Coronavirus

[Mainah]

Just throwing this out there as I was doing some freelance research on the subject earlier today. This CDC resource is phenomenal in that it's giving us numbers, not opinion and hyperbole.

Provisional Death Counts for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

National Center for Health Statistics

www.cdc.gov

Interpreting the tables is actually pretty straightforward. I prefer the second table down the page, it compares the total deaths from all causes, flu, pneumonia, and flu with Covid positive as well as pneumonia with Covid positive. It even goes as far as telling us what the expected number of deaths are during the given weeks from the previous 2 years. The shocking takeaway so far? Only 1 week has over 100% of expected deaths for the week, and it was back in late Feb. I hope everybody on this thread gets a chance to browse it and come to their own conclusions from the official data.

This data does not make sense. Heart Disease and cancer make up the lion share of deaths in the USA each year and accidental deaths which include car accidents only 6%. So while easy to see why accidental deaths may be down there is no reason total deaths should be down that much unless heart disease and cancer were substantially reduced overnight. Consider that the only material variables that should have changed the outcome are social distancing and COVID-19 deaths.

The data is provisional. Even knowing that there is something very wrong with this data. Something may have been excluded, data is not being tracked/ reported consistently in the wake of everything going on, or someone needs to quality check their input dataset, math, or remember to adjust for population changes.

As a quantitive data scientist it is my experienced opinion that this referenced CDC data/report is materially flawed based on historical evidence, anecdotal evidence, and the beginning of the time series even suggests that something is amiss by starting low. Publishing something like this even as provisional when evidence exists that something must be wrong is irresponsible.

I am not saying that deaths are down and I am not saying that they are up. What I am saying is that this data/report/analysis has about zero chance of being anywhere near materially accurate enough to draw conclusions or make strategic based decisions.

 

[Dixie Highway]

I would tend to agree that looking at the recent weeks shows an unnatural decline in total deaths from all causes, etc. Looking at the footnotes would indicate they are limited by the speed at which municipalities submit death certificates with causes, etc. I would hesitate to summarily dismiss the entire thing though, as it does show the trends. As time goes on this will become more accurate, but I'll assume the "official" figures at the end of all this will come from this source (the CDC). As of today where would we find more accurate numbers?

 

[swatski]

As of today where would we find more accurate numbers?

I guess the question is: do we want the numbers quick, or accurate?
I'm afraid it's difficult to have it both ways, there are so many variables that need to be weighted.
I would agree with what @Mainah has said.

Unless you are like Alex Jones, I suppose, lolol. He has all the answers. And cures. Quick, too.

--

 

[swatski]

Six feet is no match for a good breeze...

"Better 6 feet apart than 6 feet under"
lol

--

 

[Dean P]

"Better 6 feet apart than 6 feet under"
lol
--

Don't miss understand what I was implying. If this virus can linger in the air, 6 feet is not enough distance. Should be much further than 6'. Actually if everyone had to wear a mask when outdoors would be best.

 

[Dixie Highway]

I guess the question is: do we want the numbers quick, or accurate?
I'm afraid it's difficult to have it both ways, there are so many variables that need to be weighted.
I would agree with what @Mainah has said.

Unless you are like Alex Jones, I suppose, lolol. He has all the answers. And cures. Quick, too.

--

As a general rule accurate is better, but in the moment when trying to decide best actions you have to get the quickest, most accurate you can get. I guess what I'm saying is we can't keep the world from turning for a year to wait for 100% accurate #'s. IF we do that, there won't be much point to worrying about it.

 

[haknslash]

Don't miss understand what I was implying. If this virus can linger in the air, 6 feet is not enough distance. Should be much further than 6'. Actually if everyone had to wear a mask when outdoors would be best.

Yup I've read numerous reports that they think this can be left in the air in the form of aerosols we put out. One h\article I read from a hospital said they detected the virus in areas outside of the ICU rooms and negative pressure rooms.

This to me helps explains\ why some people still get sick even if they have take all the requested precautions such as staying 6 feet away and wash wash wash your hands, a stiff breeze comes by or a cough is all it would take IMO, there was recently an animation posted somewhere that they showed s person coughing or sneezing in a grocery store and how it could affect the surrounding areas. Not sure how accurate their model was but yea I ain't risking shit standing next to people with a breeze blowing.

 

[swatski]

As a general rule accurate is better, but in the moment when trying to decide best actions you have to get the quickest, most accurate you can get. I guess what I'm saying is we can't keep the world from turning for a year to wait for 100% accurate #'s. IF we do that, there won't be much point to worrying about it.

I would agree!
Not to excuse the CDC (they are pretty bad), their budget is a very small fraction of discretionary spending...

--

 

[Mainah]

As a general rule accurate is better, but in the moment when trying to decide best actions you have to get the quickest, most accurate you can get. I guess what I'm saying is we can't keep the world from turning for a year to wait for 100% accurate #'s. IF we do that, there won't be much point to worrying about it.

The only thing worse than no data is bad data. This is without a doubt bad data IMO.

I am not aware of a better source for the data. The data has many known flaws from a data science/quality perspective. The data collection method is human input and subject to human error and bias. The number of data collection points and the differences in how they may each be trained or biased is another. As an example if a severely overweight 55 year old smoker who has not been to see a doctor in 20 years has a heart attack or stroke immediately after a car accident that causes no other trauma what is the cause and manner of death? Now what if the subject had been seeing a doctor and was diagnosed with heart disease previously? See how this is open to interpretation? Consider as well interpretation direction changes. Let's complicate it a bit more with what if the subject had seen a doctor and been diagnosed but that info did not make it to the data entry person. This is just the nature of the system and unlikely to be materially improved upon. COVID-19 has brought new challenges to the system that seem be causing even more data quality issues.

One reason I don't even trust the trend is there has been too many different and changing messages on how to record the data around COVID-19 on top of the known human biases. Another is that a 10% decline in total expected deaths is not a small difference. In general all of the data seems to be reporting low except one week.The question is was this consistent (I doubt it). Did the data entry messaging change over that time frame? Do you really trust the people producing this data when it fails a very basic data comparison to historical/champion and they still publish it? They also published without even quantifying a SD or confidence for each figure.

I am not saying that a deeper analysis can't be done and common data science methods/techniques applied to cleanse the data and use a model to produce a more accurate report with higher precision. In fact I hope that is what they are working on now but with what I just saw my faith in what may be produced in the future is much lower.

We need good data to make good decisions. If I were a leader that trusted that report and decided to under account for the impact social distancing is having I may say open everything back up right now (I am keeping my opinion on that out of this and speaking strictly to the data). The anecdotal evidence of hospitals and morgues being overwhelmed past normal operating capacity tells a conflicting story that in and of itself disproves the data. A better option may to be to understand net new critical care at the hospital level and sum that up. I think this would be better information for our leaders to make a decisions off of. Consider that hospitals normally run at near of over 100% capacity for profits. How many net new does it take to overwhelm? How much is social distancing really helping with it being implemented and followed in varying degrees? Somethings are just going to be impossible to quantify with accuracy and precision but for goodness sake lets not have a group like the CDC publicly publish data that is obviously and materially flawed.

I will end how I started as this is worth repeating ...

The only thing worse than no data is bad data.

 

[biglar155]

I will end how I started as this is worth repeating ...

The only thing worse than no data is bad data.

With nearly 26 years working in an industrial environment, I can give you an "Amen" to that. I've seen a lot of poor decisions made because the quality or source of the data wasn't understood.

Just thinking about scaling that up to a world-wide level is scary.

 

[haknslash]

Auburn researcher begins coronavirus vaccine tests in animals

Dr. Constantinos Kyriakis, assistant professor in Auburn’s College of Veterinary Medicine, will soon begin testing SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidates in swine.

www.al.com

 

[Beachbummer]

I would think selecting the top 50 biggest hospital and reviewing their records for the last 12 weeks in terms of deaths should paint a pretty clear picture compared to same period a over the last 3 years (say Jan 31 to April 1). There's some low hanging fruit that could provide valid info it would seem, to an unfamiliar person such as myself.

Is this mostly pushing those already on the verge into the pit, or is it increasing the count?

 

[swatski]

I would think selecting the top 50 biggest hospital and reviewing their records for the last 12 weeks in terms of deaths should paint a pretty clear picture compared to same period a over the last 3 years (say Jan 31 to April 1). There's some low hanging fruit that could provide valid info it would seem, to an unfamiliar person such as myself.

Is this mostly pushing those already on the verge into the pit, or is it increasing the count?

I'm not sure any of this is as strait forward as we would like it to be...
Even the simplest comparisons need weighted means.
For example, if you want to compare covid to seasonal flu, how would you account for the (absence of) social distancing/shelter in place factor? Etc.


EDIT: for example, I have not left my house now in about a week, and I live alone; I do pick up my mail, albeit sparse, I disinfect it; I have not done anything remotely close to that in my life before. So, how would I compare my propensity to contract covid and die vs possibility of similar adverse effects of flu on me in the same timeframe? IDK...

--

 

[Julian]

I'm not sure any of this is as strait forward as we would like it to be...
Even the simplest comparisons need weighted means.
For example, if you want to compare covid to seasonal flu, how would you account for the (absence of) social distancing/shelter in place factor? Etc.


EDIT: for example, I have not left my house now in about a week, and I live alone; I do pick up my mail, albeit sparse, I disinfect it; I have not done anything remotely close to that in my life before. So, how would I compare my propensity to contract covid and die vs possibility of similar adverse effects of flu on me in the same timeframe? IDK...

--

This is what is so unreal about this whole situation. If you look at the published numbers 1.6M infected vs 100k dead you reach a 6% CFR. But there are so many factors that make those numbers useless that we are in analysis paralysis:

• Are there millions who actually had covid that were fine?
• Are the thousands that died of pneumonia that actually had covid?
• How many of the already infected are yet to die?

Which is why we are all wondering.....what happens when we stop social distancing? Do we have thousands more dead....or a major anti-climax? Seems to me that the only way to tackle this is what China is doing. You can go out and about if you've been tested.....and have an app that shows that you have been? Seems draconian....but how else would we tackle it?

 

[Julian]

Oh....and a shameless plug for my brother's and @Island Jay business......his bar is closed....so he could use some shirt sales!

Its Covid related.....right?????

Social Distancing Beach Products

Times have changed. In order for to stay safe we have to keep apart a little. Social Distancing Beach Products are here to help keep you in a beachy state of mind.

islandjay.com

 

[swatski]

This is what is so unreal about this whole situation. If you look at the published numbers 1.6M infected vs 100k dead you reach a 6% CFR. But there are so many factors that make those numbers useless that we are in analysis paralysis:

• Are there millions who actually had covid that were fine?
• Are the thousands that died of pneumonia that actually had covid?
• How many of the already infected are yet to die?

Which is why we are all wondering.....what happens when we stop social distancing? Do we have thousands more dead....or a major anti-climax? Seems to me that the only way to tackle this is what China is doing. You can go out and about if you've been tested.....and have an app that shows that you have been? Seems draconian....but how else would we tackle it?

The problem is that some of the "tested" doesn't mean other "tested"... WHat I would think would be an ideal workup - and there IS such a thing - is not trivial. There is a goldmine of information there, for now and for future generations, as far as understanding the dynamics of the virus and our immune systems. But like everything else in that business, it is tedious, mostly thankless work that yields results. Will our great leaders have the foresight to go for it?

--

 

[GiddYupJoe]

I mostly joke... most of the time, but... So my day job is to supervise a lot of folks that purchase simulators for ACC and AFGS... the past four weeks I have been detailed to the DAF CV-19 Joint Acq TF to procure as much as we can with DPA funds that have been “released”. With out getting into detail... holy cow... big gov is intense from the inside. It has has been insane. Engaged on a different level right now. We have been moving out fast on so many things... the tape and politics is just flat out slowing things from happening. Ugh... rant over, it’s been a long week. I can tell you we are trying.

 

[msavold]

So, I've been wondering again about all these numbers... It seems that the number of new cases has leveled off over the past few days - albeit at a fairly high number per day. But still confused if we're at the "that's a good thing" point, not yet there, or in fact past it. (Ok, maybe the last one is just stupid optimism from a guy that wants to get his boat in the water!)

Here's the question for this learned crowd: has anyone seen when the positive test results are recorded? Effective the day of the test or the day of the result?

Wondering because we seem to be in a period where there's a mix of long lag (4, 5, 6+ days) tests, 45 minute tests, and everything in between.
If it's the day of the test, then the numbers we've had are subject to revision as some tests might have been done some days back and a new result could change the total from some days ago. If it's the day of the result (which would seem more logical) then the numbers per day could be skewed by "old" tests coming back some time later - and we'd actually be doing better in terms of the peak. (Again, assuming we've actually peaked or hit a flat spot.)
Of course, this may all be an academic curiosity in the end because the numbers are bound to increase in proportion to the number of tests done, which in turn would change depending on the availability and criteria for testing. Don't do many tests (cough, cough, China and a bunch of others) and the number of confirmed sick people will *surprise* be very low. Corollary: quadruple, say, the number of tests but the number of new positives stays similar and then we should be able to say we're doing much better, no?

It's late after a long week and no boating on the horizon so my logic may be skewed!

 

[swatski]

So, I've been wondering again about all these numbers... It seems that the number of new cases has leveled off over the past few days - albeit at a fairly high number per day. But still confused if we're at the "that's a good thing" point, not yet there, or in fact past it. (Ok, maybe the last one is just stupid optimism from a guy that wants to get his boat in the water!)

Here's the question for this learned crowd: has anyone seen when the positive test results are recorded? Effective the day of the test or the day of the result?

Wondering because we seem to be in a period where there's a mix of long lag (4, 5, 6+ days) tests, 45 minute tests, and everything in between.
If it's the day of the test, then the numbers we've had are subject to revision as some tests might have been done some days back and a new result could change the total from some days ago. If it's the day of the result (which would seem more logical) then the numbers per day could be skewed by "old" tests coming back some time later - and we'd actually be doing better in terms of the peak. (Again, assuming we've actually peaked or hit a flat spot.)
Of course, this may all be an academic curiosity in the end because the numbers are bound to increase in proportion to the number of tests done, which in turn would change depending on the availability and criteria for testing. Don't do many tests (cough, cough, China and a bunch of others) and the number of confirmed sick people will *surprise* be very low. Corollary: quadruple, say, the number of tests but the number of new positives stays similar and then we should be able to say we're doing much better, no?

It's late after a long week and no boating on the horizon so my logic may be skewed!

Yes. But at the same time there is no way right now to draw accurate (and meaningful) conclusions about "per day", "old", "new" etc from available testing numbers as the rollout was extremely late and incredibly haphazard. There were no guidelines who to test, no specimen intake criteria provided (what body fluid, what amount, how to collect and process etc.).
Yes, blame CDC for a disastrous rollout if you want to, but really - their boss(es), we are worse than many 3rd world countries as far as testing efficacy in this case; it is A MESS.
And yes you are correct, only at risk individuals or symptomatic have been tested, primarily, but "at risk" definitions are all over the place in various parts.

Importantly, one must distinguish between (molecular) tests for viremia (= presence of the active/proliferating virus) and serological tests for antibodies (= immunological memory of interaction with the virus). This is an important distinction because the former may or may not be producing and spreading the virus, and carry it or be susceptible to secondary infections, with or w/o symptoms while the latter would be considered protected (if adequate testing is done).

As far as the Chinese, their covid numbers are widely considered to be manipulated, real data from there will likely never be known.

Currently we are not much better over here, to tell the truth. Except locally in places where there are many cases and a lot of testing like in the NYC area - data is quite good. Those data may show trends that may be followed and extrapolated to other areas of the country but that's a big stretch.

--

 

[haknslash]

I’m telling y’all I really think I had this thing back during Christmas. I had all of the signs. It was rough as hell and took weeks to get over the hump. You hear many others say they had a similar flu-like sickness develop but had negative flu results and horrible coughing upper respiratory infections. Nobody could give you an exact cause of the sickness but just threw some meds at it and told to get better at home.

Article came out today from a coroner in my county that said they think this virus may have been here during the winter as they saw strange cases coming in.

Some Alabama coroners think COVID-19 arrived in winter

An early winter uptick in respiratory failure deaths points to COVID-19 for some coroners, others say they don't see the same pattern

www.al.com