Quote:

---

Buncombe County Public Health will be adjusting the county's COVID-19 related death numbers after a recent review of those cases at an unnamed long term care facility.

Buncombe County Medical Director Dr. Jennifer Mullendore made the announcement during Buncombe County's press briefing Thursday, July 2, 2020.

"The facilities administration reported to us that they had incorrectly reported the deaths of 10 residents as COVID-related deaths," Mullendore said.

According to Mullendore, while the 10 individuals had tested positive for COVID-19, their deaths were not a direct result of the virus and therefore should be removed from the state and county's numbers.

---

From July 3: https://wlos.com/news/local/buncombe-county-removes-10-deaths-from-covid-19-numbers

It looks like there was a policy change or clarification that 'With COVID' should be included as 'From COVID'

For the 1,956 new cases announced today, the following graph shows the dates when the specimens were taken. Definitely an improvement in the number of days back for test results from the past few days.

If the case reporting lag is catching up, there is a chance we are levelling (or have just hit our testing capacity).

Hospitalizations going up about 100 a week over the last few weeks is concerning regardless..

wilmwolf80 said:

---

I don't envy the parents and teachers who will be trying to figure out how all this is going to work. In a lot of ways, option B seems like the most difficult option for everyone involved.

---

Yep - I have a child that could be going into Pre-K at a special program in the public school system. We don't know how they'll do that program with part-time capacity since the program is more hands on and not really conducive to remote learning.

wilmwolf80 said:

---

I don't envy the parents and teachers who will be trying to figure out how all this is going to work. In a lot of ways, option B seems like the most difficult option for everyone involved.

---

It doesn't matter. 90% of the kids in elementary school didn't really learn anything of note scholastically after the shutdown except that they didn't have to go to school anymore. This won't really be any different.

Wayland said:

---

wilmwolf80 said:

---

I don't envy the parents and teachers who will be trying to figure out how all this is going to work. In a lot of ways, option B seems like the most difficult option for everyone involved.

---

It is trying to please all without taking a firm stand with a backbone. It is a policy based on politics and optics and NOT science.

---

100%

What I don't understand is how someone like your wife is going to be able to teach 1/3 of her class in person while also managing the other 2/3's that are virtual? And keeping them all on the same timeline.

A quick survey of my social media feed shows that all the teachers I know, which is half a dozen people or so, and their other teacher friends are opposed this. They're all actually opposed to school being open in the fall at all. A few pages back I wondered if the teachers would be willing to teach if the schools opened up, and I'm not sure they will be. I would have liked to see a more creative solution to the issue, like some of the ones proposed that would allow younger kids to spread out in bigger areas, while older kids went virtual, which could have protected students and teachers. They really only came up with two options, school or no school, and then went with a combination of the two. Disappointing given the months they've had to come up with something, but not unsurprising.

bigeric said:

---

Are there any data regarding the ages of those tested, as well as the ages of those positive?

---

Currently 75 admitted, 17 in ICU, 11 tubed

34101 tests, 1809 +, 31908 -

By age:
0-17 2305 tests, 204 positive, 6 admitted, no deaths

18-24 2103, 172, 22, 0

24-49 9220, 724, 198, 4

50-64 8628, 477, 208, 18

65 and up, 11845, 454, 330, 79

75% of admitted need supplemental oxygen. They aren't admitting people with minimal symptoms or signs save a few anecdotal cases as best I can tell.

Most common co-morbidity that increases risk of bad outcome is hypertension. The narrative that you have to be old and sick to be badly affected is really crap IMHO. 65 with high blood pressure ain't old and sick.

Death rates down thank goodness, but this was expected over time even as infection rates went up, which was also predictable.

Lots of new studies coming to light showing the systemic complications of Cv19 infection. Brain and heart definitely take a hit. One study I read today with 1200 patients showed a 55% rate of heart damage in infected individuals seen on echoes done in April. This ain't no cold or flu, boys. This can eff you up. That said, they better play football this season, and get the kids in school as best they can. Just my opinion.

Mormad said:

---

bigeric said:

---

Are there any data regarding the ages of those tested, as well as the ages of those positive?

---

Currently 75 admitted, 17 in ICU, 11 tubed

34101 tests, 1809 +, 31908 -

By age:
0-17 2305 tests, 204 positive, 6 admitted, no deaths

18-24 2103, 172, 22, 0

24-49 9220, 724, 198, 4

50-64 8628, 477, 208, 18

65 and up, 11845, 454, 330, 79

75% of admitted need supplemental oxygen. They aren't admitting people with minimal symptoms or signs save a few anecdotal cases as best I can tell.

Most common co-morbidity that increases risk of bad outcome is hypertension. The narrative that you have to be old and sick to be badly affected is really crap IMHO. 65 with high blood pressure ain't old and sick.

Death rates down thank goodness, but this was expected over time even as infection rates went up, which was also predictable.

Lots of new studies coming to light showing the systemic complications of Cv19 infection. Brain and heart definitely take a hit. One study I read today with 1200 patients showed a 55% rate of heart damage in infected individuals seen on echoes done in April.

---

There isn't a "narrative" that you have to be 65 and older to be badly affected. There is statistical data that the virus primarily affects those 65 and older, or those with underlying conditions like obesity and diabetes. Are other groups affected as well? Yes, but they are statistically much more likely not to have a negative outcome.

Say what you want, brother, but there are plenty of people who are 50 or 65 with isolated hypertension or even controlled diabetes who aren't "sick" and think they don't fall in the category of "at risk." I totally understand your point, but I think you may have missed mine? I think 50 with hypertension likely describes many of us here.

Mormad said:

---

Say what you want, brother, but there are plenty of people who are 50 or 65 with isolated hypertension or even controlled diabetes who aren't "sick" and think they don't fall in the category of "at risk." I totally understand your point, but I think you may have missed mine? I think 50 with hypertension likely describes many of us here.

---

I understand, and I apologize if I came across coarsely. I'm just frustrated by the decision today. Definitely many could fall in that category.

packgrad said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

What I don't understand is how someone like your wife is going to be able to teach 1/3 of her class in person while also managing the other 2/3's that are virtual? And keeping them all on the same timeline.

---

It is completely unsustainable. I just don't see how that's a realistic option. All in or all out. As I mentioned, I like the proposed solution from Durham if you're going to Plan B where it is absolute for elementary/middle/high schools, although I think it's detrimental to the high school students. There can be measured approaches to education. 1/3 in, 2/3 out is just a ridiculous solution.

---

As a teacher, I honestly expect for it to take around 2 weeks for everyone to realize how impossible this all is and just give up and switch to 100% remote learning. I can't even begin to comprehend how I'm supposed to teach in person and virtually every day while being responsible for grading and giving useful feedback in both settings.

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

I've said it before and will say it again. Republican or Democrat, it doesn't matter. Not a mother ****ing thing is being done based in data, science and actual facts. Everything that is being done is being done purely on politics and a ******* election in November. That is all that matters to all these piece of **** politicians. Rant over!

---

https://images.app.goo.gl/FqQbFdMF77yKF9dd6

My 7 week old is the youngest positive test in new Hanover county. Got a call from the CDC asking questions about symptoms for data collection. Mildly surprised that somebody's actually following up.

Mormad said:

---

bigeric said:

---

Are there any data regarding the ages of those tested, as well as the ages of those positive?

---

Currently 75 admitted, 17 in ICU, 11 tubed

34101 tests, 1809 +, 31908 -

By age:
0-17 2305 tests, 204 positive, 6 admitted, no deaths

18-24 2103, 172, 22, 0

24-49 9220, 724, 198, 4

50-64 8628, 477, 208, 18

65 and up, 11845, 454, 330, 79

75% of admitted need supplemental oxygen. They aren't admitting people with minimal symptoms or signs save a few anecdotal cases as best I can tell.

Most common co-morbidity that increases risk of bad outcome is hypertension. The narrative that you have to be old and sick to be badly affected is really crap IMHO. 65 with high blood pressure ain't old and sick.

Death rates down thank goodness, but this was expected over time even as infection rates went up, which was also predictable.

Lots of new studies coming to light showing the systemic complications of Cv19 infection. Brain and heart definitely take a hit. One study I read today with 1200 patients showed a 55% rate of heart damage in infected individuals seen on echoes done in April. This ain't no cold or flu, boys. This can eff you up. That said, they better play football this season, and get the kids in school as best they can. Just my opinion.

---

Thanks for the update Mormad. Your update confirms a theory I had regarding hospitalizations. I was having trouble reconciling the decreasing number of people admitted to ICU, along with the increases in overall hospitalizations. I had read over the past few weeks that doctors were doing a lot more oxygen supplementation early in the treatment cycle and this was proving successful. So, I suspected the increase in hospitalizations was, in part, to administer oxygen in a hospital setting as a way to improve the long-term success of the patient. This would definitely help explain the increase in hospitalizations with the decreasing ICU admits and it really reconciles with the data.

I have looked closely at the overall hospitalizations and they make statistical sense. I looked today at the percent increase in cases and the percent increase in hospitalizations for the past few weeks and they are almost identical. I was looking for a mismatch where cases might be increasing at a faster rate than hospitalizations. This would imply case growth due to increased testing rather than an increase in illness. Based on what I found, case growth and hospitalizations seem to be aligned.

As many have seen from my other graphs, death rates are definitely declining and this is probably the one bright spot. The heart damage is very troubling and it is an area that could definitely impact people long-term. Are there any theories on the causes of the heart damage? As to the brain issues, how common is it for viruses to affect the brain? I was thinking it is possible, but I do not know how often this happens with other viruses.

We appreciate the prayers. So far all of our symptoms have been very mild.

Thanks man