On multiple strains: The Problem With Stories About Dangerous Coronavirus Mutations Go GATORS! ,WESGATORS
The data works against your point here though. So the total case count includes both people that were more likely to have died based on diagnosis date and people less likely to have died based on diagnosis date. The cases won't be added again. The death rate over the currently found cases will rise over time.
Well one of this links said there was a shortage...but there wasn't. NDSU a state institution had all the equipment. I conceded anecdotal situations that could happen anywhere due to human error, but are not signs of a systematic issue. And "need" goes back to the broken leg analogy. I guess an MD can decide that, or the local HD. Perhaps I should say: "Folks that the medical professionals deem in need". I mean some of you are expecting 350M tests. That is not happening. Nor should it be expected. There needs to be a baseline set for need. I would say your doctor should make that call.
First, NDSU had equipment to help the situation, although if you listen to the state officials, this would still not fully cover demand. Shortage occurs when demand is higher than the amount supplied. Clearly, there are people demanding tests in places that are not able to receive them, some with symptoms. As such, it fits the economic definition of shortage. We have moved from a situation in which shortages were nearly universal to where they are now based simply on a lack of excess capacity and the inability to properly allocate perfectly. That is still a shortage, just not as severe a shortage as we once had. We will come out of shortage when we can actually provide testing to those that demand it.
So back to square one. If all 350M of us demand it, what then? You can never use that as your criteria. There would be a shortage of Flu tests under that criteria too.
They are increasing their testing because they don't have enough yet. The doc with the health department literally said they didn't have enough testing to do all they want two days ago. Yes - they are increasing because they are not there yet. This isn't terribly complicated.
If they did, then that would be a shortage. However, all 320 million of us are not demanding it. So it is a moot point anyway. There wasn't because people didn't demand it at a level to put it into shortage.
How am I dismissing them? I literally conceded that they existed, and calling them a state issue is just a fact. The Feds didn't neglect a meat plant in some Kansas town. The state did. Why is saying that somehow an issue? Is it because I am not blaming Trump for the shortage? Perhaps their governor can account for that, since her state is arguably the worst responder to the crisis of all 50 states.But yes. 100% a state issue....and her being a Dem is not my reasoning, as my state has done very well under a Dem governors leadership.
You are missing the point I am making. You can't build supply just on demand. This is not some capitalist venture. In a pandemic, supply should be based on need. If we are short next week, I will admit that too, just as I did 6 weeks ago. But today is totally different around this country.
This reminds me, I pointed this out on the Insider sports board two months ago. One of the mods over there was telling everyone that the flu was worse, that there were 23,000 (or some number close to that) influenza deaths last year. I pointed out that is an estimated number from the CDC, that the actual number of positively tested patients who were observed to die was actually around 7,000. And in that 7,000, about a third die of lung issues related to opportunistic bacteria/viruses, about a third die to an over-reaction of the immune system, and a third die from the virus itself - those proportions are broad estimates. So my post was deleted by the mod. Tried to post the same in another thread, and the whole thread got deleted. The idea that this is similar to the flu has taken a very strong hold in the minds of many people. Those estimated numbers served a purpose, I suppose, but you know what they say about good intentions...
You're correct. I was going for geographical and thinking that things leveled down in Seattle after the nursing home explosion. It raises some other questions, though. Which American cities would be a fair comparison with Vancouver, which presumably has a large Chinese population? Are there any? And w/o viewing the data, are there any hotspots in Canada? If no, why not?
Not trying to be complicated. But again, want and capacity likely outlength need. Are people that need testing (per medical professionals) being turned away in Ohio? Are they up to capacity? No. Do they have all they want? No. But in the interim are they at least filling the need?
Okay, if we want to ignore the standard definition of shortage, we are short of where we need to be in order to fully track the disease due to the inability in most places to test the asymptomatic. Still a shortage.
May be simplistic, but if their metro numbers are lower it may just be general cleanliness. Toronto is the cleanest city I have ever been to and Calgary often ranks high. Both make annual "cleanest cities" lists almost annually.
You are dismissing them by saying that everybody that needs a test can get one. Regardless, no, it isn't purely a state issue. As I stated, a lack of excess capacity will obviously lead to allocation issues. A lack of excess capacity is not a state issue and it goes back to the fact that we have spent the firs 3 months of this pandemic trying to catch up to the amount we needed due to shortage by any definition of shortage.
This is the problem with threads and topics this long. Everything gets lost. I have probably said 10 times on this board that we have to get to a system of asymptomatic testing. What I am discussing today is that a person who has a need for a test. ie they are showing symptoms or are deemed needy by their doctor...can get a test. All people in those conditions that WANT a test can get one....just like those with a broken leg symptom that want an Xray can get one. (that is what started this rabbit trail I believe). Their is no shortage for those people. No, we do not have enough tests for every asymptomatic human in the United States. So based on that, sure...shortage. That has not been my point at all and I have covered that in discussions about it previously. It is like we all need a badge in our sig line that tells our top 5 covid positions for reference. So lets say we are both correct on our position based on the point we are trying to make in context and move on.
The problem is that, as I pointed out, no, not everybody who has a need for a test can get a test. You have dismissed them as local issues, but those are people that need a test and aren't getting one.
I am not sure what criteria is being used there to determine that. Two states (Arizona and Kentucky) have lower per capita testing with both having higher death rates as well. It appears like a purely framing based issue that is completely tangential to the greater point that there are still shortages in multiple places.
