COVID-19 Pandemic: 6M+ Cases, 400k+ Deaths [Confirmed] - Page 25 - Forecasting and Discussion - 33andrain Weather Discussion Community Jump to content
33andrain

COVID-19 Pandemic: 6M+ Cases, 400k+ Deaths [Confirmed]

Recommended Posts

Well, it looks like the Trump Administration is finally going to go with the message I've said they always wanted to but were afraid to say before: "Learn to Live With the Virus." At least they won't be lying any more about caring about American health and lives. Assuming they go through with this plan, it'll be a sad chapter in our history, especially in the midst of major outbreaks all over this country, which likely will result in many more deaths very soon. And particularly since many countries have shown that very low infection/death rates are possible via distancing/masking, combined with testing/tracing/isolating to control flareups.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/we-need-live-it-white-house-readies-new-message-nation-n1232884

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not good - Houston's percentage of positive tests has reached 25% after being 15% last week; at its worst, NYC's was about 25% on 3/16, when schools/bars/restaurants and many other businesses closed and as close to 40% by 3/24 and nearly 50% by about 3/29, but was only 25% around 3/16. They really need to shut down public spaces and make masks 100% mandatory now (the Gov's order is nowhere near 100%) or else they'll be completely locking Houston down in a week.

https://www.newsweek.com/1-4-houston-residents-testing-positive-covid-19-amid-texas-outbreak-1515349

https://covid19tracker.health.ny.go...r-DailyTracker?:embed=yes&:toolbar=no&:tabs=n

 

rlcVztH.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big increase in mask usage in KC this week. I'd same were over 90 percent compliance in situations which warrant it. Up from about 60 percent just 2 weeks ago. People are also gathering less now then before. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An update on Japan's extremely low case and death rates from COVID, with only 150 cases/1MM and 8 deaths/1MM (vs. 4000+ cases/1MM and 400+ deaths/1MM for many countries, including the US). Unlike some other countries that have also done very well, Japan did minimal testing, relying more on a very efficient health surveillance network enabling tracing/isolating, combined with a culture with "built-in" distancing, plus near universal masking.  Some have even suspected some native immunity perhaps due to some previous regional coronavirus. 
 
Having said all that they just hit their highest numbers in over a month with 179 cases yesterday, including 124 in Tokyo (most in younger people).  Let's see how they respond to this flare-up, although they've been able to contain previous ones.  
 
 
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ru848789 said:

Well, it looks like the Trump Administration is finally going to go with the message I've said they always wanted to but were afraid to say before: "Learn to Live With the Virus." At least they won't be lying any more about caring about American health and lives. Assuming they go through with this plan, it'll be a sad chapter in our history, especially in the midst of major outbreaks all over this country, which likely will result in many more deaths very soon. And particularly since many countries have shown that very low infection/death rates are possible via distancing/masking, combined with testing/tracing/isolating to control flareups.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/we-need-live-it-white-house-readies-new-message-nation-n1232884

 

I think he's going to need to be careful with how he messages this.

The truth is we are going to have to learn to live with Covid, it's not going away.

 

3 months ago I wrote that a new normal was coming.

I said like after 911 where I had to walk through a metal detector to get back into my office we would see masks, temp checks and safety precautions when we finally reopened.

But you need the cooperation of all civilians.

 

Masks should be mandated, large indoor gatherings will need to stop until every HVAC system install UV killing lights to their air handlers.

But the truth is we have to learn to live with the virus, manage the hot spots and continue on the road towards treatments.

 

But yes people , sorry to say , America will need to adapt.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More HCQ news... 

https://www.mlive.com/news/2020/07/hydroxychloroquine-is-effective-in-treating-covid-19-says-henry-ford-health-system-study.html

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hydroxychloroquine-helped-save-coronavirus-study

Hydroxychloroquine helped save coronavirus patients, study shows; Trump campaign hails 'fantastic news'

The study, published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases, determined that hydroxychloroquine provided a "66% hazard ratio reduction," and hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin a 71 percent reduction, compared to neither treatment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mcscrew said:

More HCQ news... 

https://www.mlive.com/news/2020/07/hydroxychloroquine-is-effective-in-treating-covid-19-says-henry-ford-health-system-study.html

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hydroxychloroquine-helped-save-coronavirus-study

Hydroxychloroquine helped save coronavirus patients, study shows; Trump campaign hails 'fantastic news'

The study, published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases, determined that hydroxychloroquine provided a "66% hazard ratio reduction," and hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin a 71 percent reduction, compared to neither treatment.

I think i will wait for verification from other studies before starting an hcq regimen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mcscrew said:

More HCQ news... 

https://www.mlive.com/news/2020/07/hydroxychloroquine-is-effective-in-treating-covid-19-says-henry-ford-health-system-study.html

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hydroxychloroquine-helped-save-coronavirus-study

Hydroxychloroquine helped save coronavirus patients, study shows; Trump campaign hails 'fantastic news'

The study, published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases, determined that hydroxychloroquine provided a "66% hazard ratio reduction," and hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin a 71 percent reduction, compared to neither treatment.

 

4 hours ago, Rygar said:

I think i will wait for verification from other studies before starting an hcq regimen.

 

Please read my post from last night.  I spent 30+ years at Merck and while not a clinician, I worked on cross-functional teams with some of the best clinicians in the business and learned a ton about clinical development from them and almost every trial we ever did was an RCT (randomized, controlled and blinded trial), except for a few life-saving conditions where no other drugs were available, e.g.., when I was on our Crixivan team, when Crixivan was the first drug to ever stop HIV in its tracks (there was no "control" group, but the drug worked for almost every patient, so there wasn't any question of the efficacy  - we were actually making drug for compassionate use from our labs and pilot plants which was unheard of), and since I'm still consulting for Merck, I've had the chance to ask a few clinician friends what they think about comparing the RCT vs. observational studies on HCQ and they actually laughed and then said, as I expected, that the RCTs would hold far more weight.  I would bet @wxmd529would agree.  

 

https://www.33andrain.com/topic/1940-covid-19-pandemic-6m-cases-400k-deaths-confirmed/?do=findComment&comment=204539

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ru848789 said:

 

 

Please read my post from last night.  I spent 30+ years at Merck and while not a clinician, I worked on cross-functional teams with some of the best clinicians in the business and learned a ton about clinical development from them and almost every trial we ever did was an RCT (randomized, controlled and blinded trial), except for a few life-saving conditions where no other drugs were available, e.g.., when I was on our Crixivan team, when Crixivan was the first drug to ever stop HIV in its tracks (there was no "control" group, but the drug worked for almost every patient, so there wasn't any question of the efficacy  - we were actually making drug for compassionate use from our labs and pilot plants which was unheard of), and since I'm still consulting for Merck, I've had the chance to ask a few clinician friends what they think about comparing the RCT vs. observational studies on HCQ and they actually laughed and then said, as I expected, that the RCTs would hold far more weight.  I would bet @wxmd529would agree.  

 

https://www.33andrain.com/topic/1940-covid-19-pandemic-6m-cases-400k-deaths-confirmed/?do=findComment&comment=204539

 

 

All I was trying to highlight is that it's not going away. I'm not commenting on the veracity of the story or study. It keeps coming back.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/3/2020 at 12:10 PM, WxInTheHeights said:

Today's report:

 

image.png.d3731b73fb16f945ab165a02421318a2.png

1719777394_Screenshot2020-07-03at12_07_47PM.png.46a7d54c53f55536a05b14e1abba4550.png

Overall positive rates 9.6% NYS, 11.6% NYC, 8.0% xNYC.

 

The increase in positive rates, albeit still subtle (1.2 to 1.3), is definitely concerning. Less tests and more positives and that's been a trend now. But hospitalizations still remain pretty low and ICUs down to their lowest numbers since tracking began.

As New York tries to declare independence from the Covid tyrant:

image.png.f5d49c1fe67ef161712d47a1e2fd8489.png

image.png.9ab2b8ebea16b92a7f90a1a554f5572e.png

Overall numbers: NYS 9.5%, NYC 11.5%, xNYC 7.9%.

 

New all-time low for hospitalizations in the state and city alike. Rough ICU number for NYC, was hoping they could reach under 100 there today. But still a pretty good report today with the positive percentage coming back down - especially nice in the Mohawk Valley after days of well over 2%.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/3/2020 at 8:41 PM, NJwxguy78 said:


After much debate, and discussing the accuracy, Seven tests. Four negative, three positive. 
 

 

as my doctor said before testing, the tests are garbage. It was a pointless exercise.

 

I wasn't going to bring it up either in a public forum but I have gone for 3 - each specifically on a different certified platform and on the 'approved' list. First: Inconclusive, Second: Neg, Third: Pos. I wish I was making that up, They are trash. 

 

Am going for monthly physicals amid a program -  good news is improvement in May, much improvement in June's, that's likely the 6 month mark. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, WxInTheHeights said:

As New York tries to declare independence from the Covid tyrant:

image.png.f5d49c1fe67ef161712d47a1e2fd8489.png

image.png.9ab2b8ebea16b92a7f90a1a554f5572e.png

Overall numbers: NYS 9.5%, NYC 11.5%, xNYC 7.9%.

 

New all-time low for hospitalizations in the state and city alike. Rough ICU number for NYC, was hoping they could reach under 100 there today. But still a pretty good report today with the positive percentage coming back down - especially nice in the Mohawk Valley after days of well over 2%.

 

And today:

 

image.png.4ca2bb7d600cde8937fc5eeecf2d188b.png

image.png.5523b0caba13f8676f7936a9cb353106.png

Overall positivity: NYS 9.4%, NYC 11.3%, xNYC 7.8%.

 

Today brings a tie for NYS' all-time low daily positive percentage since tracking began, and a fresh all-time low for NYC. The city also moving close again toward getting under 100 Covid ICU patients. Pretty much good news across the board for the state today, a couple exceptions in CNY/WNY.

 

This week: NYC is officially cleared, sans indoor dining, for Phase 3 tomorrow. M-H/LI are scheduled for Phase 4 Tuesday and Wednesday, respectively. Friday will mark two weeks since the first five regions (CNY, FLs, MV, NC, ST) went to Phase 4. Recall that some aspects of reopening, such as gyms and movie theatres, were held back by Cuomo a couple weeks ago even with the move to Phase 4. Will there be a "Phase 5"? Watch this space, I suppose...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, fireguy286 said:

 

I wasn't going to bring it up either in a public forum but I have gone for 3 - each specifically on a different certified platform and on the 'approved' list. First: Inconclusive, Second: Neg, Third: Pos. I wish I was making that up, They are trash. 

 

Am going for monthly physicals amid a program -  good news is improvement in May, much improvement in June's, that's likely the 6 month mark. 


absolutely trash.

 

glad to hear improvement. That’s all that matters. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/18/2020 at 10:12 PM, ru848789 said:

 

The Mayo Clinic folks updated their paper on convalescent plasma; the one above had results from 5000 patients, while the update has results from 20,000 patients (across a large network of hospitals giving plasma under the FDA's "expanded access program).  The primary objective of this study has been to assess patient safety and CP continues to be very safe.  

Of course, everyone's waiting for results on efficacy, but that's still not available, as this is not a randomized, controlled study (those are ongoing), but we received more "hints of efficacy," as per the excerpt below from the WaPo article (the paper is the 2nd link).  

 

Also, I actually communicated with one of the lead authors, asking when we might have efficacy data and also asking if they can do something similar to what was done with the Mt. Sinai study that retrospectively looked at "matched controls" i.e., very similar patients that weren't treated with CP (and found significant mortality reduction in severely ill, non-intubated patients).  He said that's ongoing, but gave no date for when we'd have data.  It's a little frustrating, but I'd rather get definitive data, later, than misleading data now. I would have to at least hope, though, with all the positive anecdotal information, that there's at least some efficacy or else we wouldn't have treated 20,000 patients.  

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/06/18/blood-plasma-people-who-recovered-is-safe-covid-19-treatment-study-says/#comments-wrapper

 

The results are encouraging, showing severe adverse events were rare, in less than 1 percent of patients. But they also highlight the difficulty of conducting conclusive studies in the midst of a global pandemic — and add to a body of inconclusive and sometimes conflicting evidence about the approach.  “The actionable message here is that this is safe, inexpensive, and the mortality rates in sick patients are quite low,” said Michael Joyner, an anesthesiologist at the Mayo Clinic who led the study.

 

https://els-jbs-prod-cdn.jbs.elsevierhealth.com/pb/assets/raw/Health Advance/journals/jmcp/jmcp_ft95_6_8.pdf?linkId=91181747

 

 

More good news on convalescent plasma from Dr. Joyner, lead of the Mayo Clinic team overseeing the expanded CP use program, which has now treated 30,000 people with the antibody-containing plasma from recovered COVID patients. Looking at just the top 6 studies using randomized/controlled trials (RCTs; the first two) and "matched controls" (not randomized, but matched as closely as possible at the outset), we see 23 of 192 (12%) patients treated with CP dying, whereas for the untreated patients, 82 of 238 (26%) died - that's slightly over a 50% reduction in mortality, overall.

A similar ratio of deaths is was seen for just the two randomized, controlled trials also (17% vs 33%). We still don't have large scale RCTs yet, but this is very promising data, especially since it's now well established that the CP approach is very safe. With what looks to be about 10,000 or more being treated per month, that's enough to put a dent in reported death rates in areas where it's being used heavily (would be nice to have more data on that). 

 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been saying for a long time that transmission from inanimate surfaces is at most a very minor route (compared to transmission from person to person, via sneezes, coughs and even breath and touching) and this "academic comment" was just published by an RU professor of Microbiology, entitled, "Exaggerated risk of transmission of COVID-19 by fomites (surfaces)." Mask wearing when distancing isn't possible is far, far more important than disinfecting surfaces. Here's his summary...

"In my opinion, the chance of transmission through inanimate surfaces is very small, and only in instances where an infected person coughs or sneezes on the surface, and someone else touches that surface soon after the cough or sneeze (within 1–2 h). I do not disagree with erring on the side of caution, but this can go to extremes not justified by the data. Although periodically disinfecting surfaces and use of gloves are reasonable precautions especially in hospitals, I believe that fomites that have not been in contact with an infected carrier for many hours do not pose a measurable risk of transmission in non-hospital settings. A more balanced perspective is needed to curb excesses that become counterproductive."

https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S1473-3099(20)30561-2

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, fireguy286 said:

 

I wasn't going to bring it up either in a public forum but I have gone for 3 - each specifically on a different certified platform and on the 'approved' list. First: Inconclusive, Second: Neg, Third: Pos. I wish I was making that up, They are trash. 

 

Am going for monthly physicals amid a program -  good news is improvement in May, much improvement in June's, that's likely the 6 month mark. 


I should have added ... thanks for sharing here. I belong to many different groups and forums, and it’s so disheartening to share every last detail with people hoping to help them in some way, and then be met with skepticism about your own illness. It gets tiring really fast - and that energy is better used recovering. 
 

 Search for the “survivors” fb group and check out others. There are many scientists that would love to speak with you.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/2/2020 at 4:47 AM, ru848789 said:

 

Estimated death rates; a comparison of AZ and NJ:
Yesterday I mentioned that there's no doubt there are a higher percentage of milder cases and a higher percentage of younger people being infected currently, so that even though case rates per capita may end up being similar to rates in the NE US (with more testing now finding more cases probably cancelled out by some distancing/masking and reduction in public activities; those didn't occur in NY/NJ until the outbreak was already through the roof, since there was little to no testing going on), I'd expect hospitalization and death rates per capita to be less than in the NE US.  In addition, we now have better medical procedures and treatments, so I would think death rates per capita would be further decreased vs. the NE US, to maybe 1/2-2/3 of what we saw for a given cases per capita. This is a guesstimate. Let's compare AZ and NJ.
 
For example, AZ is about to reach the cases per 1MM that NJ was at at its peak, with about 3200 cases/day vs. NJ's peak off about 3600 cases/day, but AZ has 88% of the population of NJ (7.3MM vs. 8.9MM), so we're close on that; however, if they keep climbing well past NJ's peak cases per capita, I'd have to change the estimates below. So if we were about the same in cases per capita, I'd expect AZ to be at 1/2-2/3 our death rate per capita.
 
NJ's death rate peak was about 300/day, which would be about 260/day for AZ at the same per capita death rate, so at 1/2-2/3 NJ's per capita rate that would be maybe 130-170/day and AZ just hit 88 deaths yesterday, although that's a single data point and the 7-day average is near 40. My guess is they'll get to 130/day and maybe even over 170/day, but I wouldn't expect them to reach NJ's equivalent rate of 260/day, but even 130-170 per day would be horrible. We'll see.
 
Hospitalization rate reporting has been sketchy for AZ, but would be helpful if accurate; I've seen reports of 1000 hospitalizations in a day in AZ, which sounds way high vs. NJ's peak of 400-500 new hospitalizations per day, so not believing that number for now, since I've also seen reports of cumulative hospitalizations increasing by ~100 per day, which might mean 200 new hospitalizations per day (since some leave). If hospitalization rates per capita were similar, then I'd up the death rate estimates to closer to 3/4 of what NJ saw, since the main potential difference would then only be treatments/procedures not severity of patients, since presumably patients entering hospitals in NJ and AZ would have been fairly similarly ill.
 
 
uwBs4Gg.png
 
8F9IZ40.png
 
3NGC9ws.png
 
bH2G97Q.png

 

Comparing cases/hospitalizations and deaths in FL vs. NJ:

In the post above, I guessed that the states now seeing peaks might have 1/2-2/3 the per capital death rates as NJ (and NY), due to more younger people being infected, infections being caught earlier with testing and improved medical procedures and treatments. Let's see what that might mean digging further into the data. In the first link it shows the median age of Florida's cases has dropped from around 60 to the mid/upper 30s, which is a huge difference and they show the % of cases for each age group to date, but to do any estimating of what the death rates might be would require the age distribution from March-May vs. June, which I haven't seen broken down anywhere. Could probably get it by difference if we had the breakdowns through May, but I'm not that motivated to figure it out yet.

 

https://tallahasseereports.com/2020/07/02/two-charts-show-positive-trends-for-florida-in-coronavirus-battle/

 

So let's look at relative hospitalization rates vs. cases, in FL vs. NJ. At its peak NJ had about 3600 new cases per day and the peak hospitalization rate ended up being about 400 new ones per day for a ratio of 0.11X. Florida in April had a ratio of roughly 1000 cases/day over a long steady "peak" vs. about 170 new hospitalizations per day for a ratio of about 0.17X, so FL back then had a ~50% higher hospitalization to case rate than NJ. Right now, though, we're seeing a FL peak which should be at least 8000 cases/day (similar to NJ's, per capita as FL has 21.5MM people and NJ has 8.9MM) and even if they "only" had NJ's 0.11X ratio one would expect 880 hospitalizations per day vs. the ~250/day we're hitting now (0.03X), although hospitalizations surely haven't peaked while cases could be peaking now. Even if hospitalizations doubled from now to a peak of ~500/day, that would still be a ratio of 0.06X, which is only have half of NJ's at the peak. Maybe it'll be lower or higher - no idea, but let's go with 500 for now.

 

https://www.nj.gov/health/cd/documents/topics/NCOV/COVID_Confirmed_Case_Summary.pdf

 

If FL's peak ended up being only half the hospitalizations of NJ's (vs. cases) and death rates per hospitalization were a constant, then FL would likely have half the death rate of NJ's, per capita, but if we factor in improved medical procedures and treatments now vs. 2 months ago, that could cut another 30%(?), leaving FL's peak death rate at only 1/3 of NJ's peak, per capita. My "guesstimate" from 4 days ago (linked below) was that death rates per capita for the newly peaking states (FL/TX/CA/GA/AZ etc.) would be 1/2-2/3 of those in NY/NJ. FL having only 1/3 of NJ's per capita death rate would be even lower than my 1/2-2/3 guesstimate obviously (which would be fantastic as many of us have elderly relatives in FL), but that depends on FL maintaining the huge case age drop they've seen.

 

https://www.ohttps://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10219496738523141&id=1654125943

rlandosentinel.com/cor...0200704-e5lqdwvuhrcb5f2ynyplzprtrq-story.html

 

A lot depends on FL government and citizens, themselves, keeping the younger, infected people away from the older people, given that FL is the 2nd oldest state in the US (slightly behind Maine, surprisingly), especially those in nursing homes and socially active retirement communities. That might be easier in FL vs. NJ, since many more older people in FL only have contact with other older people (or medical professionals/staff), whereas the elderly in NJ are more likely to be visited by nearby family - this is a bit of a guess, though. Also, in NY/NJ, there was simply no real warning of the exponentially growing outbreak, given the lack of testing until about mid/late March, so keeping the old protected from their own families and medical professionals/staff was much harder. The FL/NJ graphics on cases, hospitalizations, and deaths per day are below.

 

https://www.prb.org/which-us-states-are-the-oldest/

 

FYI, FL has 21.5MM people and NJ has 8.9MM (2.4X), so given NJ's long death peak of ~300/day, the equivalent rate would be ~720/day in FL and 1/3 of that would be ~240/day (vs. ~45/day now). Well, IMO, we should see the death rate rise substantially by the end of this coming week and we'll know where we end up in several weeks. Let's hope the rates stay lower than expected. TX/AZ/CA/GA et al have also seen a lot more younger people infected than before, but it's really hard to find apples to apples data on ages now vs. April and consistent case and hospitalization data (TX reports total currently hospitalized, while FL reports cumulative ever hospitalized and new hospitalized per day, for example) So for FL and these other states, take these "guesstimates" with a large grain of salt given the inconsistent data at times.

 

DilXXHI.png

 

FUU8kBn.png

 

w2CBfWY.png

 

1AEIQqR.png

 

JspRBcz.png

 

sjDiYJl.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/coronavirus-airborne-spread-world-health-organization/2020/07/05/9de19c38-bed8-11ea-b4f6-cb39cd8940fb_story.html

 

More than 200 scientists from over 30 countries are urging the World Health Organization to take more seriously the possibility of the airborne spread of the novel coronavirus as case numbers rise around the world and surge in the United States.
 

In a forthcoming paper titled "It is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of Covid-19," 239 signatories attempt to raise awareness about what they say is growing evidence that the virus can spread indoors through aerosols that linger in the air and can be infectious even in smaller quantities than previously thought.
 

Until recently, most public health guidelines have focused on social distancing measures, regular hand-washing and precautions to avoid droplets. But the signatories to the paper say the potential of the virus to spread via airborne transmission has not been fully appreciated even by public health institutions such as the WHO.
 

The paper, which was shared with The Washington Post ahead of publication this week in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, comes as the WHO faces criticism over its coronavirus response, calls for reform and a U.S. threat to cut funding and withdraw completely.
 

The fact that scientists resorted to a paper to pressure the WHO is unusual, analysts said, and is likely to renew questions about the WHO's messaging.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...