Coronavirus

[Reacher]

From what I've seen, there are more state health departments and coroner's listing the cause of death than Dr's. This drastically reduces the numbers involved. The CO case with the 35 yr old with alcohol poisoning that received a lot of attention at the time was listed as Covid by the state health department and I think the Dr was one arguing against that. 

https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2006100?articleTools=true

New England journal of medicine study. Findings include males more likely than females to get and kids under 10 unlikely to get. 

[Reacher]

17 minutes ago, tdhoosier said:

 Especially when many media outlets would be chomping at the bit to expose a story like this. 

I have seen it reported--just not on the MSM outlets 

[jimsorgi]

6 minutes ago, Reacher said:

From what I've seen, there are more state health departments and coroner's listing the cause of death than Dr's. This drastically reduces the numbers involved. The CO case with the 35 yr old with alcohol poisoning that received a lot of attention at the time was listed as Covid by the state health department and I think the Dr was one arguing against that. 

https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2006100?articleTools=true

New England journal of medicine study. Findings include males more likely than females to get and kids under 10 unlikely to get. 

But that cuts both ways, since if it truly a health department or coroner issuing it, “hospital finances” (as weak as that is) goes out the window. 
 

The thing about conspiracy theories is we can always find outliers to support them. 

[tdhoosier]

34 minutes ago, Reacher said:

From what I've seen, there are more state health departments and coroner's listing the cause of death than Dr's. This drastically reduces the numbers involved. The CO case with the 35 yr old with alcohol poisoning that received a lot of attention at the time was listed as Covid by the state health department and I think the Dr was one arguing against that. 

https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2006100?articleTools=true

New England journal of medicine study. Findings include males more likely than females to get and kids under 10 unlikely to get. 

That Colorado man did test positive for COVID, by the way. So there was no wrong doing. 

If you test positive for COVID when you die it’s marked as a COIVD death even though (in this case) it was most likely alcohol that killed them. This is just how it is reported. The instant you leave results open for human intrupretation is when they get skewed. There needs to be a constant that can’t be manipulated with human bias, in this case it is a positive or negative test.

And while you may fairly determine this particular case is not accurate, it’s a small outlier. While it should be considered, it doesn’t have a greater influence on the overall picture.

Edited July 14, 2020 by tdhoosier

[jimsorgi]

5 minutes ago, tdhoosier said:

That Colorado man did test positive for COVID, by the way. So there was no wrong doing. 

If you test positive for COVID when you die it’s marked as a COIVD death even though (in this case) it was most likely alcohol that killed them. This is just how it is reported. The instant you leave results open for human intrupretation is when they get skewed. There needs to be a constant that can’t be manipulated with human bias, in this case it is a positive or negative test.

And while you may fairly determine this particular case is not accurate, it’s a small outlier. While it should be considered, it doesn’t have a greater influence on the overall picture.

Yep. And there are other cases like this, obviously. But that doesn’t imply that we have a systemic data issue. 

[Reacher]

27 minutes ago, jimsorgi said:

Yep. And there are other cases like this, obviously. But that doesn’t imply that we have a systemic data issue. 

Just out of curiosity, how many outlier cases does it take to become a systemic data issue? Who is in charge of making that determination?

[IUskim]

So today on the radio show Todd Leary co-host revealed he got COVID-19 and is on the tail end of it today. 

[tdhoosier]

2 hours ago, Reacher said:

Just out of curiosity, how many outlier cases does it take to become a systemic data issue? Who is in charge of making that determination?

How else do you suggest we do it? 

If you think there are minor disputes about what is and isn't a case now, what do you think it will look like when we leave cases open for interpretation? 

What if somebody with heart disease got COVID and it accelerated the symptoms, which caused his death. One doctor may say before COVID he only had 3 months live, so he doesn't think we should count it. Another doctor says that he had 1 year to live and we should have counted it as COVID. It would cause a huge mess. We are recording data and data needs to be binary. Context can be provided and should be welcome, but we need to have an accurate baseline to base the context off of. 

In regards to your question, I leave that up to scientists. But most polls have an error rate of +/- 3% and generally give us a pretty clear picture to what is going on. A 3% error rate is about 4,000 cases. I have not seen nearly that many called into question so far. Furthermore, the overall gross number of deaths since March is WAY higher than the average of the 5 previous years' deaths over the same span. So it's definitely not a 'ploy'....something is adding to that death total. Look at the chart below from the CDC. Compare those numbers with previous springs and you get pretty darn close to a 130k overage. 

 

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

Edited July 14, 2020 by tdhoosier

[Reacher]

Informative graph ^^^. Thanks.  Will be interesting to note whether the drop at the end continues as it could then just mean deaths were accelerated.  

I understand the CDC counts people that previously had COVID as a COVID death. I'm sure that is not a large # at this time, however it makes no sense to me. By that reasoning, 99% of deaths are flu deaths. Or pizza deaths.  If we want consistency, why are the rules being changed for COVID? Adding COVID deaths, when it is not the primary cause, will lead us to have more deaths than actually happened. 

Anyone know if heart disease deaths are remaining constant these last few months?

[bluegrassIU]

https://www.denverpost.com/2020/05/15/colorado-covid-coronavirus-counting-deaths-fatalities/amp/

[bluegrassIU]

Wow, people are so damn dismissive of any view that is not their own.

My daughter is a nurse. One of my best friends is a doctor. Beleive me or don't, call me ridiculous and give me a tin foil hat.

But they live in this world. If you think there is no incentive for people to classify deaths as covid (and some people take advantage of this incentive) then you are just not doing the research.

Covid is real, dangerous and rampant. But truthfully, it is next to impossible to gauge the actual extent.

[Reacher]

https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/fox-35-investigates-hospitals-confirm-mistakes-in-floridas-covid-19-report

[Reacher]

19 minutes ago, bluegrassIU said:

https://www.denverpost.com/2020/05/15/colorado-covid-coronavirus-counting-deaths-fatalities/amp/

Article mentions the alcohol case I brought up earlier as well as an example of a recovered patient, who tested negative, still being labeled a COVID death. I think CO is on the right track. More info, and transparency, is better.  

[bluegrassIU]

To be clear, I think there is odd reporting in both directions. It is scary. 

Government, hospitals, doctors etc all have stake in how this is reported. My frustration is not at any one group or direction. Just that everything we are fed is fed to us with a tilt, one direction or the other.

[5fouls]

4 hours ago, jimsorgi said:

That’s a false equivalence though, right? 
 

Simply because someone said “x” we have to treat it as if it’s true? Scott and Scott’s friend have no knowledge of the entirety of the pandemic; why would I say “well, one person said they didn’t think a death was related to covid and doctors thought it might be therefore we should invalidate all covid data because all doctors lie?”
 

My friend says Michael Jordan is actually a lizard person. That explains why he struggles to connect emotionally to people. Why wouldn’t you choose you believe him? 

Obviously, the answer is that we look to the information we actually have (not just “I heard someone say this”). There are huge amounts of information supporting the true extent of the pandemic, and extremely minimal evidence - primarily isolated anecdotes - suggesting it is exaggerated to some unspecified degree. 
 

Besides, none of this answers the basic question: why would doctors lie about it? 

Why would the family of the deceased lie?  Why would anyone lie about anything?  

[5fouls]

3 hours ago, tdhoosier said:

That Colorado man did test positive for COVID, by the way. So there was no wrong doing. 

If you test positive for COVID when you die it’s marked as a COIVD death even though (in this case) it was most likely alcohol that killed them. This is just how it is reported. The instant you leave results open for human intrupretation is when they get skewed. There needs to be a constant that can’t be manipulated with human bias, in this case it is a positive or negative test.

And while you may fairly determine this particular case is not accurate, it’s a small outlier. While it should be considered, it doesn’t have a greater influence on the overall picture.

So. If I go to the doctor tomorrow and he tells me I have cancer, but then i die in a car wreck on the way home, is that a cancer death?  Why should Covid be different?

[tdhoosier]

42 minutes ago, Reacher said:

Informative graph ^^^. Thanks.  Will be interesting to note whether the drop at the end continues as it could then just mean deaths were accelerated.  

I understand the CDC counts people that previously had COVID as a COVID death. I'm sure that is not a large # at this time, however it makes no sense to me. By that reasoning, 99% of deaths are flu deaths. Or pizza deaths.  If we want consistency, why are the rules being changed for COVID? Adding COVID deaths, when it is not the primary cause, will lead us to have more deaths than actually happened. 

Anyone know if heart disease deaths are remaining constant these last few months?

You can take that stance but in the end aren't you just arguing over crumbs? Why waste the energy, the overall narrative is not changed? Nobody disputes that there are outliers, but overall the increase of death when compared to previous springs approximately adds up to the cases being reported.  The numbers reported aren't perfect but they don't seem that far off.....even with all these theories of hospitals or the department of health mis-representing numbers. You can pull all the articles you want. I'm not dismissing that there may be some bad actors or odd cases, but again, it doesn't affect the overall picture. It doesn't imply that the theory of misrepresenting deaths is systematic. There were approximately 125k 'non expected deaths' (based on previous years averages) since mid March - July 1. As of July 1 there were approximately 125k reported Covid deaths. Now, if the difference was off 50k, I'd say you have a point and this is something to be concerned about, but it's not.

In this instance I think that outliers are being unproportionally magnified and used as ammunition to paint the whole system as corrupt. 

[tdhoosier]

50 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

So. If I go to the doctor tomorrow and he tells me I have cancer, but then i die in a car wreck on the way home, is that a cancer death?  Why should Covid be different?

Well, If somebody who has cancer gets the flu and dies, it's counted as a flu death. 

But why are we focusing on these anomalies? How many people who get into a car accident are asymptomatic with COVID? 2? 2 out of 135,000? If states want to change the way the report these outlier deaths then fine.....take them off the books. My point is, again, removing these outliers is not going to magically lower the death toll by tens of thousands and change the way we deal with the virus.  

Edited July 14, 2020 by tdhoosier

[Lostin76]

9 minutes ago, tdhoosier said:

You can take that stance but in the end aren't you just arguing over crumbs? Why waste the energy, the overall narrative is not changed? Nobody disputes that there are outliers, but overall the increase of death when compared to previous springs approximately adds up to the cases being reported.  The numbers reported aren't perfect but they don't seem that far off.....even with all these theories of hospitals or the department of health mis-representing numbers. You can pull all the articles you want. I'm not dismissing that there may be some bad actors or odd cases, but again, it doesn't affect the overall picture. It doesn't imply that the theory of misrepresenting deaths is systematic. There were approximately 125k 'non expected deaths' (based on previous years averages) since mid March - July 1. As of July 1 there were approximately 125k reported Covid deaths. Now, if the difference was off 50k, I'd say you have a point and this is something to be concerned about, but it's not.

In this instance I think that outliers are being unproportionally magnified and used as ammunition to paint the whole system as corrupt. 

Unfortunately, if anyone wants to try to defend our response as a country, all they have left is to argue over the crumbs or try to minimize the deaths.

[IUFLA]

27 minutes ago, Lostin76 said:

Unfortunately, if anyone wants to try to defend our response as a country, all they have left is to argue over the crumbs or try to minimize the deaths.

I'd be interested to hear what we should have done as a country...

The baseline for me is the death total if we had done nothing (which, of course, is impossible to prove either way)...So in my eyes, some of the steps we have taken have indeed have shaved off that total (again, another number we'll never know). Some actions maybe contributed to the death total we currently have...Again, not a number we can put a finger on...

It seems to me many of the resources we dedicated to NYC went unused...

So I guess I'm asking the converse side of your question @Lostin76...

If anyone wants to castigate our response as a country, what  real facts do they have to work with?

 

[Hoosierhoopster]

Guys, you’re starting to move back into politics - “as a country” seems like a euphemism for the Trump administration’s handling of the virus — don’t go there, from either “side.” Again, this is not a board for your politics. 

What is clear, leaving the government’s handling out of this discussion, is that Covid is again spreading / spiking at alarming and record - setting rates in multiple states, including cases, hospitalizations, deaths, really every metric.
That is not a matter of honest debate, and personally I find it idiotic and self-defeating to try to argue otherwise, if anyone actually is. The reality is Covid has exploded, again, months after it started here. Over 15,000 new daily cases in Florida, Texas having daily records multiple times in the same week with around 11,000 cases a day, significantly increased hospitalizations, increased death rates, decreasing hospital bed availability, the Governor considering a state-wide lockdown, AZ in bad shape, etc.  All of that is simply reality. I think most agree we need to get back to and continue health measures to reduce / curtail the renewed spread of the virus.

[IUFLA]

2 minutes ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

Guys, you’re starting to move back into politics - “as a country” seems like a euphemism for the Trump administration’s handling of the virus — don’t go there, from either “side.” Again, this is not a board for your politics. 

What is clear, leaving the government’s handling out of this discussion, is that Covid is again spreading / spiking at alarming and record - setting rates in multiple states, including cases, hospitalizations, deaths, really every metric.
That is not a matter of honest debate, and personally I find it idiotic and self-defeating to try to argue otherwise, if anyone actually is. The reality is Covid has exploded, again, months after it started here. Over 15,000 new daily cases in Florida, Texas having daily records multiple times in the same week with around 11,000 cases a day, significantly increased hospitalizations, increased death rates, decreasing hospital bed availability, the Governor considering a state-wide lockdown, AZ in bad shape, etc.  All of that is simply reality. I think most agree we need to get back to and continue health measures to reduce / curtail the renewed spread of the virus.

There was nothing political, from my view, in either @Lostin76 or my post. He and I have talked, and we pretty much know where each other stand. I respect his view of the world, and I think he respects mine.

That said, he is in hospital administration, and I thought maybe he had a greater insight in the area of what could/should have been done than I do. He deals with it every day I assume, just as any thing aviation related I'd have insight on...

Just trying to leverage his knowledge...

[mrflynn03]

What we are seeing is exactly why you dont let respiratory diseases linger in a population.  More lockdowns will likely lead to more spikes. 

[Lostin76]

23 minutes ago, IUFLA said:

I'd be interested to hear what we should have done as a country...

The baseline for me is the death total if we had done nothing (which, of course, is impossible to prove either way)...So in my eyes, some of the steps we have taken have indeed have shaved off that total (again, another number we'll never know). Some actions maybe contributed to the death total we currently have...Again, not a number we can put a finger on...

It seems to me many of the resources we dedicated to NYC went unused...

So I guess I'm asking the converse side of your question @Lostin76...

If anyone wants to castigate our response as a country, what  real facts do they have to work with?

 

I would have liked to have seen us do the following:

Taking the risk more seriously, earlier, and not calling it a hoax (this is not aimed at anyone in particular, as plenty of leaders from both sides did this - looking at you though Deblasio!)

Pushing masks earlier and leaders setting good examples of mask usage

Serious lockdowns instituted as needed - and stick with them

Real economic relief for those pushed out of work b/c of said lockdowns

More testing earlier, more supplies earlier, more contact tracing

That's just a start for me personally.

You bring up a good point about resources being unused as well. Isn't it better to push for more resources or to be over-prepared instead of the opposite? I would much rather err on doing too much or having too much than the opposite. But also aware that resources are finite.

9 minutes ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

Guys, you’re starting to move back into politics - “as a country” seems like a euphemism for the Trump administration’s handling of the virus — don’t go there, from either “side.” Again, this is not a board for your politics. 

What is clear, leaving the government’s handling out of this discussion, is that Covid is again spreading / spiking at alarming and record - setting rates in multiple states, including cases, hospitalizations, deaths, really every metric.
That is not a matter of honest debate, and personally I find it idiotic and self-defeating to try to argue otherwise, if anyone actually is. The reality is Covid has exploded, again, months after it started here. Over 15,000 new daily cases in Florida, Texas having daily records multiple times in the same week with around 11,000 cases a day, significantly increased hospitalizations, increased death rates, decreasing hospital bed availability, the Governor considering a state-wide lockdown, AZ in bad shape, etc.  All of that is simply reality. I think most agree we need to get back to and continue health measures to reduce / curtail the renewed spread of the virus.

Sorry, I mean all of us - leaders and not. I didn't really mean it to be political, but I will admit to being flummoxed why people expend so much effort on minimizing this.

1 minute ago, IUFLA said:

There was nothing political, from my view, in either @Lostin76 or my post. He and I have talked, and we pretty much know where each other stand. I respect his view of the world, and I think he respects mine.

That said, he is in hospital administration, and I thought maybe he had a greater insight in the area of what could/should have been done than I do. He deals with it every day I assume, just as any thing aviation related I'd have insight on...

Just trying to leverage his knowledge...

Yep, @IUFLA and I are cool. We know where we stand and respect each other's opinions.

[tdhoosier]

22 minutes ago, IUFLA said:

I'd be interested to hear what we should have done as a country...

The baseline for me is the death total if we had done nothing (which, of course, is impossible to prove either way)...So in my eyes, some of the steps we have taken have indeed have shaved off that total (again, another number we'll never know). Some actions maybe contributed to the death total we currently have...Again, not a number we can put a finger on...

It seems to me many of the resources we dedicated to NYC went unused...

So I guess I'm asking the converse side of your question @Lostin76...

If anyone wants to castigate our response as a country, what  real facts do they have to work with?

 

I'll take a stab at it. These are some things that I'd personally like to see from here on out: 

States completely ignored the federal government's suggestions and opened up early. Look at the position those states are in now. I feel at the very least we should learn from this. Don't necessarily need to point fingers, but learn and plan accordingly.

Put as many resources behind testing as possible. Testing quickly and accurately is the key to contact tracing. Contact tracing (*that keeps privacy intact) should be the number one goal for this country because it allows the economy to re-open safely and almost completely. This goal should be as clear and as widespread as 'we are putting a man on the moon'. A contact tracing program should be ready to go, the second the testing is able to accommodate it. 

Just like many school systems are doing, put a 3 tiered plan into place, county by county, nationwide: Green (safe), Orange (take precautions), Red (dangerous). This way Santa Clause, Indiana isn't shutting things down based on numbers in Houston. Not only is this clear, it gives communities incentives to keep their spread lower. If in 'green' kids can go to school, we can go to the gym, eat outside at restaurants, etc. If a county slips to orange then extra precautions will need to be taken, but there will at least be an incentive to get things back to 'green'. I really feel like this would unite communities, get more people involved locally and keep R under control. 

The other things i can't say or @Hoosierhoopster will make me sit in the corner. 😀    I'm happy to PM you though @IUFLA.