Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

A drive by posting from me.

I noticed that the John Hopkins COVID-19 chart has changed significantly today. It appears as though they have county by county information from the US now, instead of the less granular state by state data. It really conveys a sense of where the problem areas are. Also, the lower right corner of the screen graph has changed to reflect daily case counts for a given country. This makes (sorry, Kull) individual spreadsheet tracking superfluous at this point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

A drive by posting from me.

I noticed that the John Hopkins COVID-19 chart has changed significantly today. It appears as though they have county by county information from the US now, instead of the less granular state by state data. It really conveys a sense of where the problem areas are. Also, the lower right corner of the screen graph has changed to reflect daily case counts for a given country. This makes (sorry, Kull) individual spreadsheet tracking superfluous at this point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

A drive by posting from me.

I noticed that the John Hopkins COVID-19 chart has changed significantly today. It appears as though they have county by county information from the US now, instead of the less granular state by state data. It really conveys a sense of where the problem areas are. Also, the lower right corner of the screen graph has changed to reflect daily case counts for a given country. This makes (sorry, Kull) individual spreadsheet tracking superfluous at this point.

Yeah, but it doesn't give per-province numbers, nor the ability to make comparisons over time. The granularity is where the real information lies!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I wish you were posting more! What're you thinking, these days?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

MindMessing, I've read it through once and will have to do so again. There's good analysis there but it's going to take another reading or two before I understand everything. At first blush it seems like critical care beds is the key to everything, assuming countermeasures and climate and possible treatment breakthroughs are insufficient. Thanks for posting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
What're you thinking, these days?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

There are so many questions, though. Many of the poorer countries are in warmer climates. He discusses that in the paper, though not at length.

We've noted the issues about testing/reporting. Many prefer to use mortality figures as a better/truer indicator. That should be more reliable, though there may be countries that under report there, too (one person yesterday offered thoughts about India, in that regard).

Mortality numbers are a big concern in Italy and Spain now, but Germany, other central European countries, UK and USA remain pretty low, at least for now.

Yesterday, a US healthcare leader (the top person in New Jersey IIRC) predicted about 21 days until the US reaches the top of the curve. That's an intriguing number but may or may not be reliable or useful. First, let's hope it turns out to be less than that. If not, that doesn't seem like an apocalyptic scenario. But her comments might have been flippant or otherwise to general to permit useful extrapolation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

A drive by posting from me.

I noticed that the John Hopkins COVID-19 chart has changed significantly today. It appears as though they have county by county information from the US now, instead of the less granular state by state data. It really conveys a sense of where the problem areas are. Also, the lower right corner of the screen graph has changed to reflect daily case counts for a given country. This makes (sorry, Kull) individual spreadsheet tracking superfluous at this point.

Yeah, but it doesn't give per-province numbers, nor the ability to make comparisons over time. The granularity is where the real information lies!

Per 'province'? If you're referring to Canada, yes-I noticed that their reporting mechanism doesn't seem to have changed.

But the granularity in the United States is useful to spot where the big hot spots are. Right now, about half of the US cases are in and around New York City. Other top 10 city populations (Los Angeles, Houston, Chicago, San Antonio, Dallas, etc.) are a small fraction of the New York distribution. That's helpful information, IMO.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

A drive by posting from me.

I noticed that the John Hopkins COVID-19 chart has changed significantly today. It appears as though they have county by county information from the US now, instead of the less granular state by state data. It really conveys a sense of where the problem areas are. Also, the lower right corner of the screen graph has changed to reflect daily case counts for a given country. This makes (sorry, Kull) individual spreadsheet tracking superfluous at this point.

Yeah, but it doesn't give per-province numbers, nor the ability to make comparisons over time. The granularity is where the real information lies!

Per 'province'? If you're referring to Canada, yes-I noticed that their reporting mechanism doesn't seem to have changed.

But the granularity in the United States is useful to spot where the big hot spots are. Right now, about half of the US cases are in and around New York City. Other top 10 city populations (Los Angeles, Houston, Chicago, San Antonio, Dallas, etc.) are a small fraction of the New York distribution. That's helpful information, IMO.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

There are so many questions, though. Many of the poorer countries are in warmer climates. He discusses that in the paper, though not at length.

We've noted the issues about testing/reporting. Many prefer to use mortality figures as a better/truer indicator. That should be more reliable, though there may be countries that under report there, too (one person yesterday offered thoughts about India, in that regard).

Mortality numbers are a big concern in Italy and Spain now, but Germany, other central European countries, UK and USA remain pretty low, at least for now.

Yesterday, a US healthcare leader (the top person in New Jersey IIRC) predicted about 21 days until the US reaches the top of the curve. That's an intriguing number but may or may not be reliable or useful. First, let's hope it turns out to be less than that. If not, that doesn't seem like an apocalyptic scenario (doubling every three days, for instance, means seven doublings of mortality or cases, if applicable). But her comments might have been flippant or otherwise too general to permit useful extrapolation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


Chicks innoculate themselves by getting the MLV into their eyes or nares or ingesting droplets from grooming their neighbors.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

There are so many questions, though. Many of the poorer countries are in warmer climates. He discusses that in the paper, though not at length.

We've noted the issues about testing/reporting. Many prefer to use mortality figures as a better/truer indicator. That should be more reliable, though there may be countries that under report there, too (one person yesterday offered thoughts about India, in that regard).

Mortality numbers are a big concern in Italy and Spain now, but Germany, other central European countries, UK and USA remain pretty low, at least for now.

Yesterday, a US healthcare leader (the top person in New Jersey IIRC) predicted about 21 days until the US reaches the top of the curve. That's an intriguing number but may or may not be reliable or useful. First, let's hope it turns out to be less than that. If not, that doesn't seem like an apocalyptic scenario (doubling every three days, for instance, means seven doublings of mortality or cases, if applicable). But her comments might have been flippant or otherwise too general to permit useful extrapolation.

The prediction of a US peak in 21 days is too generic. The various regions have started being affected at different points in time and have started their countermeasures at various points in time. It will look more like a series of peaks rippling through the country. MAYBE the median date for peaks is 21 days off, but if states are learning from each other I expect the peaks will on average come sooner than 21 days so it will be a skewed distribution with a long tail on the distant end.

quote:

ORIGINAL: alanschu

A friend of mine shared that she may have had COVID-19 in Florida in January. She had some flu-like illness that wasn't the flu with several days of fever that ibuprofen didn't do much for, and intense shortness of breath and was out for about 10 days.

Of course it's just speculation as she was never tested for the disease (it wasn't really on most of our radar in January), but I could see it being present around that time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

There are so many questions, though. Many of the poorer countries are in warmer climates. He discusses that in the paper, though not at length.

We've noted the issues about testing/reporting. Many prefer to use mortality figures as a better/truer indicator. That should be more reliable, though there may be countries that under report there, too (one person yesterday offered thoughts about India, in that regard).

Mortality numbers are a big concern in Italy and Spain now, but Germany, other central European countries, UK and USA remain pretty low, at least for now.

Yesterday, a US healthcare leader (the top person in New Jersey IIRC) predicted about 21 days until the US reaches the top of the curve. That's an intriguing number but may or may not be reliable or useful. First, let's hope it turns out to be less than that. If not, that doesn't seem like an apocalyptic scenario (doubling every three days, for instance, means seven doublings of mortality or cases, if applicable). But her comments might have been flippant or otherwise too general to permit useful extrapolation.

The prediction of a US peak in 21 days is too generic. The various regions have started being affected at different points in time and have started their countermeasures at various points in time. It will look more like a series of peaks rippling through the country. MAYBE the median date for peaks is 21 days off, but if states are learning from each other I expect the peaks will on average come sooner than 21 days so it will be a skewed distribution with a long tail on the distant end.

quote:

ORIGINAL: alanschu

A friend of mine shared that she may have had COVID-19 in Florida in January. She had some flu-like illness that wasn't the flu with several days of fever that ibuprofen didn't do much for, and intense shortness of breath and was out for about 10 days.

Of course it's just speculation as she was never tested for the disease (it wasn't really on most of our radar in January), but I could see it being present around that time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
being able to test for antibodies is going to be critical to our understanding. We aren't able to do so yet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: USSAmerica

My lingering doubt about China being on the road to recovery and their economy getting "back to business" makes reports like this one catch my eye. Still a small sample, but...

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/23/asia/hong-kong-coronavirus-quarantine-intl-hnk/index.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
being able to test for antibodies is going to be critical to our understanding. We aren't able to do so yet.

Antibody studies (presumably from blood samples) are a poor way of tracking a fulminant outbreak. Serologic antibody screening is useful for determining historical exposure, but antibody production takes several weeks post-exposure to develop sufficient to detect. It's a 'rear view mirror' sort of diagnostic approach.

Viral detection, whether its RT-PCR, antigen kit detection or virus isolation is the best methodology to detect an outbreak as it is occurring. Serosurveillance will be interesting down the road to look at how many people were affected from a historical perspective.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
being able to test for antibodies is going to be critical to our understanding. We aren't able to do so yet.

Antibody studies (presumably from blood samples) are a poor way of tracking a fulminant outbreak. Serologic antibody screening is useful for determining historical exposure, but antibody production takes several weeks post-exposure to develop sufficient to detect. It's a 'rear view mirror' sort of diagnostic approach.

Viral detection, whether its RT-PCR, antigen kit detection or virus isolation is the best methodology to detect an outbreak as it is occurring. Serosurveillance will be interesting down the road to look at how many people were affected from a historical perspective.

Right, that's what I meant. It's important to help us learn about what to expect, and if we had a way to test for antibodies for this one in NYC on a widespread basis (for example), it would be helpful knowledge as infections spread to other areas. Correct? If nothing else, it would really help nail down the R0, right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Indeed just speculation, although theoretically possible. Blow her case up to the rest of the population and it becomes obvious why being able to test for antibodies is going to be critical to our understanding. We aren't able to do so yet.


Worth noting that there was a particularly nasty strain of seasonal cold or flu going around in December/January. Both people in my household had it, as did just about my entire office. It started making the rounds in the first week or so of December, which was before this coronavirus really appeared.

quote:

If possible, she should get tested for antibodies so that (if positive) her blood plasma could be used to help critically ill patients. China started doing that near the end of its efforts at containment and reported that it helped significantly. I don't know if the US has accepted that as a treatment yet, but with everyone grasping at straws right now I can't see why they wouldn't try it.