Different ways to look at Covid-19 data and
I thought this New York Times link provided so e very helpful ways to look at Covid 2019 data. It looks at places that are seeing the worst problems now, places where the data is getting better and what places have gotten hit hardest. I believe the Times is making it’s covid-19 stories available even if you don’t have a prescription. The data is being updated and you can select many different metro areas to look at. So e of the Large urban areas like Washington DC seem to subsime many close in areas, so you might not be able to drill down if you live near a big city.
I found the very last section on places hardest hit interesting in giving some perspective on why where you come from may shape your perspective (which is already fairly obvious, but the numbers make it even clearer). It shows the 15 hardest hit metro areas. The difference between #1 (the New York metro area) and #15 Barletsville Oklahoma, is more tan a factor 0f three. In the NYC area, deaths per thousand people (not cases), is 1.15. This translates to close to 400,000 deaths nationwide if every area is hit as hard. In Bartletsville, OK, it is 0.35 per thousand, or a bit over 100,000 nationwide if everyone was hit as hard. Since most cases have been hit much less hard (Grand Rapids for instance is at 0.04 per thousand (or about 13,200 nationwide if applied nationally), you can see why many people think of this as not much different than the flu.
What I think is most notable is #2 on the list, Albany, GA at 1.08 per thousand. I think most people assume that what happened in NYC can’t happen in Their hometown because they don’t have the density, the mass transit and the proximity to international flights. Albany, GA doesn’t have any of those things either.
I think that this is the type of example that has many health experts so concerned about this virus. It really can overwhelm hospitals anywhere. It is why, even as we relax social distancing, we need to be careful. While it is important to open things back up, this case demonstrates that it will not be hard to end up with overwhelmed hospitals in less urban areas. This is not to say that we shouldn’t be opening things up carefully. It is to say that social distancing even in less urban areas isn’t just about saving old people, it is about making sure our hospitals don’t get overwhelmed. It isn’t to say we need to keep stay at home orders in place, indefinitely, but it is to say that some level of social distancing, vigilant testing and listening to what the data says if we see surges, is going to be critical to limit the potential for overwhelmed medical systems and associated stay at home orders.
What type of doctor can write me a prescription to the NYT?
Dr. Nick Riviera.
Hi Dr Nick
Hi Everybody!
Calling Dr. Howard! Dr. Fine! Dr. Howard!
Dr. Rosenpenis.
Everyone who has time to read this, has 30 seconds a day to help us beat Ohio State, kick Wisconsin out of Michigan, teach GT that we are the best public university in the US, and remind TAMU that they are just like little brother.
Steps To Play Every Day With Hyperlinks:
- Sign up for a https://reddit.com/ account if you don’t have one already
- Visit https://collegefootballrisk.com/ – Click Sign in with Reddit – Select Michigan as your team. Make sure you select Michigan the first time because you can't change this!
- Visit https://michigancfbrisk.com/ - click “Login using Reddit” – Click “Get an Assignment”
- Return to https://collegefootballrisk.com/ – Scroll to the bottom of the page and execute your assignment (Note: Simply clicking action so that it becomes highlighted gray confirms the move. There’s no submit or confirm button needed)
Please stop. You're not helping; it's going to get counterproductive really, really quickly.
Three dimensions (up until there's a vaccine or consistently useful treatment), right?
- Dose: Get a lot of this (in an "area under the curve" sense) and you could be in trouble regardless of your overall underlying health. There are some frightening stories about health care providers.
- Density: In a word, social distancing. Lack of it increases your dose risk.
- Risk factors: Age is huge. Obesity is turning out to be important. Nicotine (or maybe something in tobacco) may be protective. Useful information is accumulating apace.
If you're in a low-density area and in good health, there's a good chance your lifestyle won't put you at high risk. If you're 62 and overweight and work in an ER, eee.
While someone in a low density area who is healthy is at pretty low risk for death or serious illness, it doesn’t mean that they can’t get it and spread it.
I think everyone knows that, you aren't illuminating anything with this comment, and in fact, sound like one of those people who think everyone is a slow 6 year old. In fact, I could get it AND die from it where I live and with my low risk factors. Shit happens.
Make reasonable rules, and focus on the people who are actually dying of this (average age is still around 80 I believe) and I think a lot of the arguments would stop.
I think lots of people hope for some panacea where we have “reasonable rules” and “focus on the people who are actually dying“ and this would all go away. That ultimately probably depends upon your definition of reasonable rules.
What exactly are the “reasonable rules”you are going to use in a meatpacking plant? What are the “reasonable rules” you are going to use in restaurants , movie theaters and other venues that depend upon high volume to be profitable? Who is going to work in the retirement homes, only people who’ve been confirmed to already have the virus, people who are going to isolate themselves from society, people who will be tested multiple times a day? What about mass transit?
I think you greatly underestimate the magnitude of the challenges we face in trying to balance the competing interests of keeping both the economy as a whole running and keeping health care systems running. I also think you ignore the fact that even though they may not end up in the hospital, many of the not at risk population will get sick and won’t be able to keep things running.
‘Make reasonable rules, and focus on the people who are actually dying of this (average age is still around 80 I believe) and I think a lot of the arguments would stop.” may not be the statement of a slow 6 year old and certainly isn’t as bad as, “like a miracle, it will stop”, but it is also not a credible plan to address the challenges that places like Albany, GA have already had.
I don't underestimate anything teacher. I didn't say it would be easy to make the rules, but our so-called experts aren't even trying. Our elected leaders seem to be more interested in one-upping each other in the dumb rule contest than actually trying to figure out a happy medium.
I mean, Michigan banned buying seeds. Seeds! My farmer folk cousins loved that one. I just found out Michigan also stopped construction on houses? Seriously? Down here they've finished half our subdivision since the lockdown. No corpses in the streets either. Probably has a lot to do with them all being young people in the prime of their life, who are about as affected by this as a cold. Who are they protecting?
As far as meat packing plants, well, I think 328 million people would like to eat. Don't you?
Honestly, it doesn't matter how safe you want to be. The people have spoken. Every time I leave the house it looks a little more normal. In fact, the traffic in this burg is about back to normal.
I’m sorry if I misinterpreted the statement ‘Make reasonable rules, and focus on the people who are actually dying of this (average age is still around 80 I believe) and I think a lot of the arguments would stop.“ as suggesting that it was easy. I inferred that since it could apparently be done with little argument it must be easy.
I also said in my original post that I thought we needed to find a way to open things up. I’m not out here advocating for an extended lockdown, I just think many are underestimating how easily this can spread even outside of big urban centers. I honestly don’t see why you feel the need to be so hostile because I don’t think our positions are that different. (They are however probably quite different with regards to our viewpoint about which of us is the bigger ass)
Also, not sure that the people have spoken the way you think they have. Maybe polls have changed in the last week, but as of last week, most polls showed the majority of people supported the stay at home orders. I couldn’t find anything more recent.
I think the stay at home support is going to fade with each passing day, especially if we see other areas opening up and the sky doesn’t fall. I would not be surprised to see those orders end through civil disobedience or mob rule before our leaders get around to canceling them.
I disagree that there is going to be anywhere near the level of anarchy you predict, but I agree that over the next 30 days, we’ll see significant relaxing of the standards. I suspect that public pressure will play a role in that. I also suspect we’ll see an uptick in deaths but doubt the sky falls this summer. I think that will be in part because many will embrace reopening pretty cautiously.
This article from Forbes about restaurants opening from yesterday certainly doesn't;t suggest a population quite ready to revolt to be able to go out and eat at a restaurant.
I really think you are underestimating most people’s interest in cautiously finding a way forward. I think there are significant minorities on both sides (keep shut downs in place, open things up now) and a majority who recognize this is not easy but want to find a way to move forward.
Yes, the viral load upon initial infection appears to be a significant factor (and may help explain why hotspots get so bad, as there may just be more of it circulating around).
This is where masks are helpful. If you and I are both wearing them, one of us might still infect the other but the amount of the virus that makes it through is probably somewhat less than it would be otherwise.
I refuse to cover my face in support of pseudoscientific "hey, it can't hurt" nonsense. It can hurt -- not in terms of health*, but, rather, in terms of our interactions with others, particularly with people who don't "look like" us. There have been a number of studies showing that people are less likely to trust someone if they can't see their face, particularly if they're in a different ethnic group. I refuse to support anything that will take a bad problem and make it worse.
All of the people who point to Asian countries as a model conveniently overlook the fact that the areas where the masks are most widespread are extremely ethnically homogenous.
Mask ordinances are nothing but fear writ large, and -- like almost anything borne from fear -- will do more harm than good.
* in most cases. There are some medical conditions, particularly pulmonary conditions, that can be exacerbated by wearing a mask.
I haven't seen any real evidence a little cloth mask is going to help. A N95, yes. But I'll be damned if I'm going to deprive those who work around the disease every day of their supply of N95 masks to feel a little better myself.
So far it appears the first thing most of those I see wearing masks forget is how to social distance. Those little cloth masks don't make you invincible people.
Face coverings don't make you invincible. They are not a substitute for social distancing. But, in a situation where you can't properly social distance, they are a help. They do capture droplets in which the virus lives. If I cough while wearing a mask, yeah, some of my germs get through. But not as many as they would otherwise. And if it's true that viral load makes a difference (there is some evidence of that), then anything that can reduce that amount of the virus in circulation is worthwhile.
The "masks do nothing" line was a lie to protect supplies. The WHO put it out there and a lot of countries went with it. I understand the motivation behind it, but it was not an evidence-based statement, and it's damaged current efforts to convince people to wear them now.
The benefits need to be weighed against the costs. In my estimation, the benefit here is mostly imaginary -- and essentially nil if the wearer is healthy -- and the cost is quite real.
You are completely backwards.
The cost that we all become racists because we see people in masks is completely made up by you.
The fact that covering your face reduces the transmission of diseases has been known for at least a hundred years and is something every 5 year old inherently understands.
When you’re on a plane do you enjoy it when the person next to you starts sneezing in your drink? I highly doubt it. You probably expect people in public to cover their coughs and sneezes with their hands, arms, or shirts. It’s really not as complicated as you seem to think.
C'mon man. Context matters. Yes, in normal times people are less likely to trust someone if they can't see their face but these are not normal times.
It's quite the opposite right now. By wearing a mask, you are signaling to others that you know what's going on, you're attempting (whether it's even helpful or not) to protect those around you by wearing the mask, and others will perceive you as more likely to adhere to social distancing, i.e. you are trustworthy.
Walk out in public without a mask now, and you get dirty looks as people view you as potentially endangering them (right or wrong but that's what happened when the CDC recommended them).
Whatever point you're trying to make to justify your own refusal to wear a mask is nonsense.
It's quite the opposite right now. By wearing a mask, you are signaling to others that you know what's going on, you're attempting (whether it's even helpful or not) to protect those around you by wearing the mask, and others will perceive you as more likely to adhere to social distancing, i.e. you are trustworthy.
Consciously, maybe. (My personal reaction is "the mask-wearer is probably ignorant," but I recognize that I may be out of the mainstream here).
Subconsciously, though, absolutely not. You don't change thousands of years of human evolution overnight. A Google search for "face covering while black" yields articles / opinion pieces from the entire left side of the political spectrum, from the NY Times to Mother Jones.
Walk out in public without a mask now, and you get dirty looks as people view you as potentially endangering them (right or wrong but that's what happened when the CDC recommended them).
Reason #17 that the CDC never should have made its asinine recommendation. They fell victim to politics, and letting the desire to "do something" outweigh the science. Scientifically, there's basically no reason to believe that wearing a homemade mask does anything. The recommendation was made without an understanding of the sociological factors at play; they just basically said, "well, scientifically, it doesn't hurt."
As been pointed out to you, at the very least, wearing a cloth mask will slow the spread of the virus due to it being able to contain some of the droplets that you transpire when you breath, these droplets can carry the virus. So, for that reason alone, I'd much rather have all of us wearing a mask, preventing the spread of the virus when we're in public, socially distant or not. The fact is, scientifically, it doesn't hurt.
I'm really refraining here, because this is a sports blog... but you're really a scumbag. You're racist. Ignorant. And think you have any kind of facts. What facts you may hold, are skewed by ignorant racism that is frankly disgusting, and is continuing to hold this country back. You seem like the type, that when/if you contract the virus, you'll find some way to justify blaming it on others.
April 30th, 2020 at 12:00 AM ^
When I'm wearing a mask in the grocery store or to pick up food, I am more conscious of my surroundings and keeping my distance, and of not touching my face. Those two things do make a difference in spreading the virus.
April 30th, 2020 at 10:48 AM ^
So this study just came out in JAMA. While I'd consider all of NYC to be high density, it's kind of interesting that Manhattan hasn't been hit as hard as the Bronx even though it has a higher population density. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2765524?guestAccessKey=bea1171d-1ecd-49df-a55f-2e11ed68ec40&utm_source=silverchair&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=article_alert-jama&utm_content=olf&utm_term=042920
One thing about this pandemic .... there are a lot of news stories that show a lot of data. But they rarely craft a story around the data. Personally, I find that bad journalism. I guess it's the "curse of Tableau", if you will. Everyone can show numbers, less folk can say what those numbers mean.
Anyway ..... take Marion, Ohio for instance. Ranks 1st in terms of the Metro area hit the hardest in terms of confirmed cases per capita!
Yet --- when it comes to deaths per capita, they rank somewhere around 200th among all MSAs.
That's a pretty big difference! An intellectually curious person would immediately ask "why?"
Now, there's a reason for that and there is a story there (and actually an interesting story as regards the future of this virus' spread). But where's an article that actually tells that story?
(to be clear, nothing personally meant against the OP).
first: be careful with the virus, its not child's play by any means. but two data points that you won't hear about, both from california
1. two doctors did an interview and were talking about doctors being forced to code deaths to be due to C-19 when in fact they weren't. they used statistics, were qualified to opine and gave a message. guess what? youtube censored it, saying it was 'disinformation'. consider that for a minute. it was a rational discussion by two doctors and youtube took it down because it questioned the government's controls. when big business (google owns youtube) combines with big gov't, be afraid. only approved messages get heard, no dissent allowed.
2. ER doc in san diego, friend of the family. had a patient run over by a bus and die. death certificate is easy for that one. but no. because the patient had a history of recovering from C-19 the month before, that doc was forced to code the death as due to C-19.
C-19 is no joke, and it needs serious discussion and accurate tracking. censorship and playing with the numbers prevents that.
You mean these two doctors?
"The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and the American Academy of Emergency Medicine (AAEM) jointly and emphatically condemn the recent opinions released by Dr. Daniel Erickson and Dr. Artin Massihi. These reckless and untested musings do not speak for medical societies and are inconsistent with current science and epidemiology regarding COVID-19. As owners of local urgent care clinics, it appears these two individuals are releasing biased, non-peer reviewed data to advance their personal financial interests without regard for the public’s health."
Why take down their video? They are experts after all. It seems a certain crowd only wants to hear experts pushing a narrative. YouTube says they want their algorithms to push authoritative sources like the WHO...who back in January said there was no evidence of human to human transmission and still says we should not be wearing masks.
Why did the video get taken down? Did you not read the above statement from the American College of Emergency Physicians and the American Academy of Emergency Medicine?
"...it appears these two individuals are releasing biased, non-peer reviewed data to advance their personal financial interests without regard for the public’s health."
While most of the people on this site may be able to do some critical thinking and research themselves after watching that video, millions of people in this country and around the world are willing to take what they see on YouTube as fact.
"It appears ......"
OK. But as the saying goes, "show your work." What is the evidence that these doctors are doing these to advance their personal financial interests without regard for the public's health?
That's a strong claim to make. What is the evidence?
You mean besides all of the evidence that shows this virus is incredibly contagious, a person can have the virus without showing symptoms and unknowingly spread it, and that social distancing is working? If you ignore those widely accepted data points, I don't see any problem with these doctors discussion points and putting the public's health at risk.
What is the evidence that these doctors are doing this to advance their personal financial interests without regard for the public's health?
E.g., these doctors "care only about $$$, and don't give a damn about people."
Where is the evidence for this? Where have they financially gained from this?
I haven't seen or watched these doctors video --- I am not arguing they are right or wrong on what they said in the video. I'm arguing that if you are going to say "they are doing this to advance their personal financial interests without regard for the public's health", let see some evidence for how they are financially gaining from this.
So your problem isn't that "public health experts were quick to debunk the doctors’ findings as misguided and riddled with statistical errors" or "They’ve used methods that are ludicrous to get results that are completely implausible" or "The doctors basically hyped a bunch of data and weren’t transparent about their methods. And they really played on the fact that they’re physicians."
You're upset that one of the critics of the video said they likely did it to advance their financial interests. Seems like a weird thing to focus on, but ok.
That's fine --- if one wants to critique the rigor of their work, that is fine. And peer-review and intellectual rigor and intellectual challenge should be embraced, at all times.
But that's not what the ACEP-AAME said in their statement. They never talked about the rigor of their work. Just look at their statement, and parse it. It's rather nasty in its wording:
1. The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and the American Academy of Emergency Medicine (AAEM) jointly and emphatically condemn the recent opinions released by Dr. Daniel Erickson and Dr. Artin Massihi.
OK. You condemn it. Why the use of that term instead of "strongly disagree?"
2. These reckless and untested musings do not speak for medical societies and are inconsistent with current science and epidemiology regarding COVID-19.
Why the use of the word reckless?
3. As owners of local urgent care clinics, it appears these two individuals are releasing biased, non-peer reviewed data to advance their personal financial interests without regard for the public’s health.
So what if they are urgent care clinic owners? Does that mean they are lesser human beings than ivory tower elites? Classic use of the "appeal to authority" fallacy.
They used the word "released" --- sure, they put out a video. This isn't in an academic journal, YouTube never has claimed to be an academic journal.
I've already touched on the last part of that sentence.
4. Members of ACEP and AAEM are first-hand witnesses to the human toll that COVID-19 is taking on our communities.
OK. So members who are "first-hand witnesses" should have more of a voice, just because of that?
5. ACEP and AAEM strongly advise against using any statements of Drs. Erickson and Massihi as a basis for policy and decision making.
This is fine. The statement would have been fine just by saying this.
Ok, I have to ask. Are you one of the two doctors from the video? First you completely ignore all of the evidence and statements made by professionals that demonize the doctors to instead focus on the fact that they may of may not financially benefit from the video. Now you're essentially saying the ACEP-AAME statement is too mean to the doctors.
1. They should have said "strongly disagree" instead of "condemn"? Haha seriously?
2. Why did they use the word reckless? Uhhh because the doctors were reckless?
3. Trying to make it seem like these doctors are being beat down by the "ivory tower elites"? And yes, the video was released on YouTube.
4. Yes, people who are on the front lines and see this virus first hand should have more of a voice.
Again, I find it very strange that you're choosing to focus on semantics and synonyms instead of, you know, a terrible video spreading misinformation to millions of people.
He answered your questions perfectly, he's not at all being strange. Your replies smack of hysterics and are not at all scientific.
His overall point, obviously, is that questions should be centered on their data. Making a baseless personal attack on their motive is an indication that these people who were condemning them didn't feel secure in their arguments, and had to resort to personal attack.
Et tu, Brute? Again, it sounds like you're arguing that it's totally alright for medical professionals to put misinformation for millions to consume on the internet. They real problem here, according to you, is how mean people were when they called these doctors on their bullshit.
And my replies are not at all scientific despite the fact that I linked multiple articles with professional health experts and health industry organizations condemning these doctors. Got it.
Most of your replies don't address his points, and they're full of sophmorish attempts at twitter lulz.
Trying to smear someone based on zero evidence is not an argument. Glad you got it.
It’s not misinformation and that’s the problem .... you can argue that the CA studies were biased and that’s fine. But swap out that data with the NYC antibody testing that showed 25% of the population was infected and their argument is just as valid.
25% of random population tested positive. Open up already, fatality from this is miniscule.
April 30th, 2020 at 10:49 AM ^
25% of random population tested positive. Open up already, fatality from this is miniscule.
The death rate for people of NYC, as in deaths divided by the entire population of NYC, is 0.15. So 50% greater the rate of the seasonal flu. Not a huge increase. Problem is, if only 25% of NYC has had it, that means the death rate of people actually contracting it is 0.69 (nice) or roughly 700% more deadly than the flu. So we're talking, instead of ~40,000 deaths from the flu on an average year, more like 200,000+ deaths. We might come in under that given the approaches taken, but the goal really wasn't to stop the death count at some smaller number.
I don't know where the right approach lies on a scale between do nothing and lock everything down. I do know that, given the good data we've seen so far (the data you're using here instead of the CA data that's crap) it's not just the flu and no big deal.
I'm not trying to say it's the flu so "no big deal"....but I AM saying that even if we got to 200,000 deaths, if 70% of those are aged 70 or over, we have to stop the lockdown and get back to work.
70 year olds, 80 year olds and 90 year olds are OVERWHELMINGLY the victims here, and I feel for them and their families, but I don't think bankrupting the country in order to keep them alive - when they've lived the longest during the best period of human history - isn't the right choice either.
How much pain and suffering should the world endure to keep people alive who will die, on average, over the next 5 years no matter what we do?
YouTube censored the thoughts of frontline medical doctors because other doctors have a differing opinion. Even if you completely disagree with their opinion, this censorship should be concerning.
Why are you questioning two large organizations over the findings of two random doctors who just so happen to own a local chain of urgent care facilities? Their opinions are isolated - they go against the grain of everything we know about the virus. They aren't publishing their findings...they're publicly displaying them in a youtube video. It's pretty clear they have an agenda based on all available evidence, but you're not questioning them...you're questioning the organizations that represent thousands of ER docs around the country. Right.
I'm not questioning them - it's perfectly fine to put out a statement "we don't agree with them, and here is why."
My issue --- as stated above --- is with the nature of the response. It's rather vicious. And I find that odd. People disagree in the scientific community quite often, viciousness isn't the usual tenor when that happens.
Anyway, I'm just re-stating my opinion here and not breaking new ground. Fair enough to those who disagree, leave it at that.
"Vicious" is your subjective interpretation of it, and we'll never agree on that. It was certainly very strongly worded though. But again - why are you questioning the wording of it and not doing the opposite (wondering *why* two professional organizations condemned with such strong language)?
So 2 MDs post statistically weak data and then go on a nationally broadcast news channel as well as Youtube to present their data. No peer-review, nothing. That data, people take as proof that a global pandemic is being overblown (whether you agree with that statement or not) and that the chances of dying or being put into the ICU are tiny and the general health profession is wrong. People may take that as reason to rebel against stay at home orders which could risk the lives of many (again, you can disagree with that). Call into question their intelligence or motives, but in the end their data is statistically irrelevant and their publication of their results is academically in bad taste.
So yeah, a professional organization that represents a large number of doctors (urgent care docs might fall under emergency care) rebuked them forcefully. I would be less concerned with the professional organization using "vicious" language and more so with the 2 docs that either knowingly or unknowingly publicized bad data and promoted it using their medical credentials as reason to trust them fully.
You did not answer his question.
You attempted to ridicule, which is an indication you've run out of actual arguments.