This might need to be required reading in order to post on this board.agforlife97 said:
Thought this was a good article:
https://jbhandleyblog.com/home/2020/7/27/lockdownlunacythree
Daily Charts
595,287 Views |
2786 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by AggieUSMC
agforlife97 said:
Thought this was a good article:
https://jbhandleyblog.com/home/2020/7/27/lockdownlunacythree
Quoting again. People need to read this.
Did you happen to look up who JB Handley is and what he believes? He created an organization that leads the "vaccines cause autism" movement, organization President Jenny McCarthy, and believes chelation can reverse autism. I understand none of that may invalidate the article, the Covid pandemic information may all be perfectly fine and data supported, but I was thinking about sharing that article with some friends who seem overly fearful of the virus (in my opinion). I am very glad I first googled who he was because one of those friends has an autistic sister and if I had shared this with him I may never have heard from him again.Keegan99 said:
Really solid. Summarizes a lot of my thoughts nicely, including bewilderment at the collective panic at a very low risk event, especially among the demographics least at risk. Thank you.
Yikes. Not a good look if that's the author's background.
Yeah, just wanted to share because I do think some of us might want to send that to other people and when people get that stuff they tend to google the source. I would have been embarrassed after sending it.
LIke I said, the data and thoughts on Covid might all be legit. Unfortunately, I am a cynic and think he is sharing that, on his anti-vaccine site, with the hopes of recruiting many who distrust the "official message", on Covid and maybe in general, to his anti-vaccine cause. It seems like a potentially shady and money driven (fake "cures") site. I can separate the two but others may say "if he's right about this, maybe he's right about vaccines in general".
LIke I said, the data and thoughts on Covid might all be legit. Unfortunately, I am a cynic and think he is sharing that, on his anti-vaccine site, with the hopes of recruiting many who distrust the "official message", on Covid and maybe in general, to his anti-vaccine cause. It seems like a potentially shady and money driven (fake "cures") site. I can separate the two but others may say "if he's right about this, maybe he's right about vaccines in general".
He has a lot of good references so just point straight to the source vs. his interpretation.
Mike Shaw - Class of '03
Good thing they're fixing it. Edit: or I should say, looking in to the 19 person discrepancy.
Another 300+ fatality day in Texas. I don't see how the change in reporting is continuing to produce 300+ days or how it's not still comparable to the daily 'live-reporting' we had prior to a few days ago that was hanging around 200/day.
Another 300+ fatality day in Texas. I don't see how the change in reporting is continuing to produce 300+ days or how it's not still comparable to the daily 'live-reporting' we had prior to a few days ago that was hanging around 200/day.
Quote:
I don't see how the change in reporting is continuing to produce 300+ days or how it's not still comparable to the daily 'live-reporting' we had prior to a few days ago that was hanging around 200/day.
It has to do with filling out the curve and adding recent deaths that weren't being added before. Previously, a daily report might have had mostly days -10 to -16 (or later). Now it has mostly days -3 to -14, and (so far) is heavily weighted to days -3 to -10. That's going to result in the next week or so being inflated.
The peak day-of-death is still 175, and it will probably end up being in the neighborhood of 200.
Does anybody know where I can find the raw dataset on deaths reported and date of death for Texas? I would like to try to make this for Texas, even though it will be strange due to the change in accounting.
https://github.com/mbevand/florida-covid19-deaths-by-day/blob/master/README.md
https://github.com/mbevand/florida-covid19-deaths-by-day/blob/master/README.md
https://dshs.texas.gov/coronavirus/additionaldata.aspx
I *think* you can get what you're looking for here.
I *think* you can get what you're looking for here.
I think I just needed coffee this AM. So they wiped the slate clean, took all the death certs they have/had (6500ish) and filled in the chart with date of death from the certs. Now, the 300 received yesterday, with dates spread out over the last few weeks, possibly months, are being filled in on the graph.Keegan99 said:Quote:
I don't see how the change in reporting is continuing to produce 300+ days or how it's not still comparable to the daily 'live-reporting' we had prior to a few days ago that was hanging around 200/day.
It has to do with filling out the curve and adding recent deaths that weren't being added before. Previously, a daily report might have had mostly days -10 to -16 (or later). Now it has mostly days -3 to -14, and (so far) is heavily weighted to days -3 to -10. That's going to result in the next week or so being inflated.
The peak day-of-death is still 175, and it will probably end up being in the neighborhood of 200.
Ok, makes sense now. My pre-caffeine brain was thinking we were just amending the graph going forward and I was like "uh... these would have already been caught in the 'live' reporting of deaths...".
Sorry for the stream of consciousness.
Yea, you can see what they're doing here.
The oldest fatality added yesterday was June 23rd, but the bulk were July 15th - 26th or so.
The oldest fatality added yesterday was June 23rd, but the bulk were July 15th - 26th or so.
Yes, that gave me some pause. But I think he's more or less totally correct in the covid article. They may be motivated to feel this way because they don't want a covid vaccine to be mandated, but that doesn't mean they are wrong.Keegan99 said:
Yikes. Not a good look if that's the author's background.
Basically, once excess deaths go back to the historical average for the country, the pandemic is over. We're rapidly reaching that point.
Help me with the logic of that one.agforlife97 said:Yes, that gave me some pause. But I think he's more or less totally correct in the covid article. They may be motivated to feel this way because they don't want a covid vaccine to be mandated, but that doesn't mean they are wrong.Keegan99 said:
Yikes. Not a good look if that's the author's background.
Basically, once excess deaths go back to the historical average for the country, the pandemic is over. We're rapidly reaching that point.
The excess deaths is a derivative of total cases. Fatalities falling back to normal historical rates would be indicative the pandemic is either over, meaning little to no future cases are anticipated, or the new case growth has decreased for long enough to eventually manifest in fatalities falling back to baseline.
If the virus remains in play with less that a critical mass of the population immune to it, then isn't it fairer to say the wave is over, rather than the pandemic?
The excess death vs. historical normal death graph only shows one wave at this point. What you suggest is possible, though there seems to be a growing consensus that herd immunity happens at 10-20%, and that when people get CV-19 a second time it's unlikely to result in very many hospitalizations or deaths. This is from a national perspective though, which may be somewhat misleading. Cities that have not yet experienced a CV-19 wave will probably eventually have one. So in that sense locking down only postpones it.Fitch said:Help me with the logic of that one.agforlife97 said:Yes, that gave me some pause. But I think he's more or less totally correct in the covid article. They may be motivated to feel this way because they don't want a covid vaccine to be mandated, but that doesn't mean they are wrong.Keegan99 said:
Yikes. Not a good look if that's the author's background.
Basically, once excess deaths go back to the historical average for the country, the pandemic is over. We're rapidly reaching that point.
The excess deaths is a derivative of total cases. Fatalities falling back to normal historical rates would be indicative the pandemic is either over, meaning little to no future cases are anticipated, or the new case growth has decreased for long enough to eventually manifest in fatalities falling back to baseline.
If the virus remains in play with less that a critical mass of the population immune to it, then isn't it fairer to say the wave is over, rather than the pandemic?
I do think one take away from this is that a relatively moderate pandemic has caused in effect a mass psychosis, which is very disturbing. I think the west has shown itself to be very fragile and I worry about the conclusions that China may be drawing from it.
This is only true if our current preventive measures are doing absolutely nothing to prevent the spread.agforlife97 said:
Basically, once excess deaths go back to the historical average for the country, the pandemic is over.
If our measures do prevent the spread (and I'd like to think that most reasonable people would acknowledge this is true, even if they don't think it's necessary), then the vaccine has to provide that same level of protection or else we'll see an uptick in cases if we lessen our preventive measures. That's the whole goal of the vaccine - to allow us to get back to normal faster.
The pandemic isn't over until the transmission rate without preventive measures (which we honestly don't really know) is lower than the percentage of the population that doesn't have immunity, either from vaccine or exposure.
If there are no longer excess deaths, then it doesn't really matter if the virus is out there spreading still (it almost certainly will be, just like other coronaviruses that cause colds). Basically if there are no excess deaths, then people dying of CV-19 would have died of something else anyway (or maybe did die of something else).deadbq03 said:This is only true if our current preventive measures are doing absolutely nothing to prevent the spread.agforlife97 said:
Basically, once excess deaths go back to the historical average for the country, the pandemic is over.
If our measures do prevent the spread (and I'd like to think that most reasonable people would acknowledge this is true, even if they don't think it's necessary), then the vaccine has to provide that same level of protection or else we'll see an uptick in cases if we lessen our preventive measures. That's the whole goal of the vaccine - to allow us to get back to normal faster.
The pandemic isn't over until the transmission rate without preventive measures (which we honestly don't really know) is lower than the percentage of the population that doesn't have immunity, either from vaccine or exposure.
Quote:
The pandemic isn't over until the transmission rate without preventive measures (which we honestly don't really know) is lower than the percentage of the population that doesn't have immunity, either from vaccine or exposure.
This is incorrect.
The immunity percentage from exposure need not be identical to the immunity percentage from vaccine, due to the heterogeneous social graph.
No, if Covid becomes more transmissible because precautionary methods go away, then cases will go up, hospitalizations go up (and that's really what the decision makers care about), and deaths will follow. We've literally just watched this happen in June/July in Texas.agforlife97 said:If there are no longer excess deaths, then it doesn't really matter if the virus is out there spreading still (it almost certainly will be, just like other coronaviruses that cause colds). Basically if there are no excess deaths, then people dying of CV-19 would have died of something else anyway (or maybe did die of something else).deadbq03 said:This is only true if our current preventive measures are doing absolutely nothing to prevent the spread.agforlife97 said:
Basically, once excess deaths go back to the historical average for the country, the pandemic is over.
If our measures do prevent the spread (and I'd like to think that most reasonable people would acknowledge this is true, even if they don't think it's necessary), then the vaccine has to provide that same level of protection or else we'll see an uptick in cases if we lessen our preventive measures. That's the whole goal of the vaccine - to allow us to get back to normal faster.
The pandemic isn't over until the transmission rate without preventive measures (which we honestly don't really know) is lower than the percentage of the population that doesn't have immunity, either from vaccine or exposure.
Your second sentence leads me to believe you misinterpreted what I said. It doesn't matter how someone gets immunity as long as they have it.Keegan99 said:Quote:
The pandemic isn't over until the transmission rate without preventive measures (which we honestly don't really know) is lower than the percentage of the population that doesn't have immunity, either from vaccine or exposure.
This is incorrect.
The immunity percentage from exposure need not be identical to the immunity percentage from vaccine, due to the heterogeneous social graph.
I'll concede that my other wording is simplistic.
With your burnout theory, surely you understand the need of a percentage of the population to have immunity in order to push the transmission rate below 1.
If the natural, unprotected transmission rate of a certain population is 2 (just picking an even number for easy math), then that would mean half the population needs immunity in order to get the rate below 1 again.
Quote:
If the natural, unprotected transmission rate of a certain population is 2 (just picking an even number for easy math), then that would mean half the population needs immunity in order to get the rate below 1 again.
Again, this is not true, because the graph is not homogeneous.
Half the people could have immunity, but if they're lightly connected nodes, then transmission will continue.
Half the people could have immunity, but if they're heavily connected nodes, then transmission will plummet.
I think your last 2 sentences are backwards.
The Texas Medical Center Graphs are really informative. This one is a good illustration of how "Percentage of Tests that come back positive" is affected by the number of tests. When testing goes down, because only the sick get tested, then percentage positive goes up. Pretty clear inverse relationship.
deadbq03 said:No, if Covid becomes more transmissible because precautionary methods go away, then cases will go up, hospitalizations go up (and that's really what the decision makers care about), and deaths will follow. We've literally just watched this happen in June/July in Texas.agforlife97 said:If there are no longer excess deaths, then it doesn't really matter if the virus is out there spreading still (it almost certainly will be, just like other coronaviruses that cause colds). Basically if there are no excess deaths, then people dying of CV-19 would have died of something else anyway (or maybe did die of something else).deadbq03 said:This is only true if our current preventive measures are doing absolutely nothing to prevent the spread.agforlife97 said:
Basically, once excess deaths go back to the historical average for the country, the pandemic is over.
If our measures do prevent the spread (and I'd like to think that most reasonable people would acknowledge this is true, even if they don't think it's necessary), then the vaccine has to provide that same level of protection or else we'll see an uptick in cases if we lessen our preventive measures. That's the whole goal of the vaccine - to allow us to get back to normal faster.
The pandemic isn't over until the transmission rate without preventive measures (which we honestly don't really know) is lower than the percentage of the population that doesn't have immunity, either from vaccine or exposure.
Not really. The most susceptible people will be included in the initial death wave. Texas didn't have a big wave start until June.
Preventive measures can only do so much. The virus will burn through the community and be mostly gone from Houston, just like everywhere, else it has hit in a month or two from now. Daily cases and hospitalizations are already falling significantly. Society will only stay holed up for so long and I believe most have had enough of that now and are prepared to just go on with life whether covid is there or not. That's life on earth and always has been.
No, to limit transmission you need the heavily connected nodes to be immune.
Latest Dallas County summary
https://www.dallascounty.org/Assets/uploads/docs/hhs/2019-nCoV/COVID-19%20DCHHS%20Summary_073120.pdf
https://www.dallascounty.org/Assets/uploads/docs/hhs/2019-nCoV/COVID-19%20DCHHS%20Summary_073120.pdf
I agree completely. And I'll also agree with the general premise that the folks who are catching the disease and therefore getting immunity are generally the folks who are more highly connected; therefore the burnout is less.Keegan99 said:Quote:
If the natural, unprotected transmission rate of a certain population is 2 (just picking an even number for easy math), then that would mean half the population needs immunity in order to get the rate below 1 again.
Again, this is not true, because the graph is not homogeneous.
Half the people could have immunity, but if they're lightly connected nodes, then transmission will continue.
Half the people could have immunity, but if they're heavily connected nodes, then transmission will plummet.
Clearly, there's no population in the world where everyone interacts equally. My idealized, simplified numbers don't detract from my main point.
I'll try to be even more clear:
1) Every population has a number that needs to be immune for the rate of transmission to slip below 1 "naturally" without intervention. (i.e. herd immunity)
2) If precautionary measures are taken, the rate of transmission will be lowered due to lack of connectedness (if nothing else). This means a curve can drop before we reach the "natural" number above. And every country, even Sweden took precautions. Sweden's were largely voluntary vs. mandated, but they did far more social distancing early on than we did because they're a collectivist culture. This makes it difficult to assess what the "natural" number is - and this is further complicated because each locale/culture will be different (again due to primarily connectedness)
3) If those precautionary measures go away because "excess deaths are now zero" then the rate of transmission will increase. That's not necessarily a bad thing if we're already well past the immunity threshold in #1. But we won't really know how much #2 has saved our bacon... that's why it's best to find a vaccine and insure a substantial portion of the population has immunity in order to fill the gap.
I can only speak for my family, where my parents and inlaws and even my wife (auto-immune disease) are all in high risk groups... they all placed themselves at far more risk in March when we didn't know anything about this then they did in June when things started ramping up.DadHammer said:deadbq03 said:No, if Covid becomes more transmissible because precautionary methods go away, then cases will go up, hospitalizations go up (and that's really what the decision makers care about), and deaths will follow. We've literally just watched this happen in June/July in Texas.agforlife97 said:If there are no longer excess deaths, then it doesn't really matter if the virus is out there spreading still (it almost certainly will be, just like other coronaviruses that cause colds). Basically if there are no excess deaths, then people dying of CV-19 would have died of something else anyway (or maybe did die of something else).deadbq03 said:This is only true if our current preventive measures are doing absolutely nothing to prevent the spread.agforlife97 said:
Basically, once excess deaths go back to the historical average for the country, the pandemic is over.
If our measures do prevent the spread (and I'd like to think that most reasonable people would acknowledge this is true, even if they don't think it's necessary), then the vaccine has to provide that same level of protection or else we'll see an uptick in cases if we lessen our preventive measures. That's the whole goal of the vaccine - to allow us to get back to normal faster.
The pandemic isn't over until the transmission rate without preventive measures (which we honestly don't really know) is lower than the percentage of the population that doesn't have immunity, either from vaccine or exposure.
Not really. The most susceptible people will be included in the initial death wave. Texas didn't have a big wave start until June.
Preventive measures can only do so much. The virus will burn through the community and be mostly gone from Houston, just like everywhere, else it has hit in a month or two from now. Daily cases and hospitalizations are already falling significantly. Society will only stay holed up for so long and I believe most have had enough of that now and are prepared to just go on with life whether covid is there or not. That's life on earth and always has been.
It could be that they just got lucky that the virus wasn't really here yet in March, but they were all far more vigilant even in May when things looked good than they were in March. So anecdotally, I think there are plenty of high-risk people who recognize they're vulnerable and have been in bunker mode and aren't getting exposed. Is that more than the folks who were in vulnerable populations but thought Covid was a hoax and caught it? Or in vulnerable populations but relied on caregivers who didn't give a rip and therefore caught it? I have no idea. And you don't either.
And here's the real point I'm trying to make: you could've made the same statements about deaths back in May and they would've been proved dead wrong. So considering it's people's lives we're talking about, I think it's poor to assume that the most-vulnerable have already gotten it, and therefore conclude death rates would continue to drop even if cases rise again in the future. That might be true, but there's no evidence to say that's the case. Considering the substantial portion of our population that is old, obese, diabetic, has heart disease, etc, I'd offer that there are plenty of vulnerable people left who could still fall victim to this.
Well, until next year. If this becomes a seasonal endemic thing, which is likely, then we have some regular cycles like the flu to look forward to without a vaccine (even with a vaccine if people don't get it).agforlife97 said:Yes, that gave me some pause. But I think he's more or less totally correct in the covid article. They may be motivated to feel this way because they don't want a covid vaccine to be mandated, but that doesn't mean they are wrong.Keegan99 said:
Yikes. Not a good look if that's the author's background.
Basically, once excess deaths go back to the historical average for the country, the pandemic is over. We're rapidly reaching that point.
One would imagine the future outbreaks to be small magnitude, but this thing is here to stay.
Good to see the ICU census is finally starting to trend down.
Still curious if that's being "supported" by transfers from other areas of the state.
Looking much better every week!
The used to do both. I could get daily death in one report and daily positives in another.
I still think Dallas County pocketed positive tests in late June so they could increase counts in July when schools were trying to make plans. These two graphs are just too different.
I still think Dallas County pocketed positive tests in late June so they could increase counts in July when schools were trying to make plans. These two graphs are just too different.
Featured Stories
See All
38:50
3h ago
2.4k
Offense in Review feat. Stephen McGee: Texas A&M 33, Florida 20
by Billy Liucci
52:41
6h ago
11k
Elko provides update on Weigman, expresses confidence in Reed
by Olin Buchanan
56:10
11h ago
5.4k
Marcel Reed named Southeastern Conference's Freshman of the Week
by Richard Zane