Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Nathan R. Jessep

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Nathan R. Jessep

  1. States has a pretty good interface. You can drill down to state level as well for all the metrics.
  2. yep, and despite that big jump including older cases, our total % positive overall still DECREASED. We are now at 11.95% positive (of all tests completed).
  3. I have wondered also. Our state only reports it at the state level (at least publicly reports it, no doubt they have the data internally). And hospital licensed/available bed capacity is already publicly tracked. This goes back to my theory I presented a couple of months ago. IMO, THE metric should be: % of hospitalizations to available hospital space. And some sort of "sliding scale" system that lockdowns/whatever more aggressive containment measurements go into place once the magic threshold has been crossed. Of course that number is going to be different for every area, so I guess it would make sense to do it by region/county.
  4. Just for some perspective on numbers... As of yesterday for Louisiana: -over 269K tests completed -34709 total cases reported (only 12.87% positive of all tests completed... that's a decrease of 7-8% in the last 3-4 weeks) -only ~8400 ACTIVE cases currently
  5. I tend to agree with this. I wouldn't be shocked if it were here (or there) prior to the currently known point, but the other side to this discussion is the fact that the overwhelming majority of people getting tested RIGHT NOW, and throughout the last 2 months, have tested NEGATIVE for CV19. And while some of those can be explained away by front line workers getting mandatory tests, maybe some bad tests/false negatives sprinkled in, multiple tests for those who have been infected and to rule on recovery status, etc., still... we're talking 80-85% negative out of all tests administered to date (basing this % on LA data and other states' data where they show number of tests administered, seems to be similar in percentages). That's still a lot of people who thought that they had CV19 that have, well, something else.
  6. I haven't checked lately, but last I checked (which was several weeks ago), it wasn't very many. Although we have since then, so maybe others have too. Not sure.
  7. Yes, but only for states that are reporting recoveries is that accurate. Last I checked, for the others: Active Cases = Total Cases - Deaths. Which of course, is way overcounting actual active cases. I understand why, because it's hard to define 'recovered' exactly, but still, we are 2-3 months in and "recovered" at this point is a significant number. Just using us (LA) for an example, we just started reporting recoveries here 2 weeks ago. The number of ACTIVE cases was less than half of the TOTAL number of cases. That's significant, IMO.
  8. Thanks cos. I almost started this thread a few times, myself. I'd like to add a good tracker link:
  9. Here's where I am with all of this. YMMV. Honestly, I don't care about case counts any more. UNLESS there is a corresponding number of tests to go along with it to correlate the 'pattern,' it just doesn't mean a whole lot. Especially when you consider that unless recoveries are also being reported, a lot of the numbers being reported are not ACTIVE case numbers, they're TOTAL case numbers. We have to assume right now that testing has increased almost everywhere, so of course case counts have too. What I have been watching locally is the trends of new cases (my lowest indicator, though), trends of hospitalizations over time (which as I understand it is updated daily via our state health department from hospital censuses) and trends of daily death rates. Our percentage of positives has fallen 3-5% over the last month as testing has increased, which makes sense. And we (LA) are among the leaders anywhere in testing per capita. As of today, there are 84% of people here that have tested negative, for whatever reason. That's a lot. Based strictly on my own semi-professional data analysis and tracking of our states' numbers, we are on the decline. Well past the peak. From everything I can find, we are well below hospital capacity (which was the whole point of lockdowns). Yet I hear our state officials talking still about the number of cases. And, tbh, I don't understand why. I may need to go to the state capitol and present my sliding-scale theory.
  10. I'll just be up font about this, to me it still looks like a comic sans the extra space, but I have come around and am now a courier of the new one-space rule.
  11. Thanks for that one too. Don't remember how many clicks it was from that link, but found the original 2.2m (aka The "Imperial College") study:
  12. If you don't get a response in the next few days, please update us. People here want to help our own. We ready. I know we've done it for some others. I don't know how exactly, but I will be glad to spearhead it myself if I need to. And hang in there, GB. :air hug:
  13. not many that I've seen A good number are still in peer-review stages, where unfortunately it's common for them to fall apart. People are just grasping for any news right now, which is understandable, but if the last line of the article (or buried in there somewhere) is "study has not yet been peer-reviewed" then one could still be hopeful, but temper expectations until that review is complete.
  14. need a couple of things from my link-saving fact-checkers in here 1) source(s)/link(s) for the model(s) that predicted the 2 million deaths originally? (and IIRC that has since been updated, right?) are there separate links for the old and new versions, or a historical documenting of it? 2) source(s)/link(s) for any official discussion on deaths getting over-reported as suspected Covid (with no confirmed test) Yes, I could search, but I know some of you guys keep links on these things. I do too, just don't have these 2 items readily available. TIA Yours in corona, NRJ
  15. Same road of thought I went down in tracking our numbers here for about a month now. The number of cases doesn't mean much at this point in the grand scheme of things. I've mainly been watching the percentages of positives, number of hospitalizations/ventilators-used/deaths from day to day, and now that we are finally reporting recoveries, that too. Just the simple addition of reported recoveries literally cut our "total cases" number in half when you can finally see current number of ACTIVE cases.
  16. Louisiana FINALLY started reporting recoveries today (or presumed recoveries***, but pretty solid numbers IMO). 26140 total cases 14927 presumed recovered ---------- 11213 active cases They still haven't released updated test numbers yet, but from my own figures based on the last updated totals, I think we are still hovering between 16-18% total number of positives statewide (out of 142000+ test results). ***A person is presumed recovered if 1) it has been more than 14 days, since he/she tested positive and he/she is not currently in the hospital or deceased (when hospital status is known), or 2) it has been more than 21 days, since he/she tested positive and he/she is not deceased (when hospital status is unknown).
  17. ran across the link again None of their data shows anything in the US prior to one sample in Arizona (from someone who had been to China) in mid-January and the next earliest I could find was in California in late January. So my question is, and forgive, I can't remember if it was a study or an article or what, that got people to arguing again about when the virus was here, wouldn't the lab data have already proven that if it was the case? And if not, why not? I'll hang up and listen.
  18. could we make a rule that whoever has the first post on a new page update that post with any links posted on that page? I feel like I'm missing a lot of info just wading past the bickering
  19. I didn't come in here every day, so forgive if this has all been discussed. I can't recall the site, but the genome mapping project one that had mapped the virus's location according to lab samples... Did that get updated to show that the virus was present in the US prior to late January? Or was it otherwise debunked in general?
  20. yep, that's one of the things the MD who replied to do an informal peer-review on Twitter mentioned. It fails to check out when basic math is applied in a couple of places.