If that patten holds true, ours will flatten in late April early May.
Daily Charts
607,530 Views |
2786 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by AggieUSMC
Just another perspective on some numbers I look at daily (total in US tested and total tested and confirmed positive)
~0.5% of the US population has been tested for Covid 19 (1 out of every 200 Americans)
~0.1% of the US population has been confirmed positive for Covid 19 (1 out of every 1000 Americans)
~0.5% of the US population has been tested for Covid 19 (1 out of every 200 Americans)
~0.1% of the US population has been confirmed positive for Covid 19 (1 out of every 1000 Americans)
But those arent random tests. We're testing the very sick at a much higher rate
I'm confused, I didn't comment on who we were testing - I only posted numbers. I wasn't making any implied comment, I was truly just interested in posting numbers.jamey said:
But those arent random tests. We're just testing the very sick
But since you commented, I would say I don't agree with your statement. I don't believe all 1,600,000 Covid 19 tests were only given to the very sick. There are many who have been tested due to living with someone positive, being exposed to someone positive, being in an area where many were positive, or perhaps health care workers and others who might put older people at risk. And some celebrities.
You edited your comment and I completely agree. I wasn't at all suggesting only those who have tested positive have Covid, the real number is higher - to what degree, I'd love to know. I hope anitbody tests are accurate and can be run in huge numbers.jamey said:
But those arent random tests. We're testing the very sick at a much higher rate
jamey said:
But those arent random tests. We're testing the very sick at a much higher rate
In Dallas county, as long as you have symptoms of fever, cough, and shortness of breath you can get tested.
Complete Idiot said:You edited your comment and I completely agree. I wasn't at all suggesting only those who have tested positive have Covid, the real number is higher - to what degree, I'd love to know. I hope anitbody tests are accurate and can be run in huge numbers.jamey said:
But those arent random tests. We're testing the very sick at a much higher rate
Antibody tests are very simple. I use to do them when I worked in a lab decades ago.
I've never seen one that could do large volume though it's a thing now I'm pretty sure.
In fact my last job offer before the career switch was to go around the country and train people on immunoassay machines...so it must have been large volume
When I was in the lab it was a drop of serum, a drop of reagent which was basically fine particles coated in antigen
If it clumps up its positive
HotardAg07 said:
I fear that the bend in infection rate is partially just due to the bend in the testing rate. Testing hasn't increased significantly in over a week now, so you're not going to be able to get the number of positives you need to continue on an exponential path. Since we hear about huge testing backlogs and wait times of up to 2 weeks to get back test results, that tells me that there are more tests going into the system than what labs can handle.
If the number of tests do not increase you would still see an increase in the ratio of positive to negative results based on a spread of the disease. So the number of test is not as limiting of a factor as it seems on paper.
If testing stays flat and the ratio changes in either direction you can still determine where you are in the spread of the disease.
4 Days in a row now of flattening death growth
4/1 1056
4/2 985
4/3 1307
4/4 1052
Let's hope we are seeing a bend starting to develop.
Worldometer has your 4/3 and 4/4 death counts basically reversed?
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
Seeing the death rate climbing on that projected line nearly perfectly with the new case curve flattening and falling off the projected curve, at least to me, seems like shutting things down was the right choice. Well probably start seeing the death curve bend here like
the total case curve in 4-5 days.
I don't think any area will get hit like NYC. They're the perfect petri dish for a pandemic.
the total case curve in 4-5 days.
I don't think any area will get hit like NYC. They're the perfect petri dish for a pandemic.
I'm on the west coast. I wait until around this time every night to update. I think some deaths land on the next day for world meter depending on the time.
That said, I won't be surprised if we see a spike in NY tomorrow just because they didn't report in in time.
That said, I won't be surprised if we see a spike in NY tomorrow just because they didn't report in in time.
Texas is Bending
https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/en
https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/en
74Ag1 said:
Texas is Bending
https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/en
The texas peak is estimated at May 5th.
Yeah, I don't think one day is going to "bend" the curve. That said, I simply can't wrap my mind around the idea that with social distancing and most people self isolating that it's going to be May 5.
So who is catching COVID in Texas for the past 2 weeks? I haven't been closer than 6 feet to anyone in the last 2 weeks. If I caught it, I'm giving it to my immediate family, but they haven't left the house in 4 weeks.
The median onset of symptoms is around 3 days (I understand outliers). I'd figure we'd see a peak in 2 weeks tops. If people are out and still catching and passing it (other than medical people), I can only think that social distancing was an abject failure and a destructor of our economy.
It just seems to me that the peak is always pushed back. Look at Italy.
So who is catching COVID in Texas for the past 2 weeks? I haven't been closer than 6 feet to anyone in the last 2 weeks. If I caught it, I'm giving it to my immediate family, but they haven't left the house in 4 weeks.
The median onset of symptoms is around 3 days (I understand outliers). I'd figure we'd see a peak in 2 weeks tops. If people are out and still catching and passing it (other than medical people), I can only think that social distancing was an abject failure and a destructor of our economy.
It just seems to me that the peak is always pushed back. Look at Italy.
Philip J Fry said:
I'm on the west coast. I wait until around this time every night to update. I think done deaths land on the next day for world meter depending on the time.
That said, I won't be surprised if we see a spike in NY tomorrow just because they didn't report in in time.
Worldometer revised it much later. I check it every morning and it changed from yesterday to today.
On 4/4, the total number for 4/3 was 7392 deaths for the US.
On 4/5, the total number for 4/3 was 7121 deaths for the US
Certainly things spikes for the 4/4 number, so maybe they just shifted the numbers around. I've seen them do it a couple times already.
I've also been tracking it vs the Covid19 website (Link) and assuming they haven't updated their numbers from a week ago, we are tracking well against it to slightly better than it predicted. Knock on wood that this trend continues. The figure it shows had just over 1500 people dying today.
I did take a quick look and the Covid19 numbers have been revised down slighly (15-20 people per day).
Here's to hoping that also keeps revising downward because it has us reaching the 2,000 person/day mark on April 8th/9th.
I assume they're pulling May 5th from the IHME model.
I think it only accounts for state level mandated stay at home orders. Hence, it thinks we're not doing anything.
My wife's hospital in Houston expects the peak in 1-2 weeks.
I think it only accounts for state level mandated stay at home orders. Hence, it thinks we're not doing anything.
My wife's hospital in Houston expects the peak in 1-2 weeks.
And what does she expect that "peak" to look like? I would assume very controllable.
Have there been any models that attempt to project the secondary spike following a lifting of the stay-at-home orders? Unless a large percentage of the population has been asymptomatically infected and subsequently recovered (which is very plausable from some angles, less plausible from others), then it seems like we would just restart the same curve as soon as restrictions are lifted.
Our current projected peak for Texas is first week of May and only shows a deficit of 340ish vents which is very manageable.Aust Ag said:
And what does she expect that "peak" to look like? I would assume very controllable.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Good questions and I've looked into that - 2 quick notes: Many people reference University of Washington forecast charts, including the federal government, but they don't depict a second/third/etc wave - but they do mention it could occur and that only 5% of AMericans would have been exposed to Covid by end of this first wave leaving 95% still susceptible. Also, their website had said it would all be updated with new data on APril 4th and then this morning I see all such references are removed and it still was last updated APril 1st.Seven Costanza said:
Have there been any models that attempt to project the secondary spike following a lifting of the stay-at-home orders? Unless a large percentage of the population has been asymptomatically infected and subsequently recovered (which is very plausable from some angles, less plausible from others), then it seems like we would just restart the same curve as soon as restrictions are lifted.
I had found some Imperial College presentations, the of-discussed one from weeks back, that showed second waves - or even up to 8 or 10 waves if the world adopted an on again off again approach to social distancing. IE distancing for a period of time, removing all restrictions for a period of time, then social distancing again - repeat as needed to build herd immunity and balance hospital load.
Example page 12 https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf
Aust Ag said:
And what does she expect that "peak" to look like? I would assume very controllable.
Yes I don't expect Texas to be in trouble in any way.
And with that, NY just updated today's death tally to +594 . Expect to see that number rise today further and push our trend north again :-/
Anyone notice IHME site was saying to "check back Saturday April 4th for updates", and there was not an update yesterday (April 4th)? And the note it gone.
Just a generic:
Just a generic:
Quote:
As the pandemic progresses, we are working to incorporate new data about the virus in the US
Yeah. I actually pulled up several states on different tabs, so that when it updated I could compare to the previous projections. I assume they are just running behind on the update.Nosmo said:
Anyone notice IHME site was saying to "check back Saturday April 4th for updates", and there was not an update yesterday (April 4th)? And the note it gone.
Just a generic:Quote:
As the pandemic progresses, we are working to incorporate new data about the virus in the US
See my post a couple above yours - but I was calling it Univ of Washington instead of IHME. I wonder why they didn't update as they planned.Nosmo said:
Anyone notice IHME site was saying to "check back Saturday April 4th for updates", and there was not an update yesterday (April 4th)? And the note it gone.
Just a generic:Quote:
As the pandemic progresses, we are working to incorporate new data about the virus in the US
Philip J Fry said:
And with that, NY just updated today's death tally to +594 . Expect to see that number rise today further and push our trend north again :-/
NY is 36 short of yesterday's death toll and it ain't even noon CST
Actually I think maybe that's when they are officially reported
Deaths are going to be EXTREMELY ugly this week. But I'm hopeful this will be the hump, and we'll be on the good side of the bell curve this time next week
KidDoc said:Our current projected peak for Texas is first week of May and only shows a deficit of 340ish vents which is very manageable.Aust Ag said:
And what does she expect that "peak" to look like? I would assume very controllable.
So I guess stating the obvious if that holds true...students won't go back to school for the rest of the 2019-2020 year.
aggierogue said:KidDoc said:Our current projected peak for Texas is first week of May and only shows a deficit of 340ish vents which is very manageable.Aust Ag said:
And what does she expect that "peak" to look like? I would assume very controllable.
So I guess stating the obvious if that holds true...students won't go back to school for the rest of the 2019-2020 year.
I wouldn't count on them going back this year at all.
From yesterday, the US average for deaths per confirmed case is 2.7%. This is still really high. Deaths lag when confirmed cases are reported, but I don't make that distinction. Also, confirmed cases do not mean all cases since we are not testing the general population. So the actual number will be lower, but I still think this is high.
until the trajectory for FL is known , weekly death count impossible to predict.Exsurge Domine said:
Deaths are going to be EXTREMELY ugly this week. But I'm hopeful this will be the hump, and we'll be on the good side of the bell curve this time next week
Well, NY still has over 4K in the ICU right now. Until that number starts flattening, I'd say it isn't they tough to come up with a range.
Geez, aren't they on like week 4 of lockdown?Philip J Fry said:
Well, NY still has over 4K in the ICU right now. Until that number starts flattening, I'd say it isn't they tough to come up with a range.
Featured Stories
See All
21:36
12h ago
1.6k
No. 13 Aggies dispatch East Texas A&M in Friday's home opener, 87-55
by Olin Buchanan
54:36
22h ago
4.9k
47:49
23h ago
2.2k
5 Thoughts: No. 13 Texas A&M 87, East Texas A&M 55
by Luke Evangelist
99:23
19h ago
1.5k