Tracking the COVID-19-Virus in Germany, the USA, Italy and other hot spots in the world

Thoughts & Prayers.

That's good enough when people get slaughtered by a mass shooter, should be good enough for the economic fallout too using cons logic.

 

Yes.

 

You didn't meet your burden.

The obvious, formulaic red herring "queries" you are describing as "refusing to answer valid questions,"could simply be coincidentally irrelevant and repetitive... over and over, seen more and more in places like this, but also resemble relatively new social media software that scans whole forums for specific phrases (generating many posts in relatively short timeframes... hmmm), then tries to trick whatever political opposition is involved at the time in engaging in scripted AI response loops. What results is a scripted shilling session not anything remotely resembling a debate or discussion between human beings. Your repetition of these suspect queries in post after post and thread after thread could be completely coincidental and due to something else... but still not engaging them.

Sorry, the canned "conspiracy theory" response doesn't work either. You'd probably be using "take your meds" instead, but that would likely not be allowed here.

 

It may also be a weekend bookkeeping detail. I am not sure, but the tendency is that the deaths go down on Sundays, and not just in the USA.

 

Plus, reports of tests having been administered does not mean that those test results are ready. I am sensing that there is a logical lag between tests administered and test results announced.

 

Well no, it's not really been quite that. Look at the excel table again. In the middle of last week, it peaked up to 1,700. Only, the week before, it peaked up to about 2,500. So, there is a reduction, but it's not maybe as big as you think, and there is still the swelling of and then reduction of cases and deaths, not necessarily synchronous with each other.

 

Which schwein???

 

Disagree over whether we have over-reacted, as yet, but I still prefer the over-reaction to the under-reaction.

 

I have trouble finding a single redeeming or interesting sentence from this entire post. Enjoy the silence.

 

Time for an update to this State Tracking Project of Mine. The only new data point is the Test Per Capita (per 100K) now includes a growth percentage. Again, I know the formula for the percentage is jacked, just subtract 1 from each of those categories ("Cases (PC) Growth" and "Deaths (PC) Growth" and "Tests Per 100K Growth") to get the percentage increase. Here's the Data from the States and Territories, in groups of 12, and ranked by Mortality.











Cases (PC) Diff rankings show that the District of Columbia, Rhode Island, Illinois, Delaware, and Massachusetts are the five states to see their number of cases, per capita, increase the most. The range being 1344.4 to 1190.5. The five slowest States are West Virginia, Alaska, Vermont, Montana, and Hawaii. The range being 72.0 to 5.6.

Cases (PC) Growth Rankings show that Minnesota, North Dakota, Arkansas, Virginia and Wisconsin are the five states to see the number of cases, as a percentage. The range being 39.0% to 25.4%. On the opposite end are Alaska, New York, Vermont, Montana, and Hawaii. The range being 4.5% to 1.1%.

Deaths (PC) Diff Rankings show that New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, District of Columbia, and Rhode Island are the top five States to see the number of deaths, per capita, increase the most. The range being 123.6 to 72.8. On the opposite end are Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, Montana, and Hawaii. The range being 1.1 to 0.0.

Deaths (PC) Growth Rankings show that Puerto Rico, New Mexico, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Delaware are the top five States to see the number of deaths increase, as a percentage. The range being 50% to 29.5%. On the opposite end are New York, Vermont, Alaska, Montana, and Hawaii. The range being 5.7% to 3.4%.

Mortality Diff Rankings show that Puerto Rico, Missouri, Pennsylvania, West Virgina, and Colorado are the top five States to see their Mortality rate increase. The range being 1.34% to 0.53%. On the opposite end are Arkansas, Maine, Kentucky, Minnesota, and Oklahoma. The range being -0.29% to -0.50%.

Testing (Positive %) Diff Rankings show that Arizona, Maine, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Utah are the top five States to see their Testing Positive % Increase. The range being 1.11% to -0.03%. On the opposite end are Georgia, New York, Michigan, Connecticut, and New Jersey. The range being -3.00% to -14.33%. I will note that I believe New Jersey dumped practically all of their negative tests over the last week in one lump sum because they were from a positive testing percentage of around 44% to 30% in a week.

Tests Per 100K Diff show that Rhode Island, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Illinois are the top five States to see their Total tests conducted, per 100K, increase the most. The range being 2,018.6 to 1,192.8. On the opposite end are Kansas, Hawaii, Idaho, Arizona, and Maine. The range being 310.1 to 18.8.

Tests Per 100K Growth show that New Jersey, Georgia, Nebraska, South Carolina, and Wyoming are the top five States to see their Total tests, as a percentage, increase the most. The range being 56.0% to 41.6%. On the opposite end are Idaho, Hawaii, Vermont, Arizona, and Maine. The range being 14.1% to 1.1%.

 

89,745 deaths
11,720,120 tests
1,500,609 confirmed cases
12.80% infection rate
~42,443,258 infected
~ 0.21145% death rate.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/coronavirus/country/united-states/

 

Might want to edit what you wrote then, it certainly appears that your saying that not listing deaths as Covid is dangerous and will lead to a second wave. Her is what you wrote and the reason I asked.

"What is more likely to have occurred is that ONLY cases where there was a postive Covid19 test beforehand are being counted as Covid19 deaths. All other deaths are being recorded according to any comorbidity or other cause so as to give a false impression as to the lethality of the virus.

This is a DANGEROUS precedent IMO because it could lead to people dismissing the need to take precautions any longer."

 

TOG has me on ignore, so someone please ask him where he is getting the 12.8% infection rate from?

 

For some obscure reason he's defined infection rate as confirmed cases/number of tests x100 and thinks that the rate can be extrapolated to the whole population. This lack of statistical analysis seems to be a symptom common among those who believe that the virus is a hoax

 

1,500,609 / 11 ,720,120 = 12.8% of tests. Thus, 12.8% infection rate,
If you apply that to the entire population, you get ~42 million infected.

This number is skewed by the fact that most people tested are symptomatic, and so does not account for the asymptomatic.
As most people who have the virus are asymptomatic, the total number of infected is likely -higher- than the 42 million calculated above.

 

Ah...yea, juuuuust a couple of flaws in that bit of analysis.

Also, his "death rate" assumes that everyone who currently has the virus will survive. And that the death count is accurate.

 

At least two flaws:
1. Many people are tested more than once, hence 11,720,120 tests does not mean 11,720,120 different people have been tested. (this is one of the reasons I take no notice of tests numbers, only death numbers)
2. People who are tested are those most at risk hence your 12.8% cannot be used to extrapolate to the whole population.ie your 12.8% will be too high.

 

Seeing as TOG linked to @Sanskrit 's favorite covid source, I would just like to go ahead and update his lame and shortsighted metric of comparing the total number of Covid Deaths in each State, after ~2 months of Covid, against the average of yearly deaths from the Seasonal Flu. Roughly 48 hours ago, the number of States that had crossed that threshold was 20.

Now it is 23.

 

If true to a significant degree, then the number of tests is irrelevant for -all- purposes, and creates a flaw in -any- related calculation.

No. Most tested were symptomatic, meaning there was reasonable suspicion to test them.
Yes, this means the 12.8% is likely higher than the general population.
But, as most people who have the virus are asymptomatic, the total number of infected is likely -higher- than the total number calculated, because of the ratio of asymptomatic to symptomatic.
This means the death rate is -lower- than calculated.

 

Two contradictory statements

 

Not in the slightest.
The symptomatic were tested because they had symptoms.
The asymptomatic were not tested because they did not.
Most of those who have/had the virus do not develop symptoms.
No contradiction at all.

 

If they were not tested how would you know they've got it!

 

I see you've moved away from your claim of contradiction.

 

I think it is entirely inaccurate, or at least too early to tell, that most of those with the virus will be asymptomatic during the entirety of the infection.

Also, he denotes that your correctly identified flaw regarding re-tests means that using testing data for all purposes is largely flawed. And that is precisely why testing data is generally only useful as a snapshot. So, for example, you can use positive testing data from a single day's worth of data or perhaps even from a week's worth of data to reach valuable insight because it is unlikely that the same person will be tested in that very brief timeframe (or the results of multiple tests for one person announced on that day). But even that assumption is suspect.

But using the overall testing positive percentage is unlikely to yield any valuable insight.

 

Wrong. You wrote "Most tested were symptomatic" so how can you also say that "most people who have the virus are asymptomatic". Contradictory statements. Most people tested are not symptomatic