Coronavirus Outbreak...

[JimL]

I'm pretty sure the WHO seldom (if ever?) provides actual testing kits to developed countries. They tend to provide them to developed countries and provide the protocols to developed countries.

They don't usually, but they are available if requested. After the CDC tests malfunctioned and he was asked whether the US should have used the WHO testing kits DR Fauci answered, "when you look back and Monday morning quarterback, it would have been nice to have had a back-up."
When DR. Birx was asked why they didn't just use the WHO kits she answered, "because quality testing for our American people is paramount to us. It doesn't help to put out a test where 50 or 40% are false positive."
Well, it was the US kits that were faulty, and verifying the errors and then the re-manufacturing of new testing kits took 3 or 4 weeks, not to mention that the FDA also prevented hospital labs from using their own kits.

Sources?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...rs-coronavirus

[carpedm9587]

They don't usually, but they are available if requested. After the CDC tests malfunctioned and he was asked whether the US should have used the WHO testing kits DR Fauci answered, "when you look back and Monday morning quarterback, it would have been nice to have had a back-up."
When DR. Birx was asked why they didn't just use the WHO kits she answered, "because quality testing for our American people is paramount to us. It doesn't help to put out a test where 50 or 40% are false positive."
Well, it was the US kits that were faulty, and verifying the errors and then the re-manufacturing of new testing kits took 3 or 4 weeks, not to mention that the FDA also prevented hospital labs from using their own kits.

So, a few things. First, while I agree with Fauci, and I do think we should have implemented the German protocols in the interests of speed, you've shifted from "rejected" to "didn't request." The former is untrue - the latter is true. Second, I usually admire Dr. Birx, but her comment here, while not strictly false, is misleading. It' is true that it doesn't help to have tests that are 50% or 40% false positive, those numbers have never been true abut the German protocols, which were published on the WHO website two days before our first case. Likewise, your last comment about the U.S. kits is technically accurate, but given that you made it in the context of the discussion about false positives/negatives, makes it sounds like that was the problem. The problem was actually some faulty reagents that was producing inconclusive results. It was fairly quickly fixed. The primary problem with U.S. testing kits is the lack of any concerted effort at the top to engage the Defense Production Act to ensure an adequate supply of them and adequate testing facilities. To this date, we still do not have adequate of either, and the same is true of PPE for front-line workers.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...rs-coronavirus

OK - while I appreciate the contents here and it would not surprise me to find that the accusations are accurate, this is an opinion piece. It's not exactly hard news. I'm looking for news sources from a reasonably reputable outlet. The Guardian is reputable, but leans fairly strongly to the left, and that is especially true of their opinion pieces. I don't have the bandwidth to chase down the claims made here. Do you have anything else?

[shunyadragon]

My research and evaluation of the data reached the following interesting conclusion:

The limited testing and the confusion in the early history of the pandemic would indicate that the bell curve hump would be higher with more cases and fatalities than have been reported. Most testing was for those that are sick, and closest to facilities handling the victims. This is acknowledged by most medical authorities in the USA and China's figures have been doubled in this period and acknowledged by China and WHO. One thing that was clearly acknowledge by China and other authorities the percent of asymptomatic and mild cases was as high as ~80%. As the testing has increased radically the later figures of numbers of cases is more accurate. In most countries where the pandemic was severe they are now sorting out and finding higher fatality counts as is happening in New York. As with the number of cases it has become clear the recent counts are more accurate. This does not change the timing of the peak of the curve, but infection cases and fatality numbers are most definitely higher.at the peak and more accurate in the recovery period.

[carpedm9587]

So hopes for a "flattening" of the curve, at least with respect to the linear graph of confirmed infections, are not yet justified. 36,007 new cases today in the U.S., which is almost as high as it has ever been. It has increased continuously for the last five days. Deaths are slightly down to 1,897. Worldwide new cases are up to 94,552, so we continue to be the source of over 1/3 of the new cases on a daily basis, as well as close to 1/3 of the deaths.

For those claiming we have "flattened the curve," here is the linear graph of deaths in the U.S.

Deaths.PNG

And here is the linear graph of confirmed infections.

Infections.PNG

The number of cases/deaths has been hovering between 23,196 and 37,725 since March 31st, averaging 30,288 per day. Deaths have hovered between 1,157 and 2,928 since April 2nd averaging 2,033 per day. That is the equivalent of a 911 event every 36 hours for a month! The real concern is that NY is showing real signs of flattening their curve, so the numbers are staying high due to the increase in cases and deaths in other states. We now have 13 states with daily new infections above 1,000 cases: NY, IL, NJ, MA, MD, CA, PA, TX, GA, TN, CT, VA, and GA - in that order. NJ deaths now exceed NY and MA, PA, and IL are closing in.

IMO, calls for us to "reopen" are decidedly premature.

Meanwhile, our moron-in-chief is signalling more trade war with China, causing markets around the world to plummet. Instead of taking responsibility and addressing the leadership gaps at the federal level, he's doing what he always does, and looking for a scapegoat. Will his malfeasance ever end?

ETA: Actually - there's a growing chance that it will - on January 20th, 2021!

[shunyadragon]

So hopes for a "flattening" of the curve, at least with respect to the linear graph of confirmed infections, are not yet justified. 36,007 new cases today in the U.S., which is almost as high as it has ever been. It has increased continuously for the last five days. Deaths are slightly down to 1,897. Worldwide new cases are up to 94,552, so we continue to be the source of over 1/3 of the new cases on a daily basis, as well as close to 1/3 of the deaths.

For those claiming we have "flattened the curve," here is the linear graph of deaths in the U.S.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]44293[/ATTACH]

And here is the linear graph of confirmed infections.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]44294[/ATTACH]

The number of cases/deaths has been hovering between 23,196 and 37,725 since March 31st, averaging 30,288 per day. Deaths have hovered between 1,157 and 2,928 since April 2nd averaging 2,033 per day. That is the equivalent of a 911 event every 36 hours for a month! The real concern is that NY is showing real signs of flattening their curve, so the numbers are staying high due to the increase in cases and deaths in other states. We now have 13 states with daily new infections above 1,000 cases: NY, IL, NJ, MA, MD, CA, PA, TX, GA, TN, CT, VA, and GA - in that order. NJ deaths now exceed NY and MA, PA, and IL are closing in.

IMO, calls for us to "reopen" are decidedly premature.

Meanwhile, our moron-in-chief is signalling more trade war with China, causing markets around the world to plummet. Will his malfeasance ever end?

ETA: Actually - there's a growing chance that it will - on January 20th, 2021!

These graphs are two dimensional and do not tell the story. The bold reflects more of the story then the curves in the graphs. You have to look at the relationship of the data over time as far as cases and deaths per day showing the curve. The only thing these graphs show is the number of cases and fatalities is increasing every day. The number of 'new cases on the average is dropping slowly daily for the whole country, but not individual states.

'Flattening the curve?' is really not in touch with the reality of the path of the virus infection. We have past any concept 'Flattening the curve.It is supposed to refer to reducing the peak hump of the curve by reducing the cases and fatalities. You are correct other states where the COVID 19 started later are still going up the curve.

[carpedm9587]

These graphs are two dimensional and do not tell the story. The bold reflects more of the story then the curves in the graphs. You have to look at the relationship of the data over time as far as cases and deaths per day showing the curve. The only thing these graphs show is the number of cases and fatalities is increasing every day. The number of 'new cases on the average is dropping slowly daily for the whole country, but not individual states.

'Flattening the curve?' is really not in touch with the reality of the path of the virus infection. We have past any concept 'Flattening the curve.It is supposed to refer to reducing the peak hump of the curve by reducing the cases and fatalities. You are correct other states where the COVID 19 started later are still going up the curve.

When the daily death and new infection counts begin to reduce, these two curves will begin to show a bending downward. When they go to zero, both of them will be "flattened" because there will be no new infections. Personally, I think they show a good deal. They show a continual assent with no sign of relenting.

The graph I am missing, which is more important than these, is the number of active cases. I have it for the world, but not for the U.S. I'll have to see if I can generate it from online data. That graph SHOULD show a return to zero as we get on top of this pandemic. For the world, it still shows a steady upward ascent.

[shunyadragon]

When the daily death and new infection counts begin to reduce, these two curves will begin to show a bending downward. When they go to zero, both of them will be "flattened" because there will be no new infections. Personally, I think they show a good deal. They show a continual assent with no sign of relenting.

i do not believe these curves are sensitive enough to show the downward trend that other graphs show. The new infections are the result of the spread into isolated groups and regions like you will see in show up as smaller humps like in China. South Korea showed a smaller hump. The graph of Daily Confirmed Cases show this relationship.

I believe we are mostly in agreement, but the claims and goals of flattening the curve are misleading. What is missing is the ghost curve of the untested, and those that are asymptomatic and mild symptoms that spread the infections. There is also an under estimate of the fatalities at the height of the infection. I believe the claims that we flatten the curve are naive, and wishful thinking. We can reduce the fatalities and cases, but alas no vaccines. I compared the data from previous pandemics and epidemics the viruses are predictably in control.

The graph I am missing, which is more important than these, is the number of active cases. I have it for the world, but not for the U.S. I'll have to see if I can generate it from online data. That graph SHOULD show a return to zero as we get on top of this pandemic. For the world, it still shows a steady upward ascent.[/QUOTE]

[JimL]

So, a few things. First, while I agree with Fauci, and I do think we should have implemented the German protocols in the interests of speed, you've shifted from "rejected" to "didn't request." The former is untrue - the latter is true. Second, I usually admire Dr. Birx, but her comment here, while not strictly false, is misleading. It' is true that it doesn't help to have tests that are 50% or 40% false positive, those numbers have never been true abut the German protocols, which were published on the WHO website two days before our first case. Likewise, your last comment about the U.S. kits is technically accurate, but given that you made it in the context of the discussion about false positives/negatives, makes it sounds like that was the problem. The problem was actually some faulty reagents that was producing inconclusive results. It was fairly quickly fixed. The primary problem with U.S. testing kits is the lack of any concerted effort at the top to engage the Defense Production Act to ensure an adequate supply of them and adequate testing facilities. To this date, we still do not have adequate of either, and the same is true of PPE for front-line workers.

The only problem I see in the above is that "the Problem was fairly quickly fixed". Not only did it delay testing for weeks, but the labs who need to verify that the kits work, could have corrected the problem themselves, (by only testing for covid-19), but were prevented from doing so by FDA regulations which could have been lifted. As I read it, the kits sent out tested for multiple viruses, rather than just covid-19, and that was the problem.

OK - while I appreciate the contents here and it would not surprise me to find that the accusations are accurate, this is an opinion piece. It's not exactly hard news. I'm looking for news sources from a reasonably reputable outlet. The Guardian is reputable, but leans fairly strongly to the left, and that is especially true of their opinion pieces. I don't have the bandwidth to chase down the claims made here. Do you have anything else?

Well, I can't pull up the actual CDC/OSHA documents myself. Perhaps you can. But, the preeminent journalist of our time, Rachel Maddow, had the actual documents containing the original language, on her show which showed that on April 20th the CDC provided guidelines for a Colorado processing plant with mandated guidelines of operation for the plant, and then 2 days later, on April 22, the language in the documents, the mandated guidelines to protect the employees, and contain the spread, were all changed to become merely suggested guidelines. In other words, the guidelines, all of the guidelines, were changed in a way that the plants could just ignore the guidelines and avoid any penalties or lawsuits for doing so. And at that the employees were ordered to return to work.

[oxmixmudd]

So, on the effect of social distancing vs not-social distancing.

Most of the world has engaged in social distancing, and the US is 1/3 of the words cases, so the world curve is a large component of the US curve.

What we see in most of the logarithmic curves is a bend down around the time social distancing is instigated. Not always the same amount, but always a bend down. In many cases the 'bend' continues, IOW, those countries that engage in social distancing see the increase in daily cases hold static or begin to decrease. I've been following two countries that are refusing to have a strict social distancing requirement. Sweden and Mexico. Sweden has a highly responsible population, and the government is counting on that ingrained responsibility to create the effect of social distancing w/o having to put it into law.

How effective have they been. Mostly effective actually - though not quite as effective in terms of the change in growth seen in countries that did institute social distancing (one can compare raw numbers because sweden was never in the sort of massive growth scenario scene in Italy or France or NYC).

Sweden's experiment is resulting in very small growth over time in case numbers (unlike the declines seen elsewhere), but they are seeing a decline in deaths. So they have created most of the effect of social distancing without the strict laws and stark economic impact other nations have endured to this point. Keep in mind, Sweden is not no a decline, but their growth is very shallow.

Sweden_total_cases_05022020.jpg

Unlike mexico, that has refused to engage in a social distancing requirement. They are in full on exponential growth. They are doubling every week. Last week they were at 10,000 cases, and a good way BEHIND sweden. This week, they have almost caught up to sweded (20,800 vs 22,000). Mexico will almost certainly pass sweden this week and by next week will have 40,000 cases. Likewise, by the end of may, they will be one of the most infected nations in the world, with 240,000 cases. They are growing faster than most places in the world.

Mexico_total_cases_05022020.PNG

Mexico_daily_new_cases_05022020.jpg

Mexico_total_deaths_05022020.PNG

Mexico_daily_new_deaths_05022020.jpg

To be fair, they are basically equal to my home state of Maryland* in number of cases, but at about 1.5x the growth, 1.5x the number of deaths per day. So they should pass us this week as well.

Mexico also appears to be taking a very irresponsible approach to declaring cases closed.

One takeaway appears to be this:

A responsible, civic minded population can be successful without explicit laws to require safe behavior or shelter in place.

Another takeaway so far is this: If the people of the US exercise their normal selfish, "I have my rights", "Why is the other fellow my responsibility" way of living, opening the US up at this point will be a disaster.

If - HOWEVER - the people of the US do not take that approach, if they keep wearing masks, if they keep on minimizing their interaction with others and basically keep in place the most important elements of our current 'new normal', these re-open efforts have a chance of succeeding.

But only if attitudes not routinely displayed on this website are adopted by the vast majority of citizens in this country.



*Maryland may be seeing a larger than representative increase in cases due to the fact they are doing more testing.

[carpedm9587]

The only problem I see in the above is that "the Problem was fairly quickly fixed". Not only did it delay testing for weeks, but the labs who need to verify that the kits work, could have corrected the problem themselves, (by only testing for covid-19), but were prevented from doing so by FDA regulations which could have been lifted. As I read it, the kits sent out tested for multiple viruses, rather than just covid-19, and that was the problem.

Well, I can't pull up the actual CDC/OSHA documents myself. Perhaps you can. But, the preeminent journalist of our time, Rachel Maddow, had the actual documents containing the original language, on her show which showed that on April 20th the CDC provided guidelines for a Colorado processing plant with mandated guidelines of operation for the plant, and then 2 days later, on April 22, the language in the documents, the mandated guidelines to protect the employees, and contain the spread, were all changed to become merely suggested guidelines. In other words, the guidelines, all of the guidelines, were changed in a way that the plants could just ignore the guidelines and avoid any penalties or lawsuits for doing so. And at that the employees were ordered to return to work.

Rachel's work I trust and I listen to her podcast. I'll find the episode. Thanks.

[shunyadragon]

Rachel's work I trust and I listen to her podcast. I'll find the episode. Thanks.

Bad news for the USA there were over 33,955 new cases. Opening up has its price.

[NorrinRadd]

I intend to go out and interact properly with my fellow social beings -- hearty handshakes, hugs, and the occasional kiss on the cheek.

[oxmixmudd]

I intend to go out and interact properly with my fellow social beings -- hearty handshakes, hugs, and the occasional kiss on the cheek.

Good luck.

[rogue06]

Bad news for the USA there were over 33,955 new cases. Opening up has its price.

Or very likely the result of more testing being done? And is there any evidence that these are in areas that have opened up in limited ways?

[firstfloor]

POTUS refuses to hear bad news:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...101_story.html