CoronaBro Meltdown/SARS-Covid-19 Spitballing Thread

[IPA4Me]

So, it's basically zero?

As noted in that thread, there's a two week lag in the data. So, not zero, but definitely not tracking with cases.

[IPA4Me]

DEATH MINING

[tweet]1323316432071991296[/tweet]?s=20

Gotta get that government cheese while you can!

[steve dave]

Jesus Christ


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dugout DickStone]

so is that good news or nah?

[sonofdaxjones]

Gosh, who could have possibly have seen that one coming?

[IPA4Me]

I seem to remember a different explanation in the past about this trend. Date death data takes awhile to be processed and leads to incomplete data for some period of time in the not too distant past and present, it later gets filled in.

Problem is that ctp isn't backdating the data. They're loading it into the reported week. So current numbers are falsely reported higher.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[IPA4Me]

so is that good news or nah?

Good news IMO. Deaths aren't trending higher as cases rise.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[sonofdaxjones]

so is that good news or nah?

Good news IMO. Deaths aren't trending higher as cases rise.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Used as political fodder by Perpetually Melting Down CornoaBros

[michigancat]

There still appears to be discrepancies.  SD DOH reports positive tests/total number of tests given, which is Approach 3 at 20.7%.  Link 1 says that SD reports using Approach 1 (number of cases over number of people tested) which doesn't appear to be accurate and assigns a positive rate of 45.96%.  Where did this number come from? 
The Covid Tracking Project references that their data comes from the SD DOH https://doh.sd.gov/news/coronavirus.aspx  There does not seem to be a source for the JH data.  I concede that there would be an increase in the positive rate if only unique people (those not tested before are included) but have a hard time believing it would more than double it. 

JH data comes from Covid Tracking Project

[michigancat]

There still appears to be discrepancies.  SD DOH reports positive tests/total number of tests given, which is Approach 3 at 20.7%.  Link 1 says that SD reports using Approach 1 (number of cases over number of people tested) which doesn't appear to be accurate and assigns a positive rate of 45.96%.  Where did this number come from? 
The Covid Tracking Project references that their data comes from the SD DOH https://doh.sd.gov/news/coronavirus.aspx  There does not seem to be a source for the JH data.  I concede that there would be an increase in the positive rate if only unique people (those not tested before are included) but have a hard time believing it would more than double it. 

JH data comes from Covid Tracking Project

also the screenshots from the SDDOH website looks legit

example:

https://covidtracking.com/screenshots/SD/SD-20201030-184630.png

[Phil Titola]

J&J is supposed to have the “best” vaccine candidate but this gives you an idea of where all of them optimistically are


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good info SD, hardest of passes on that wave 1. I can continue to mask and hide for 6-8 more months.

I just read about how these trials work and it sounds like Pfizer really might call theirs good if like 25 people get corona and they were all in the control group.

Doesn’t inspire like amazing confidence considering how difficult it is even for the control group to get it.

I think they all said they were going to peak at the data that early but didn't say they were going to go try and get authorization only based on that limited #.

[IPA4Me]

I seem to remember a different explanation in the past about this trend. Date death data takes awhile to be processed and leads to incomplete data for some period of time in the not too distant past and present, it later gets filled in.

Problem is that ctp isn't backdating the data. They're loading it into the reported week. So current numbers are falsely reported higher.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

I guess the point was the current current numbers aren't correct either and are incomplete for some period of time. Like this very same trend would have been there in August or whenever.

I haven't followed all this as closely for awhile but I remember seeing something on that in the past.

I thought they'd corrected it as the CDC did but apparently not.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Fedor]

There still appears to be discrepancies.  SD DOH reports positive tests/total number of tests given, which is Approach 3 at 20.7%.  Link 1 says that SD reports using Approach 1 (number of cases over number of people tested) which doesn't appear to be accurate and assigns a positive rate of 45.96%.  Where did this number come from? 
The Covid Tracking Project references that their data comes from the SD DOH https://doh.sd.gov/news/coronavirus.aspx  There does not seem to be a source for the JH data.  I concede that there would be an increase in the positive rate if only unique people (those not tested before are included) but have a hard time believing it would more than double it. 

JH data comes from Covid Tracking Project

also the screenshots from the SDDOH website looks legit

example:

https://covidtracking.com/screenshots/SD/SD-20201030-184630.png

CTP data appears to be fine.  JH data is a problem because they cannot calculate what they are reporting based on the data DOH has provided.  Again: DOH reports using Approach 1 which gives a 7-day rate of 20.7%.  JH claims to use Approach 3 (not possible given the data provided)  with a 7-day rate of 45.96%.  What gives? 

[michigancat]

There still appears to be discrepancies.  SD DOH reports positive tests/total number of tests given, which is Approach 3 at 20.7%.  Link 1 says that SD reports using Approach 1 (number of cases over number of people tested) which doesn't appear to be accurate and assigns a positive rate of 45.96%.  Where did this number come from? 
The Covid Tracking Project references that their data comes from the SD DOH https://doh.sd.gov/news/coronavirus.aspx  There does not seem to be a source for the JH data.  I concede that there would be an increase in the positive rate if only unique people (those not tested before are included) but have a hard time believing it would more than double it. 

JH data comes from Covid Tracking Project

also the screenshots from the SDDOH website looks legit

example:

https://covidtracking.com/screenshots/SD/SD-20201030-184630.png

CTP data appears to be fine.  JH data is a problem because they cannot calculate what they are reporting based on the data DOH has provided.  Again: DOH reports using Approach 1 which gives a 7-day rate of 20.7%.  JH claims to use Approach 3 (not possible given the data provided)  with a 7-day rate of 45.96%.  What gives? 

I don't really want to look any more into this but JH uses approach 4. Covid Tracking Project pulls daily totals which are in the screenshots to create their datasets. A quick glance at a screenshot and their datasets and it matches. I honestly trust JH and Covid Tracking more than the percentages on SDDOH given that JH is explicit about how they calculate it.

[Fedor]

There still appears to be discrepancies.  SD DOH reports positive tests/total number of tests given, which is Approach 3 at 20.7%.  Link 1 says that SD reports using Approach 1 (number of cases over number of people tested) which doesn't appear to be accurate and assigns a positive rate of 45.96%.  Where did this number come from? 
The Covid Tracking Project references that their data comes from the SD DOH https://doh.sd.gov/news/coronavirus.aspx  There does not seem to be a source for the JH data.  I concede that there would be an increase in the positive rate if only unique people (those not tested before are included) but have a hard time believing it would more than double it. 

JH data comes from Covid Tracking Project

also the screenshots from the SDDOH website looks legit

example:

https://covidtracking.com/screenshots/SD/SD-20201030-184630.png

CTP data appears to be fine.  JH data is a problem because they cannot calculate what they are reporting based on the data DOH has provided.  Again: DOH reports using Approach 1 which gives a 7-day rate of 20.7%.  JH claims to use Approach 3 (not possible given the data provided)  with a 7-day rate of 45.96%.  What gives? 

I don't really want to look any more into this but JH uses approach 4. Covid Tracking Project pulls daily totals which are in the screenshots to create their datasets. A quick glance at a screenshot and their datasets and it matches. I honestly trust JH and Covid Tracking more than the percentages on SDDOH given that JH is explicit about how they calculate it.

LOL, OK.  I guess your intellectual rigor stops where your confirmation bias begins.  SDDOH is equally explicit, and the only data JH or CTP has is what the DOH reports.

[michigancat]

There still appears to be discrepancies.  SD DOH reports positive tests/total number of tests given, which is Approach 3 at 20.7%.  Link 1 says that SD reports using Approach 1 (number of cases over number of people tested) which doesn't appear to be accurate and assigns a positive rate of 45.96%.  Where did this number come from? 
The Covid Tracking Project references that their data comes from the SD DOH https://doh.sd.gov/news/coronavirus.aspx  There does not seem to be a source for the JH data.  I concede that there would be an increase in the positive rate if only unique people (those not tested before are included) but have a hard time believing it would more than double it. 

JH data comes from Covid Tracking Project

also the screenshots from the SDDOH website looks legit

example:

https://covidtracking.com/screenshots/SD/SD-20201030-184630.png

CTP data appears to be fine.  JH data is a problem because they cannot calculate what they are reporting based on the data DOH has provided.  Again: DOH reports using Approach 1 which gives a 7-day rate of 20.7%.  JH claims to use Approach 3 (not possible given the data provided)  with a 7-day rate of 45.96%.  What gives? 

I don't really want to look any more into this but JH uses approach 4. Covid Tracking Project pulls daily totals which are in the screenshots to create their datasets. A quick glance at a screenshot and their datasets and it matches. I honestly trust JH and Covid Tracking more than the percentages on SDDOH given that JH is explicit about how they calculate it.

LOL, OK.  I guess your intellectual rigor stops where your confirmation bias begins.  SDDOH is equally explicit, and the only data JH or CTP has is what the DOH reports.

I can calculate the JH numbers from screenshots pulled from the DOH website and they match up. It's very clear even if it takes a few steps. It isn't clear which numbers SDDOH used to calculate their percentages.

[MakeItRain]

so is that good news or nah?

Good news IMO. Deaths aren't trending higher as cases rise.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Someone, who isn't a proven liar, needs going to explain this to me very slowly. I don't know how this is even remotely possible in places reaching hospital bed and ICU capacity. Is it not that deaths are down per se, but hospitalizations and ICU cases are down in population centers but places here in the Midwest and the plains who didn't have a summer surge are now getting deaths and hospitalizations at the rate that Michigan, NYE, Cali had in the early spring and that the sun belt had in the summer.

Saying COVID deaths are significantly down has a different connotation than COVID deaths are down in places that already had relatively high death rates.

[catastrophe]

We’ve definitely gotten better at treating COVID. But I’m sure there are statistical explanations too.

[IPA4Me]

so is that good news or nah?

Good news IMO. Deaths aren't trending higher as cases rise.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Someone, who isn't a proven liar, needs going to explain this to me very slowly. I don't know how this is even remotely possible in places reaching hospital bed and ICU capacity. Is it not that deaths are down per se, but hospitalizations and ICU cases are down in population centers but places here in the Midwest and the plains who didn't have a summer surge are now getting deaths and hospitalizations at the rate that Michigan, NYE, Cali had in the early spring and that the sun belt had in the summer.

Saying COVID deaths are significantly down has a different connotation than COVID deaths are down in places that already had relatively high death rates.

Cases are up significantly in the USA since Sept 1. Note that deaths from covid-19 are trending down. Yes deaths tend to be a lagging indicator. Should've already seen the deaths climbing but they're not.

Is it a mutation? Are we better at treating? I don't know but it seems positive to me. Definitely not seeing anywhere near the spike in deaths that we see in cases.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[michigancat]

There still appears to be discrepancies.  SD DOH reports positive tests/total number of tests given, which is Approach 3 at 20.7%.  Link 1 says that SD reports using Approach 1 (number of cases over number of people tested) which doesn't appear to be accurate and assigns a positive rate of 45.96%.  Where did this number come from? 
The Covid Tracking Project references that their data comes from the SD DOH https://doh.sd.gov/news/coronavirus.aspx  There does not seem to be a source for the JH data.  I concede that there would be an increase in the positive rate if only unique people (those not tested before are included) but have a hard time believing it would more than double it. 

JH data comes from Covid Tracking Project

also the screenshots from the SDDOH website looks legit

example:

https://covidtracking.com/screenshots/SD/SD-20201030-184630.png

CTP data appears to be fine.  JH data is a problem because they cannot calculate what they are reporting based on the data DOH has provided.  Again: DOH reports using Approach 1 which gives a 7-day rate of 20.7%.  JH claims to use Approach 3 (not possible given the data provided)  with a 7-day rate of 45.96%.  What gives? 

I don't really want to look any more into this but JH uses approach 4. Covid Tracking Project pulls daily totals which are in the screenshots to create their datasets. A quick glance at a screenshot and their datasets and it matches. I honestly trust JH and Covid Tracking more than the percentages on SDDOH given that JH is explicit about how they calculate it.

LOL, OK.  I guess your intellectual rigor stops where your confirmation bias begins.  SDDOH is equally explicit, and the only data JH or CTP has is what the DOH reports.

I can calculate the JH numbers from screenshots pulled from the DOH website and they match up. It's very clear even if it takes a few steps. It isn't clear which numbers SDDOH used to calculate their percentages.

Actually, scratch that. JH is using approach 4 (positives/people) and SD is using approach 2 (positives/tests). That would explain the big discrepancy.

[sonofdaxjones]

Ah well, ChiCom Joe says they ain’t so bad.  That WHO. great job.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/in-hunt-for-virus-source-w-h-o-let-china-take-charge/ar-BB1aCdan

[sys]

Someone, who isn't a proven liar, needs going to explain this to me very slowly.

for the anomaly that ipa identified, it's just an artifact of reporting.  it takes the cdc a long time to make the death data available.

[Trim]

Ultra potent!

https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/uw-medicine-reports-development-innovative-covid-19-vaccine/WD6XNPIXZ5GI7IAGBIOHRPC6G4/

[MakeItRain]

To be clear I'm not calling IPA or the CDC liars.

[IPA4Me]

To be clear I'm not calling IPA or the CDC liars.

I knew you weren't.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk