Coronavirus in the United States - news and thoughts

Booster up!

 

I can’t see how we are under reporting Covid deaths unless COVID was here in 2019 and we didn’t know it. What I did see a lot of, specially in the early days, were a significant number of old people who died with COVID but not because of COVID.

 

Definitely missed on how bad the virus would be.

But the back to normal for the most part was the right call. Thankful I live in Florida. The disease was certainly worse than I thought it was going to be.

And yes…I still will take Covid over the flu if I had to pick. But avoiding both is preferable. If I was older/obese/diabetic that thought would be different. Different risk profiles…

 

If you guys want to see why some question the CDC, look no further than these two charts from the CDC. If I were cynical I would think the changing of young people infected dropping would be a conspiracy to try to get kids vaccinated. But the CDC would never lie to us, right?

And I won't even address the fact it's impossible to have Symptomatic % be higher then Infection %. This is like an 8th grader did this chart. So we had Delta hit hard since May yet our numbers drop significantly. This smells.

 

Key word in both charts. ESTIMATED. These charts also don't predict future events, and are based upon what might happen if current conditions continue. And what happened in early June that might change the estimations for total COVID cases in early June, 2021? Approval for vaccines to be given to anyone over 12 years old.

Congratulations! You just proved that the vaccine helps kids 12-15 using CDC numbers!

 

Seems odd that you already somehow know all the potential long-term effects of covid and discount that vs the virtual zero long-term side effects of the flu, while admonishing everyone to the unknown side effects of the covid vaccine. Another agenda driven rather than science driven decision. Best to Booster up!

 

Nope. Thanks for informing me those were estimates. Wonder how they ESTIMATED the Symptomatic % be higher then Infection %.

So this is what you took from those charts. That says a lot about you.

And at no point do these charts predict what might happen if current conditions continue.

 

I hadn't seen that, but it looks like he was at a summit yesterday so it seems like bluster.

 

The CDC only estimates out what they think will happen over the next 4 weeks. Anything further out, and their models just aren't accurate. Too many variables to account for.

I'm not sure why the estimated symptomatic cases would be higher, but even with more data, these charts still have limitations. What was true when these models first came out, is still true today. From the link explaining the limitations from the charts you posted.

patients may have avoided medical care settings or presented with nonspecific symptoms and not been suspected to have SARS-CoV-2 infection. Furthermore, not all infected persons will test positive because of assay sensitivity, timing of specimen collection, or specimen quality [11]. Factors involved in detecting and reporting cases may vary by age, geographically, over time, across healthcare settings, and by severity of disease. Finally, some people may be infected with SARS-CoV-2 and never show clinical symptoms; these asymptomatic persons would be even less likely to be detected
​

The CDC also aggregates somewhere up to 50 models for their estimates. It's possible that some, or many of these models try to build in answers to these limitations, and you get a wide variety of deltas between cases and symptomatic cases between different models. The answer could also be found in the 95%UI which is a confidence level each model also includes. It could be that the modelers have a higher confidence in the case numbers, but lower confidence in the symptomatic cases, meaning the 95% confidence range for symptomatic cases have a higher delta in certain models than others.

It's a statistical anomaly, for sure, but one that likely has a good explanation. Would probably have to look at all the models the CDC uses to figure it out. And frankly, I don't have that kind of time.

 

Yeah, that does mean nothing. You need to provide a link for your graphic. It's a tiny study. When was it done? Where was it done? Who did it?

 

Man, you really like carrying the CDC's water LOL> Man. You have an excuse for everything. The rest of us will be calling out the cdc for screwing up a simple chart, oh and most people can see what the cdc did here by trying to make it seem like not as many children have had covid yet so they can push the vaccine. It's not hard to figure you. But hey, you keep thinking the CDC never lies. I'll just point you to the director saying masks work 80% of the time.

 

I did provide the link. Go find it. Stop being lazy. Not a surprise though.

 

Nah, not going to bother looking through your dozens of posts to find a link that doesn't support your claim.

 

dont you know, if covid was even 5% responsible for death it was a covid death, got to keep up the fear mongering and fauci freaks.

 

Statistics isn't my thing at all. But if the standard deviations for the set of expected cases is smaller than the deviations for the symptomatic cases, it is possible to get the anomaly in the charts.

The CDC isn't perfect. It's made up of humans, and we all make mistakes. But I trust the CDC over any random person on the Internet. And it's not a surprise that during a novel virus pandemic, that the CDC won't get things right the first time all the time. The CDC was founded in 1946, and this the first, real global pandemic in over 100 years. To expect anyone, even experts at the CDC, to get things right the first time all the time, especially dealing with something they have never experienced before, is unrealistic.

 

So this is your BS way of acknowledging I was right. Thanks for being a standup human.

 

So this is the politically correct way to say the cdc is full of shit. Got it. Thanks.

 

I hope I don't ever end up in your spreadsheet

 

If you want to read it that way, and do your own thing, Mr. Internet Expert, that's on you. As for me, I'll trust the experts with years of schooling and more years of working experience every time. Do I expect them to be right 100% of the time? Show me anyone who is.

As for the CDC, they have gotten things right a lot more than they have gotten things wrong about COVID. Oh, and while I don't think the study is accurate, but there is a paper that shows masks to be 80% effective at preventing COVID. I'm more in the camp of the real-world, Bangladesh study that showed 33% efficacy.

 

glad here in florida desantis is doing such a sorry job, 7 day average lowest since june 20th, must be pure blind luck, right?