"Crunch Time" Arrives And... Was Everyone Wrong About The Coronavirus?

[Tdave]

Regarding deaths lagging new cases, see this image:




Both graphs in this image are from the CDC website, which should have no political agenda.

They are scaled identically. Green line on left is Feb 1, 2020 on both graphs, last data point on right is 7/5 on top graph and 7/4 on bottom.

If death lags new cases, we should be seeing the bottom graph well into an upward slope by now, mimicking the slope on the left 22 day interval.

I'm neither extreme left or right leaning, politically, I consider myself an independent, for what it's worth.

But this data is confusing when held up against the media headlines.

Graph sources for verification:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...ses-in-us.html

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/c...ekly/index.htm

[777 Driver]

Originally Posted by Tdave

Both graphs in this image are from the CDC website, which should have no political agenda.

They are scaled identically. Green line on left is Feb 1, 2020 on both graphs, last data point on right is 7/5 on top graph and 7/4 on bottom.

If death lags new cases, we should be seeing the bottom graph well into an upward slope by now, mimicking the slope on the left 22 day interval.

I'm neither extreme left or right leaning, politically, I consider myself an independent, for what it's worth.

But this data is confusing when held up against the media headlines.

Graph sources for verification:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...ses-in-us.html

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/c...ekly/index.htm

Hi Tdave,

Thanks for posting your analysis of CDC data. It seems, to me, that it's insightful and objective from data that should be accurate.

If I may, I have one suggestion for a revision to your comments.

Where you said, "But this data is confusing when held up against the media headlines."

Perhaps a better way to state that would be, "But, the media headlines are confusing when held up against these data."

You purport to be "neither extreme left or right leaning, politically", which I have no reason, whatsoever, to doubt.

Do you believe that the media can honestly make the same claim?

Take care,
Stu

[Tdave]

Originally Posted by 777 Driver

Perhaps a better way to state that would be, "But, the media headlines are confusing when held up against these data."

You purport to be "neither extreme left or right leaning, politically", which I have no reason, whatsoever, to doubt.

Do you believe that the media can honestly make the same claim?

Take care,
Stu

Hi Stu,

6 of 1, half dozen of the other.

It's confusing trying to reconcile the seemingly conflicting stories.

In an attempt to reconcile, I do see one omission that the media is currently making, and that is reports on the death rate. They are reporting strongly and shrilly about the infection rate.

However, there seems to be a latent assumption being made that current infection rate equals former death rate ratio.

This data may suggest otherwise.

It is a blatant omission by the media, no doubt.

Let each indicidual decide what is best for them, by using ALL the data that is available to each individual.

[Milford 47]

It is quite encouraging to see the death rate/percentage barely ticking upward with all the new positive cases

I believe that the Pandemic is about to turn into a bad bug

[ihc1470]

https://adamaltmejd.se/covid/

Reported covid deaths in Sweden

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NCD...ature=youtu.be

How things change over the years.

[redhooker]

If this virus was engineered, which I and many others believe it is, then the current data matches this same hypothesis made back in early March. They have been attempting to combine retroviruses with coronavirus for years. HIV is a retrovirus. Is is not easily transmitted. This makes a vaccine extremely difficult if not impossible-unless they can combine it with a virus that easily passes the protein channel which is why they have been trying to combine it.

Early on many scientists were noticing HIV markers in COVID 19. This was widely reported and suddenly silenced. It is called a Chimeric virus. This article is from 2015 around the time we banned this dangerous research in the USA due to an accident that has been hush hush a few years prior. This research is still perfectly legal in China and we support it financially even today. Fauci sent that lab in Wuhan over $30million in 2019.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.the...bate-34502/amp

These viruses can be quite deadly when released, but WEAKEN as they are transmitted from person to person. The virus wants to return to it’s natural state. This has been discussed for months and many interviews and round tables I watched in February and April have been scrubbed from the Internet. This is why the original SARS disappeared as it was also engineered. Other “suspicious” viruses have also come and gone-where is Zika BTW?

Yes I agree our response has been horrible. We never should have quarantined the young and healthy. There is PLENTY OF MISINFORMATION FROM THE CDC.

This video sums up how the media feels, this was just a few days ago:

https://youtu.be/EAXzEWipkyw

Cavuto saddened by the lack of deaths? Freudian slip methinks

[Ljwt330]

Originally Posted by Tdave

Regarding deaths lagging new cases, see this image:




Both graphs in this image are from the CDC website, which should have no political agenda.

They are scaled identically. Green line on left is Feb 1, 2020 on both graphs, last data point on right is 7/5 on top graph and 7/4 on bottom.

If death lags new cases, we should be seeing the bottom graph well into an upward slope by now, mimicking the slope on the left 22 day interval.

I'm neither extreme left or right leaning, politically, I consider myself an independent, for what it's worth.

But this data is confusing when held up against the media headlines.

Graph sources for verification:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...ses-in-us.html

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/c...ekly/index.htm

The confusion is that simply looking at the graphs without reading the details of how the data are compiled, distorts any conclusions that are drawn.



From the same site that the graphs were published, comes this technical notation: (Note especially the first paragraph.)



Why These Numbers are Different

Provisional death counts may not match counts from other sources, such as media reports or numbers from county health departments. Counts by NCHS often track 1–2 weeks behind other data.

• Death certificates take time to be completed. There are many steps to filling out and submitting a death certificate. Waiting for test results can create additional delays.
• States report at different rates. Currently, 63% of all U.S. deaths are reported within 10 days of the date of death, but there is significant variation between states.
• It takes extra time to code COVID-19 deaths. While 80% of deaths are electronically processed and coded by NCHS within minutes, most deaths from COVID-19 must be coded by a person, which takes an average of 7 days.
• Other reporting systems use different definitions or methods for counting deaths.

Things to know about the data

Provisional counts are not final and are subject to change. Counts from previous weeks are continually revised as more records are received and processed.
Provisional data are not yet complete. Counts will not include all deaths that occurred during a given time period, especially for more recent periods. However, we can estimate how complete our numbers are by looking at the average number of deaths reported in previous years.
Death counts should not be compared across states. Some states report deaths on a daily basis, while other states report deaths weekly or monthly. State vital record reporting may also be affected or delayed by COVID-19 related response activities.

No doubt, some media outlets use only portion of any data to emphasize the news story they wish to push, but that does not invalidate the data. When it happens, the public is left confused. Under "normal" circumstances, that confusion would be rectified by information from the original or institutional source.

[Tdave]

Originally Posted by Ljwt330

The confusion is that simply looking at the graphs without reading the details of how the data are compiled, distorts any conclusions that are drawn.

Sorry, I don't agree.

If I were stating a single data point, you would be correct.

I am showing trends, which dilutes the reporting lags.

The trends don't align.

[Ljwt330]

Originally Posted by Tdave

Sorry, I don't agree.

If I were stating a single data point, you would be correct.

I am showing trends, which dilutes the reporting lags.

The trends don't align.

No problem.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something. The trend on the top graph shows a rise, but the lines on the bottom graph show a steady decline for the same time period.

The bottom line is lagging behind the top because of reporting, as described on the site, and because deaths always lag behind by three or more weeks. There should not be an expected rise in the bottom lines until three weeks or more from the beginning of the case load rise.

One other factor is that the new cases seem to be more focused on young people who tend to be less likely to be hospitalized or die. However, transmission of the new cases to older more vulnerable persons can occur and of those who die, the reporting will be further delayed from the original climb in the new case graph.

We are now entering a time period beyond the rapid case rise when I would expect to see a rise, soon.

[Highway 4x4]

The people you agree with are not bias. If you agree with CNN then Fox is bias and wrong. So depending where you stand and who is giving you the news determines if it's bias or not. We have become extremely polarized and free speech is at risk. The other side must be silenced is the new norm. Just remember, the other side feels about you, the way you feel about them. Remember how the song goes,,,,God is love, beer is good,, people are crazy.

[Tdave]

Originally Posted by Ljwt330

No problem.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something. The trend on the top graph shows a rise, but the lines on the bottom graph show a steady decline for the same time period.

The bottom line is lagging behind the top because of reporting, as described on the site, and because deaths always lag behind by three or more weeks. There should not be an expected rise in the bottom lines until three weeks or more from the beginning of the case load rise.

One other factor is that the new cases seem to be more focused on young people who tend to be less likely to be hospitalized or die. However, transmission of the new cases to older more vulnerable persons can occur and of those who die, the reporting will be further delayed from the original climb in the new case graph.

We are now entering a time period beyond the rapid case rise when I would expect to see a rise, soon.

The top graph is new infection cases.

The bottom graph is current weekly deaths from Covid.

While there may be a reporting lag affecting the data, it's not a lag that results in a "zero to tens of thousands" correction once all the data has been collected.

I gleaned the data for the graph below from Yale Health's frozen snapshots of the Power BI feed on the CDC site, and data from the current Power BI feed so you can get a feel for what this reporting lag produces.

It's about a 25-30% averaged correction for this sample period. So today's zero weekly deaths maybe will rise 25-30% (or maybe not). Even if they rise that much, it clearly shows a declining infection/morbidity ratio compared to a couple months ago:

[Scottrn]

I don't think there's going to be a vaccine, or a need for one. I believe it's going to mutate itself right out like viruses do. Whether it's returning to its own as stated earlier in this post because it's engineered, or because it's just the life cycle of a virus I don't know.
someone mentioned the great depression earlier, that's a good point. We become soft, wanting instant gratification for everything. Just sit, be safe and wait

[Solo_RV_Guy]

[QUOTE=MO Fred;5339588]

Originally Posted by Solo_RV_Guy

Fred, what "newer" drugs are these? Anti-retrovirals (like used with HIV) were tried and had no effect, drugs used against herpes simplex are also ineffective with coronavirus. IG therapy has not shown promising results. Right now most of the emphasis has been on symptomatic treatment to keep patients alive until the virus runs its course. Some patients run out of time before they run out of virus. But if I've missed a legitimate anti-viral therapy I want to learn more... The sooner we have efficacious anti-viral drugs the sooner we can start thinking about phase 4 openings. Being able to treat the illness itself could keep more folks out of ICU where the emphasis is on keeping a patient alive.[/QUOTE

Well... do a search on the web and you will see a lot of work going on developing a vaccine and successes using various drugs or combinations. A newer drug called Remdesivir has shown positive results and hydroxychloroquine has now been proven to be effective if taken in early stages. Neither drug will kill the virus but, will help to reduce the overall severity and out of the ICU. And.... we have learned a lot over the last few months particularly about keeping the virus out of nursing homes and away from those in poor health.

I am aware of both - Remdesivir so far has been effective in shortening ICU use, by about 3 days, but has not shown benefit to those less seriously ill. HydroQ is not effective and the side effects range to the lethal in certain patients. Hydroxychloroquine should be left to the patients who need it for its labeled uses.

There have been several other anti-viral drugs administered that, so far, have not shown improvement in patients...

[Highway 4x4]

If dog slobber kills the virus, and it does, I am safe...LOL