57 COVID deaths in GA today: Post-opening spike starting?

WWRD wrote:

They weren't wearing masks in all those senior care facilities the governor sent sick people back into? I'd be surprised if they weren't. That was just a big screw up by the Governor, who isn't afraid to go on CNN and tell everyone else what to do though.

I am pro-mask by the way, at least at the onset of new viruses, until we understand them. Hopefully the US, and other western countries, learn from this.

You might actually be surprised on that front. Consider at that time PPE shortages abounded, and masks weren't as universally considered helpful. I find it highly plausible that yes Cuomo et al screwed up in sending COVID-19 positive people back, but also asymptomatic nursing home workers were responsible for a large amount of deaths.

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

WWRD wrote:

They weren't wearing masks in all those senior care facilities the governor sent sick people back into? I'd be surprised if they weren't. That was just a big screw up by the Governor, who isn't afraid to go on CNN and tell everyone else what to do though.

I am pro-mask by the way, at least at the onset of new viruses, until we understand them. Hopefully the US, and other western countries, learn from this.

You might actually be surprised on that front. Consider at that time PPE shortages abounded, and masks weren't as universally considered helpful. I find it highly plausible that yes Cuomo et al screwed up in sending COVID-19 positive people back, but also asymptomatic nursing home workers were responsible for a large amount of deaths.

On Monday, the Cuomo administration fired back: The State Department of Health issued a 33-page report meant to dispel the notion that its March directive fueled the spread of the virus. The report blamed the 37,500 nursing home workers — about a quarter of the state’s total nursing home staff — who became infected since mid-March, unknowingly transmitting the virus to residents.

Wear a mask

Social distance

Wash your hands

GET TESTED

Yes, this has become increasingly fraught with politicization and shots fired on both sides. I don't claim to know the exact truth. Florida which was declaring victory on protecting nursing homes (in May) now has over 2,500 confirmed Nursing Home deaths (and it's getting worse). That's with no COVID-19 positive patients allowed back.I think the conclusion would have to be that it is really hard to protect old people if your state has a real spread.

OK Lead Head, I guess I've let you sweat long enough. I found these studies after about 5 minutes of Googling. I don't claim to know the details of any of them but I have either read the abstract or read something about each study and they all say, from one angle or another, that lockdowns do work.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2404-8

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2405-7

https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00608

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.15.20103655v2

https://www.nber.org/papers/w27091

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2766229

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3592912

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.13.20063628v3

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.01.20088179v1.full.pdf

https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.05469v1

https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.14621

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Papers.cfm?abstract_id=3581873

https://cepr.org/sites/default/files/news/CovidEconomics13.pdf

https://www.nber.org/papers/w27185#fromrss

https://voxeu.org/article/government-interventions-covid-19-and-economy

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.12.20062695v1

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-Europe-estimates-and-NPI-impact-30-03-2020.pdf

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.18.20070862v2

https://cepr.org/sites/default/files/news/CovidEcon1%20final.pdf

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.22.20075705v1

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020arXiv200412338G/abstract

Is that enough data for you?

agip wrote:

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

I don't think anything fishy there. They update every day before 3, and the new daily numbers are put in. Their reporting is definitely more over-the-place than just about any state, but the death numbers are staying in the total number.

I'm sure you're right...but on their deaths graph it now says that July 22 had 5 deaths, not the 87 they reported.

Maybe there is always a delay on new data getting to their graph.

Nothing fishy agip. Their graph is not what you expect. I'll explain more later if needed but right now I don't have time. If you look at the explanation link at the top of their page you might be able to decipher it. But basically, that graph uses the actual date of death for each case. That's why numbers to the right side of the graph are low.

brazen2 wrote:

agip wrote:

I'm sure you're right...but on their deaths graph it now says that July 22 had 5 deaths, not the 87 they reported.

Maybe there is always a delay on new data getting to their graph.

Georgia does not report the way other states do - more epidemiological approach. Deaths are attributed to day of death. If that information is not available, it is attributed to the day data was received. Makes analysis more accurate. If any data is updated, it is corrected.

Jul22 had 81 deaths reported.

For example:

5 were attributed to Jul21,

12 to Jul20,

4 to Jul19

4 to Jul18 and so on.

For Jul22 data, 27 of the deaths were attributed to Jul01-Jul10.

The data is far more accurate than just reporting all the data on the day it was received.

cool thanks for the info

See, that is the thing, you read headlines and assume content. Nowhere is there a strong data set indicating lock downs specifically are conclusively effective nor necessary; post crisis assessment and correlations of something when many strategies were employed is not easy to delineate nor do declines in cases after the virus has peaked out necessarily correlate to any activity; you need real controlled studies to actually verify this claim, which is why this is still very much an uncertain and unresolved issue. It seems you are so fat you are even too lazy to read nor think about any data to suggest to base your claims on....yes, thanks for posting a bunch of somewhat related articles without having any idea what they even say; there are sketchy studies on both sides of this isle, but the data there is not solid on this and there likely never will be as there never has been. Dumping a whole bunch of somewhat related efforts from your google search is not finding the data that settles the argument about lockdowns, not social distancing, or masks, or improving sanitation or actual quarantines of sick people, we are discussing shutdown of the state or nation, shutting commerce, ordering people to stay home, the things that destroyed the economy and pushed people into unhealthy living situations so unecessarily. Where in your pile of lazy "data" is the exclusive use of lock down conclusively verified as significantly important. There is even one paper in the pile of stuff that you have no idea what it discusses that claims the same results can be achieved using masks, SD, targeted quarantines, etc....and that lockdowns did not change results:

"A series of scenario analyses suggest that countries may avoid lockdown by imposing school closures, mask wearing and centralised quarantine simultaneously to reach similar COVID-19 infection mitigation outcomes."

There is one poor letter in your list that makes this claim, and that pretty much is as good as it gets for lockdowns specifically (what we are arguing about; not reasonable preventative measures as a whole); letrally it could contribute to shed some light....could, might, possibly help out.....super strong effort buddy; I am glad you know how to use google, next we can work on reading and analysis of data.

"These resu lts could c ontribute to she d some lig ht in a grow ing debate about the ef fe ctive ne ed of such policy , due to the trade -off in pl ace be tw een the reduc ti on of the dif fusi on of the di sease a nd the neg ative impact loc kdown ha s on economic activitie s. "

Again, not one controlled studied with a data set to verify your certainty, just a mixed pile of assessments of all strategies combined based on correlation and decline rates in places that got blasted anyways. Nice lazy try buddy; I am still waiting and still if you just plot lockdown time versus death/pop it is real clear there is no rhyme or reason to verify effectiveness of the specific strategy of lockdown. Maybe I missed a valuable piece of data in there, but since you are so sure of yourself feel free to highlight it.

Obvi wrote:

Obvi wrote:

You should probably count on 1000 death days for 4 days in a row (Tue, Wed, Thu, Fri).

Baked in.

That's two (Tue, Wed).

That's three.

From the first few sentences of the first article article you posted:

"Governments around the world are responding to the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic1 with unprecedented policies designed to slow the growth rate of infections. Many actions, such as closing schools and restricting populations to their homes, impose large and visible costs on society, but their benefits cannot be directly observed and are currently understood only through process-based simulations2–4."

There is no good data; do I need to say direct data to make it clear to you; it is too difficult to fully assess and there is no consensus on lockdowns specifically; other things are easier to assess and the actual data on deaths per capita seems to be bearing things like proper quarantine of the sick, SD, maybe mask wearing, etc.....non shut down requiring precautions, these work; yet, there really is no strong clear evidence that shutdowns themselves do much at all particularly when you consider the extremely high cost paid for little to minimal gain. If we shutdown as a country again, we will be being guided by morons who fall for vague generalizations and poor winding correlations; people will die, children will suffer, businesses will be lost, families will be lost and future destroyed....they already have been, and all for nothing. We did not need to do it to fight this virus in a substantial way; it cannot happen again.

Big wall of text that boils down to:

1) there's not RCT for lockdowns, only observational studies.

(Q: How do you propose running an RCT for lockdown effectiveness?)

2) Observational studies are meaningless, but if you plot a bunch of data in Excel and squint at it, it's clear lockdowns don't work. I promise this isn't an observational study.

Come on dude.

Fat hurts wrote:

Is that enough data for you?

"My mind is made up! Stop trying to confuse me with facts!"

Exactly.

Now let's review how we got here:

1) I assert that lockdowns are the best tool we have for stopping the spread.

2) Lead Head says that I have no evidence that lockdowns work.

3) I say there are plenty of studies that show they do work.

4) Lead Head says he can't find any.

5) I say I've found lots of studies. I give him a chance to back down.

6) Lead Head calls me a liar and says I still have no evidence.

7) I post numerous studies showing the efficacy of lockdowns.

8) Lead Head attacks the studies.

So now Lead Head has decided that he knows more about this subject than the people who published the studies. Never mind that some of the studies were published in the most highly respected scientific journals like Nature and the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Lead Head wants us all to believe that he knows more than the experts. Good luck with that.

Here we are. 3 months since Georgia reopened on Apr24.

Wear a mask

Social distance

Wash your hands

GET TESTED

As U.S. outbreaks surge, a new government study shows that nearly 40% of people who have died with COVID-19 had diabetes.

Among deaths of those under 65, half had the chronic condition. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention analyzed more than 10,000 deaths in 15 states and New York City from February to May.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-diabetes-insight/why-covid-19-is-killing-u-s-diabetes-patients-at-alarming-rates-idUSKCN24P1B4

Wear a mask

Social distance

Wash your hands

GET TESTED

brazen2 wrote:

As U.S. outbreaks surge, a new government study shows that nearly 40% of people who have died with COVID-19 had diabetes.

Among deaths of those under 65, half had the chronic condition. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention analyzed more than 10,000 deaths in 15 states and New York City from February to May.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-diabetes-insight/why-covid-19-is-killing-u-s-diabetes-patients-at-alarming-rates-idUSKCN24P1B4

Wear a mask

Social distance

Wash your hands

GET TESTED

How many Americans have diabetes (or another underlying condition)?

Seems like you should end each post with:

Don't have diabetes

7/23 data

It's bleak out there.

Yesterday was bad, the day before that was bad, etcetera

7 day rolling average of daily deaths.

Both the US and world hit new cyclical highs

Brazi right at all time high

India all time high

CA all time high

TX all time high

AZ 2nd highest ever

FL all time high

Add the 4 problem states together: all time high.

24% higher than a week ago.

I remember a month ago I was wondering why there were so few casualties despite the soaring cases. Well here we are.

Our household got our now semiweekly tests this morning. All negative and I'll await the results of my deep nasal swab.

Wear a mask

Social distance

Wash your hands

GET TESTED

CountChocula wrote:

brazen2 wrote:

As U.S. outbreaks surge, a new government study shows that nearly 40% of people who have died with COVID-19 had diabetes.

Among deaths of those under 65, half had the chronic condition. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention analyzed more than 10,000 deaths in 15 states and New York City from February to May.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-diabetes-insight/why-covid-19-is-killing-u-s-diabetes-patients-at-alarming-rates-idUSKCN24P1B4

Wear a mask

Social distance

Wash your hands

GET TESTED

How many Americans have diabetes (or another underlying condition)?

Seems like you should end each post with:

Don't have diabetes

More than 100 million U.S. adults are now living with diabetes or prediabetes, according to a new report released today (2017) by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The report finds that as of 2015, 30.3 million Americans – 9.4 percent of the U.S. population –have diabetes. Another 84.1 million have prediabetes, a condition that if not treated often leads to type 2 diabetes within five years.

Perhaps just once.

Wear a mask

Social distance

Wash your hands

GET TESTED

Don't have diabetes

agip wrote:

7/23 data

It's bleak out there.

Yesterday was bad, the day before that was bad, etcetera

7 day rolling average of daily deaths.

Both the US and world hit new cyclical highs

Brazi right at all time high

India all time high

CA all time high

TX all time high

AZ 2nd highest ever

FL all time high

Add the 4 problem states together: all time high.

24% higher than a week ago.

I remember a month ago I was wondering why there were so few casualties despite the soaring cases. Well here we are.

Not good...

Florida:

Looking at their death/cases map we are at the bottom of the current worst of it. Expect some 150 death days (not in reporting, in date of deaths) the next week or so, and then a return to 100. What that means for reported deaths is likely 150-200 from Tuesday-Friday, and over 100 even on the slow days for next week. After that it will be like this week, and there's unfortunately not really any sign it has gotten better the last few days case-wise or positive %-wise.