Chickenboy
Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002 From: San Antonio, TX Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 22sec Looking at my state of Mississippi on this map, and then looking at the cases per 1M, and the test per 1M it is interesting to determine if this accurately portrays the situation here. The state is over 18,000 tests per 1M, which is above the national average, and cases per 1M is at 1,800 which is below the national average. How does that information jive with the NYT county map? I honestly don't have an answer, and really over the last couple of weeks I have stopped using these kinds of numbers to asses the situation. I am curious if anyone else has an opinion on the apparent disconnect between the NYT county map, and the numbers when looked at statewide? Also, how does the number of test, which seems to be in line with the ongoing discussion here about testing, help understand the situation? On a side note, I have been impressed with our director of the Health Department, and the work he and they department have done. In addition to providing very sensible answers at the regular press conferences with the governor, MSDH has been releasing a ton of extra data each day. The two sets I have found most useful are: https://msdh.ms.gov/msdhsite/_static/images/graphics/covid19-chart-onset-23.png https://msdh.ms.gov/msdhsite/_static/images/graphics/covid19-chart-hospitalizations-by-date-23.png I wouldn't use the rough graphics of the NYT map for much clarity, 22sec. The color coding (0-100, 100-200, >200) is too rough granularity to capture the disparity in the situation. By not having a >300, >400, >500, etc. it omits the differential color coding of the most heavily affected sites: New York and New Jersey. Arbitrarily lumping them in with less affected areas. They're downplaying the disparate nature of the infection in New York and New Jersey by not calling them out as they really are. Using the color scheme of the map, you'd have to have a color bar of >1400/100,000 for New York and >1100/100,000 for New Jersey to get a feel for the severity of the impact on those states. They have a disproportionate impact on the number of cases, the density of the number of cases, the number of deaths and number of deaths/M. Any way you want to slice it. I wonder why the NEW YORK Times would intentionally seek to downplay their outsized impact to readers? ETA: I would assess Mississippi as doing comparatively well. States with lots of testing and attack rates consistently at or lower 10% can feel pretty good about their relatively 'light' prevalence. It looks like (from your graphics) your peak cases have dropped off considerably too. To be honest, I had my concerns about how Mississippi and Alabama would do. Individuals that are hypertensive, obese, have type I or II diabetes and heart disease are at a differentially high risk profile for complications associated with COVID-19. Most of the health surveys I've seen in the last decade show Alabama and Mississippi quite high in almost all these categories of potential comorbidities. But it seems that hasn't mattered that much (yet?).
< Message edited by Chickenboy -- 4/25/2020 4:15:23 PM >
_____________________________
|