How is the Flu doing? Are Lockdowns impacting it?

[sothereiwas]

5 minutes ago, CaliforniaGirl said:

If that were true, sure, but I doubt it. Why would we still be "working through" month-old numbers? The CDC updates daily, correct? Who do you mean by "they"?

The local healthcare providers I guess? The reuters article said "Connecticut on Monday reported the state’s highest one-day totals for novel coronavirus cases and related deaths, attributing the jump to a revised total count due to new classifications from federal regulators.", so they did it in a day, or it was noticed that day and was ongoing. I'm not sure if a bigger state with a more serious situation would get it done in a day, and I don't know if the process is uniform across all states - I would guess not. 

I would hope all figures have been updated but I sort of suspect there will be ongoing reclassifications for some time. 

Edited May 12, 2020 by sothereiwas

[CaliforniaGirl]

1 minute ago, sothereiwas said:

The local healthcare providers I guess? The reuters article said "Connecticut on Monday reported the state’s highest one-day totals for novel coronavirus cases and related deaths, attributing the jump to a revised total count due to new classifications from federal regulators.", so they did it in a day. I'm not sure if a bigger state with a more serious situation would get it done in a day, and I don't know if the process is uniform across all states - I would guess not. 

I would hope all figures have been updated but I sort of suspect there will be ongoing reclassifications for some time. 

Again...you suspect. Sotheriwas...I have to ask. (Not that I haven't already, more or less.) Why are you so invested in doing everything in your power to, unsupported, no actual data, no actual backup, just a lot of hypotheticals and guesses and workarounds and less-likely scenarios, get people to believe that the reported numbers are wrong; specifically, that they're much lower than reported? 

What's your motivation?

[sothereiwas]

18 minutes ago, CaliforniaGirl said:

Again...you suspect.

Yes, I try not to say I'm sure of something unless I'm actually sure of it. Probably an engineer thing. Not sure, but I suspect it's related.

The actual numbers are tough to track due to a number of factors, and honestly I'm not too fussed one way or another, I just like clean accurate data to work with. The declining proportion of positive tests vs total tests on a day by day basis is pretty clean as far as data sets go, and it's strongly indicative of a trend. Total deaths is another data set that's hard to fudge much, so I like it as well. When someone makes a claim without specific data (such as local deaths spiking) that bucks both my local trends and national trends, I try to give the benefit of the doubt and think that perhaps it's an issue with improperly interpreting complex data. 

I'm trying to help you. 

Either you live in a terrible place with people who have terrible practices or circumstances, or you're not looking at the local data right, or some other strange factor is at work that's causing a sharp trend up in your locale. I'm legitimately curious which, but again, I'm happy to have left CA so it' doesn't directly affect me. 

 

 

[CaliforniaGirl]

15 minutes ago, sothereiwas said:

 

Either you live in a terrible place with people who have terrible practices or circumstances, or you're not looking at the local data right, or some other strange factor is at work that's causing a sharp trend up in your locale. I'm legitimately curious which, but again, I'm happy to have left CA so it' doesn't directly affect me. 

 

 

Hmmm. Well, or...the virus is just really, really contagious. Which means, well, you know. It spreads.

Or yeah...any of the hyperbole/veiled insults above. 😅 Could be that stuff.

Not risking it, staying safe. Just like obviously all the filthy hobos with terrible practices around here. 😂 We'll try our hardest not to lick any more subway poles or bowling ball finger grips.

Know what else we promise not to do?

Decide hoofbeats in Central Park are zebras.

We're weirdly logical like that.

Weirdly logical infectious hobos with horrendous practices. Who can't count.

Good lord, agendas...fascinating. 😂 Just...stay safe, everyone.

 

 

 

Edited May 13, 2020 by CaliforniaGirl

[sothereiwas]

19 minutes ago, CaliforniaGirl said:

Hmmm. Well, or...the virus is just really, really contagious. Which means, well, you know. It spreads.

Maybe you're not looking at your local stats properly?

Here's my basis for comparison. 

• My place: Few COVID cases overall, none currently, and no one has died.
• National average: About the euro average for COVID, in pretty much every way, with a massive testing campaign in progress and new cases seeming to be on a plateau.
• Your place as reported by you: A COVID ridden area with a recent upswing in new cases that has you in fear for your life.  

So no insult intended, but your self reported situation doesn't say a lot about the excellence of whatever region you're presently in. Maybe I misunderstood? Was my understanding of your recent local conditions incorrect? All I've done is inform you that nationally, the ratio of positive test results has been in a steady decline since about April 5th, with a source given, and if you look at that source you'd see they get their data from some fly by night outfit called Johns Hopkins. I suppose there are plenty of possible root causes that might explain a decline in positive test results as a function of total tests, but the most obvious (some dude's shaving equipment proposes we prefer this one) would be that the data collected in the sample represents the population. 

That's all I'm saying, that things seem to be looking better nationally. 

EDIT:

Google "new covid cases in america over time" - the second link for me is a cdc link, and it has a chart of new cases over time. Flat since about April 3rd, actually seems to be trending a little down.

Edited May 13, 2020 by sothereiwas

[sothereiwas]

We're approved to open Friday in this county. Should have been officially open sooner but better now than later. 

[schlumpy]

Fletch - I caught a conversation on the radio this morning from someone claiming to be a doctor who stated that the flu numbers have been surprisingly, unaffected by the lockdown. I'm looking around for some corroboration.

Not what I would expect if true.

[CaliforniaGirl]

12 hours ago, schlumpy said:

Fletch - I caught a conversation on the radio this morning from someone claiming to be a doctor who stated that the flu numbers have been surprisingly, unaffected by the lockdown. I'm looking around for some corroboration.

Not what I would expect if true.

I don't know if that would be too unexpected as flu peaks I think in February and lockdown, if you will, didn't happen until mid-March, after the peak. And of course it's never been an actual lockdown, millions of people have continued to work and many of us still shop regularly and get out for other reasons. Nor was it in all states, to the same extent of precautions and some started even later.

But I would have to think the primary reasons that flu numbers had already been compiled since October, all the way through Feb and were then on their typical annual decline before there were any official school, work, etc. closures. Flu rate estimates have like a 25,000 person leeway or something so +/- that would still be as anticipated.

Edited May 15, 2020 by CaliforniaGirl