Coronavirus

[a_smith]

Are there any statisticians on the board that can kind of parse the numbers? USA, in general, looks like a complete [expletive] show. I think they may have finally slown down from the 1.33x gains in total cases they were making every day, but not by much. At the same time, there seem to be quite a few states past the n=100 mark that are well below the 1.33x line while other states (NY in particular) was well above it for a while. And, honestly, NY is driving the USA numbers accounting for almost half.

In short, don't know if I said it or not, but this is going to turn into each state making decisions and each city within the state making further, more stringent decisions, as necessary (like San Francisco going to SIP before CA).

Not to get political, and I don't think this is...I certainly don't mean it as a criticism/praise, just a general observation. Trump says he wants to re-open the economy. But, it's not really his decision. Sure, he could lift the national state of emergency, but the states will still keep theirs especially after seeing how little help the feds can provide. If the economy is going to reopen, at a minimum, the capacity of the healthcare system has to be expanded orders of magnitude overnight to accomodate all those that will require treatment. The hydroxychloriquine zpack is not nothing, but hydroxychloriquine has some serious side effects (including cardiac arrest) so it's not like there's a magic pill.

At the same time, at some point, even if its 6 months down the road, the world does have to open back up. How do we go about doing that if only, say, 10-25% of the nation got the virus and has immunity. It gets back to the fact that preventing outbreaks would require testing which may come available, but in order to do it properly would require tracking....something the citizens of America certainly won't be comfortable with. In short, IDK. There has to be answer, but I don't know what it is.

Tracking is better than dying. Tracking is better than trusting idiots to not infect you. Sign me up for tracking rather than death.

The problem with parsing the numbers right now is that we have no clue how many people have it. People with obvious symptoms are not getting tested. I know of at least a dozen people just in my social media circle that have all the symptoms but they cannot get a test because there are not enough tests. They would need to get really, really bad to get the tests.

We need massive doses of tests.
The freaking UK is rolling out a test at home kit. We don't have enough to test our medical personal. This is horrible.

After we get tests to see who has it, we need to be able to get tests for immunity so that we can find out all the people who had it but didn't show up in the other tests.

Not disagreeing, just saying it's not going to happen. Tracking isn't. Antigen tests aren't. Testing for the disease isn't going to increase. I mean, yeah, they should. But they won't.

I think we will have a massive increase in testing, we will be testing millions before this is over, the problem is that it is going to be too late. Antigen tests will arrive eventually, but again way too late.
And I agree with you about tracking... but it would be a really useful tool so that we can keep everyone safe.

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

A case could easily be made that the antigen test would benefit everyone economically because you could, presumably, test immunity. Those immune can get back to work. But, I fear we're not smart enough to think of clever solutions like that.

Yeah, I shouldn't have said there won't be an increase in testing. There won't be a timely increase in testing.

Testing and tracking seems to be the answer to continue as close as possible to normal life; however, again, I doubt it happens.

[pioneer98]

Are there any statisticians on the board that can kind of parse the numbers? USA, in general, looks like a complete [expletive] show. I think they may have finally slown down from the 1.33x gains in total cases they were making every day, but not by much. At the same time, there seem to be quite a few states past the n=100 mark that are well below the 1.33x line while other states (NY in particular) was well above it for a while. And, honestly, NY is driving the USA numbers accounting for almost half.

Some graphs I posted in the politics thread (bottom one shows how bad New York is):

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

Thanks. Really seems like you have NY and then the rest of America and there's a discernible difference between the two.

[sighyoung]

Thanks. Really seems like you have NY and then the rest of America and there's a discernible difference between the two.

Certain states, such as Louisiana and Florida, will soon have steep rises in cases and deaths, unfortunately. But New York is off the charts.

I have a brother who lives in New York City, in the southern part of the Bronx. He lives on a very busy street, but traffic has all but disappeared.
At the same time, he tried to go to a local Costco, and the line was block-and-a-half long out the door, with no social distancing in line. (I think there was social distancing enforced inside the store.) He drove 30 miles to a Costco outside of the city to get what he needed.

I saw a newspaper photo of a line outside of an emergency room, in the rain, at a Manhattan hospital.

[sighyoung]

https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morn ... s-america/

Here's a recent article on the virus and hospital capacity in various states.

[pioneer98]

I don't know if I'd take much solace from New York accounting for so much of the numbers right now. New York is likely just further along. There are lots of places that could be as bad as New York a week or two from now.

[thrill]

It's literally just a matter of testing. Everywhere they test, they find it. NY has a dense population and tons of international travel, so they naturally have it earlier and worse than other areas, but they also have more resources to respond and more political pull to get things like tests.

A local county here is proudly touting that they have zero cases, and I can't help but shake my head because they definitely do.

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

I don't know if I'd take much solace from New York accounting for so much of the numbers right now. New York is likely just further along. There are lots of places that could be as bad as New York a week or two from now.

That's the question, though, isn't it.

Is every state destined to follow along in New York's footsteps? Seems unlikely. That's why I'm asking about statistics. It seems like many states are not growing at the same exponential rate New York did. Washington state, California, etc all seemed to start along the same timeframe as New York yet are 10-15% of the total cases.

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

Here's something.... though it is just using blanket R0 rates across the board (I think assumed in the Imperial College Study) instead of updating it with real time data in the US.

https://covidactnow.org/