the data.

 

Its about a double standard and pointing it out with facts.  It’s about how the media covers Cuomo in the most glowing of terms despite his numerous missteps as opposed to “But Florida Beaches” relentless negative coverage of the Republican Trump supporting DeSantis who has handled this crisis as well as anyone despite all the teeth gnashing from the media.   It’s about not being a punching bag and letting your enemies (which is the press when it comes to conservative politicians) and anyone who says otherwise is either being dishonest or naive, not allowing the media to punch you without punching them back in the jaw with the facts.

 

This lack of kumbaya sentiment that you speak of ended the day that the media weaponized this virus.

 

 

truth.  Great job on this issue btw, I read most, comment infrequently but I appreciate your perspective. 

[shoshin]

44 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Friday’s numbers show only five states with 100 deaths. I believe that’s the lowest I’ve seen. Of those, four (NY, NJ, Mass, PA) are essentially in the same small geographic region of a ver big country. The outlier is Illinois, and I guarantee their number is almost solely confined to Chicago. By the way, NY is down to about 1/4 of what it was at the peak. 

NY is the only one of those on a massive death count decline though IL shows a decent decline too. PA’s deaths are stubbornly flat. 

[Magox]

2 minutes ago, shoshin said:

 If you can find a bigger well-run sample size that we can get results in while they still matter, let me know. This is a pretty massive study and given how excited people got about steely eyed taser testers, we should welcome any big study. 
 

The other data points on prevalence have all been smallish and uncontrolled dips in the pond of humanity. With any luck, we can get this data in 4-6 weeks. 

 

 

Your fooling yourself if you think this is a “massive” study. 

 

We are talking about a national study.  Their stated goal is to gauge prevalency throughout the country.   You cannot do that effectively with only 10k tests.  New York alone already has conducted one over 10k alone. Other studies in counties have conducted them in the thousands.   We are talking about nationwide.

 

This study will give some insight but not an accurate representation of nationwide state by state prevalency.

 

In order to get a good gauge they will need to go county by county with at least .1% of the population.   10k national study is .003% of the population.  If you think that is a “massive” study, then You and I have a far different interpretation of the word massive.

 

 

[shoshin]

1 minute ago, Magox said:

 

Your fooling yourself if you think this is a “massive” study. 

 

We are talking about a national study.  Their stated goal is to gauge prevalency throughout the country.   You cannot do that effectively with only 10k tests.  New York alone already has conducted one over 10k alone. Other studies in counties have conducted them in the thousands.   We are talking about nationwide.

 

This study will give some insight but not an accurate representation of nationwide state by state prevalency.

 

In order to get a good gauge they will need to go county by county with at least .1% of the population.   10k national study is .003% of the population.  If you think that is a “massive” study, then You and I have a far different interpretation of the word massive.

 

 

You just don’t seem to understand how hard it is to craft a scientific study. Comparing what the NIH is doing to NY’s patient testing during the pandemic gives it away. 
 

10,000 is a big study. 

[Magox]

3 minutes ago, shoshin said:

You just don’t seem to understand how hard it is to craft a scientific study. Comparing what the NIH is doing to NY’s patient testing during the pandemic gives it away. 
 

10,000 is a big study. 

 

What you said has very little to do with what I said. I’m not saying it’s not hard, I didn’t even come close to implying that.  What I said is that it’s a tiny study for what it said is it’s stated purposes which is to gauge prevalency THROUGHOUT the country.
 

It will provide some insight but I wouldn’t read too much into it as the sample size is tiny. 

Edited May 9, 2020 by Magox

[Foxx]

https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1258781203643150337

 

[Foxx]

it's all anecdotal though...

 

[shoshin]

20 minutes ago, Magox said:

 

What you said has very little to do with what I said. I’m not saying it’s not hard, I didn’t even come close to implying that.  What I said is that it’s a tiny study for what it said is it’s stated purposes which is to gauge prevalency THROUGHOUT the country.
 

It will provide some insight but I wouldn’t read too much into it as the sample size is tiny. 

My friend and I do consider you that in our weird internet way, you have been talking about the prevalence of this for weeks based on some highly flawed data points. I find each of those data points promising but we need a study like this to give them credence. Ideally we’d test 2M people but that’s not realistic. 10,000 is a massive study to structure well. It won’t be a final word but you’d be hard pressed to put together a study of this magnitude in a shorter amount of time. Take what you can get!

 

You can have the last word. I think we’re dickering over a small point. I think you’re happy to see a real study like this happening. I know I am. The grocery store sample of 200 people isn’t good enough to make policy.  

[Magox]

1 minute ago, Foxx said:

https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1258781203643150337

 

 

It would be refreshing to have a serious national debate where we could have honest and substantive dialogue where we looked at both sides of the ledger.  The benefits and consequences of the shut downs and some of the draconian social distancing measures.

 

Instead, we have a media that on one day blames conservative politicians for opening up too fast because they don’t care about people and the elderly and on the next day blame the president with blaring headlines that we had 20 million job losses and we are entering into a depression.

 

 

The media is a broken institution.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 hour ago, plenzmd1 said:

Gods honest truth, went to twitter this morning before here or before read any tweet about the numbers..reserached Fla nd Ga weekly reports..GA's are just as impressive BTW.

 

 

 

 

 

Because hope and rational thinking don't sell to blue staters

[snafu]

10 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

 

People think pharma just magically pull pills from their ass. 

 

I do!

Wait, those aren’t pills?

 

 

[plenzmd1]

13 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Because hope and rational thinking don't sell to blue staters

Hit me last night..going into this whole mess I was a never Trumper..not OMB or TDS as yall like to say, i just don't believe he is a positive for our country...but don't want to argue that here.

 

What hit me last night is the blue states are the blue states, the red states are the red states . The swing states however...My guess is unemployment is hitting pretty hard in most of  swing states. I have a bad feeling this will be viewed in a few months time as "the coastal elites did not care about regular folks, after all they were all working from home...look all the data that  showed we should have been working , going about lives, and we wasted an extra month and cost XXX amount of unemployment and hardship that did not need to occur all cause they wanted Trump wrong more than they cared about us"   and handing the election right back to Trump. 

 

And then the whining will commence again.

 

 

Edited May 9, 2020 by plenzmd1

[RochesterRob]

36 minutes ago, Foxx said:

https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1258781203643150337

 

  Given the number of counties across the US I think that 75,000 is an extremely low estimate.  You are talking about people that most likely were succeeding in life and then had their feet knocked out from under them financially.  Quite a few will never be employed as they were before the pandemic.  There will be a great push towards automation now that AI is fairly viable and business owners will want to eliminate the human variable from their operations.  In the millions would not surprise me over the next ten years.  We are just starting to see the economic impact versus being better than half way through the fall out.

[Franco_92]

4 hours ago, Magox said:

 

I like the idea but 10k is a rather small sample for the country.  Not sure this will get an accurate representation.

Statistically speaking it's actually not very small, that gives you a confidence level of 95% and a 1% confidence interval

[GG]

10 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2020/3/14/21177509/coronavirus-trump-covid-19-pandemic-response
 

that pretty much sums it up.  I’ll add earlier work on prophylactic measures (eg, promoting use of masks in keeping with domestic intel warnings from early 2020) and PPE production would have helped.  But hey, the guy’s got next to nothing to show for 3.5 years in office (a point you have yet to meaningfully refute), so why set anything other than a low bar? 
 

Bottom line: you settle for a loser in a position of leadership.  I don’t and won’t.  That’s what sets us apart. 

Again with the testing crap?   How many times does this need to be debunked?   SK didn't slow the spread because of testing.  They did it primarily through voluntary quarantines and their customs.   Their break out was concentrated in a particular group and they were easy to isolate.  

 

While I don't disagree that advising wearing masks as early as possible would have helped, which medical experts in the US were against such advice?   Hint, everyone who was giving Trump advice. 

 

 

[GG]

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

Does the CDC have the ‘official’ figures? The CDC website shows the Covid death count for the first week of May down to the lowest number in two months. If that site is correct, and I assume it is, then curve has not only been flattened but it’s been reduced to a speed bump. You have to admit that Something’s fishy with how the various sites are reporting, but if the CDC site is inaccurate how is ANYONE making public policy?

CDC data is always behind

[Magox]

14 minutes ago, arcane said:

Statistically speaking it's actually not very small, that gives you a confidence level of 95% and a 1% confidence interval

 

Your argument would be persuasive if we were looking into one community.   But it’s not.

 

This is the stated goal

 

From the link:

 

————————-

 

The results will help illuminate the extent to which the novel coronavirus has spread undetected in the United States and provide insights into which communities and populations are most affected.
 

————————————-

 

For the stated goal what you just brought up is incorrect.  There is no way that you can give any stat on the accuracy unless you know the specifics of How many tests were conducted in each particular area.  

 

And since we aren’t talking about one particular area but as what the link implies, prevalency throughout, it’s a tiny study.

 

Its a start and hopefully similar to the NY one they conduct it on a rolling basis to continue to add on to the numbers.  

[Franco_92]

2 minutes ago, Magox said:

 

Your argument would be persuasive if we were looking into one community.   But it’s not.

 

This is the stated goal

 

From the link:

 

————————-

 

The results will help illuminate the extent to which the novel coronavirus has spread undetected in the United States and provide insights into which communities and populations are most affected.
 

————————————-

 

For the stated goal what you just brought up is incorrect.  There is no way that you can give any stat on the accuracy unless you know the specifics of How many tests were conducted in each particular area.  

 

And since we aren’t talking about one particular area but as what the link implies, prevalency throughout, it’s a tiny study.

 

Its a start and hopefully similar to the NY one they conduct it on a rolling basis to continue to add on to the numbers.  

I guess I didn't read it, but if they made like two different distinctions while doing this, noting the difference between NYC and everywhere else, and then which samples come from urban areas vs rural ones, it'd be seriously impressive and effective