Coronavirus in China

infection

Well-Known Member
Staff member
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner

I do have a genuine question of when people believe the deaths will pick up, and at least a ballpark idea of when and how much. I don’t say that facetiously, or in a way suggesting that they couldn’t, but we started with “15 days to flatten the curve” and then ended up in an indefinite shutdown. We’ve pivoted on this multiple times, with all roads leading back somewhere of why we can’t open is due to the administration. We criticized the numbers because we weren’t testing enough, but now we’re testing and everyone is concerned about the numbers, but nobody has mentioned that the deaths have continued to reduce, despite every prediction to the contrary. Now people will have to settle for spinning this as the numbers aren’t decreasing as fast as they could have / should have. But the underlying question remains: we shut down because of the perceived mortality and the unknown. If we knew then what we know now, would we have gone for it? Keep in mind, what rolled this whole thing out was the Imperial College study that predicted millions dead in the US. We’re still freaking out about new cases, but not concerned about what this ultimately means in terms of mortality. So, what if actually opening up doesn’t actually affect mortality? What’s the answer in that scenario? What if people comply with masks, and it reduces transmission the way everyone says? Can we open up? It really just seems like a dangling carrot when everything is satisfied, another issue pops up to say “nah, you all ****ed up, you’ve ****ed this whole thing up, and we can’t open up be cause you did/didn’t do ______.” Are we really taking dynamic approaches here that respond to new information, or are we sticking with positions because we perceived a line was drawn in the sand a few months ago and people are more invested in defending that line than in making course corrections.
 

The Thriller

Well-Known Member
I have questions about some of these red states who have a history of cooking the data. I question whether the death rates we’re seeing are reliable data. They’ve lied and deceived before. What’s stopping them now? I’m talking about Georgia and Florida specifically. Those two are led by two immoral and unethical governors.
 

infection

Well-Known Member
Staff member
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
I have questions about some of these red states who have a history of cooking the data. I question whether the death rates we’re seeing are reliable data. They’ve lied and deceived before. What’s stopping them now? I’m talking about Georgia and Florida specifically. Those two are led by two immoral and unethical governors.
Well, I guess there’s that. When the data doesn’t show what we predicted or what we wanted (were hoping?), just assume they’re lying.

But, I’ll play devil’s advocate: how many people do you think are dying in Georgia and Florida?
 

Red

Well-Known Member
Keep in mind, what rolled this whole thing out was the Imperial College study that predicted millions dead in the US
That study included several models. As I recall, the model that predicted millions of deaths in the US based that prediction on a model that assumed no mitigation efforts whatsoever in the United States. That does not mean millions of deaths would have been the result of zero mitigation, in other words that the model prediction must be correct, but it should at least be pointed out that that was the assumption baked into that model.

Edit: just went back to look at the Imperial College study. The Imperial College group reported that if nothing was done by governments and individuals and the pandemic remained uncontrolled, then 510,000 would die in Britain and 2.2 million in the United States over the course of the outbreak.

If Britain and the United States pursued much more ambitious measures to mitigate the spread of coronavirus, to slow but not necessarily stop epidemic over the coming few months, they could reduce mortality by half, to 260,000 people in the United Kingdom and 1.1 million in the United States. Presently, this estimate does seem off, based on what has happened so far in the United States.

Finally, if the British government quickly went all-out to suppress viral spread — aiming to reverse epidemic growth and reduce the case load to a low level — then the number of dead in the country could drop to below 20,000. To do this, the researchers said, Britain would have to enforce social distancing for the entire population, isolate all cases, demand household quarantines of households where anyone is sick, and close all schools and universities — and do this not for weeks but for 12 to 18 months, until a vaccine is available.

The study did not offer estimates for the US, if the US also went with suppression as the strategy.
 
Last edited:

infection

Well-Known Member
Staff member
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
That study included several models. As I recall, the model that predicted millions of deaths in the US based that prediction on a model that assumed no mitigation efforts whatsoever in the United States. That does not mean millions of deaths would have been the result of zero mitigation, in other words that the model prediction must be correct, but it should at least be pointed out that that was the assumption baked into that model.

Edit: just went back to look at the Imperial College study. The Imperial College group reported that if nothing was done by governments and individuals and the pandemic remained uncontrolled, then 510,000 would die in Britain and 2.2 million in the United States over the course of the outbreak.

If Britain and the United States pursued much more ambitious measures to mitigate the spread of coronavirus, to slow but not necessarily stop epidemic over the coming few months, they could reduce mortality by half, to 260,000 people in the United Kingdom and 1.1 million in the United States. Presently, this estimate does seem off, based on what has happened so far in the United States.

Finally, if the British government quickly went all-out to suppress viral spread — aiming to reverse epidemic growth and reduce the case load to a low level — then the number of dead in the country could drop to below 20,000. To do this, the researchers said, Britain would have to enforce social distancing for the entire population, isolate all cases, demand household quarantines of households where anyone is sick, and close all schools and universities — and do this not for weeks but for 12 to 18 months, until a vaccine is available.

The study did not offer estimates for the US, if the US also went with suppression as the strategy.
And my point is that what they published spooked us. The reaction to it is what's important. Our reactions were based on our beliefs. We undertook drastic (and costly) measures because of a potential outcome. But now that the foot is in the door, we're more comfortable with the bait-and-switch. It took a lot to get us responding a certain way, but takes much, much less to continue to keep us in a certain frame of mind with the social inertia that's now in place.From a classical conditioning perspective, COVID was the neutral stimulus until we synonymized it with its danger and mortality (again, not saying right or wrong, just that we did). Now COVID is the conditioned stimulus, and we no longer are as concerned about the mortality because we've baked the mortality response into being synonymous with COVID, even though the data between those two is starting to diverge quite a bit. However, just as the continuous ringing of the bell without presentation of food eventually led to extinction, so too, at some point, it will (or should) with COVID. But it doesn't happen immediately. And I think a lot of people are invested in perpetuating the conditioned response. The more we only hear about cases, the more we can mitigate extinction.
 

One Brow

Well-Known Member
But, I’ll play devil’s advocate: how many people do you think are dying in Georgia and Florida?
I don't know that anyone can give a precise number, but it's sure an odd coincidence that Florida is seeing record numbers of pneumonia deaths.

Historical data is here. I used the same ICD10 codes as the link below uses for "pneumonia".

Florida deaths from pneumonia for an entire year (2019 not available at this link).

Florida (12) 2013 2,504
Florida (12) 2014 2,508
Florida (12) 2015 2,543
Florida (12) 2016 2,637
Florida (12) 2017 2,800
Florida (12) 2018 2,623

Current data (five months's worth) is here:

Florida 7,093 (supposedly only 2,969 covid19-related, meaning still 1,501 over a typical year, and in five months)

Georgia's numbers don't seem all that much out-of-line.
 

The Thriller

Well-Known Member
Well, I guess there’s that. When the data doesn’t show what we predicted or what we wanted (were hoping?), just assume they’re lying.

But, I’ll play devil’s advocate: how many people do you think are dying in Georgia and Florida?
I knew you would say that. I’m fine if the mortality rates are going down due to the virus losing its lethality, better treatments/hospitals not being overwhelmed, and demographics of those affected being different. I’m fine with people not dying. I know this might surprise some of the Fox News addicts, but liberals don’t want more people to die. But let’s not mindlessly accept the numbers and Florida and Georgia. Those two governors have lost credibility. Ron DeSantis in particular. I’m concerned that the two trumpiest governors in the nation are manipulating dats to serve their political interests.

This shouldn’t be a partisan issue folks:

 

leftyjace

Well-Known Member
I knew you would say that. I’m fine if the mortality rates are going down due to the virus losing its lethality, better treatments/hospitals not being overwhelmed, and demographics of those affected being different. I’m fine with people not dying. I know this might surprise some of the Fox News addicts, but liberals don’t want more people to die. But let’s not mindlessly accept the numbers and Florida and Georgia. Those two governors have lost credibility. Ron DeSantis in particular. I’m concerned that the two trumpiest governors in the nation are manipulating dats to serve their political interests.

This shouldn’t be a partisan issue folks:

Taking a cue from @infection and playing devil's advocate... are the numbers coming from the governor's office, or from federal health officials in those states?
The reason I ask is because I genuinely don't know if the governor would have opportunity to massage those numbers. I don't know how the process works for reporting.
If the governor has the ability to do something to ensure numbers are misreported, then yes, I would say you have a valid argument.
But if the numbers are coming directly from personnel/departments that the governor can't influence, this doesn't wash.
 

The Thriller

Well-Known Member
Taking a cue from @infection and playing devil's advocate... are the numbers coming from the governor's office, or from federal health officials in those states?
The reason I ask is because I genuinely don't know if the governor would have opportunity to massage those numbers. I don't know how the process works for reporting.
If the governor has the ability to do something to ensure numbers are misreported, then yes, I would say you have a valid argument.
But if the numbers are coming directly from personnel/departments that the governor can't influence, this doesn't wash.
The governor in Florida has already influenced the numbers. Did you read the article I linked? How do we not have questions about Florida’s data when they’ve given us so much reason to question it?
 
Last edited:

Red

Well-Known Member

While death is the worse outcome, I would like to know how many of those people who survive very bad cases of Covid-19 have outcomes that include long lasting health issues...

 

infection

Well-Known Member
Staff member
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
I knew you would say that. I’m fine if the mortality rates are going down due to the virus losing its lethality, better treatments/hospitals not being overwhelmed, and demographics of those affected being different. I’m fine with people not dying. I know this might surprise some of the Fox News addicts, but liberals don’t want more people to die. But let’s not mindlessly accept the numbers and Florida and Georgia. Those two governors have lost credibility. Ron DeSantis in particular. I’m concerned that the two trumpiest governors in the nation are manipulating dats to serve their political interests.

This shouldn’t be a partisan issue folks:

A few things:

- Is there something I've said that makes you think I believe this is a partisan issue? I'm a little baffled because the entirety of my postings re: COVID is related to following numbers and the scope of my professional understanding. Your jump has been that red states are unreliable with their data, so I'm admittedly a little confused when you're saying this shouldn't be a partisan issue.

- In a similar vein, who are the 'Fox News addicts'? I've engaged in some pretty substantive discussion over the course of this thread by giving significant context to a multitude of issues that warrant clinical correlation. I don't watch Fox News, but my concern is that anything presented that perhaps is at odds with current thinking and worldviews is immediately attributed to Fox News and/or Republican misinformation.
 

fishonjazz

Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner

While death is the worse outcome, I would like to know how many of those people who survive very bad cases of Covid-19 have outcomes that include long lasting health issues...

Agreed. Some act like death is the only possible negative outcome to be worried about. It isn't

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
  • Like
Reactions: Red

The Thriller

Well-Known Member
A few things:

- Is there something I've said that makes you think I believe this is a partisan issue? I'm a little baffled because the entirety of my postings re: COVID is related to following numbers and the scope of my professional understanding. Your jump has been that red states are unreliable with their data, so I'm admittedly a little confused when you're saying this shouldn't be a partisan issue.

- In a similar vein, who are the 'Fox News addicts'? I've engaged in some pretty substantive discussion over the course of this thread by giving significant context to a multitude of issues that warrant clinical correlation. I don't watch Fox News, but my concern is that anything presented that perhaps is at odds with current thinking and worldviews is immediately attributed to Fox News and/or Republican misinformation.
So three things:

1. Yes, I question the reliability of red state data. Especially the data from Florida and Georgia. Have they not given us reason to question them?
2. I thought you were making it a partisan issue first, by making it sound like I questioned red state data because I’m a democrat. So if I misunderstood you then I apologize. It’s that red state governors have dismissed advice from medical experts in attempts to appease Trump. Two in particular have a proven record of shady dealing and Trump sycophancy. I can easily see Kemp and DeSantis cooking the numbers. DeSantis already is.
3. I wasn’t calling you a specific Fox News addict so I apologize if that’s the way it has come off. You debate things fairly well and enjoy reading your opinion.
 

infection

Well-Known Member
Staff member
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
This is a fairly interesting thread from a different angle. The author is breaking apart the two different curves from the states that were hit the earliest/hardest (Northeast) and the rest of the country:

 

One Brow

Well-Known Member
So three things:

1. Yes, I question the reliability of red state data. Especially the data from Florida and Georgia. Have they not given us reason to question them?
There's a epidemic of supposed pneumonia in Florida of huge proportion. It reads like they are cooking the numbers to an amateur like me. The Georgian numbers look like most other states; if they are under-reporting, they are being more clever about it, but I see no reason to say Georgia is under-reporting.
 

Red

Well-Known Member
Agreed. Some act like death is the only possible negative outcome to be worried about. It isn't

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
Exactly. Quality of life is pretty important. When you’re young, especially, you don’t want debilitating conditions stretching into the future if you can avoid them. Life is tough enough.
 
Top