March Madness and Covid-19

[SoonerBounce13]

Do you admit that a high positivity rate looks worse than increased positives only?

Yes. I've never said otherwise. An increase in reported positives doesn't concern me near as much as the positivty rate

 

[steverocks35]

can you post that data? because all you ahve posted is the overall rate from the very beginning.

Also, can you help me understand this "testing enough" threshold? Where does it come from? You seem to think there is a set reality of where this number should be. Like if it is too low you are testing too much and if it is too high we aren't testing enough. That doesn't make sense to me. To take it to the extreme, if you testing 50% of the people and the rate was 15%, your thinking would be that we aren't testing enough. When in reality, 15% might be the actual rate of infection.

I have wasted way too much time today, I actually do have work to do lol.
This will get you started though. Have fun with your research!

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/04/22/840526338/is-the-u-s-testing-enough-for-covid-19-as-debate-rages-on-heres-how-to-know

 

[SoonerBounce13]

I have wasted way too much time today, I actually do have work to do lol.
This will get you started though. Have fun with your research!

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/04/22/840526338/is-the-u-s-testing-enough-for-covid-19-as-debate-rages-on-heres-how-to-know

Thanks but non of that really went into why this 10% number is magical...even the link in the article to the Who article.

Obviously if the positive rate is very high, more testing needs to be done. But if it is above ten, it could be because not enough testing is being done or that the general infection rate is really that high. I don't think it is a good bench to say that if a country is over 10, they aren't testing enough and if it is under 5 they are testing too much. It produces an environment of not just looking at the data and seeing what it says.

Anyways, it is obvious that things didn't change while I was gone and they aren't going to change anymore with me here. So I'm going to leave this thread. The numbers are what they are. We are in it for the long haul. It is up for Americans to be responsible and not let this out of control. I pray the deaths don't follow suite with the increase of cases. If they do, we will be in trouble.

 

[coolm]

Your dear savior Fauci was also telling people in the US not to worry early on. Why does he get a pass and Trump doesn't?

that is very misleading bordering on a lie. tell the truth. he advised people to defer to medical authorities for masks so there would be enough for them first.

 

[thebigabd]

2 days ago Mike Pence got up on a podium and said their efforts "flattened the curve"....

 

[SoonerBounce13]

that is very misleading bordering on a lie. tell the truth. he advised people to defer to medical authorities for masks so there would be enough for them first.

Nope. Here are the quotes. If Fauci is given a pass for these statements, so should teh POTUS for "not acting soon enough"...even though he did impose travel restrictions very early and was criticized for it

On Jan. 21 - the day the first COVID-19 case in the U.S. was confirmed - Fauci appeared on conservative Newsmax TV. “Bottom line, we don’t have to worry about this one, right?” asked Greg Kelly, the host.

Fauci said, “Obviously, you need to take it seriously and do the kind of things the (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) and the Department of Homeland Security is doing. But this is not a major threat to the people of the United States and this is not something that the citizens of the United States right now should be worried about.”

On Jan. 26, Fauci gave an interview to John Catsimatidis, a syndicated radio host in New York. “What can you tell the American people about what’s been going on?” Catsimatidis asked. “Should they be scared?”

“I don’t think so,” Fauci said. “The American people should not be worried or frightened by this. It’s a very, very low risk to the United States, but it’s something we, as public health officials, need to take very seriously.”

On April 13, PolitiFact examined a tweet by Republican DeAnna Lorraine, an unsuccessful California congressional candidate. She said Fauci “was telling people on February 29th that there was nothing to worry about and (COVID-19) posed no threat to the US public at large.”

Lorraine’s statement was ruled Mostly False. Although Fauci said that day he saw no immediate need for social distancing, PolitiFact noted that his comments were “filled with caveats that the situation could change.” And contrary to Lorraine’s tweet, Fauci’s didn’t say then “there was nothing to worry about.”

There are a ton more out there. In mid feb he said to not wear masks and to just wash your hands.

I know that some of these are early in the timeline of covid and things changed. But why should Trump have the foresight to see these things happening but Fauci shouldn't? Do you guys really expect Trump to go against Fauci and those saying it won't be a very big issue? You expect him to be smart enough to do that?

His response hasn't been perfect, but it was far from bad. Short of a nationwide mask requirement, I don't think there is much he can do.

Also, who is going to enforce a mask requirement if all the police are defunded?

 

[SoonerBounce13]

2 days ago Mike Pence got up on a podium and said their efforts "flattened the curve"....

They did flatten the cure. That is a fact. Opening back up and increased testing is the spike. We were told FROM THE BEGINNING that the goal was to flatten the curve so hospitals could get supplies needed and be ready. That was accomplished and was extremely successful. The goal was never to stop the spread completely...it was to effectively control it. We did that. Maybe opening up May 1st wasn't the smartest move. But that is a different discussion than flattening the curve.

Also, again, postives per capita is useless without testing per capita factored in

 

[sheepdogs1]

2 days ago Mike Pence got up on a podium and said their efforts "flattened the curve"....

The fatalities have flattened. The number of deaths in the previous 7 days is close to 350 less than the preceding 7 days.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

Here is a pretty good chart IMO. Our slopes look pretty similar to other countries (if you don't include the added probable cases that were added on June 26)

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/...million-7-day-average?country=CAN~ITA~GBR~USA

 

[thebigabd]

Are you guys crazy? ANY argument that we are doing well compared to other countries doesn't seem to be backed up by any data.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

Are you guys crazy? ANY argument that we are doing well compared to other countries doesn't seem to be backed up by any data.

You are using graphs for total cumulative. That isn't a fair metric abd...you are smart enough to know that.

 

[thebigabd]

 

[thebigabd]

You are using graphs for total cumulative. That isn't a fair metric abd...you are smart enough to know that.

All metrics are fair... If we represented a huge % of the worlds population it wouldn't be fair, the number would be expected. Showing our death totals is valid, especially considering we only represent 5% or so of the worlds population.

 

[sheepdogs1]

Are you guys crazy? ANY argument that we are doing well compared to other countries doesn't seem to be backed up by any data.

An again with feeling, the death rate for England, Spain, France and Italy are much higher than ours. Now are they considered countries or not? If you have evidence to support that they are not countries then share it. In any event, Ihbby you are a kook with room to spare.

 

[mict085]

When your positivity rate is as high as ours is, 12%, then it’s not enough. It could be worse, Brazil’s positivity rate is an incredible 36%.

According to the CDC, the positivity rate is 7.6%.

Edit: that number is for the most recent week. Cumulative positive rate is 9.9%, so even tho we should be doing better, we’re still technically below 10%. If we continue to test , it should keep going down. The problem is a handful of states that aren’t doing enough testing.

 

[thebigabd]

An again with feeling, the death rate for England, Spain, France and Italy are much higher than ours. Now are they considered countries or not? If you have evidence to support that they are not countries then share it. In any event, Ihbby you are a kook with room to spare.

Ok... lets take a look at this chart.

You are saying we are doing better than other countries because of this metric, right?

 

[SoonerBounce13]

All metrics are fair... If we represented a huge % of the worlds population it wouldn't be fair, the number would be expected. Showing our death totals is valid, especially considering we only represent 5% or so of the worlds population.

what? How is it fair to say we are so much worse by showing cumulative totals compared to much smaller countries? Per capita is a leveling tool. Why not use it?

 

[SoonerBounce13]

Ok... lets take a look at this chart.

You are saying we are doing better than other countries because of this metric, right?

I think that this graph is a good one.

I think the best info to compare countries and their effectiveness is deaths per capital, positive testing rate, tests per capita, and positive cases per capita

 

[thebigabd]

what? How is it fair to say we are so much worse by showing cumulative totals compared to much smaller countries? Per capita is a leveling tool. Why not use it?

 

[sheepdogs1]

Ok... lets take a look at this chart.

You are saying we are doing better than other countries because of this metric, right?

With room to spare.