Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

New York faced unique circumstances and did its best. Same with every state.

But unless we're equating asymptomatic positive cases with deaths, I'd take Arkansas any day.

quote:

New York faced unique circumstances and did its best. Same with every state.

But unless we're equating asymptomatic positive cases with deaths, I'd take Arkansas any day.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Sammy is right.

With one additional distinction - the ultimate measure of the virus is mortality, not positive cases. If there are major outbreaks that for some reason don't result in a correlating increase in mortality, then a rise in cases now is not equivalent to a rise three months ago. That was, as Sammy notes, bushwhack time. At this point, jurisdictions have been able to protect the elderly and ramp up countermeasures, when necessary - major advantages.

You can't look at a state that has 100 deaths/million rising slowly and conclude that they should follow the model of states that have 1,500 deaths/million. Unless there ends up being that correlation. There probably shouldn't be, since the nursing homes seem to be key in this war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel


Seems like we're all glad we live where we live and wouldn't want others from far away deciding how we should do things.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

We've all been there (or will get there). Each nation (and, here, each state, city and county) has to decide when it's prudent to ease restrictions and what's economically necessary. Tough balancing act. It seems like Erik is satisfied that this has to happen now in UK. It seems like John is satisfied that NY has done about as well as it could. And you know I'm pleased with the response by Georgia and my local county.

Seems like we're all glad we live where we live and wouldn't want others from far away deciding how we should do things.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

We've all been there (or will get there). Each nation (and, here, each state, city and county) has to decide when it's prudent to ease restrictions and what's economically necessary. Tough balancing act. It seems like Erik is satisfied that this has to happen now in UK. It seems like John is satisfied that NY has done about as well as it could. And you know I'm pleased with the response by Georgia and my local county.

Seems like we're all glad we live where we live and wouldn't want others from far away deciding how we should do things.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

We've all been there (or will get there). Each nation (and, here, each state, city and county) has to decide when it's prudent to ease restrictions and what's economically necessary. Tough balancing act. It seems like Erik is satisfied that this has to happen now in UK. It seems like John is satisfied that NY has done about as well as it could. And you know I'm pleased with the response by Georgia and my local county.

Seems like we're all glad we live where we live and wouldn't want others from far away deciding how we should do things.

.

I guess that is the distinction. While things have quieted down in my little village by the sea I am concerned for the entire country in particular, and the world in general. We are fighting thousands of little battles instead of one great war if we let "Each nation (and, here, each state, city and county)" decide what is best for themselves. I submit that a unified, national, response would be be a better way to attack a global pandemic that have every county do their own thing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

We've all been there (or will get there). Each nation (and, here, each state, city and county) has to decide when it's prudent to ease restrictions and what's economically necessary. Tough balancing act. It seems like Erik is satisfied that this has to happen now in UK. It seems like John is satisfied that NY has done about as well as it could. And you know I'm pleased with the response by Georgia and my local county.

Seems like we're all glad we live where we live and wouldn't want others from far away deciding how we should do things.

.

I guess that is the distinction. While things have quieted down in my little village by the sea I am concerned for the entire country in particular, and the world in general. We are fighting thousands of little battles instead of one great war if we let "Each nation (and, here, each state, city and county)" decide what is best for themselves. I submit that a unified, national, response would be be a better way to attack a global pandemic that have every county do their own thing.

Regional approaches are actually quite effective if they look at what is working elsewhere. With a novel disease it makes a lot of sense that each country is doing something different. Where decisions have gone wrong it has usually been not acting on current understandings early enough.

If there was a WHO directed worldwide response, and each country adhered rigidly to that I think we wouldn't also get the extreme success stories of SK and Germany, which have their own methods that have been matched with available resources and cultural abilities and constraints.

Some of what happened early on everywhere could have been avoided if all just locked down before the crisis was established, and some countries actually did that. They're actually doing very well now. Humans respond better to tragedy though, and it was really only after news from Italy that most began to take this seriously to some degree.

quote:

look at what is working elsewhere.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

We've all been there (or will get there). Each nation (and, here, each state, city and county) has to decide when it's prudent to ease restrictions and what's economically necessary. Tough balancing act. It seems like Erik is satisfied that this has to happen now in UK. It seems like John is satisfied that NY has done about as well as it could. And you know I'm pleased with the response by Georgia and my local county.

Seems like we're all glad we live where we live and wouldn't want others from far away deciding how we should do things.

.

I guess that is the distinction. While things have quieted down in my little village by the sea I am concerned for the entire country in particular, and the world in general. We are fighting thousands of little battles instead of one great war if we let "Each nation (and, here, each state, city and county)" decide what is best for themselves. I submit that a unified, national, response would be be a better way to attack a global pandemic that have every county do their own thing.

Regional approaches are actually quite effective if they look at what is working elsewhere. With a novel disease it makes a lot of sense that each country is doing something different. Where decisions have gone wrong it has usually been not acting on current understandings early enough.

If there was a WHO directed worldwide response, and each country adhered rigidly to that I think we wouldn't also get the extreme success stories of SK and Germany, which have their own methods that have been matched with available resources and cultural abilities and constraints.

Some of what happened early on everywhere could have been avoided if all just locked down before the crisis was established, and some countries actually did that. They're actually doing very well now. Humans respond better to tragedy though, and it was really only after news from Italy that most began to take this seriously to some degree.

quote:

look at what is working elsewhere.

Well that is kind of the key now isn't it? Look around, emulate what was successful. I submit New York and Western Europe (not you Sweden!) were successful in flattening the curve. Many parts of the United States, have not been successful and continue to not be successful. Yet they continue to do what has not worked and they are getting the same unsuccessful results. Step 1 is admitting you have a problem.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Wait....

New York set the standard on how to handle this?

I'd rather follow the lead of Arkansas.

New York went from worst to pretty much first. Arkansas has a much higher R-T value as of yesterday. New York has flattened the curve, Arkansas has not. Not really following your logic. New York and Western Europe got absolutely crushed and now are in much better shape than the rest of the United States, particularly the South. So why not follow that model? I understand I might have to go to Georgia for an "essential tattoo" but other than that I think New York is doing a heck of a lot better than Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

The situation in the US is interesting and counterintuitive. Something has to give, soon.

1. The 7-day rolling average continues its long decline. That's good.
2. The 7-day rolling average of new cases is increasing, as the improving situation in NY and vicinity is more than countered by increases elsewhere. That's not good.
3. With cases rising, how can mortality be dropping? If it's the lag period, then mortality will soon increase. The gradual decline in new cases ended about two weeks ago, so rising mortality should kick in soon, if there's a correlation (as you'd expect).
4. Cases have been rising in Georgia since about May 25, but mortality continues to decline steadily. If there is a lag in Georgia, it's nearing a month. That's long enough to begin to strain credibility.
5. Could the new cases be more often asymptomatic or mild, so that not as many are hospitalized or dying? Maybe. In my county, we've had a steady increase in new cases over the past month or more, but the number of hospitalizations is holding steady at seven. Ditto total mortality at 15 (no new deaths since late May).

But maybe this county and state are outliers, the data flattering only to deceive. We should know soon - local, state and nationwide.

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: USSAmerica

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

The situation in the US is interesting and counterintuitive. Something has to give, soon.

1. The 7-day rolling average continues its long decline. That's good.
2. The 7-day rolling average of new cases is increasing, as the improving situation in NY and vicinity is more than countered by increases elsewhere. That's not good.
3. With cases rising, how can mortality be dropping? If it's the lag period, then mortality will soon increase. The gradual decline in new cases ended about two weeks ago, so rising mortality should kick in soon, if there's a correlation (as you'd expect).
4. Cases have been rising in Georgia since about May 25, but mortality continues to decline steadily. If there is a lag in Georgia, it's nearing a month. That's long enough to begin to strain credibility.
5. Could the new cases be more often asymptomatic or mild, so that not as many are hospitalized or dying? Maybe. In my county, we've had a steady increase in new cases over the past month or more, but the number of hospitalizations is holding steady at seven. Ditto total mortality at 15 (no new deaths since late May).

But maybe this county and state are outliers, the data flattering only to deceive. We should know soon - local, state and nationwide.

Dan, I think part of the disparity can be explained by the high concentration of cases in the NYC area and others that overwhelmed their medical systems back in April. I believe that many of those deaths could have been avoided if the capacity to treat them properly was available. Despite the widespread rising case numbers now, they are just that... widespread.

Using NC as an example, we have had record numbers of COVID-19 hospitalizations for the last week or more, with the numbers still slowly climbing. Despite that, we are still at no more than 10% of the ICU bed capacity in the state. Everyone who needs medical care has it available, for now and likely for a long time, in NC.

So, I think the 7 day moving average of Daily Deaths is decreasing toward something resembling the actual mortality rate of the virus from it's inflated earlier peak.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Local Radio here in Baltimore opened this morning reporting that spikes all across the country are attributed to the Memorial Day activities.

There has been talk for many years that it would take a world wide problem to unite all countries. It's a laughable premise, how could anyone make such a silly statement? We've had global issues for eternity and still no unity. One of my favorite films, Arrival [2016] with the great actress Amy Adams the great actor Forest Whitaker, covers it a bit.

What did happen in Sweden? I never followed it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth
At no time were New York hospitals overwhelmed. At no time was a bed or treatment unavailable. No one in New York did not get a bed if they needed one. No one in New York was denied a ventilator. New York got killed because we thought we had a couple more weeks only to learn the virus was already here for a month plus density. There is not other place in the country as dense as NYC, particularly the neighborhoods that got hit hardest.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Very good news today. IHME has taken a hard look at the data and concluded that rising cases don't much correlate to an increase in mortality.

IHME's projections dropped US mortality by 10%, to about 179k. Georgia dropped a whopping 40%, from 10k to 6k. Many other states also dropped, but not all of them.

These drops assume that the current protocols remain in place. If additional countermeasures are instituted, mortality will drop even further.

Apparently, a great deal of the rising cases are indeed asymptomatic or young folks that aren't in danger of expiring.

Many of the states that eased countermeasures early on are still doing well, despite rising positives. States like Tennessee, North Carolina, Colorado, Arkansas, and Maine are doing very well. Montana is a standout.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Yeah, IHME has been all over the place. Some here have noted that can be an attribute. I'm more inclined to view it as not so good.

But you'd think with this much more time under their belts, they'd be working awfully carefully. To lower mortality projections in the face of increasing case numbers and the caterwauling of the press is a major step to take.

Moreover, it holds true with the trend in data coming in, especially from the states that eased measures early on. Georgia did so two months ago but is experiencing a steady decline in mortality. That's very encouraging but hard to register on the public radar given what's coming from the press.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel


Seems like we're all glad we live where we live and wouldn't want others from far away deciding how we should do things.

From a UK perspective I'm not sure I'd go that far. A while back our government set out 'alert levels' that were supposed to link the progress of the epidemic with corresponding levels of response in terms of social distancing measures. As far as I am concerned we seem to be racing well ahead of that road map and without the testing and tracing system that we had previously been told would be the cornerstone of being able to open up safely.

But I think the reality is that we are taking the only course of action available - the economy simply cannot afford to continue paying for lock-down. What frustrates me is that there is no transparency - so we are not only opening up prematurely from a public health perspective but also not giving people the appropriate information in terms of the ongoing risks to encourage them to continue to take informal social distancing measures. I don't know what it's like north of the river but in South London everything seems to have broken down. People have been told it is safe to go back to normal and that is precisely what they are doing. Edit - this is actually perhaps harsh on the govt. who have been paying lip service to the importance of maintaining social distancing. I think my issue is more that they know what the fundamental message is that people will be taking and are being reckless to this - see for example this article by a behavioural scientist https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/24/boris-johnson-ease-lockdown-england

The other point for me is that whilst we are now probably taking the only available course of action economically, as things stand the examples of other countries both elsewhere in Europe and further afield suggest that we didn't have to be in this position in the first place had we reacted quicker.

On both counts it seems to me that the US is in a similar position.

I'm happy to live where I live for lots of other reasons. I'd be much happier if I could add to those reasons a government that had reacted well to this epidemic.

quote:

obvert: Many people had a pattern of symptoms, where their symptoms were heightened initially, nearly disappeared, then returned again with ferocity, along with a very wide range of symptoms.