Ncstatefan01 said:

---

Spoke with a friend this weekend who works in a local major hospital system as a nurse. Asked if they were being able to hospitalize people that they wouldn't have before because they have capacity now and maybe that is a factor for the increase in hospitalizations. She said that she did not think that was the case, that they want as few covid cases as possible in the hospital as possible because of all the precautions they have to take for where they are housed. She says they only admit the people that they have to. Just what she told me.

---

Which is why we should be reporting new admits and recoveries (and average length of stay), so we can see the patient mobility. Admissions have definitely increased the last 2 weeks based on surveillance. But how much are the numbers being driven by more patients, how much by longer stays (improved outcomes or just taking longer for a bad outcome). Capacity becomes the overall concern, at some point, certainly not yet.

But providing just a little additional data would give insight into how dire the increase is. Is it a large number of new admits, or a continuing plateau with only a minor increase?

wilmwolf80 said:

---

"If asymptomatic spread proves to not be a main driver of coronavirus transmission, the policy implications could be tremendous. A report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published on April 1 cited the "potential for presymptomatic transmission" as a reason for the importance of social distancing."

Which brings us back to what has been said on this thread multiple times .If you are sick, stay home. Otherwise, we should all be out living our lives.

---

That would be huge, but check this out. Competing articles tonight from WRAL and CNBC:

https://www.wral.com/coronavirus/cohen-almost-half-of-coronavirus-cases-spread-by-those-with-no-symptoms/19135804/

"State health secretary Mandy Cohen said Monday that a new analysis of many studies shows as many as 49% of cases of the novel coronavirus are spread by people who are not showing symptoms."

And then this:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/08/asymptomatic-coronavirus-patients-arent-spreading-new-infections-who-says.html

"We have a number of reports from countries who are doing very detailed contact tracing," she said. "They're following asymptomatic cases. They're following contacts. And they're not finding secondary transmission onward. It's very rare."

So...are half of all cases spread by asymptomatic carriers, or is that very rare?

Cause it can't be both!

wilmwolf80 said:

---

I'm not sure that I can trust anything from the state at this point From the first article:

"Cohen said state leaders are especially worried about mass gatherings, like speedway races or large conventions. "

Those are two really conveniently topical things for them to be worried about right now, and also conveniently didn't mention large protests at all. It also doesn't mention specifically which studies they are referring to, so they could be still using the outdated studies that the other article says are bogus.

---

Agree.

The WHO's info seems more current, and they would also seemingly have access to much more data on which to base these sorts of ruminations.

FWIW, I believe there is a distinction here between people who have the virus and are truly asymptomatic (ie the virus runs it's course and they never develop symptoms), and people who have the virus and have simply not yet started showing symptoms. However, I don't believe our state would understand that nuance, and honestly, I don't know that there's any way we know which is which in our current mode of testing. I still feel that the number of folks that have been exposed and contacted the virus is much higher than the numbers currently show, but I'm not a scientist or a medical professional, I'm just a dude of above average intelligence and common sense posting on a message board.

wilmwolf80 said:

---

I'm just a dude of above average intelligence and common sense posting on a message board.

---

Some might consider that a dangerous combination in today's day and age...

wilmwolf80 said:

---

I'm not sure that I can trust anything from the state at this point From the first article:

"Cohen said state leaders are especially worried about mass gatherings, like speedway races or large conventions. "

Those are two really conveniently topical things for them to be worried about right now, and also conveniently didn't mention large protests at all. It also doesn't mention specifically which studies they are referring to, so they could be still using the outdated studies that the other article says are bogus.

---

Agree. I've stopped paying attention to anything coming from that show.

Wayland said:

---

wilmwolf80 said:

---

Here we go with the "new high in hospitalization" cries.

---

Maybe the media will finally demand transparency into what that number means.

New admits? New recoveries? COVID ICU? Average length of stay? What hospitals ARE NOT REPORTING DATA?

But probably not. Media thrives on panic and high numbers, so they will be in love.

---

Those numbers are available to the state. I get my hospital system's numbers for all those things you mention in an email every single day and have been for months. Doesn't mean they know what to do with those numbers, but they have them.

wilmwolf80 said:

---

FWIW, I believe there is a distinction here between people who have the virus and are truly asymptomatic (ie the virus runs it's course and they never develop symptoms), and people who have the virus and have simply not yet started showing symptoms. However, I don't believe our state would understand that nuance, and honestly, I don't know that there's any way we know which is which in our current mode of testing. I still feel that the number of folks that have been exposed and contacted the virus is much higher than the numbers currently show, but I'm not a scientist or a medical professional, I'm just a dude of above average intelligence and common sense posting on a message board.

---

I'll just say I don't want to be around asymptomatic covid carriers personally.

As an analogy: HIV is extremely treatable now, and positive peeps on treatment have viral loads so low that they're undetectable and the risk of transmission is very low. Does that suggest you'd feel comfortable now having unprotected sex or sharing needles or not using universal precautions with an HIV positive person?

There may be truth in saying the asymptomatic ones among us should just be out there living our lives, but not without precautions. And that's where the problem lies IMHO. Too many out there right now NOT using appropriate precautions based on the disease as we know it today.

To me it was expected to see a bump in new cases and hospitalizations when people started living their lives again as we started to open things up.

Of all the different data pieces which one would be the least impacted by the number of tests (or other random variables) that are now being run? Which number would be the best indicator of the current severity of the virus in our state (and others)?

Current Hospitalizations or Daily Deaths confirmed to be caused by COVID-19?

Mormad said:

---

Wayland said:

---

wilmwolf80 said:

---

Here we go with the "new high in hospitalization" cries.

---

Maybe the media will finally demand transparency into what that number means.

New admits? New recoveries? COVID ICU? Average length of stay? What hospitals ARE NOT REPORTING DATA?

But probably not. Media thrives on panic and high numbers, so they will be in love.

---

Those numbers are available to the state. I get my hospital system's numbers for all those things you mention in an email every single day and have been for months. Doesn't mean they know what to do with those numbers, but they have them.

---

I think that is the frustrating thing, other states provide this information. Let the people know so we can trust that informed decisions are being made. I am certainly concerned about the hospitalization numbers and want to trust policy is being made on good data.

But when you hide context or deflect answers about data, it makes you seem untrustworthy, even if you are making informed decisions.

I don't like the government providing murky stats to control the narrative.

TheStorm said:

---

Of all the different data pieces which one would be the least impacted by the number of tests (or other random variables) that are now being run? Which number would be the best indicator of the current severity of the virus in our state (and others)?

Current Hospitalizations or Daily Deaths confirmed to be caused by COVID-19?

---

Hospitalizations is better in the moment, but you really need new admits and recoveries and ICU v non critical. To dissect total hospitalizations.

Deaths is clearest picture but reflects what happened 2 to 4 weeks ago.

I am expecting another record hospitalization number today when more hospitals report. But I guess we are going to have to peak at some point.
Deaths, but that tells a 2 to 3 week old story.

To that point, I have a hypothesis. We will see if it plays out. NC had a death spike a little over 2 weeks after opening for phase 1 (a little earlier than the 20 days) that included a wave of non-congregate deaths.

Sometime early next week, I think NC will experience its 'Phase 2' wave. The death numbers will mostly get reported by media in the later part of next week and then things will start to trend downwards again. Will see if an actual shift in behavior causes a mini-peak.

I don't particularly want to be around asymptomatic people either, but here's the thing, it's almost a certainty that I have. I'm one of millions of people who have had to go on living our lives virtually unchanged since this started. No, I haven't gathered in large groups, or gotten a haircut, or gone to a bar, but I haven't been confined to my home either. In my business, I interact with somewhere in the neighborhood of 40-50 people a week. All of this interaction occurs indoors. My clients are mostly local, but sometimes travel to the area from all over the country and the world. Yes, I take safety precautions, and ask that my clients do, but few of them have. I'm under no illusions that my cheap Chinese made mask and standing six feet away is going to keep me from getting the virus if they sneeze on me. Conservatively, I've interacted with 4,000 strangers since this started, and that is just through work and doesn't count my interactions in the grocery store, take out lines, etc. There are millions of people like me, who can't work from home, who have continued to work, interact, and be out and about from day one. If the numbers on asymptomatic carriers are anywhere close to being accurate, it is almost a statistical certainty that I've been exposed to someone carrying the virus, as have a large number of other folks. It's a risk that we take so that we can continue to eat, pay our bills, and support our families.

Unfortunately, many people interpret "stay home if you're sick" to apply to everyone else. If they're sick - and this far predates COVID19 - they still want to do as they please. That leaves those of us at high risk responsible for behaving as though anyone we encounter may be contagious.

PackMom said:

---

Unfortunately, many people interpret "stay home if you're sick" to apply to everyone else. If they're sick - and this far predates COVID19 - they still want to do as they please. That leaves those of us at high risk responsible for behaving as though anyone we encounter may be contagious.

---

True....but I would also add some people who are "feeling badly" also feel required to show up at work (in the old world, 3 months ago), because failure to do so meant no pay, or potential loss of job. I'd imagine this is particularly true in the service industry, which just happens to be the one that comes in contact with most people.

Yeah, me too. Same boat. I'm seeing 41 people in the office today and already rounded in the nasty hospital. Maybe we're 2 of the lucky ones and we've been exposed but not infected or exposed and had an asymptomatic infection that inferred whatever immunity that it infers. Likelihood of already being exposed doesn't change how I feel about further exposure and the inherent risks of such exposure to not only me but all those I come in contact with afterwards. That's where using common sense and using precautions become vital, but so many in our society fail to use either. But I digress. Stay healthy, friend.

PackMom said:

---

Unfortunately, many people interpret "stay home if you're sick" to apply to everyone else. If they're sick - and this far predates COVID19 - they still want to do as they please. That leaves those of us at high risk responsible for behaving as though anyone we encounter may be contagious.

---

Stay healthy and happy, PackMom. You're the best.

wilmwolf80 said:

---

I don't particularly want to be around asymptomatic people either, but here's the thing, it's almost a certainty that I have. I'm one of millions of people who have had to go on living our lives virtually unchanged since this started. No, I haven't gathered in large groups, or gotten a haircut, or gone to a bar, but I haven't been confined to my home either. In my business, I interact with somewhere in the neighborhood of 40-50 people a week. All of this interaction occurs indoors. My clients are mostly local, but sometimes travel to the area from all over the country and the world. Yes, I take safety precautions, and ask that my clients do, but few of them have. I'm under no illusions that my cheap Chinese made mask and standing six feet away is going to keep me from getting the virus if they sneeze on me. Conservatively, I've interacted with 4,000 strangers since this started, and that is just through work and doesn't count my interactions in the grocery store, take out lines, etc. There are millions of people like me, who can't work from home, who have continued to work, interact, and be out and about from day one. If the numbers on asymptomatic carriers are anywhere close to being accurate, it is almost a statistical certainty that I've been exposed to someone carrying the virus, as have a large number of other folks. It's a risk that we take so that we can continue to eat, pay our bills, and support our families.

---

WHO walks back yesterday's statement regarding the rarity of asymptomatic transmission.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/09/who-scrambles-to-clarify-comments-on-asymptomatic-coronavirus-spread-much-is-still-unknown.html

Yeah, they took a lot of flack from the blue checkmark crowd on Twitter.

Wouldn't it be kind of delusional at this point to think that any of us as individuals haven't been exposed to anyone carrying it as of yet? I mean seriously. Standard running average rate for our state has been that 7.0% of those tested are later confirmed. Yeah, the overall rate may effectually be slightly lower than that but realistically any of us now out working under Phase I / Phase II situations (for several weeks now) probably gets exposed to it a minimum of ONCE DAILY.

And seriously... just think about that trip that we haven't thought twice about in going to the liquor store throughout this entire crisis. I may not be able to read every newspaper in the state, but why have we never heard of an outbreak associated with an ABC Store? Not even once that I am aware of. Yeah, some of the clerks wore masks for a couple of short weeks, but seriously - just think about it...

TheStorm said:

---

Wouldn't it be kind of delusional at this point to think that any of us as individuals haven't been exposed to anyone carrying it as of yet? I mean seriously. Standard running average rate for our state has been that 7.0% of those tested are later confirmed. Yeah, the overall rate may effectually be slightly lower than that but realistically any of us now out working under Phase I / Phase II situations (for several weeks now) probably gets exposed to it a minimum of ONCE DAILY.

And seriously... just think about that trip that we haven't thought twice about in going to the liquor store throughout this entire crisis. I may not be able to read every newspaper in the state, but why have we never heard of an outbreak associated with an ABC Store? Not even once that I am aware of. Yeah, some of the clerks wore masks for a couple of short weeks, but seriously - just think about it...

---

Nor have we heard about outbreaks due to child care facilities being open. For most of March / April / May, daycares were only open for essential workers who were likely to have more daily contact with COVID. Class numbers were smaller but I don't think there's been any reports of outbreaks.

My kids went back to daycare last week. Fingers crossed that it stays that way.

wilmwolf80 said:

---

Yeah, they took a lot of flack from the blue checkmark crowd on Twitter.

---

Yeah. Very rare to 16% is quite the swing.

packgrad said:

---

wilmwolf80 said:

---

Yeah, they took a lot of flack from the blue checkmark crowd on Twitter.

---

Yeah. Very rare to 16% is quite the swing.

---

That concerns me because it looks like the WHO is operating on what type of flack they are getting as opposed to the facts of what is actually going on.

Have you found a reliable place for recovered? Would be good to know out of the 37k, how many are still active and what percentage the 774 that are hospitalized makes up.

Wayland said:

---

Side note of the day: NY has stopped reporting deaths in their daily briefing because the number is not "significant anymore" since most of the deaths are things like "covid and heart disease". NY reported 74 COVID deaths yesterday. 3 times NC's worst day, but now their daily deaths don't matter. Has to be nice to kill so many that it doesn't matter anymore.

---

I just really only wanted to star this very last part... it's my favorite.

When you take politics and PR optics out of it, there are an acceptable number of deaths that society will tolerate. How those numbers get determined are beyond me, but every day we accept that people will die from a myriad of causes. Early on, a stance was taken on this issue that any death was too many and that we had to take drastic measures to keep that from happening. I wasn't opposed to that based on the information we had at the time, but over the last few months it has become clear that one very at risk segment of the population was accounting for most of these numbers, and that we had largely failed to protect them, either because we couldn't, or wouldn't take the measures necessary for that to happen. Now that the numbers are falling in many places, and the public at large is generally distracted by the other things going on, it's ok for the people in charge to go back to accepting that people will die from this disease. Until the news cycles again, and then we will be back to worrying about people going to the beach and getting their hair cut again.

TheStorm said:

---

Wayland said:

---

Side note of the day: NY has stopped reporting deaths in their daily briefing because the number is not "significant anymore" since most of the deaths are things like "covid and heart disease". NY reported 74 COVID deaths yesterday. 3 times NC's worst day, but now their daily deaths don't matter. Has to be nice to kill so many that it doesn't matter anymore.

---

I just really only wanted to star this very last part... it's my favorite.

---

Just to hear Cuomo say it out loud as he pats himself on the back is laughable at this point.

statefan91 said:

---

Have you found a reliable place for recovered? Would be good to know out of the 37k, how many are still active and what percentage the 774 that are hospitalized makes up.

---

This is the state's estimation. 23,653, How accurate, who knows.

https://files.nc.gov/ncdhhs/documents/files/covid-19/Weekly-COVID19-Patients-Presumed-to-be-Recovered.pdf

NJ just raised its allowed number in outdoor gatherings to 100. Will increase to 250 on June 22nd, and 500 on July 3rd.