A coworker sent this out. I found it interesting.
https://business.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/dc74772707d94db9a7d24d30ffdcf36c
Its a break down of each county.
A coworker sent this out. I found it interesting.
https://business.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/dc74772707d94db9a7d24d30ffdcf36c
Its a break down of each county.
Thanks.
Either the data is wrong or the news is stretching the truth. Charleston County shows 0 confirmed cases but the news is talking about there being 40+. Berkeley is supposed to have a bunch but the data only shows 14.
And this is what is pissing me off about the entire situation. There is so much conflicting information that it's impossible to know what the truth is.
Edit: Two days ago Charleston County had 117 cases.
Toyman01 said:Either the data is wrong or the news is stretching the truth. Charleston County shows 0 confirmed cases but the news is talking about there being 40+. Berkeley is supposed to have a bunch but the data only shows 14.
And this is what is pissing me off about the entire situation. There is so much conflicting information that it's impossible to know what the truth is.
Edit: Two days ago Charleston County had 117 cases.
This.
According to that website, we have zero confirmed cases. Local news puts the number around 40. Pretty big difference.
How old is the data?
It says "updated each day". I would read that as "up to 24 hours old".
It's not surprising there's some difference in numbers. First, you can't really trust anything in the news outlets because they're all running around with their hair on fire and they're only marginally more reliable than what your aunt posted to Facebook. I've been paying attention to our local county health department and the John Hopkins site, and they've been in 100% agreement since the latter started showing cases at the county level. Those numbers also agree with this particular dashboard.
I find it fascinating from a mathematical standpoint, but that's because it hasn't hit our area hard yet. We've finally crawled into double digits, and half of them are cases tied to "travel" according to the health department.
March 1st, the US had 98 reported cases. March 31st, it's at 165,000 with 3170 deaths. It's astounding.
Another statistic I would like to see. Of the total number of cases, how many of them required hospitalization, ICU treatment, and a ventilator.
We're also hypersensitive to this new virus. It has a mortality rate of nearly 25 times the flu, but this season there have been 15 times the number of flu deaths as there have been COVID deaths.... so far.
50,000 flu deaths from a 0.02% mortality rate seems to be an "oh well" statistic because we've become desensitized to those numbers, but 4.9% mortality from 3200 deaths from a virus we (both our bodies and our health providers) don't really know how to fix is a much hotter button.
Sources; washington post, CDC, Business Insider
In reply to Curtis73 :
Be cautious with that line of thinking. Just because the raw numbers aren't horrific yet doesn't mean they won't be. My prediction is that we'll see between 500k and a million dead in the US by the time we're through this. The next couple of months will be rough.
In reply to KyAllroad (Jeremy) :
Until everywhere starts sorting out covid specific deaths versus "they were old or extremely sick to begin with but we're blaming covid anyway" I'm paying no attention to the numbers.
The same reason I'm completely ignoring the number of cases that are ballooning "out of control" because were we're finally starting to get tests out and into the hands of providers. No E36 M3, the number of cases is skyrocketing along with the number of tests being done? Imagine that.
It's not just the number of tests, this is actually a real thing that's spreading. You're just not used to being able to track the spread of a virus with no herd immunity. This is a classic exponential curve and it's the same shape in countries that have been able to test since the start. It would be interesting to see this same sort of tracking with influenza every year.
As noted, I am sure there is, and will be, a lot of conflation going on with the numbers.
Of note, and average of 2.8 million people die each year in the US. The vast majority of course are older.
One statement I've seen is that the COVID-19 mortality rate across age groups mirrors the overall mortality rate across age groups. Which makes perfect sense.
Keith Tanner said:It would be interesting to see this same sort of tracking with influenza every year.
KyAllroad (Jeremy) said:In reply to Curtis73 :
Be cautious with that line of thinking. Just because the raw numbers aren't horrific yet doesn't mean they won't be. My prediction is that we'll see between 500k and a million dead in the US by the time we're through this. The next couple of months will be rough.
I am more optimistic than that, only because we are only testing symptomatic people. The tests are so scarce that they have to be used very sparingly. For all we know, we could already have 90% of the population infected.
Need more testing.
KyAllroad (Jeremy) said:In reply to Curtis73 :
Be cautious with that line of thinking. Just because the raw numbers aren't horrific yet doesn't mean they won't be. My prediction is that we'll see between 500k and a million dead in the US by the time we're through this. The next couple of months will be rough.
Agreed, which is why I specifically said "...so far"
My county hasn't updated the official numbers in three days, and that day the numbers doubled. I smell a rat.
I found this, but did not fact-check. It's at least from a relatively reputable agency and cites the CDC as its source. Take note of the age brackets as they are different between the two reportings.
Edit for clarity. This comes from a pharmacist, not me, but here is how I understand the statistical side of the reporting:
Tracking the metric of "it was COVID that killed them" versus "they died of a stroke while having COVID" is not something most research takes into consideration in this type of infection. In nearly every age range, what kills you is not always the virus itself, it is the surrounding symptoms; fever, liver failure, heart attack/stroke, etc. It's just that the older age brackets have less natural ability to deal with those things.
They're going racing in an all-original 1941 Plymouth. Their chances of blowing a radiator hose are a lot higher than a 1995 car. Having said that, the reason they look at the numbers this way is this: Beyond a reasonable doubt, this patient would not have had a fatal [insert incident] had he/she not had COVID-19. In this way, it doesn't matter if they died of COVID-19, or if they died because the existence of their infection caused liver failure. I'm pretty sure, though, that if you have COVID and get hit by a bus, they don't count it as a COVID death.
Keith Tanner said:One statement I've seen is that the COVID-19 mortality rate across age groups mirrors the overall mortality rate across age groups. Which makes perfect sense.
Clarification when I re-read it. The relative COVID-19 mortality rates mirror the overall mortality rates amongst age groups. I wasn't trying to imply it was the same, just that the shape of the curve is the same.
Indiana has been pretty good about sharing data that's updated at least daily (sometimes more frequently), and even breaking some of it down demographically. I just figured other places were doing something similar, but it sounds like that might not be true, so if it's helpful I'll share what I see:
This is obviously just one State out of 50, and it's still early but as far as the demographic distribution goes, I wouldn't expect massive differences in other locations.
Knurled. said:KyAllroad (Jeremy) said:In reply to Curtis73 :
Be cautious with that line of thinking. Just because the raw numbers aren't horrific yet doesn't mean they won't be. My prediction is that we'll see between 500k and a million dead in the US by the time we're through this. The next couple of months will be rough.
I am more optimistic than that, only because we are only testing symptomatic people. The tests are so scarce that they have to be used very sparingly. For all we know, we could already have 90% of the population infected.
Need more testing.
Yup. It seems to be only heavily symptomatic people in some places. The director of the CDC says 1 in 4 may asymptomatic. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/03/31/824155179/cdc-director-on-models-for-the-months-to-come-this-virus-is-going-to-be-with-us
Keith Tanner said:It says "updated each day". I would read that as "up to 24 hours old".
That seems plausible. Here's another map (same site) that claims it is updated
https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?useExisting=1&layers=628578697fb24d8ea4c32fa0c5ae1843
There are some details to note about how to how the data is presented
https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=628578697fb24d8ea4c32fa0c5ae1843
IMPORTANT NOTICE:
1. Fields for Active Cases and Recovered Cases are set to 0 in all locations. John Hopkins has not found a reliable source for this information at the county level but will continue to look and carry the fields.
2. Fields for Incident Rate and People Tested are placeholders for when this becomes available at the county level.
3. In some instances, cases have not been assigned a location at the county scale. those are still assigned a state but are listed as unassigned and given a Lat Long of 0,0.
Toyman01 said:Another statistic I would like to see. Of the total number of cases, how many of them required hospitalization, ICU treatment, and a ventilator.
In today's briefing, the head of the Indiana department of health said that in Indiana, 15% of tests statewide are coming back positive. Expectations are that 20% of those who test positive will become "seriously ill" and need hospitalization. Five percent of those hospitalized are expected to need ICU treatment.
So, 20% of those who test positive end up hospitalized, with 5% of that 20% needing an ICU bed. That works out to (check my math here) 1% of those testing positive needing ICU care. BUT, I'm not sure if that jives with the hockey stick chart that they provided though, which shows 2.2% mortality rate thus far in my state. I'm not sure how 1% of positive tests end up in the ICU while 2.2% of positive tests end up dead. That would mean that pretty much everybody that goes into ICU for this has died, and more than that number have died outside of ICU. Perhaps they meant that 5% of total cases need ICU treatment rather than 5% of the 20% that are hospitalized. But that's just a guess.
Again, that's just based on early numbers from a single state, but it might give an idea of who's ending up in hospitals and how much need there currently is for ICU beds.
You'll need to log in to post.
