Coronavirus in the United States - news and thoughts

I would think the coverage of many events should be mostly negative. For example, I don't think that an appropriate coverage of a mass shooting is to look at the good sides of mass shooting. So if the data about this disease is mostly negative, and it clearly has been to end up with over 120K deaths during massive economic shutdowns and a complete inability to cut the infection rate, then why wouldn't the news be mostly negative?

 

yet you, and others continue to also take up chunks by responding, if you did not, i would not.

 

this will be my last response on this ridiculous topic, but had you simply addressed it with the person who gave you the rep pages ago there wouldn’t be any responses. Had you responded to any of my posts with “you’re right, I’ll do that”, the responses would have stopped. Had you never complained about one freakin person not liking your post in the first place there wouldn’t be responses. Had you not given that person the satisfaction about publicly being bothered by it there wouldn’t be responses, etc etc etc.
Seriously, let it go and everyone else will too.

 

so, when daily deaths are down from 6 weeks ago, when the death rate is down from 6 weeks ago, when the positive % is down from almost 17% 6 weeks ago to about 8% now you do not think that should be on the news? tell me, when did you hear these facts on tv or in the papers? you can't, because all the media focuses on is the negative, otherwise people tune them out, like i have said, bad news sells, good news drives away viewers and readers.

 

The navel gazing is strong.

 

for you curtis, a mask is a good thing.....

 

Sure, if you slice and dice data, and use wrong data (the positive test rate nationwide was 7% 6 weeks ago and is currently 6%), you can find "good news" in a comparative sense. The problem is that this method lacks proper context.

For example, if we were to use the correct positive test data, what does it say about infection rate? We don't know. In an environment with expanding non-random testing, a lowering positive test rate may be because of less infection circulating or it may be driven purely by the increase in testing and might coincide with increased infection. I think that is the problem. In order to carve out "good news" in a situation that is largely "bad news," people are having to eliminate context, very carefully choose comparisons to avoid comparisons that don't look quite so positive, and then make further declarations that aren't supported on the flimsy groups of the "good news."

And trying to consume or produce knowledge that is primarily motivated by preferred valence rather than an attempt for accuracy increases the probability of spreading information that is not properly situated with context or is downright incorrect. Especially when the situation is actually pretty negatively valenced and the goal is to produce information that is positively valenced.

 

I think that’s a bit unfair too, there are pockets of demonstrable good news. NY/NJ and their drops, the dropping of the death numbers overall for however many consecutive weeks, here in Virginia our numbers are much better....DC an MD too.
People see what they want to see in numbers always - by profession I cut my teeth as a project manager, it is in my nature is to try and find the next potential problem, worst case scenario etc in front of whatever issue I am looking at and size it, mitigate it and then watch it all the way through. But I think it’s ok to have a few sunshine pumpers, balances things out. And at least buckeye uses actual numbers to make his case. Way better than the “hospitals get paid per corona case so the numbers are fake” or the “one guy tested positive for coronavirus and was counted but actually died from a car accident so the counts are bogus” crowd. So I don’t rain on his numbers parade unless there’s something glaring.

 

well, according to covid 19 testing, the positive % 6 weeks ago, may 13th was 14%, not the 7% you claim, so that's 1 misfact you quoted.

 

These changes in the national numbers are almost entirely due to NY/NJ getting it under control. And there have been numerous stories in the media about that. But everywhere else, things are clearly getting much worse. The way you are presenting numbers, you are trying to use the improvement of NY/NJ to paper over everything else. Just say things are a lot better in NY/NJ and a few other states and things are a lot worse in FL/TX/AZ/NC/SC/GA/AL/MS/CA/TN/AR/OK/UT, and a few other states. That would be more truthful.

 

Total new tests on May 13: 319,226
Total new positive on May 13: 21,191
21191/319226 = 6.64%

Daily State-by-State Testing Trends

 

i misposted, i ment to say on may13th the overall national average was 14%, not just that day, my bad on that, but still a 6-8% drop in 6 weeks is good.

 

Sure, again, in a comparative standpoint, NY/NJ is in a better situation than they were at their worst. I am not arguing that there can't be "positive" numbers. I am arguing that they shouldn't be chosen based on their preferred valence because that leads to bad situations. At its extreme, it can lead to a lot of the data/news consumption problems that you mention here.

 

Well that is a stat that clearly lacks context. The positive percentage is going to be much higher during periods of dramatic shortage. We were clearly in dramatic shortage in testing in February, March, and April. So the positive percentage in those times was heavily driven by the extreme testing shortage. On the good side, we aren't in nearly the shortage in testing that we were for February, March, and April. On the downside,we still aren't utilizing tests in an optimal fashion to answer important questions about the pandemic. The lack of random testing means that we are largely left to guess what things mean and logically work out where there are clear and less clear answers.

 

North Texas family shaken after 18 relatives test positive for COVID-19 following surprise birthday party

 

were that many people allowed to be together in texas at that time, or did they disregard the rules and bring it on themselves?

 

regardless of the rules they brought it on themselves. I wouldn’t attend a party with 18 people at it right now if you paid me.

 

Wow.. is there any doubt we're dealing with a mutated strand? It's spreading like a wild fire in high winds.

 

Looks like we're pacing to blow past 40,000 new cases today. 32,609 as of now.