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

Some New York City areas testing over 51% positive. I think they were doing the "test everyone" for a while until masks/gowns starting running low. Overall attack rate is at 49.7%.

With 25,573 confirmed cases and 366 deaths, their mortality is running 1.4% which is average for the U.S. If they hadn't tested as many, they would still have the same number of deaths with a lower case count, and the mortality % would appear to be through the roof.

Hopefully most of their cases are in the no symptom or mild symptom groups.

 

Use this source:

https://covidtracking.com/data/

 

I'm just looking at their health department website. I don't see that data.

https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-main.page

 

Excuse me for saying so, but that is such an ugly-truth.

Think of enduring the pain knowing that it was inevitably all-for-nothing.

A French TV-reporter gave access yesterday to a dying doctor who was in his forties. Heartbreaking - what he had to say. Absolutely heartbreaking ... !

 

New York City Health Department

https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-main.page

 

Don't give me that weak ****. There is a **** ton of information and I am not able to watch every daily briefing nor am I going to take statements made at those press briefings as some sort of infallible assertion.

If you have source for the 1 out of 1000 need hospitalization, post it.

 

Yes, boyz-'n-girlz, this is finally what it looks like here.

 

Tge source is Dr. Birx.

 

We have had this discussion before and while I agree that the amount of data we have gives us reason to believe that the 4.57% is a very good ballpark metric, I disagree that it is correct. As an initial matter, purely asymptomatic cases, lack of testing, and inaccurate assignment for cause of death are all going to affect that percentage for a long time.

Moreover,

Mortality rate is "calculated using , where d represents the deaths from whatever cause of interest is specified that occur within a given time period, p represents the size of the population in which the deaths occur (however this population is defined or limited), and is the conversion factor from the resulting fraction to another unit (e.g., multiplying by to get mortality rate per 1,000 individuals)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortality_rate

 

Sigh. Another infested cruise ship which was headed for Florida.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/f...oronavirus-crisis/ar-BB11Oc2j?ocid=spartandhp

 

Just heard that 43 of the total Italian deaths were doctors treating the victims. Little doubt that many more of the total deaths would have been nurses and auxiliary staff. This is in some ways more worrying that the actual death numbers. How long before doctors and nurses refuse to treat patients.....

The problem I see is that those treating victims can be exposed to high doses of the virus in one burst unlike other civilians. Perhaps it would be better for most, otherwise healthy, doctors and nurses be exposed to a very low dose if possible in order to try and get some immunity

 

This is an inaccurate understanding of her statement. Here is what she said,

"I'm going to say something that is a little bit complicated but do it in a way we can understand it together. In the model, either you have to have a large group of people who a-asymptomatic, who never presented for any test to have the kind of numbers predicted. To get to 60 million people infected, you have to have a large group of a-symptomatics. We have not seen an attack rate over 1 in 1,000. So either we are measuring the iceberg and underneath it, are a large group of people. So we are working hard to get the antibody test and figure out who these people are and do they exist. Or we have the transmission completely wrong."

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...e_doomsday_media_predictions_or_analysis.html

My reading of that statement is her saying that there are no countries where the total percentage of those affected in the country has reached 0.1%. That is not an endorsement of what you said, "i.e. that only 0.1% of those affected need to be hospitalized."

 

Yes. You are correct. I misspoke.

The latest data from TX shows ~ 10% of the tested are positive and ~ 10% of those positive go to the hospital. The hospitalization might be artificially high due to caution.

 

In fairness I think when they know there is no hope they give people sedation and when people are on the ventilators which they can be on for 3 weeks they are also sedated. They will not know about it.

 

Am I right that Florida does not have a lockdown. Silly place to be headed for.

 

I believe it's coming any time, now. My city has done it, and the Florida Keys are also on lockdown. You have to show ID to get on the stretch. (Road that connects mainland to The Keys.) I'm sure there are many more cities requiring shelter in place.

Our governor has said anyone on flights from NY have to self-isolate for 14-days, but he hasn't said how they can do that. He gave them an impossible task. Our hotels aren't allowed to have guests and they are being told they should not go stay with family. (He's been pretty good governor before all this, but our governor isn't handling this too well.)

 

They may have to turn around and go back.

 

All those on ventilators are put in induced paralysis. They are monitored to make sure that they don't wake up. They are routinely turned over by nurses. Some do recover, if recover is the right word to use here as they will have serious health conditions for the rest of their lives. Staff are actually safer when treating those on ventilators because those patients are not able to cough unlike those who are being treated but conscious.

 

Totally alright. Like I said, there is an amazing number of information out there and it is worth double checking everytime you hear something that seems so out of line with the other data.

 

Yes, but simply knowing that the rate is stable based on one variant, namely, the number of verified cases, is enough to estimate, ill, dead and recovered.

 

Dr. Birx did say that New York's attack rate was 1 in 1000 on March 23rd, which was 5 times higher than the average everywhere else (1 in 5000).

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/23/new...higher-than-rest-of-us-top-official-says.html

Speaking of which, I believe I incorrectly used the phrase "attack rate" in post #1326 above.

I believe the "attack rate" means how many people have tested positive per 1000 population. New York has a population of 19.4 million, so if 1 in 1000 people were positive on March 23rd, then 19,400 people would have been the infnumber that day. That would suggest that the "attack rate" is a dynamic number for a given point in time, not a static number as the number of cases increases.

If I am interpreting the meaning of "attack rate" correctly, then today's attack rate for New York is (New York population divided by current cases) = 19,400,000/44635 = 435. The attack rate is now 1 in 435 instead of 1 in 1000 from a few days ago.

Someone correct me if my interpretation is incorrect. I may still be fuzzy on exactly what "attack rate" means. I need to know the number of New York State cases on March 23rd as a math check.

 

~ And now this ...

➡ China Supplied Faulty Coronavirus Test Kits to Spain, Czech Republic

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/china-supplied-faulty-coronavirus-test-kits-to-spain-czech-republic/

 

Sheesh....I think I'm missing the point of what "attack rate" means.

 

299 people died in France today.

 

Okay, I got it. The percentage who become ill (or die) from a new disease. That percentage can then be converted into a number per 1000.

Attack rate | epidemiology | Britannica
https://www.britannica.com/science/attack-rate
Attack rate, in epidemiology, the proportion of people who become ill with (or who die from) a disease in a population initially free of the disease. The term attack rate is sometimes used interchangeably with the term incidence proportion.


Sorry for sharing my confusion with everyone!!!! I was making it much harder than it had to be.