Packchem91 said:

---

Wayland said:

---

Wiseman asks about race and ethnicity data. Damnit, man, that has been on the DHHS website for over a week, what kind of investigative reporter are you????

Come on, media.

---

That was a topic on CBS National News last night. Seems like it should be a post-analysis type of issue. I mean, its one thing to say, "75% of deaths, but only 20% of cases"...but like the theme on these last few pages, without context of the health of those affected, and other data, it's not necessarily useful data.

---

It is a very hot topic and I am not implying it isn't an important analysis issue or shouldn't be highlighted for the impacted community.

But the data Wiseman was asking for is literally available to the public and has been for sometime on the DHHS website (which is basically what he was told when he asked the question). With about 30 seconds of 'investigation' from that reporter he could have located that information and actually asked a valuable question that may elicit a response other than 'go to the website'.

Feels like it was a waste of a news conference. No important information outside of benefits for childcare and Exec order coming to limit retailers on # of people in the store.

• No concrete discussion on how they're strategizing to get us out of stay at home order, only saying that they're using the NC model as well as other models, talking to Health and Business leaders
• No discussion of how they are working to ramp up testing capabilities
• No commitment to extending the stay at home order, felt like they were laying the groundwork for extending it though

Wayland said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Wayland said:

---

Wiseman asks about race and ethnicity data. Damnit, man, that has been on the DHHS website for over a week, what kind of investigative reporter are you????

Come on, media.

---

That was a topic on CBS National News last night. Seems like it should be a post-analysis type of issue. I mean, its one thing to say, "75% of deaths, but only 20% of cases"...but like the theme on these last few pages, without context of the health of those affected, and other data, it's not necessarily useful data.

---

It is a very hot topic and I am not implying it isn't an important analysis issue or shouldn't be highlighted for the impacted community.

But the data Wiseman was asking for is literally available to the public and has been for sometime on the DHHS website (which is basically what he was told when he asked the question). With about 30 seconds of 'investigation' from that reporter he could have located that information and actually asked a valuable question that may elicit a response other than 'go to the website'.

---

Agreed -- the laziness and "gotchaness" of reporting most certainly becomes evident in this type of saga.
I mean, I don't know the day in/ day out of reporting....but if you guys who I assume are working other jobs find all this data this quickly (that answer many of their own questions), why don't the reporters....and then save those few minutes with the leaders to ask pointed questions. Very frustrating.

Of course, that would also limit some of the sound bytes that play so well

Packchem91 said:

---

Just saw the following stat from a Brett Jensen tweet

In NC from 9/29-3/28 (6 mos), 88,929 ppl tested positive for the flu. 159 have died. A fatality rate of 0.18%.

In NC from 3/2-4/5 (34 days), 3,221 ppl tested positive for COVID-19. At least 47 have died. A fatality rate of 1.46%.

---

What's your take on that data?

Mormad said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Just saw the following stat from a Brett Jensen tweet

In NC from 9/29-3/28 (6 mos), 88,929 ppl tested positive for the flu. 159 have died. A fatality rate of 0.18%.

In NC from 3/2-4/5 (34 days), 3,221 ppl tested positive for COVID-19. At least 47 have died. A fatality rate of 1.46%.

---

What's your take on that data?

---

Just that at least 47 have died from COVID-19.

The current fatality rate of COVID-19 is an imaginary number which if we assume all deaths have been accounted for the upper bound of which is 1.46% in NC. We know the LIKELY number of infected is much higher since the state guidance is to only to test elderly, congregate, severe, or front line workers. This eliminates well over half the population from testing.

Now there is no herd immunity or vaccine or anything otherwise stopping the spread. So this is certainly a disease we should take seriously and strive to learn as much as possible.

It is a click-bait tweet meant to drive fear. We can't compare those two statements directly since they are based off of different assumptions.

(Based on 2017)
In NC on an average 34 day period 1820 people died of cancer.
In NC on an average 34 day period 1758 people died of heart disease.

How do either of these last two statements help with the current crisis other than to provoke and be an ass?

Mormad said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Just saw the following stat from a Brett Jensen tweet

In NC from 9/29-3/28 (6 mos), 88,929 ppl tested positive for the flu. 159 have died. A fatality rate of 0.18%.

In NC from 3/2-4/5 (34 days), 3,221 ppl tested positive for COVID-19. At least 47 have died. A fatality rate of 1.46%.

---

What's your take on that data?

---

I think its incomplete, or at minimum, likely not enough, by itself to make major decisions

That said, I think in general, it backs up that corona is more deadly, for those infected, than flu. Almost 10x more.

I assume both case counts are artificially low. We know not everyone gets tested for corona who has symptoms, and I'm sure there are many with flu who aren't getting diagnosed, and so aren't in the numbers above.

Bottom line --- it is enough to make me comfortable with continuing to keep my kids away from my parents, for example....who are much more susceptible due to age and other underlying health.

And one other thought....the counts are still lower than I would have expected them to be in a county with a metropolitan city.

Truth, but we can also assume the death rate of flu is much lower since, as stated here earlier, many with the flu never get tested. So I think it's safe to assume the death rate of covid is still quite a bit higher than the flu. Maybe not 8xa these numbers suggest, but likely a multiple. The other weakness in the data is the short time period for covid. Deaths will go up over the next 6 months, even as the case rate flattens (assuming testing doesn't ramp up). Even if another case of covid fails to be reported over the next 3 weeks, the death rate will climb making the death rate appear even higher. Bottom line, it's some scary arse sht that needs to be figured out, and that's gonna take time and effort by people who know what they're doing and aren't politically influenced (it seems). And if Davies numbers are correct, they better start letting me post my effing surgeries (which are now cancelled until June 1).

I swear I learn more about covid here than I do in my own hospital (other than seeing some things y'all don't see). You guys still rock IMHO.

Agreed Mormad this thread has continued to be extremely informative due to the efforts of a number of posters. You're statement about learning more here is a little concerning though I'm sure a combination of some hyperbole and appreciation for the solid info here. I assume a lot of folks in the hospital are also head down trying to sustain through crisis mode...so understandable the nuances and numbers aren't priority one...however one would hope decision and policy makers would start recognizing facts at this point and bring a little more common sense approach than relying on some of these flawed and fear based models.

New cases are down today and new deaths are up. Imo, this is to be expected. Would like to see the new case numbers drop 3-4 days in a row to make me feel more comfortable that we are actually at the peak of new cases. After that, I am waiting a week to see what the new death numbers are. Basically waiting, on the advice of Davie, 7-10 days from peak of total new cases to see if the new deaths level off. Then, maybe then, we can start getting things somewhat back to normal.

Does anyone know how often the IHME model is updated? How often do they put new data into their system and actually update it? Daily, every other day, weekly?

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Does anyone know how often the IHME model is updated? How often do they put new data into their system and actually update it? Daily, every other day, weekly?

---

The first model was published at the end of March and I believe they made an update on April 1, since there was a note for several days saying it was current as of that date. They had another message that appeared a couple of days later that said it would be updated on 4/4, but they missed this deadline. They did update the model with new data and forecasts on Sunday night and I downloaded the new model data on Monday morning.

There is a note currently on the site saying it was last updated on 7/7. Most of today's changes appear to be focused on the addition of European countries to the model results. They have also updated their death reporting methodology to average the last three rounds of death predictions. They did this to smooth out the predictive curves to deal with fluctuations caused by reporting delays in the data.

I have not looked at the new data behind the curves in detail, but based on the curve shapes for deaths, they have changed in form.

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

New cases are down today and new deaths are up. Imo, this is to be expected. Would like to see the new case numbers drop 3-4 days in a row to make me feel more comfortable that we are actually at the peak of new cases. After that, I am waiting a week to see what the new death numbers are. Basically waiting, on the advice of Davie, 7-10 days from peak of total new cases to see if the new deaths level off. Then, maybe then, we can start getting things somewhat back to normal.

---

Just so you are aware, I am basing my 7-10 days on the data coming from Italy and Spain. In those countries, it took 5-6 days for deaths to decline after cases began to decline. I am padding my estimates to 7-10 days, particularly for NC, due to the lower testing numbers. I do not believe NC is catching as many cases as they should in their case data which makes the data making up the New Daily Cases curves more noisy. This noise makes it harder to see the curve flattening. If we were in NY, I would hold closer to the 5-6 day estimate, since NY is testing to a much greater extent.

packgrad said:

---

---

That's the way things work. Secondary infections usually kill, but we list the root disease (generally). AIDS, flu, et al.

Perhaps it is. I don't know otherwise. It will definitely be interesting to compare to death rates in years past. See the difference in pneumonia, heart disease, stroke, etc. versus this year.

Mormad - I have a question for you. I just read an article that mentions the following with regard to how Covid-19 and its effect on the body and it prompted a question regarding a possible treatment.

The article stated the following and it is not the first article I have read that talks about how Covid-19 affects the blood's ability to carry oxygen. The article said:

"The past 48 hours or so have seen a huge revelation: COVID-19 causes prolonged and progressive hypoxia (starving your body of oxygen) by binding to the heme groups in hemoglobin in your red blood cells. People are simply desaturating (losing o2 in their blood), and that's what eventually leads to organ failures that kill them, not any form of ARDS or pneumonia. All the damage to the lungs you see in CT scans are from the release of oxidative iron from the hemes, this overwhelms the natural defenses against pulmonary oxidative stress and causes that nice, always-bilateral ground glass opacity in the lungs. Patients returning for re-hospitalization days or weeks after recovery suffering from apparent delayed post-hypoxic leukoencephalopathy strengthen the notion COVID-19 patients are suffering from hypoxia despite no signs of respiratory 'tire out' or fatigue."

Since one of my main hobbies is distance cycling, I am very aware of elite cyclist taking EPO (very much against the rules of the sport) to build up their body's ability to produce more hemoglobin, increasing their ability to carry more oxygen in their blood. I am also aware that people going through chemo treatments for cancer are often prescribed EPO to deal with the effects of chemo that can make them anemic. If you could increase the blood's ability to carry more blood, it seems it may help to avoid hypoxia condition reported in the article.

I do not know how long it takes for EPO to begin working, but is it possible that EPO could be given to Covid-19 patients early in the virus' infection cycle to promote the increased production of hemoglobin? If it does work as quickly, would this be a possible treatment to deal with the issue I mentioned above?

I am curious if I am completely off base or if this idea makes any sense.

Wow. Just saw NY posted a big number at the end of the day to caused new cases to be higher today then yesterday. Almost 33% of new cases today we're from NY and 40% of deaths were from NY

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Wow. Just saw NY posted a big number at the end of the day to caused new cases to be higher today then yesterday. Almost 33% of new cases today we're from NY and 40% of deaths were from NY

---

Worldometers and most tracking sites take the NY number from their morning release. The 730+ number out of NY was as of Cuomo's morning presser for the previous day's count.

Wayland said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Wow. Just saw NY posted a big number at the end of the day to caused new cases to be higher today then yesterday. Almost 33% of new cases today we're from NY and 40% of deaths were from NY

---

Worldometers and most tracking sites take the NY number from their morning release. The 730+ number out of NY was as of Cuomo's morning presser for the previous day's count.

---

And it changed tonight which surprised me

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Wayland said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Wow. Just saw NY posted a big number at the end of the day to caused new cases to be higher today then yesterday. Almost 33% of new cases today we're from NY and 40% of deaths were from NY

---

Worldometers and most tracking sites take the NY number from their morning release. The 730+ number out of NY was as of Cuomo's morning presser for the previous day's count.

---

And it changed tonight which surprised me

---

Everywhere I look I still see 5489 total for NY (from 11am this morning), what is your source?

Wayland said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Wayland said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Wow. Just saw NY posted a big number at the end of the day to caused new cases to be higher today then yesterday. Almost 33% of new cases today we're from NY and 40% of deaths were from NY

---

Worldometers and most tracking sites take the NY number from their morning release. The 730+ number out of NY was as of Cuomo's morning presser for the previous day's count.

---

And it changed tonight which surprised me

---

Everywhere I look I still see 5489 total for NY (from 11am this morning), what is your source?

---

Worldometers had it at 6,900 and now has it at 10,500

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Wayland said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Wayland said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Wow. Just saw NY posted a big number at the end of the day to caused new cases to be higher today then yesterday. Almost 33% of new cases today we're from NY and 40% of deaths were from NY

---

Worldometers and most tracking sites take the NY number from their morning release. The 730+ number out of NY was as of Cuomo's morning presser for the previous day's count.

---

And it changed tonight which surprised me

---

Everywhere I look I still see 5489 total for NY (from 11am this morning), what is your source?

---

Worldometers had it at 6,900 and now has it at 10,500

---

I also see 5,489 total deaths for NY. Total US deaths are 12,854. This is all on the following URL:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

I don't see 10,500 anywhere on the page.

Daviewolf83 said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Wayland said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Wayland said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Wow. Just saw NY posted a big number at the end of the day to caused new cases to be higher today then yesterday. Almost 33% of new cases today we're from NY and 40% of deaths were from NY

---

Worldometers and most tracking sites take the NY number from their morning release. The 730+ number out of NY was as of Cuomo's morning presser for the previous day's count.

---

And it changed tonight which surprised me

---

Everywhere I look I still see 5489 total for NY (from 11am this morning), what is your source?

---

Worldometers had it at 6,900 and now has it at 10,500

---

I also see 5,489 total deaths for NY. Total US deaths are 12,854. This is all on the following URL:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

---

New cases not new deaths. I was saying the new cases went way up because of a big number add at the end of the day for NY. Had to check my original post to make sure I said that and not new deaths

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Daviewolf83 said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Wayland said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Wayland said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Wow. Just saw NY posted a big number at the end of the day to caused new cases to be higher today then yesterday. Almost 33% of new cases today we're from NY and 40% of deaths were from NY

---

Worldometers and most tracking sites take the NY number from their morning release. The 730+ number out of NY was as of Cuomo's morning presser for the previous day's count.

---

And it changed tonight which surprised me

---

Everywhere I look I still see 5489 total for NY (from 11am this morning), what is your source?

---

Worldometers had it at 6,900 and now has it at 10,500

---

I also see 5,489 total deaths for NY. Total US deaths are 12,854. This is all on the following URL:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

---

New cases not new deaths. I was saying the new cases went way up because of a big number add at the end of the day for NY. Had to check my original post to make sure I said that and not new deaths

---

Sorry RunsWithWolves26, I misunderstood your post and was focusing on the 40% deaths increase comment. I just checked the time series data and here is what I see for NY for daily cases:

Time Series Data is from the covidtracking.com website (tabulated from the daily NY press conference)

Date..............Cases
4/7...............138,863
4/6...............130,689
4/5...............122,031
4/4...............113,704
4/3...............102,863
4/2............... 92,381

142,384 <== Current cases as reported by Worldometers -- increase of 10,468 cases

I can see where Worldometer is reporting an increase of 10,468 cases where I am only seeing a 8,174. I suspect there are differences from when the reports are being tabulate that cause these differences. The reporting on all of these numbers are tricky. There are definitely differences from state to state in the tabulation methods for the reporting (time of day and lags in reporting inside the states) causing these discrepancies. This is one of the things that adds noise to the data and makes it harder to forecast accurate trends. The covidtracking.com website has not updated the time series data for today, but I suspect it could be closer to Worldometer's case count of 142,384 cases.

Good decision.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-cdc-to-loosen-back-to-work-guidelines-some-who-self-isolate-pence-says/

The IHME projection has cut another 20,000 deaths from their nationwide total, down to 60,000. They are predicting the nationwide peak in 4 days.

Prediction for NC is peaking in 7 days with an overall total deaths down to just 522.

Question on comparative cases/deaths.

We talk about how NYC has been so suspect due to its pop density. But what other factor has driven it to be the epicenter?
It has nowhere near the population of major cities in India -- India has like 10 of the top 20 most densely populated cities in the world. But has 6k reported cases as a country.
Is it international travel that brought so many more people into NYC during the peak crisis time that initiated the spread?

Was it a matter of IN just locking down soon enough to prevent (I know my staff in IN has been in complete lockdown for at least 3 weeks now)?

I thought California would have had a horrible outbreak as well, specifically in their metros with the large homeless populations. They haven't though. I, too, am interested in learning why some areas are worse.

Edit to add... I also saw a twitter post not long ago where India shut down the train system, thereby leaving huge crowds in close contact with no way to get home. Granted, it wasn't too long ago and they may not be showing symptoms yet. Heck it may not be true. But, India is definitely one I expected an outbreak.

Packchem91 said:

---

Question on comparative cases/deaths.

We talk about how NYC has been so suspect due to its pop density. But what other factor has driven it to be the epicenter?
It has nowhere near the population of major cities in India -- India has like 10 of the top 20 most densely populated cities in the world. But has 6k reported cases as a country.
Is it international travel that brought so many more people into NYC during the peak crisis time that initiated the spread?

Was it a matter of IN just locking down soon enough to prevent (I know my staff in IN has been in complete lockdown for at least 3 weeks now)?

---

Well I guess I could have googled it a little bit more......saw some articles, albeit couple of weeks old now lamenting that this could be false positive news. Basically, that the amount of testing had almost been non-existent in India, and that health experts expect the cases to explode (whether that has happened or not...the #s still don't show it).

Interesting but not shocking...the IMHE model was adjusted down this morning...but no major headlines...had it been adjusted up to say "2.2 million will die"...the media would be printing bumper stickers