Maps, science, data & statistics tracking of COVID-19

[R-T-B]

Beats the hell out of not being able to eat or drink at all because you're on a vent

Ah, 2021, what high standards you set...

 

[ThrashZone]

It's the truth. Why are you being so argumentative here? That was as generalized as you can make something.

Hi,
I'm really not I've been asked to come up with better testing methods for travelers instead of the cdc or pharma "you know the experts" doing it instead
So yeah that was a tad shocking and all the excuses is really over the top too.

 

[R-T-B]

Hi,
I'm really not I've been asked to come up with better testing methods for travelers instead of the cdc or pharma "you know the experts" doing it instead
So yeah that was a tad shocking and all the excuses is really over the top too.

I mean you were complaining about their methods like you had a better idea, so it wasn't a huge leap of logic.

 

[Xzibit]

This is the CT values of those from BC MA, MADPH which lead to CDC saying fully vaccinated can be just as transmissible

 

[the54thvoid]

This is the CT values of those from BC MA, MADPH which lead to CDC saying fully vaccinated can be just as transmissible
View attachment 210581

Took a while to find the source item. But I got the gist via this:

Barnstable Covid-19 Outbreak: Fully Vaccinated Can Spread Coronavirus Delta Variant, Says CDC

74% of the SARS-CoV2 infections were in fully vaccinated persons. This doesn't mean that the Covid-19 don't offer protection but it means that Covid-19 vaccines alone may not be enough right now.

www.forbes.com

Notably, I'll quote this excerpt from the Forbes article:

Now before you say, “see this shows that the Covid-19 vaccine doesn’t help,” take your right hand, use this hand reach to for a pie (any pie will do), grab the pie, and then push the pie firmly into your face. Seeing more fully vaccinated people get infected does not mean that fully vaccinated people are more likely to get infected. That would be like going into a Comic-Con, throwing baklava at everyone and then saying that in general people who are dressed like Superman or Supergirl are more likely to be hit with baklava. Keep in mind that 69% of eligible Massachusetts residents had been fully vaccinated. Chances are you would have more fully vaccinated people in Barnstable County than unvaccinated people. Therefore, it’s not surprising that more of those infected were fully vaccinated.

There's this stat (in red):

And this statement from former Baltimore Commisioner for Health:

Again - people rarely die from Covid after having the vaccinations. And it is harder to catch it. (Certain samples are tainted by very high numbers of vaccinated subjects). If a sample of people returns the folllowing: 100 were infected, 50 were vaxxed, 50 were not - that looks pretty bad. But when you learn that group came from a sample of 500, where 400 were vaxxed and 100 were not, you see a very different statictic. Out of 400 vaxxed, 50 were infected (12.5%). Out of 100 unvaxxed, 50 were infected (50%).

The proportion of people vaccinated in a sample size will skew the results. It's important to understand the statictics underneath any report. And, as the Forbes article says, the more people in a sample size are vaccinated, the higher the ratio of 'positive' results will occur.

 

[Xzibit]

There's this stat (in red):

Well of course. Its older people who have to worry about succumbing to it

Among the 469 cases in Massachusetts residents, 346 (74%) occurred in persons who were fully vaccinated; of these, 301 (87%) were male, with a median age of 42 years. Vaccine products received by persons experiencing breakthrough infections were Pfizer-BioNTech (159; 46%), Moderna (131; 38%), and Janssen (56; 16%); among fully vaccinated persons in the Massachusetts general population, 56% had received Pfizer-BioNTech, 38% had received Moderna, and 7% had received Janssen vaccine products.

 

[HTC]

Well of course. Its older people who have to worry about succumbing to it


View attachment 210596

Are there statistics like these but for hospitalized, with / without ICU?

 

[Xzibit]

Are there statistics like these but for hospitalized, with / without ICU?

Those are CDC numbers but I don't see them splitting them up by Hospitalization / ICU. You have to look locally at State or County reporting

 

[HTC]

Those are CDC numbers but I don't see them splitting them up by Hospitalization / ICU. You have to look locally at State or County reporting

I C.

I just think it would be very useful to look @ this from a hospitalization perspective, instead of from a fatalities perspective. After all, it's the hospitalizations that drive the need for lockdowns in the 1st place.

 

[Space Lynx]

I C.

I just think it would be very useful to look @ this from a hospitalization perspective, instead of from a fatalities perspective. After all, it's the hospitalizations that drive the need for lockdowns in the 1st place.

yeah I agree with this. hospitalization and deaths = vaccinated = no risk basically statistically speaking, meaning if your society is vaccinated economy won't have to shut down again due to hospitals being overwhelmed

 

[Xzibit]

I C.

I just think it would be very useful to look @ this from a hospitalization perspective, instead of from a fatalities perspective. After all, it's the hospitalizations that drive the need for lockdowns in the 1st place.

They way they count Hospitalizations / ICU or Death can include unrelated Covid cause. Currently there hasn't been an effort to distinguish.

 

[Space Lynx]

They way they count Hospitalizations / ICU or Death can include unrelated Covid cause. Currently there hasn't been an effort to distinguish.

I mean if someone dies of diabetic reasons, but they also had covid at the same time, I think it's safe to say covid exacerbated the issues with the diabetes and lead to the death. So I really don't buy your argument. Sure, a small percentage will be miscounted, but I think the vast majority is accurate. You are looking at black and white and not adding in any 'nuance'.

 

[Xzibit]

I mean if someone dies of diabetic reasons, but they also had covid at the same time, I think it's safe to say covid exacerbated the issues with the diabetes and lead to the death. So I really don't buy your argument. Sure, a small percentage will be miscounted, but I think the vast majority is accurate. You are looking at black and white and not adding in any 'nuance'.

I'm not selling you something so you don't have to buy it.

*1,598 (26%) of 6,239 hospitalizations reported as asymptomatic or not related to COVID-19.
†309 (24%) of 1,263 fatal cases reported as asymptomatic or not related to COVID-19.

Same with State and county and local reporting. You have to look see how they report it.

 

[R-T-B]

Currently there hasn't been an effort to distinguish.

And honestly I don't see why there should be.

 

[Bones]

I mean if someone dies of diabetic reasons, but they also had covid at the same time, I think it's safe to say covid exacerbated the issues with the diabetes and lead to the death. So I really don't buy your argument. Sure, a small percentage will be miscounted, but I think the vast majority is accurate. You are looking at black and white and not adding in any 'nuance'.

I will say this:
I've heard it directly from a few in the healthcare industry (Hospitals and so on) alot of the statistics (Deaths due to Covid) aren't being reported properly.

An example is when a person dies in the manner you describe, it's a death and was probrably due to the issues you named in this case BUT was not directly due to it, all it did was to exacerbate an already existing issue making it worse, therefore it would have been death due to complications from diabetes with Covid as a contributing factor - Not the actual cause of death.
In that case the hospital, because the patient had Covid just reported it as a Covid death and that got added to the statistics.

Then there is also the ones that a cause of death wasn't readily apparent such as a gunshot wound to the head, auto accident with serious injuries, an obvious massive heart attack and so on. Those instead were simply reported as "Covid" caused deaths, whether they tested positive for it or not and this is why.

I do know at one time hospitals were getting around $3,000 per patient death that was caused by Covid and a hospital is just like any other business.
It's there to take care of us BUT also to make money at the same time.
They were given this to help them deal with the patients and to help deal with the pandemic overall, as in support for the costs of just doing it.

So to get the $$, they would determine the cause of death if not readily apparent to Covid, get paid - Done.
And it's not like the family will dig up the corpse later and examine it themselves, they will just accept it because we have a "Pandemic" and move on.

I heard that directly from a few that worked in a hospital in various departments and I do consider the sources to be "Good" as in I trust those I heard it from.
You can try to pass it off as "This sort of thing will happen" because it obviously does but the extent said to me was well beyond just a few isolated cases in more than one place too.

 

[Space Lynx]

I will say this:
I've heard it directly from a few in the healthcare industry (Hospitals and so on) alot of the statistics (Deaths due to Covid) aren't being reported properly.

An example is when a person dies in the manner you describe, it's a death and was probrably due to the issues you named in this case BUT was not directly due to it, all it did was to exacerbate an already existing issue making it worse, therefore it would have been death due to complications from diabetes with Covid as a contributing factor - Not the actual cause of death.
In that case the hospital, because the patient had Covid just reported it as a Covid death and that got added to the statistics.

what are you even talking about, all the new medicines for diabetes and stuff even for type 2 the new injections they have etc, diabetes rarely even leads to death anything unless very old age --- in fact scientists are very confused why people with diabetes are outliving their peer groups, that is why they are studying the drug metformin in massive studies right now, this drug called metformin vast vast majority of type 2 diabetes people take is most likely causing them to live longer, its made from a flower and apparently it has anti aging properties.

so yes... covid is what killed people in those specific situations or the vast majority of them at least. most people with type 2 live normally or get a amputation and end up taking it more seriously after that... etc.

your logic makes no sense in this particular quote imo. I agree with you on the other stuff, but not the diabetes one.

 

[Bones]

1: what are you even talking about, all the new medicines for diabetes and stuff even for type 2 the new injections they have etc, diabetes rarely even leads to death anything unless very old age --- in fact scientists are very confused why people with diabetes are outliving their peer groups, that is why they are studying the drug metformin in massive studies right now, this drug called metformin vast vast majority of type 2 diabetes people take is most likely causing them to live longer, its made from a flower and apparently it has anti aging properties.

2: so yes... covid is what killed people in those specific situations or the vast majority of them at least. most people with type 2 live normally or get a amputation and end up taking it more seriously after that... etc.

3: your logic makes no sense in this particular quote imo. I agree with you on the other stuff, but not the diabetes one.

1: I must disagree, esp since it's been known about and around since it was discovered back in 1922:
Metformin - Wikipedia
I know it's possible even today for studies to be done but I seriously doubt on the scale you describe.

2: And again I disagree, you can have a disease acting as a contributor to an already bad/deadly disease without it being THE direct cause of death. In those cases Covid probrably did cause some directly but if the existing disease/disorder is bad enough already, it's like that last straw on the camel's back.
By that it's just enough to tip the scales and it's over making such a contributor, not the actual thing (Root cause) that killed them. Cause of death if stated correctly always declares the root cause and will name any contributing causes as just that.

It's like being shot and the bullet is still there.
The bullet itself made the wound and while the damage done by it alone may be survivable, then you can have a case of lead poisoning along with infection of the wound taking place because of it.
Although it may seem logical to say in the end the poisoning, either by the lead or infection caused the death, the bullet itself was the root cause with the rest contributing.

To put it simply; if not shot in the first place none of the rest would have happened.

The initial condition (The wound from the bullet) being bad yet survivable on it's own.
The others came along after and contributed further to the deterioration of the person health, all of it together leading to their eventual demise.

3: And I'll say it like I have before - Just because my "Logic" doesn't make sense to YOU doesn't mean it's wrong either.
I will say I can be wrong like anyone else because that would be wrong in itself, but at the same time your way of thinking isn't the same as mine. I'm not going to declare what you say as not making sense just because it doesn't to ME, it's all a matter of perception and that varies from person to person.
What you may see, I may not and vice-versa.

 

[the54thvoid]

UK stats use the figure of 'a death recorded within 28 days of a positive Covid test'. If you're not tested (me, for example), and die of Covid, it's not a Covid death. Autopsy might record it as such, but I think we use that as a secondary, informal measure.

As far as a contributory death, it's this simple: in many cases, a treatable and survivable illness becomes a death sentence with Covid. The virus (in a severe case) causes blood oxygen levels to plummet. That's treatable with oxygen (and intubation). But, if there was already another condition underlying, it's pretty much fatal.

I think folk pay too much attention to over-reporting, when you also have massive under-reporting. Its far too easy to dismiss Covid's prevalence and threat.

But, I don't think we should be monitoring cases anymore. I'd only test symptomatic 'cases' and follow the UK method.

 

[TheLostSwede]

14 cases, two deaths, seems to be about the average rate here now.

Taiwan confirms 12 new local COVID cases, two deaths | Taiwan News | Aug. 1, 2021 14:27

www.taiwannews.com.tw

Got my first jab yesterday, courtesy of AZ from Japan. Feeling sore as today...

 

[dragontamer5788]

I will say this:
I've heard it directly from a few in the healthcare industry (Hospitals and so on) alot of the statistics (Deaths due to Covid) aren't being reported properly.

An example is when a person dies in the manner you describe, it's a death and was probrably due to the issues you named in this case BUT was not directly due to it, all it did was to exacerbate an already existing issue making it worse, therefore it would have been death due to complications from diabetes with Covid as a contributing factor - Not the actual cause of death.
In that case the hospital, because the patient had Covid just reported it as a Covid death and that got added to the statistics.

And my roommate is literally one of the people who are collecting those death certificates and collating them into the national statistics. The emphasis is that the doctors are the ones ultimately responsible for determining if COVID19 is a primary cause of death or not.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/DEATH11-03final-ACC.pdf

Here is the CDC's example death certificate. Unfortunately, the 50 states all have 50 slightly different death certificates... but the part that matters for this discussion ("Cause of Death") is consistently reported. Lets take a look at it:

The fact of the matter is that COVID19 is almost never the IMMEDIATE CAUSE of death. The IMMEDIATE CAUSE is a heart attack, or lung failure. In fact, even "b" would be that famous cytokine storm if we're talking about lung failure.

Here's an example death certificate. Now think about it: we have a death caused by "Acute respiratory distress syndrome" (aka: lungs just stopped breathing and the patient died). A common condition such as Asthma almost certainly will be listed as a comorbidity. COVID19 itself will also be listed by a comorbidity. (No one "dies of COVID19" directly. That's just not how the disease works)

At the end of the day: the doctor is responsible for filling this form out. No one at the CDC changes this form when it gets there. If the doctor says that COVID19 is part of the "death chain" so to speak, then who is the CDC to argue with the doctor? Here's the thing: if the doctor fails to mention COVID19 on this form, then there's no way for the CDC to otherwise know if the death was related to COVID19 or not. This is the form that the CDC gets, and uses to count its statistics.

-------------

So yes. There's a bit of debate and inconsistency involved in the process. These forms aren't as standardized as you'd like. The USA's state-system means that each state is setting the standards, and each state is telling its doctors different standards and guidance. The CDC works to make a big "from the top" official guidance, but there's no enforcement mechanism available. Its ultimately comes down to the individual doctor to do the right thing and fill out the form correctly.

I think folk pay too much attention to over-reporting, when you also have massive under-reporting. Its far too easy to dismiss Covid's prevalence and threat.

The morbidity department is noticing an uptick in pneumonia-deaths without COVID19, suggesting that a number of doctors are reporting pneumonia but not COVID19. The general consensus is that COVID19 is grossly under-reported as a cause of death actually.

Excess Deaths Associated with COVID-19

Figures present excess deaths associated with COVID-19 at the national and state levels.

www.cdc.gov

--------

It does seem like the UK is also having this issue: where you guys are seeing a far higher number of pneumonia deaths last year than expected (when factoring in the official COVID19 counts). This suggests that a number of people are dying of lung failure that are NOT getting reported as COVID19 deaths. So I bet that its an undercount over in the UK as well. We probably will never really know the real number of people who died of COVID19. All of this shit is just estimations. We make the best estimate based off of the data collected.

 

[Xzibit]

It does seem like the UK is also having this issue: where you guys are seeing a far higher number of pneumonia deaths last year than expected (when factoring in the official COVID19 counts). This suggests that a number of people are dying of lung failure that are NOT getting reported as COVID19 deaths. So I bet that its an undercount over in the UK as well. We probably will never really know the real number of people who died of COVID19. All of this shit is just estimations. We make the best estimate based off of the data collected.

In the UK there is Guidance on Covid-19 Death Certificate

It is different then ours and Covid-19 is Acceptable Direct cause of death.

Covid-19 is an acceptable direct or underlying cause of death for the purposes of completing the Medical Certificate of Cause of Death

Test result or confirmation isn't required for certification

If you are aware that a virology test for Covid-19 has been carried out, state the result if known, for example ‘Covid-19 (positive test)’. However, certification should not be delayed to await the availability of test results.

They even provide an example

For example, if before death the patient had symptoms typical of COVID19 infection, but the test result has not been received, it would be satisfactory to give ‘COVID-19’ as the cause of death

-

In the US we also have guidance on Covid-19 Death Certificates from the CDC but like you pointed out they are slight differences due to our many state/local health departments

In cases where a definite diagnosis of COVID–19 cannot be made, but it is suspected or likely (e.g., the circumstances are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty), it is acceptable to report COVID–19 on a death certificate as “probable” or “presumed.” In these instances, certifiers should use their best clinical judgement in determining if a COVID–19 infection was likely. However, please note that testing for COVID–19 should be conducted whenever possible.

We also accept unconfirmed Covid-19 to the tally

Ideally, testing for COVID–19 should be conducted, but it is acceptable to report COVID–19 on a death certificate without this confirmation if the circumstances are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty.

 

[Space Lynx]

UK scientists believe it is 'almost certain' a coronavirus variant will emerge that beats current vaccines | CNN

British academics believe it is "almost certain" that a SARS-Cov-2 variant will emerge that "leads to current vaccine failure." SARS-CoV-2 is the virus that causes Covid-19.

www.cnn.com

UK Scientists are certain a strain of Covid will come that will beat the vaccines.

Lovely decade we have ahead of us lads!!! YEEEEHAAAA Welcome to the Time of Madness!

 

[LFaWolf]

UK scientists believe it is 'almost certain' a coronavirus variant will emerge that beats current vaccines | CNN

British academics believe it is "almost certain" that a SARS-Cov-2 variant will emerge that "leads to current vaccine failure." SARS-CoV-2 is the virus that causes Covid-19.

www.cnn.com

UK Scientists are certain a strain of Covid will come that will beat the vaccines.

Lovely decade we have ahead of us lads!!! YEEEEHAAAA Welcome to the Time of Madness!

Sure, but both Moderna and Pfizer have already been working on new vaccines, plus, the advantage of mRNA vaccines are that they can be quickly transformed by changing the sequence.

All if not lost. In fact, I think in the future, it will be just a regular (single) jab annually. Might be combined with the flu vaccine too.

 

[Space Lynx]

Sure, but both Moderna and Pfizer have already been working on new vaccines, plus, the advantage of mRNA vaccines are that they can be quickly transformed by changing the sequence.

All if not lost. In fact, I think in the future, it will be just a regular (single) jab annually. Might be combined with the flu vaccine too.

It's also possible the risk of Bell's Palsy, Myocardia, etc will increase in number in those new hypothetical shots too, we simply don't know yet.

I'd rather figure out a way to keep working remote but make it full time and just live closer to nature personally. I always found humans overrated even before Covid. Problem is making my part time online job into a full time one... that is my only problem right now, and its frustrating cause I see no way to make it happen lol

 

[HTC]

Sure, but both Moderna and Pfizer have already been working on new vaccines, plus, the advantage of mRNA vaccines are that they can be quickly transformed by changing the sequence.

All if not lost. In fact, I think in the future, it will be just a regular (single) jab annually. Might be combined with the flu vaccine too.

That's not the problem: the problem is having them available fast enough that we avoid yet another mutation that can beat the new vaccines, thus making the cycle repeat itself.

If we're lucky, a new mutation that beats the vaccines isn't as bad from a hospitalization perspective but, if we're not lucky ...

What if a new mutation drives to hospitals 10 times more people than Delta AND beats the vaccines? What then?

We MUST find ways to produce the vaccines A LOT FASTER so that we can vaccinate enough people to achieve herd immunity BEFORE that even has A CHANCE to happen.