Coronavirus in the United States - news and thoughts

Texas cases of COVID-19 increasing by thousands since reopening

Texas has seen a steady rise in novel coronavirus cases and fatalities since reopening just over two weeks ago.
…………………..…………...
The state also experienced its highest and second-highest daily death toll just a day apart. On Thursday, 58 deaths were recorded in 24 hours and Friday that number dropped only slightly to 56, according to the health department. The total number of fatalities is at 1,272.

Last Friday, the daily death toll was 31.

 

100 lines of "I shall not tell lies."

Prove your statement.

 

Show me one of the studies that used a random sampling and an antibody test with 95% or better results. I'll wait.

 

Prove what?

 

it

 

Remember in the beginning of the pandemic something like >50% of the cases that reached a conclusion resulted in deaths? Some were interpreting it as a 50% mortality. It's an equally false conclusion to say 80% of the patients on ventilators die for the identical reason, and the reason is that a dead patient has reached his conclusion, an alive patient hasn't until he's well and discharged.

If you guys have questions regarding any of the studies, feel free to ask. We spend a lot of time going over all the studies, so if you're wondering why certain things are not making waves in the medical community while other things are, I can help clarify it.

 

What COVID-19 Antibody Tests Can and Cannot Tell Us

Sign up for Scientific American’s free newsletters.

" data-newsletterpromo_article-image="https://static.scientificamerican.c...F54EB21-65FD-4978-9EEF80245C772996_source.jpg" data-newsletterpromo_article-button-text="Sign Up" data-newsletterpromo_article-button-link="Newsletter Sign-Up" data-behavior="newsletter_promo dfp_article_rendering ">
The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security maintains and regularly updates a Web site that lists key characteristics of many of the serological tests for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, on the market and in development. Experts recommend that tests be validated in studies that include at least 100 positive and negative patients whose infection status is confirmed against a reference standard such as diagnostic test results and symptoms. Antibody tests currently on the market have been validated in samples ranging from only a few dozen individuals to more than 1,000. As of this writing, the Center for Health Security lists tests approved for research or individual use in the U.S. that accurately detect antibodies in people who have them—a statistic known as sensitivity—between 82 and 100 percent of the time. Their ability to correctly identify antibodies only in those who actually have them—known as specificity—ranges from 91 to 100 percent.

On the surface, those numbers seem pretty good. But “threshold is set by context,” says Sarah Cobey, an associate professor of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago. “So if the seroprevalence,” or the proportion of the community that has antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, “is 3 percent versus 5 percent, you have to have an exceedingly good test” to distinguish that, she says. “If you’re [only] trying to identify if the prevalence is above 50 percent or below 50 percent, you can get away with a test that’s maybe less good. But nobody is in that category [with COVID-19].”

This variability in what constitutes an acceptable test arises from the fact that in populations with a higher prevalence of a disease or past exposure to it, true positives (individuals who test positive and have antibodies to the illness from a prior infection) and false negatives (those who test negative but actually have antibodies) are more common. Meanwhile in populations with a lower prevalence, tests are more likely to give false positives.

 

Relatively honest counting in Texas. But they know that cases will increase. They have made the decision nationally that the deaths, however many there are, are worth it. Again, the deaths will be as a direct result of the inaction in late January and early February. In contrast to the New Zealand action. Had we done what New Zealand and other countries did, we would have had fewer cases and been in a position to reopen soon. Once they waited to chase the virus, it was too late. Lies and incompetence have a real price on a crises. And in his recent speeches, this President has presented a choice of death or economic ruin. We are getting a lot of both and it did not have to be this way. New Zealand and other countries probe that.

 

like the knights who used to say “Neek.?”

 

Thanks. You have been great. Please weigh in as you feel warrants it.

 

Link says Texas opened April 30, the curve hasn’t flattened and is showing an increase. Now is the 2 week mark. Not good, but maybe the trend will change for the better?

 

why would it. Infection rates and deaths are going to continue to climb.

 

F.D.A. Halts Coronavirus Testing Program Backed by Bill Gates

 

No reason to believe other than hope.

 

He survived a heart transplant, a kidney transplant and, along with his family, COVID-19

 

No, that is not what the article we were discussing said. If you would like to discuss a different article, I am happy to do so. But the article we were discussing compared ventilator patients with covid to ventilator patients without covid (i.e., that were put on a ventilator for a variety of other reasons).

I did search and saw nothing of the sort. That is why I asked you for it since you claimed it.

The model didn't show a lift in deaths due to suicides as you claimed. It saw a lift due to cancer and cardiovascular disease. And that increase was mitigated with a context that is more similar to what we have in developed countries, namely a social safety net. As such, it is not really something that can be applied here (and it was simply cited, not used to model anything as none of your articles actually contained a model projecting death totals due to the shutdown).

Okay, but you were discussing his model.

The upper bound of a projection in which no mitigation steps were taken would likely be considerably higher than an observed world with mitigation efforts and in which the upper bound of the estimate is not the most likely outcome. That is basic projection.

You still aren't discussing specific issues that you have with the model, just engaging in ad hominem. Again, happy to discuss any specific statistical or data issue related to the model itself. Trust me, I can read research, so go for a description of what you think is actually wrong about the model from a statistical or data standpoint.

 

The first question i have is why can't we seem to agree on the definition of mortality rate, nor what that rate is? Are we simply too early in the data collection to make that statement? Over the course of this 550+ pages in this thread i have seen everything from 10% to 0.1% and about everything in between.

 

I don't know what is going to happen with coronavirus and the reopening. I was hoping there would be nothing but a small bump upwards in the otherwise coronavirus downward tail. But I am dissappointed with the number of people I see without masks. I am seeing around half of the people unmasked, young and old.

 

More fishy workings going on. Suspend testing and ask for more clarification for a network of public/private partnerships trying to track the virus through at home testing supported by the Gates foundation

And at the same time give approval to a private company to sell at home tests. That based some of its work on research done by the Gates Foundation.

FDA suspends Gates-backed at-home COVID-19 testing program

FDA approves at-home nasal swab test kit for COVID-19