http://www.healthdata.org/covid it’s from the University of Washington, I think the Whitehouse is using their models. According to their model Mississippi could loosen restrictions on May 30, doubt we will wait that long.
Interesting website on Coronavirus
- Thread starter NTDawg
- Start date
We will know soon enough. Models are going to get jacked up by states going back too soon and numbers re-spiking. We may be one of them. You are correct though. No way Tater holds out .
Our Mississippi normalized numbers (per 100,000 people) are not going down. Still rising.
incident rate rose from 162 to 169 per 100k
Case fatality rose from 3.88 to 3.94%
Hosipitalization rose from 17.37 to 18.59%
good news is that we are testing better
it went from 1776 to 1859 per 100k
Last edited:
Well, if the number of cases goes up faster than the number of deaths, then the death rate drops.
Antibody tests suggest that FAR more people have had the virus than we thought. Also, the earliest known death has just jumped back to early February, as 2 autopsies in California have shown. This is 3 weeks before the previously known earliest death. And these 2 people didn’t have travel history that would have exposed them, meaning it would have been community spread, meaning it has been far more widespread than we thought and it has been here earlier than we thought.
Also, that IHME model has been shown to be way off by greatly overestimating cases, hospitalizations, and deaths.
Antibody tests suggest that FAR more people have had the virus than we thought. Also, the earliest known death has just jumped back to early February, as 2 autopsies in California have shown. This is 3 weeks before the previously known earliest death. And these 2 people didn’t have travel history that would have exposed them, meaning it would have been community spread, meaning it has been far more widespread than we thought and it has been here earlier than we thought.
Also, that IHME model has been shown to be way off by greatly overestimating cases, hospitalizations, and deaths.
Like their early COVD-19 resource models, this one has problems.
For starters, at first glance 1 case per 1 million people is a ridiculously high standard. You'd be trying to reduce national daily deaths from this to single digits before opening everyone back up. That looks like that would keep well over half the economy on lockdown for another month. That's a recipe for economic disaster.
However, it's not clear what their standard for "easing social distancing" is.
For starters, at first glance 1 case per 1 million people is a ridiculously high standard. You'd be trying to reduce national daily deaths from this to single digits before opening everyone back up. That looks like that would keep well over half the economy on lockdown for another month. That's a recipe for economic disaster.
However, it's not clear what their standard for "easing social distancing" is.
So, if our efforts to reopen the economy cause another spike similar to the one we were/are in, will it have been worth it to reopen early?
We are already in economic distress. What do you define as an indicator of 'disaster'? Not that you arent correct, just want to know what that means to you.
So we increased testing by 4.5% ish and number of cases rose by a little less than that?
Very interesting stats.
Very interesting stats.
Disaster would be something like 2008 or worse.
Years to get the job market back to normal, let alone what it was early this year. Right now you have whole industries, like construction, going on what was ordered prior to the shutdowns. Those projects are starting to dry up with nothing in the pipeline to replace them as companies look to reduce expenditures everywhere they can. Then you have wholesale collapses like oil already happening and healthcare soon to come. There will come a point at which this will get worse than 2008.
Your first question requires a lot more definition. What is early, and how much are we reopening? If you're asking me if we can wait out the IHME dates for each and every state before reopening anything in them in return for avoiding another similar spike that would be avoided if we didn't do that... You'd have municipal and state bankruptcies coming out of your ears in addition to the private sector damage, so I think the short answer is no, because you'd be surpassing 2008-like impacts.
However, that's very black and white, and a similar wave is also unlikely from a number of angles.
The reality is:
1. We're already better prepared with medical facilities in urban areas than we were in March.
2. We're ramping up supply production and will have more available for any future issues.
3. We've now seen that the restrictions in place are too strict in some areas (like strangling hospitals outside of hot spots), and we could do a better job of targeting them in any second wave of shut-downs.
4. We're two months closer to treatments and vaccines and have already dramatically improved testing.
5. Every expectation is that we're entering the best time of year to let nature help us keep things under control.
6. We're now seeing a growing amount of evidence that this thing is more widespread and therefore isn't nearly as deadly as first reported, and that becomes even more true it you only consider certain demographics.
The whole goal originally of flattening the curve was to keep from overwhelming our healthcare system and drag things out long enough to get treatments/vaccines.
We actually tamped down things so hard, so fast in most of the country that we went too far (New York is where you can argue we didn't do it fast enough and maybe right on target in certain parts of California).
Because of that the conversation now has to shift to opening some things back up in some places as quickly as practical.
Years to get the job market back to normal, let alone what it was early this year. Right now you have whole industries, like construction, going on what was ordered prior to the shutdowns. Those projects are starting to dry up with nothing in the pipeline to replace them as companies look to reduce expenditures everywhere they can. Then you have wholesale collapses like oil already happening and healthcare soon to come. There will come a point at which this will get worse than 2008.
Your first question requires a lot more definition. What is early, and how much are we reopening? If you're asking me if we can wait out the IHME dates for each and every state before reopening anything in them in return for avoiding another similar spike that would be avoided if we didn't do that... You'd have municipal and state bankruptcies coming out of your ears in addition to the private sector damage, so I think the short answer is no, because you'd be surpassing 2008-like impacts.
However, that's very black and white, and a similar wave is also unlikely from a number of angles.
The reality is:
1. We're already better prepared with medical facilities in urban areas than we were in March.
2. We're ramping up supply production and will have more available for any future issues.
3. We've now seen that the restrictions in place are too strict in some areas (like strangling hospitals outside of hot spots), and we could do a better job of targeting them in any second wave of shut-downs.
4. We're two months closer to treatments and vaccines and have already dramatically improved testing.
5. Every expectation is that we're entering the best time of year to let nature help us keep things under control.
6. We're now seeing a growing amount of evidence that this thing is more widespread and therefore isn't nearly as deadly as first reported, and that becomes even more true it you only consider certain demographics.
The whole goal originally of flattening the curve was to keep from overwhelming our healthcare system and drag things out long enough to get treatments/vaccines.
We actually tamped down things so hard, so fast in most of the country that we went too far (New York is where you can argue we didn't do it fast enough and maybe right on target in certain parts of California).
Because of that the conversation now has to shift to opening some things back up in some places as quickly as practical.
Last edited:
another interesting article/website
fivethirtyeight.com is pretty good for stats junkies.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/coronavirus-cases-are-still-growing-in-many-u-s-states/
fivethirtyeight.com is pretty good for stats junkies.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/coronavirus-cases-are-still-growing-in-many-u-s-states/
What do you think the goal of the relative shut down should be? What does your endgame look like?
Here is the thing- we did this to flatten the curve so as to avoid overwhelming healthcare capacity. In Mississippi we are way below capacity so that really shouldn’t be an argument now. So what is it you think we should be trying to achieve?
I think we should be trying to protect the vulnerable by giving aid to nursing homes to expand measures (some are doing a good job but not all). Hold visitation there. Potentially shift things so that covid presently positive or recovered are grouped. These people are probably not getting the attention they need right now from a non-covid standpoint. They are probably getting less exercise and less socializing.
meanwhile, we need to be working towards herd immunity within the healthy population. This will allow those under 65 without major comorbidities to get back to work, provide for their families, make payroll for their employees, pay mortgages and fairly slowly get the herd immune so that our elderly and informed are less likely to get exposed in a few months (or more) when they can get back out.
The “keep it locked down” crowd doesn’t ever tell me how this helps in the long run at all.
Here is the thing- we did this to flatten the curve so as to avoid overwhelming healthcare capacity. In Mississippi we are way below capacity so that really shouldn’t be an argument now. So what is it you think we should be trying to achieve?
I think we should be trying to protect the vulnerable by giving aid to nursing homes to expand measures (some are doing a good job but not all). Hold visitation there. Potentially shift things so that covid presently positive or recovered are grouped. These people are probably not getting the attention they need right now from a non-covid standpoint. They are probably getting less exercise and less socializing.
meanwhile, we need to be working towards herd immunity within the healthy population. This will allow those under 65 without major comorbidities to get back to work, provide for their families, make payroll for their employees, pay mortgages and fairly slowly get the herd immune so that our elderly and informed are less likely to get exposed in a few months (or more) when they can get back out.
The “keep it locked down” crowd doesn’t ever tell me how this helps in the long run at all.
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6
under the map in the middle of the page, you can select a tab. Second to last is the testing rate. you can choose the state.
The folks who are against anything resembling a rapid return to normal realize that we don't have the testing and contact tracing capability at this point to control the rate of spread once things are opened back up. Every enterprise where people have to work in close proximity to each other needs to be able to test all employees on a regular basis. I know a lot of the folks who are screaming "open it back up," believe the virus is not going to hurt them and that we can get to herd immunity. The scientists are saying "We don't know whether herd immunity is possible with this virus and we need to be able to keep the spread under control until we do know that." I don't know of anybody who is saying we need to shelter in place until we have a vaccine. The problem is that there has been little in the way of a national plan until last week and, because the manufacturing of tests was not ramped up nearly enough, we aren't quite to the point where we can implement that plan. Those over 65 or with major health issues cannot protect themselves if a significant percentage of the people at every stage of the process of harvesting, processing, packaging, preparing and delivering their food have the virus. Not saying we shouldn't start to slowly open things back up, but I am saying, we need to stop lying to ourselves.
1- contact tracing unlikely to be a thing given the distribution/prevalence. It’s useless. I’d be pretty surprised if you could find a scientist touting it after the latest antibody studies.
2. You better hope we can get herd immunity lol, that’s pretty much the only way we are getting through this in any model- and there is nothing scientific or logical to say that it’s unlikely (of course there are theories but this would have to act differently than all other similar viruses).
3. Testing availability is super important. Turnaround time is very important. Antibody testing is important. But tell me how that affects return to work for those healthy. It does have some effect, but not nearly as much in work as it does in vulnerable populations.
lastly- I’m not lying to myself or anyone else. This virus is a mess and is deadly to elderly and immunocompromised. I am telling my loved ones to plan to stay out of public for a while if they seem to be vulnerable. But keeping those that are of less risk from this than the flu out of the public is hurting our efforts of overcoming this while simultaneously bringing economic issues that could be devastating. I cannot think of a benefit to this strategy right now (obviously that could change if icu’s get full) and I think it is a long term detriment to the cause without any logical endpoint.
part of the adoption of this is fear and while it is scary, especially for some of our loved ones, the numbers say that it isn’t that deadly for the majority of us. That last part is somehow controversial, but all of the numbers bear that out.
2. You better hope we can get herd immunity lol, that’s pretty much the only way we are getting through this in any model- and there is nothing scientific or logical to say that it’s unlikely (of course there are theories but this would have to act differently than all other similar viruses).
3. Testing availability is super important. Turnaround time is very important. Antibody testing is important. But tell me how that affects return to work for those healthy. It does have some effect, but not nearly as much in work as it does in vulnerable populations.
lastly- I’m not lying to myself or anyone else. This virus is a mess and is deadly to elderly and immunocompromised. I am telling my loved ones to plan to stay out of public for a while if they seem to be vulnerable. But keeping those that are of less risk from this than the flu out of the public is hurting our efforts of overcoming this while simultaneously bringing economic issues that could be devastating. I cannot think of a benefit to this strategy right now (obviously that could change if icu’s get full) and I think it is a long term detriment to the cause without any logical endpoint.
part of the adoption of this is fear and while it is scary, especially for some of our loved ones, the numbers say that it isn’t that deadly for the majority of us. That last part is somehow controversial, but all of the numbers bear that out.
Agree that stats can be manipulated a great deal, Nate silver obviously has his preferences but I’ve found it to be a really good source in most areas. People crap on them because of the last election but when you have 10 toss up states it is what it is. 90% of the time they don’t fall 9/10.
on covid, I don’t disagree with their numbers, but I strongly disagree in approach going forward. They don’t have any background in healthcare and don’t seem to have any viable plan going forward.
on covid, I don’t disagree with their numbers, but I strongly disagree in approach going forward. They don’t have any background in healthcare and don’t seem to have any viable plan going forward.
Last edited:
Latest
-
01
Maroon and White Football
"Nothing changes": Mississippi State's LJ Prudhomme and Marcus Williams discuss expectations with bruised team
-
02
Maroon and White Football
Shuffled Mississippi State offense puts up yards, but no points in first shutout since 2020
-
03
Maroon and White
Everything Mississippi State HC Jeff Lebby said after LSU loss
-
04
Maroon and White
Rapid Recap: No. 22 LSU 31-0 No. 16 Mississippi State
-
05
Maroon and White
Inside the numbers: Mississippi State-LSU first half stats