Do we Cancel Everything? You still Travelling??

[Alan_A 1,650]

And in the department of "we don't have a handle on the problem yet," this just in (quite literally - the report just broke): otherwise-healthy people in their 30s and 40s are having major strokes caused by the coronavirus.

It's unclear whether these cases of extreme blood clotting are the direct result of the virus, or part of a runaway immune response (the kind that also causes respiratory failure).

The article also touches on another issue related to coronavirus impact: people delaying emergency treatment because they're afraid to go to the hospital because of the covid risk.

We have a long way to go before we're on top of this.

 

[188AHC 2,138]

These educated comments are the very reason I'm against opening things up prematurely. I suspect at least until August before we attempt another shot at what we know as normal. 

[MartinRex007 390]

Here is a good video by a Medical Doctor who explains some of the diagnostics and immune responses we have towards this virus. Might be worth a look for those who want to know more about what might be causing the strokes and heart attacks that are showing up?

 

Edited April 25, 2020 by MartinRex007

[honanhal 1,420]

Here’s an article laying out the point I was making earlier: “opening up” doesn’t mean everything comes back the way it was — and could actually kill businesses faster than keeping them locked down:

https://thebulwark.com/we-cannot-reopen-america/?amp
 

This is not fundamentally about making a choice between health and livelihood. They’re totally intertwined, and until people feel safe, the economy is going to be very, very different...

James

[birdguy 3,943]

Every river starts with trickles James.  In the dry years when the snowpack in the mountains is sparse many of the trickles stop and the rivers slow down and the reservoirs like Glen Canyon and Lake Mead recede.

But in the years the snow pack is normal or above normal many trickles begin to flow in the Spring and the rivers like the Colorado become full and fill up the reservoirs.

So it will be with the economic trickles as they start up.  It will be a while for the trickles become large enough to fill an economic river, but the trickles must start.  We have to have a spring runoff to start things.  The longer we wait the longer it will be for the rivers to flow and reservoirs to fill up.  

The trickles should begin before the economic reservoirs dry up.

Noel

[dave2013 1,123]

Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia's page on the Sweden Covid-19 pandemic:

The mean age among those who died was 81 years, and a majority were 70 years or older, with few below 50 years of age. A large majority (93%) of the deaths belonged to at least one risk group, with chronic cardiovascular disease being the most prevalent (53%), followed by diabetes (26%), chronic respiratory disease (18%) and chronic renal failure (16%).^[171] More than half of the deaths has been in Stockholm County.^[172] As of 23 April, 2,021 people with a confirmed Covid-19 infection had died in Sweden.

 

Dave

[SteveFx 258]

Here is an update on Sweden as I think it instructive to see whether a more relaxed approach can work.

This is daily reported deaths compared with UK - smoothed over 7 days.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-covid-deaths-per-million-7-day-average?time=2020-03-06..&country=SWE+GBR

I would suggest that shows a steady decline in the UK since 10th April and for Sweden the trend is still upwards. 

However one could perhaps make the case that the 4 points for Sweden show a possible flattening.  

The reported deaths figure is in both cases the number of deaths formally registered - the actual date of death may be several days previously.    It is possible to find a graph which shows the number of deaths that occurred on a date.  So if you  look  here you can find an alternative view (This is for England which is 75% of the UK)

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/covid-19-death-data-in-england-update-24th-april/

Here we can see that the actual peak was on 8th April and there has been a steady decline since.  The grey area at the right are data points that are incomplete as it is likely that more deaths will be logged against those dates in subsequent daily updates.   Most of the changes will be to the last 4 data points which will probably rise to match the line of steady decline.

The BBC has a lengthy article on Sweden and if you look this includes a similar graph mapping reports to the date of death.  This again has a grey area of incomplete data points 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-52395866

So this suggests that Sweden has reached a possible levelling out or is continuing to rise  won't be clear until next week.  

As an example of how hard it is to rely on the daily reports, the UK reported a big figure today (813)  but many of them are for deaths weeks ago.  Sweden reported 131 yesterday but just 40 today.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 25, 2020 by SteveFx

[birdguy 3,943]

This morning Chaves county gained 1 more CVID-19 victim bring our total up to 21.  Also the first death recorded in my county.  Makes me think that 1 person gain in the victim column was also the 1 death recorded.  

I would like to know how many active cases there are.  How many of the 20 left have been cured and gone home?  Just tallying the total number of cases since day 1 without knowing the status of them (except for the deaths) makes things look worse than they are.

Is this an intentional omission?  How about telling us how many active cases there are on a day to day basis?  That would give us a lot more information.

Many people (my wife included) think the numbers show are people who are currently sick.  And that makes it easier for the one-size-fits all crusaders who want to put everyone under semi-house arrest and force everyone to wear masks regardless of the true numbers of how many are sick TODAY in any given area or community.

Noel 

Edited April 25, 2020 by birdguy

[HighBypass 2,339]

Here's a "UK" statistic which no one appears to have noticed (on AVSIM! Not necessarily in the wider world) until a thought struck me earlier today as I was thinking about a resupply flight to RAF Mount Pleasant:

The Falkland Islands - 13 cases as of 24th April, 11 have completed self isolation and presumably recovered.

https://www.fig.gov.fk/covid-19

Now it "should" have been easy to lockdown the Islands I would have thought, with such a tiny, remote population, but the statistics seem to show how hard it actually is to quarantine without ultimate martial law and it's procedures...

EDIT - the 13 cases are all British Forces personnel at the Mount Pleasant Complex. No residetns either in Stanley or at MPC have it as yet.

https://en.mercopress.com/2020/04/25/mpc-has-13th-covid-19-tested-positive-no-cases-among-falklands-population

Edited April 25, 2020 by HighBypass
extra article

[dave belsey 54]

According to this for New Mexico:

It can be seen that there have been so far 2,521 cases

84 have died

614 have recovered

Therefore 1,823 are still active cases.

 

Dave.

 

Edit, I see that in Chaves there are as many cases in the age group 30-39 as there are in the 70-79 group.

Edited April 25, 2020 by dave belsey
Further info

[birdguy 3,943]

But I don't see how many cases are active in my county Dave.  Only for New Mexico as a whole and most of those cases are in the Navajo Nation.

We have as Mescalero Apache reservation on SE New Mexico.  Not nearly as large as the Navajo Nation, but I'm wondering if those 30-39 age group might be in the Navajo Nation.  There have been articles that African Americans are affected more severely.  I wonder if that's also true for Native Americans.  The Navajo Nation would seem to bear that out.

BTW...I haven't seen that map and chart before.  Where did you find it?

Noel

[dave belsey 54]

 

 

Quote

I haven't seen that map and chart before.  Where did you find it?

 

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

select USA to get a breakdown per state.

select New Mexico and select [1] on the right hand side.

 

Dave.

[Alan_A 1,650]

18 hours ago, MartinRex007 said:

Here is a good video by a Medical Doctor

That's a great video - I'm not all the way through it yet but I'm getting a lot out of it.  He's an excellent teacher.  Thanks for sharing!

[MartinRex007 390]

Hi Alan,

Yes, all his videos are very informative and you're right he is an excellent teacher. The video on the Epidemiology of COVID-19  is also very good!

Martin

 

[Alan_A 1,650]

Just a general comment about statistics and what they mean - it's important to be cautious about drawing conclusions and to think about everything the data might be telling you.  Today in my local area, there's a report about the drastic decline in reports of child abuse.  Does that mean child abuse has gone down?  Not at all.  It means that abuse isn't being reported because there aren't nearly as many eyes on the children - they're not in school, they're not in daycare, they're not out on the street.  So the abuse is going on at the same or maybe even higher levels.  But it's invisible so it's not going onto the books. So if you said "the pandemic leads to a decline in child abuse," you'd be wrong.  The right conclusion is, "the pandemic leads to a decline in child abuse reporting."

@birdguy - about cases in your county, the ongoing question is, "what's a case?"  Looking the New Mexico Department of Health covid site, it seems that "confirmed cases" are the ones where there's a positive test.  Statewide, as of today, they're reporting 51,510 people tested, and 2,521 cases.  So 4.89 percent of the people tested have clinically confirmed covid. But that's not really a very useful figure because it doesn't tell you anything about the general population. People were tested when they presented with symptoms, so you'd expect a high rate of positive tests.  If you tested the general population, you'd probably get a much lower figure.

People have been trying to estimate the total number of people infected via antibody testing.  But right now that's running into problems because the antibody tests are pretty unreliable so far. There are big problems with both false negatives and false positives.  False positives become a problem in areas with low infection rates because of the way statistics work.  Let's say you have a test that returns five percent false positives.  If you test a population with a lot of infections, you'll get a lot of positives and you can figure you're accurate within a five percent range, which isn't great but it's something.  On the other hand, if you test a population with no infections, the test is still going to give you five percent false positives because that's it's error rate - the error rate is there no matter what's being measured.  So in that scenario, you decide that five percent of the population is infected.  Except it isn't - the five percent positives are all false.  That was one of the major objections to the Stanford study that showed a very high rate of infections in Santa Clara.  Critics said that a small, skewed test sample and unreliable tests led to an estimate that was way too high.

Good roundup here of the challenges with some of the infection estimates.

Sorry to come back to my ongoing riff but... there just aren't good numbers yet to put against some of these questions.