Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Big League Chew

*** OFFICIAL *** COVID-19 CoronaVirus Thread

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, shader said:

New cases are certainly not meaningless.  A positive case is a very important piece of data.  And in terms of trying to figure out what’s going on going forward, it’s a leading indicator.

 

If you had 100 new cases after testing 100 people that's one thing.

If you had 100 cases after testing 10,000 people, that's another.

One stat is meaningless without the other.

eta: as you say..."you know this"

Edited by jamny
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Capella said:

Yes but you can’t just say you have a positive case jump with no context. We are doing more testing than the day before almost every day. Of course they will root out more positives. 

I agree context is helpful.  But the positive case count is still an accurate piece of data. Saying it’s meaningless is just not accurate.  It’s an EXTREMELY accurate and medically confirmed number.  Drawing inaccurate conclusions from it, now that’s a different story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jamny said:

If you had 100 new cases after testing 100 people that's one thing.

If you had 100 cases after testing 10,000 people, that's another.

One stat is meaningless without the other.

eta: as you say..."you know this"

The reality is far from this extreme

Meaningless is a false statement.  If you continue to use it, you’ll continue to get called out in it.  Because it’s just not true.  Tri-man is just posting data. No need to attack the data with false accusations about it being meaningless. 

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, shader said:

The reality is far from this extreme

Meaningless is a false statement.  If you continue to use it, you’ll continue to get called out in it.  Because it’s just not true.  Tri-man is just posting data. No need to attack the data with false accusations about it being meaningless. 

dude.

 

You're too much.

Have a nice night.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those that want the context:  USA numbers over the past week (taken from covidtracking.com, which is updated once a day in the afternoon)

USA New cases and New Tests

21-May - 25,118 new cases - 408,415 new tests

20-May - 21,531 new cases - 413,317 new tests

19-May - 21,052 new cases - 399,280 new tests

18-May - 19,568 new cases - 337,054 new tests

17-May - 20,731 new cases - 404,730 new tests

16-May - 24,950 new cases - 354,835 new tests

15-May - 24,373 new cases - 361,586 new tests

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doctors in Northern California say they have seen more deaths from suicide than they’ve seen from the coronavirus during the pandemic.
 

https://t.co/2UUsbZ2tqI

 

  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two main stats I’m watching with states reopening are new hospitalizations and percentage of positive tests. Raw positive cases don’t tell a whole lot right now. It could be due to increased tests or a spike. The percentage of positive cases is a good initial indicator if you’re testing enough people. If you only have the testing capacity to test the people who already showing symptoms and suspected positives, that will show in a high positive rate.

Change in that percentage is good initial indicator that a spike in hospitalizations might be coming. A trend of Increasing positive % shows that more testing is being focused on those already presenting symptoms or a rise of likely exposed coming back as positive. Either way it’s not a good indicator for the control of the spread.

Likely it will take 2 weeks after opening to see any significant changes and 4-6 weeks to see a major spike. The viral load grows exponentially, so the first couple steps may not move the move the needle much but it’s when it hits the 3rd and 4th steps that we will really see the impact of opening. Hopefully the shutdown got us to a low enough level that it doesn’t get to that point in most areas.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

7 hours ago, tri-man 47 said:

Yup.  Covid worldometers shows us breaching the 100K new case threshold with a jump to 107,000 new cases today along with 4,900 deaths.   :kicksrock: 

The U.S. with 28,000+ new cases.  Illinois moved past 100K total cases yesterday, joining NY and NJ.  Brazil high again with 17,000+ new cases and almost 1,200 deaths.  Seventeen countries reporting over 1,000 new cases today. 

11 states had over 1,000 new cases yday, another 8 over 500. 13 states had under 100 new cases

ETA Five of the states with more than 1,000 cases were above the average test per capita number for USA. Of the ones with over 500 only 1 was. 4 of the 13 were above the US average.

ETA2: Is there a site that graphically tracks Covid-19 tests (without conflating with antibody tests) per day per state? That would help tremendously to see who's ramping up testing.

Edited by msommer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Capella said:

All these positives were there a month ago too

Not necessarily. incubation time is 2-14 days...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhhh.  Another, er, adjustment to the thread and I believe it might just be readable now.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, -fish- said:

Generator and fuel.  Assume supply chain interruptions on anything in high demand.

TP and water too? We did this once, didn’t really pan out.

I read your follow up regarding the area you are in. If you need a generator because of fires/earthquakes/floods/locust sure but you don’t need one for COVID.

Edited by beer 30

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update on Sweden (in Danish)

Per tests only 7,3% of Stockholm's population has had Covid-19 (testing commenced mid April) and the number in the rest of Sweden is lower. This makes the aim of achieving herd immunity in June an impossibility although the numbers would be higher if testing was carried out again now.

Sweden is currently the place on Earth where most people die per capita (6/million/day) when measured against when the first death was confirmed (weekly average on the 60th day). This is e.g. ten times the amount Denmark had per capita per day (weekly average) on the 60th day .

There are two options: Either the number of non discovered cases (asymptomatic and mild symptoms) is a lot lower than expected or It opens the possibility that not all develop sufficient antibodies for the current tests to pick up. In the latter case whether that low level of antibodies will still be enough to avoid later getting Covid-19 is unknown. 

Anders Tegnell still says the strategy was correct and that herd immunity never was a goal and that he is not worried.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, jamny said:

I hate to keep sounding like a broken record here but really, the increase in cases needs to be accompanied by the corresponding increase in testing. One is meaningless without the other. New hospitalizations and deaths should be the concerning issue. Needless to say, Brazil must be an absolute nightmare. I don't know why we aren't hearing more about it.

I hear you (and others).  That's one reason why I often mention 'reported' cases and make some reference to data per million.  I know the Worldometers data is just one perspective and not a complete picture.  But with all the back-and-forth in this thread and so much speculation here and elsewhere, I decided early on that my contribution, such as it is, would be to simply (or arguably, simplistically) follow the Worldometers site and post some numbers and insights based on what I see.  Maybe it helps; maybe it doesn't. :shrug: 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, jamny said:

If you had 100 new cases after testing 100 people that's one thing.

If you had 100 cases after testing 10,000 people, that's another.

One stat is meaningless without the other.

eta: as you say..."you know this"

Thank you for posting this, it blows my mind people either overlook this or like our local “news” providers they omit as it takes away from the drama. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, tri-man 47 said:

I hear you (and others).  That's one reason why I often mention 'reported' cases and make some reference to data per million.  I know the Worldometers data is just one perspective and not a complete picture.  But with all the back-and-forth in this thread and so much speculation here and elsewhere, I decided early on that my contribution, such as it is, would be to simply (or arguably, simplistically) follow the Worldometers site and post some numbers and insights based on what I see.  Maybe it helps; maybe it doesn't. :shrug: 

I appreciate the update and hope you didnt take my reply as an attack. I apologize if you did.I start every morning since this began by going through each wiki page that interest me, both US and globally, and worldometer, among others. I've found them both to be great resources in getting a picture of where we are with this disease. I just wanted to remind again about how limited new cases can be since everywhere I look, media, Facebook and here, new cases are being cited as the key stat to keep track of. Not saying you believe that, just wanted to point it out again.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Terminalxylem said:
19 hours ago, shader said:

A positive antibody test is a good thing! 

Or a false positive. :kicksrock:

Yeah...now we don't know what to do.  It's maddening.  The only thing I know I am NOT doing is making the kids get COVID tests.  That's about it.  I guess the options are for me and the kids to get antibody tests or for my wife to go get another antibody test.  This is such a fiasco.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't it weird that CDC keeps coming out with "good news" all of a sudden?

Doesn't transmit on surfaces

Director says we're ready to open

And now this...

CDC estimates that 35% of coronavirus patients don't have symptoms

By Arman Azad

Updated 12:38 AM ET, Fri May 22, 2020

How vaccines stop the spread of viruses 01:26

(CNN)In new guidance for mathematical modelers and public health officials, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is estimating that about a third of coronavirus infections are asymptomatic.

The CDC also says its "best estimate" is that 0.4% of people who show symptoms and have Covid-19 will die, and the agency estimates that 40% of coronavirus transmission is occurring before people feel sick.

The agency cautions that those numbers are subject to change as more is learned about Covid-19, and it warns that the information is intended for planning purposes. Still, the agency says its estimates are based on real data collected by the agency before April 29.

The numbers are part of five planning scenarios that "are being used by mathematical modelers throughout the federal government," according to the CDC. Four of those scenarios represent "the lower and upper bounds of disease severity and viral transmissibility."

At least 4 states combined numbers from two tests, possibly providing a misleading picture of coronavirus spread

The fifth scenario is the CDC's "current best estimate about viral transmission and disease severity in the United States." In that scenario, the agency described its estimate that 0.4% of people who feel sick with Covid-19 will die.

For people age 65 and older, the CDC puts that number at 1.3%. For people 49 and under, the agency estimated that 0.05% of symptomatic people will die.

Expert pushes back

Under the most severe of the five scenarios outlined -- not the agency's "best estimate" -- the CDC lists a symptomatic case fatality ratio of 0.01, meaning that 1% of people overall with Covid-19 and symptoms would die.

In the least severe scenario, the CDC puts that number at 0.2%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I should count myself lucky...our kids seem to be doing really well.  They aren't fighting with each other anymore and the older two are pitching in to help with the youngest, as my wife and I are in our meetings, without being asked.  We've become closer as a family being around each other all this time.  Kids are 12,8,3.....at this point I'd tell anyone saying I am damaging my kids to go piss in the wind.  Each family is different and none of us know if others' kids are getting "damaged" or not.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, The Commish said:
12 hours ago, Terminalxylem said:
19 hours ago, shader said:

A positive antibody test is a good thing! 

Or a false positive. :kicksrock:

Yeah...now we don't know what to do.  It's maddening.  The only thing I know I am NOT doing is making the kids get COVID tests.  That's about it.  I guess the options are for me and the kids to get antibody tests or for my wife to go get another antibody test.  This is such a fiasco.

Had a couple friends tell me they wanted to go get antibody tests ("maybe I'm immune now!").  I've told them that unless they're willing to get 3+ separate tests for confirmation, don't bother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read that the Abbott antibody test was 99.9% accurate on the positive side. It's the false negatives that seem to be a problem. Not sure about other tests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jamny said:

I read that the Abbott antibody test was 99.9% accurate on the positive side. It's the false negatives that seem to be a problem. Not sure about other tests.

That still means 1 out of 1020 could be lulled into a false sense of security. Better stay inside a few more months. 

  • Laughing 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep coming back to this thread because there are some really smart people on here and many provide some very interesting links. But only a few days after @Joe Bryant pleaded for people to be cool and many acknowledged they didn’t need to respond to to everything they disagreed with, these last few pages are just another slap fight. Please for everyone’s sake, if you don’t agree with someone just walk away ... the 7,321st response is not going to suddenly convince them to convert to your thinking.

Have a great weekend everyone, stay safe and keep your distance.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Atomic Punk said:

I keep coming back to this thread because there are some really smart people on here and many provide some very interesting links. But only a few days after @Joe Bryant pleaded for people to be cool and many acknowledged they didn’t need to respond to to everything they disagreed with, these last few pages are just another slap fight. Please for everyone’s sake, if you don’t agree with someone just walk away ... the 7,321st response is not going to suddenly convince them to convert to your thinking.

Have a great weekend everyone, stay safe and keep your distance.

This x100

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, tri-man 47 said:

I hear you (and others).  That's one reason why I often mention 'reported' cases and make some reference to data per million.  I know the Worldometers data is just one perspective and not a complete picture.  But with all the back-and-forth in this thread and so much speculation here and elsewhere, I decided early on that my contribution, such as it is, would be to simply (or arguably, simplistically) follow the Worldometers site and post some numbers and insights based on what I see.  Maybe it helps; maybe it doesn't. :shrug: 

Your stats are appreciated and they are extremely relevant.  Positive cases are literally one of the most important pieces of info that we will be able to use to figure out if a second wave is coming. Thanks for doing what you do. 

Edited by shader
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2020 at 8:45 PM, TheWinz said:

Crunched some US death percentages based on age.  The data provided is as of 13 May, but I doubt percentages change much.

85+ = make up 2.2% of the population and 31.9% of the deaths
75 - 84 = make up 4.8% of the population and 27.2% of the deaths
65 - 74 = make up 9.3% of the population and 21.0% of the deaths
55 - 64 = make up 12.9% of the population and 12.3% of the deaths
45 - 54 = make up 12.7% of the population and 5.1% of the deaths
35 - 44 = make up 12.6% of the population and 1.7% of the deaths
25 - 34 = make up 13.9% of the population and 0.7% of the deaths
15 - 24 = make up 13.1% of the population and 0.1% of the deaths
0 - 14 = make up 18.5% of the population and 0.02% of the deaths

Just take a moment to soak in those numbers.
- 45.5% of the population is under 35, yet they account for less than 1% of the deaths
- Senior citizens over 65 make up only 16.3% of the population, yet they account for nearly 80% of the deaths

For comparison, here are the numbers one week later, per CDC:

85+ = make up 2.2% of the population and 32.7% of the deaths - up 0.8%
75 - 84 = make up 4.8% of the population and 27.0% of the deaths - down 0.2%
65 - 74 = make up 9.3% of the population and 20.9% of the deaths - down 0.1%
55 - 64 = make up 12.9% of the population and 12.0% of the deaths - down 0.3%
45 - 54 = make up 12.7% of the population and 4.8% of the deaths - down 0.3%
35 - 44 = make up 12.6% of the population and 1.7% of the deaths - no change
25 - 34 = make up 13.9% of the population and 0.7% of the deaths - no change
15 - 24 = make up 13.1% of the population and 0.1% of the deaths - no change
0 - 14 = make up 18.5% of the population and 0.02% of the deaths - no change

Yes, I know the numbers are off by 0.1%, but it's only because I rounded to 1 decimal point.  So, what does it say that the only age category to increase are the people 85 and older?  I have my thoughts, but would like to hear others.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, jamny said:

I read that the Abbott antibody test was 99.9% accurate on the positive side. It's the false negatives that seem to be a problem. Not sure about other tests.

Is this true? I heard the opposite. I tested negative. 

So you're saying there's a chance...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, jamny said:

I read that the Abbott antibody test was 99.9% accurate on the positive side. It's the false negatives that seem to be a problem. Not sure about other tests.

Not sure I understand that. Is it possible to test both negative and positive at the same time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jobarules said:

 I also don't get people seemingly getting pleasure out of this news. 

Who is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, msommer said:

Not sure I understand that. Is it possible to test both negative and positive at the same time?

He meant if you test positive, you are very likely positive, but if you test negative, you can't be so sure that you are negative.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, jobarules said:

Is this true? I heard the opposite. I tested negative. 

So you're saying there's a chance...

I think the abbott active covid test is the one with accuracy issues. The antibody test had one false positive out of 1020 in a reference sample. 

 

Edited by parasaurolophus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, msommer said:

Not sure I understand that. Is it possible to test both negative and positive at the same time?

Maybe I didn't word it correctly. Positives are said to be 99.9% accurate. There are accuracy issues with negatives. If fact, I remember reading that you should get a second test if your first one comes up negative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TheWinz said:

He meant if you test positive, you are very likely positive, but if you test negative, you can't be so sure that you are negative.

I remember trying to explain this to my ex after the 3rd stick.

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

I think the abbott active covid test is the one with accuracy issues. The antibody test had one false positive out of 1020 in a reference sample. 

Oh and in before the well thats less than 99.99% claim.(not from you) 

Unless I’m reading this chart wrong, the Abbott antibody test has an 84% PPV (positive predictive value) in a population where the prevalence is at 5%.  The NPV is actually listed as 100%.
 

https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/emergency-situations-medical-devices/eua-authorized-serology-test-performance

Edit:  looks like there are two Abbott tests listed.  

 

Edited by shader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, msommer said:

Not sure I understand that. Is it possible to test both negative and positive at the same time?

There are four possible outcomes when you test:

You're actually positive, and the test returns a positive result. 

You're actually positive, but the test returns a negative result. (False negative)

You're actually negative, and the test returns a negative result.

You're actually negative, but the test returns a positive result. (False positive)

Two different sources of error, that have two different rates (sensitivity and specificity).  Imagine a test so broken that it doesn't actually test anything at all, and just returns negative for everyone.  It would correctly identify all negative cases, so there would be no false positives, but it wouldn't correctly identify any positive cases so there would be a massive number of false negatives.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jobarules said:

Isn't it weird that CDC keeps coming out with "good news" all of a sudden?

What is weird about it?

Wouldn't we want the CDC to adjust their numbers and predictions as more info comes out and we learn more?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Commish said:

I guess I should count myself lucky...our kids seem to be doing really well.  They aren't fighting with each other anymore and the older two are pitching in to help with the youngest, as my wife and I are in our meetings, without being asked.  We've become closer as a family being around each other all this time.  Kids are 12,8,3.....at this point I'd tell anyone saying I am damaging my kids to go piss in the wind.  Each family is different and none of us know if others' kids are getting "damaged" or not.

We had a 2 night power outage during this as well.  Allowed us to set the phones down...sit around together, play games by the light of a lantern.  There are positives to this for some...like with most things, the attitude of the parents can definitely make a difference in how kids handle this.  

I think what we should definitely push more in the future, without getting too political as I don't care who does it, push for better mental health care in this country.  Its long overdue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jobarules said:

People

Like real people you can link to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, msommer said:

Not necessarily. incubation time is 2-14 days...

I don’t think he means these exact same people. Obviously it’s still spreading so more cases overall. That said if testing more right now increases cases otherwise not found then that means a month ago there were also other cases not found out that may already be recovered. Not the same people but less tests means less numbers before of people who actually had it and either got better (mild) or didn’t have symptoms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, the moops said:

What is weird about it?

Wouldn't we want the CDC to adjust their numbers and predictions as more info comes out and we learn more?

We need to be able to complain about the goalposts moving though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Navin Johnson said:
40 minutes ago, the moops said:

What is weird about it?

Wouldn't we want the CDC to adjust their numbers and predictions as more info comes out and we learn more?

We need to be able to complain about the goalposts moving though.

I get that the CDC has bungled this thing terribly. But one thing we should all hope is that they continually update their thinking when new data arises. The worst thing they can do is rely on old info and stay steadfast in their thinking

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jobarules said:

Isn't it weird that CDC keeps coming out with "good news" all of a sudden?

Doesn't transmit on surfaces

A lot of people think the CDC said the part in red ... but they didn't quite. Almost, though. Again, probabilities and likelihoods.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Cjw_55106 said:

Doctors in Northern California say they have seen more deaths from suicide than they’ve seen from the coronavirus during the pandemic.
 

https://t.co/2UUsbZ2tqI

 

Two doctors, the bare minimum required to use the attention grabbing "Doctor" in the headline to imply it's a universal sentiment. 

nice anecdotal evidence. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, msommer said:

Like real people you can link to?

I can't exactly link to CNN broadcasts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Navin Johnson said:

You wouldn't know her.  She's from Niagra Falls.

That explains a lot. Karen, right? ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, jobarules said:

I can't exactly link to CNN broadcasts

You shouldn't watch cable news

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.