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

[Xzibit]

One has to hope there is some kind of audit system for that, otherwise the Government is going to be paying $Billions for the farmer in Mississippi who collapses and dies in his field because of a heart attack with nothing linking to the virus.

There is so much money to be had. There is a 100 billion fund for COVID19 compensations. Hospitals are businesses they are going to want as much as they can get.

 

[Vayra86]

Reading back on the articles presented above, further up on one of the links say

"The suggestion that cloth masks can lead to increased infection compared to no mask is not substantiated The control arm had less than 1% of no mask use and therefore the statement is an assumption not a proof . "

Researchers world wide are disagreeing and rightfully so as there hasn't been the time needed to conduct thorough research. Currently researchers are working towards supporting their own opinions. Which is how most research is conducted. Until more evidence is available the only thing that can be given is advise which is currently based on opinion. For every for argument there is an against at the moment.

The USA has lost over 75,000 people, not because they did or didn't wear a mask but because they contracted the virus. (yes 74,500 of those died of something different but are currently being shown in the numbers for COVID19). Medical staff are not highly represented in the positive numbers and in the state i live in are wearing any mask they can find.

I don't even understand why you are so knicker twisted over it. In America "this isn't as bad as our flu season" and "we are doing pretty good considering our population" "it's a big fuss over nothing".

Until there is conclusive evidence one way or the other what does it matter if people choose to wear masks or not, if that is what helps them feel a little safer at this time. It is starting to sound like empty vessel stuff.

As I have said prior, why not wait till it is over and look at the governments the world is admiring at the moment and dissect what it was they did to protect their people and what their population did to protect themselves. Many of those countries are coming to the end of their concerns with minimal losses and without feeling an ounce of freedom lost I know, right.

That last part is not concluded yet, not even in the slightest. The real problems have not yet risen to the surface. I'm totally in agreement when you say 'people should wear what they want'. If that is a mask, power to you. If its not, similarly so. The thing is, we need to trust every person to take their responsibility for as far as they can or find feasible. Masks don't directly help that sense of trust. It is in fact, by definition a brand of you being a possible infection source. What we're getting now is half assed policy regarding masks, wear one here, don't need to wear one there, maybe its better if you did, maybe not. This is not going to promote the overall peace and quiet we've been enjoying up till now in social interaction. Its also a massive commercial money pit.

Still on about the god damn masks Sigh. Sorry.

And yes, you're absolutely right, policy is what it is and we can evaluate it later, as we should too. I'm just living in one of the rather unique countries where public feedback turns into policy rather smoothly the past few months. For better, and for worse. Our actions and voices matter, a whole lot, for the way the world will look tomorrow, and how we engage in social interaction going forward.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

The USA has lost over 75,000 people, not because they did or didn't wear a mask but because they contracted the virus.

That's an assumption because US is incentivizing claiming COVID-19 without a burden of proof for reimbursement reasons.

I'm totally in agreement when you say 'people should wear what they want'. If that is a mask, power to you. If its not, similarly so.

Me too. What I loath is governments ordering people to wear face coverings (effectiveness be damned) over threat of fine or imprisonment. The research doesn't support that at all.

 

[Vayra86]

That's an assumption because US is incentivizing claiming COVID-19 without a burden of proof for reimbursement reasons.


Me too. What I loath is governments ordering people to wear or over threat of fine or imprisonment. The research doesn't support that at all.

Coming from the same government that enacted a law to prohibit face covering attributes to be worn in public (Niqab, etc). In other words, if you wear a balaclava, you can get fined. But a mask, sure!

 

[Tatty_Two]

There is so much money to be had. There is a 100 billion fund for COVID19 compensations. Hospitals are businesses they are going to want as much as they can get.

Hopefully legally, you and all of us are going to need those tax payers $$$$ pretty soon. On the subject of masks, in the UK they will only be required for people using public transport where they cannot safely socially distance, it's just a tool to try and make the population who are scared to go back to work feel a little more secure...... nothing more.

 

[dragontamer5788]

Me too. What I loath is governments ordering people to wear or over threat of fine or imprisonment. The research doesn't support that at all.

Is the mask discussion point actually over, or am I the only one who is trying to hold myself back about this?

 

[Vayra86]

Is the mask discussion point actually over, or am I the only one who is trying to hold myself back about this?

You're right. I'm shutting up

 

[the54thvoid]

Is the mask discussion point actually over, or am I the only one who is trying to hold myself back about this?

Frankly, I give up. If I LQ everything, I'll get called bad names.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Is the mask discussion point actually over, or am I the only one who is trying to hold myself back about this?

Are you referring to this?

View attachment 154123

Let me fix it for you:

Cloth masks ~= no masks in terms of stopping COVID-19. The third article I quoted from literally said this:

It is important to note that some subjects in the control arm wore surgical masks, which could explain why cloth masks performed poorly compared to the control group. We also did an analysis of all mask wearers, and the higher infection rate in cloth mask group persisted. The cloth masks may have been worse in our study because they were not washed well enough – they may become damp and contaminated. The cloth masks used in our study were products manufactured locally, and fabrics can vary in quality.

Might as well wear a paper bag over your head; it's about as effective (probably more, because it's more like a plastic shield than a cloth mask):

If there was no shortage of surgical masks, the whole world would mimic the latter groups but not even front line workers on the left have enough surgical masks.

These countries on the right received a wakeup call from SARS that those on the left missed.


To answer your question: "is the mask discussion point actually over?" In the scientific/research community, yes; in governance, no. There's no health benefit to cloth masks; if they aren't cleaned well, they become a liability. People (especially healthcare workers) need surgical masks at minimum and even that only reduces their risk by 6%. The situation is desperate.

 

[dragontamer5788]

To answer your question: "is the mask discussion point actually over?"

A moderator has explicitly asked us to focus on COVID19 statistics instead of talking about masks. https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/maps-for-tracking-covid-19.264697/page-54#post-4259407

Pay attention to the thread.

-----------

If this continues, I'll say my piece again about masks. But I'll hold back a bit longer. Some of the people who were talking about masks a few pages ago seem like they don't really want to talk about it anymore. So I'd rather keep the peace and keep quiet a bit longer.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Missed the SARS statistics in that picture, eh? I forgive you. Remember what COVID-19 is: SARS-CoV-2.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." --George Santayana

 

[Vayra86]

Frankly, I give up. If I LQ everything, I'll get called bad names.

I do apologize, I might be the most frequent poster on it over the last few pages. No offense taken if its all gone tomorrow.

Its just a hot topic right now over here

 

[HTC]

Frankly, I give up. If I LQ everything, I'll get called bad names.

I apologize for my part in this.

 

[moproblems99]

Frankly, I give up. If I LQ everything, I'll get called bad names.

LQ the shit out of posts and move on. People will get over it.

Sick of this feelings bullshit. Facts don't care about feelings and viruses don't care about feeling. Wanna wear a mask? Good for you. Don't wanna wear a mask? Good for you. You have almost the same chance of getting the virus anyway. The fact remains no amount of testing is going to make this go away.

Hypothetical: I get tested today and it is negative, great. Oh shit, I pick it up tomorrow. When's my next test? Every couple days? Once a week? Next month? How long am I contagious? How accurate are these tests? I have heard from Doctor friends that there is a 30% false negative/positive rate. So, now 3/10 people may have it and tested negative.

This is not going away. Not tomorrow, not the day after that, not the week, or month. I appreciate people's fear and they have a right to it. We need to figure out a way to let those that want to move forward to be able to. Those that want to stay inside, great, do that. Unless the world wants to forgive everyone's debt, national and international as well, there is not enough money in the world to fund hiding from this virus.

It is an unfortunate truth and we need to start dealing with this reality.

Edit: Feel free to LQ this as I am not even going to try and slip some made up statistics to justify it.

 

[dragontamer5788]

Hypothetical: I get tested today and it is negative, great. Oh shit, I pick it up tomorrow. When's my next test? Every couple days? Once a week? Next month?

Whenever you come in contact with someone who tests positive, you get retested. This is called "contact tracing". By performing tests, we can track the disease with far better accuracy. The goal is to end "community transmission". Singapore and South Korea are successfully contact tracing right now, but the disease spread too far (and there weren't enough tests) in the USA for the US to effectively contact-trace.

How long am I contagious?

You are most contagious between days 5 and 15, which also happens to be asymptomatic in most situations.

How accurate are these tests? I have heard from Doctor friends that there is a 30% false negative/positive rate. So, now 3/10 people may have it and tested negative.

False positives and false negatives are called "Selectivity" and "Specificity". I always mix up which one was which, but... its not even that hard to look up this information if you know the proper terms.

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Test - Hardy Diagnostics

Collect and transport your environmental samples from the surface to the lab efficiently and easily with Envirotrans. Long handle for those hard to reach places, leak-proof and individually sterile unit, robust construction making these tubes impact and shatter resistant.

hardydiagnostics.com

Sensitivity at >/= 15 days after onset of symptoms

• IgM – 95.7%
• IgG – 99.0%

Specificity

• IgM – 99%
• IgG – 99%

https://www.diasorin.com/sites/default/files/allegati/liaisonr_sars-cov-2_s1s2_igg_brochure.pdf.pdf

There are many, many, different test kits. But selectivity and specificity is over 90% in the key 5 to 15 day period when people are most contagious.

Unless the world wants to forgive everyone's debt, national and international as well, there is not enough money in the world to fund hiding from this virus.

Then you misunderstand the point of the lockdowns. The point of the lockdown was to get our hospitals ready. Specifically, the ability to get tests in the USA. We all know it won't be over till the vaccine is mass produced (which takes 18 months and then maybe 6+ months after that to mass produce). We'll be dealing with this virus easily into 2022.

But look how much a difference one month has made. We actually have tests tracking people in this country now. If we actually had test kits in February (like South Korea did), we probably wouldn't have had to shut down and instead could have done contact-tracing from the start (Except maybe for NYC / Washington State, the start of the outbreaks).

 

[moproblems99]

Whenever you come in contact with someone who tests positive, you get retested. This is called "contact tracing". By performing tests, we can track the disease with far better accuracy. The goal is to end "community transmission". Singapore and South Korea are successfully contact tracing right now, but the disease spread too far (and there weren't enough tests) in the USA for the US to effectively contact-trace.

And what if that person is not known to have it? What if it takes them two weeks to figure it out? What if they don't figure it out?

 

[dragontamer5788]

And what if that person is not known to have it? What if it takes them two weeks to figure it out? What if they don't figure it out?

If COVID19 has an R0 of 3, then you can miss 33% of people and contact tracing will still work (even if we 100% remove the lockdown, start shaking hands, and start sharing cups at Church again).

If 100 infected becomes 300 infected over time (aka: R0 of 3), then you only have to contact-trace 201 people to make the disease drop down to 99 (aka: decay). This is one of the many reasons why it was important to figure out the R0 of COVID19.

Now COVID19 has an R0 of something between... 2 and 6. The higher the R0, the more important the contact tracing needs to be airtight. But even on the higher end (say 6), you can still miss 18% of people and things won't get worse. I'm not sure if there are better estimates of R0 yet, but we as a society have already become much better at understanding this disease.

----------

Even if we open up 100%, we probably don't have to deal with a R0 rate of infections anyway. The R (true-reproductive value) of this disease is going to be grossly lower, because people are still going to be social distancing (no more handshakes in the near future, and many people will continue teleworking). Even as churches reopen, things won't spread as quickly (maybe communion will be more sanitary, less sharing of cups, etc. etc). I don't know what the true R of COVID19 is in the USA, but it is almost certainly below 2 by now (even if we end the lockdown).

If R is down to 2 or less (because society is more defensive as we emerge from the lockdown), we contact tracing would still work even if it was only 50% effective.

 

[moproblems99]

If COVID19 has an R0 of 3, then you can miss 33% of people and contact tracing will still work (even if we 100% remove the lockdown, start shaking hands, and start sharing cups at Church again).

If 100 infected becomes 300 infected over time (aka: R0 of 3), then you only have to contact-trace 201 people to make the disease drop down to 99 (aka: decay). This is one of the many reasons why it was important to figure out the R0 of COVID19.

Now COVID19 has an R0 of something between... 2 and 6. The higher the R0, the more important the contact tracing needs to be airtight. But even on the higher end (say 6), you can still miss 18% of people and things won't get worse. I'm not sure if there are better estimates of R0 yet, but we as a society have already become much better at understanding this disease.

----------

Even if we open up 100%, we probably don't have to deal with a R0 rate of infections anyway. The R (true-reproductive value) of this disease is going to be grossly lower, because people are still going to be social distancing (no more handshakes in the near future, and many people will continue teleworking). Even as churches reopen, things won't spread as quickly (maybe communion will be more sanitary, less sharing of cups, etc. etc). I don't know what the true R of COVID19 is in the USA, but it is almost certainly below 2 by now (even if we end the lockdown).

If R is down to 2 or less (because society is more defensive as we emerge from the lockdown), we contact tracing would still work even if it was only 50% effective.

Now factor in the 30% of ineffective tests.

 

[dragontamer5788]

Now factor in the 30% of ineffective tests.

Did you miss the sensitivity and specificity post I made? 99% specificity (true negatives) and 95.7% Sensitivity (true positives) with this test: https://hardydiagnostics.com/sars-cov-2/

-----

False positives won't make things "worse", they just make things inconvenient. A false positive means you send someone to quarantine but it wasn't necessary (the test messed up). You waste 2-weeks of someone's life, but it didn't actually make the disease any worse. Most tests seem to have errors of this type, especially if you test early.

False negatives make things worse, because that's someone who SHOULD be quarantined but the test messed up and let them go. Almost all tests have a 99% specificity (aka: 1% rate of false negatives).

-------

Note: if "gold standard" tests are too expensive, then a cheap, high specificity (high true-negative rate) can be used as a multi-stage test. Even with a large false-positive rate, you simply use the cheap test as "stage 1", and then use the gold-standard test on the "maybe-positive" result. Using a two-stage test will result in cheaper healthcare (most people only need to take the cheap test).

EDIT: I am not a doctor, statistician, or health care expert. Please forgive me if I messed up sensitivity / specificity. But hopefully my main point is still correct in all this

-------

In any case, if you have a 1% false-negative rate against an R0 of 3, your margin of error drops from 33.33% down to 32% to effectively contact trace. False positives don't matter, only false negatives, and tests seem pretty good about the false negative rate.

 

[moproblems99]

Did you miss the sensitivity and specificity post I made? 99% specificity (true negatives) and 95.7% Sensitivity (true positives) with this test

What I am hearing from doctors in the field (both friends and family), don't agree with anything close to 90%. And those are the ones that are actually real, and not the counterfeit ones.

Edit:

Hey look at that, we are just about at the same level as traffic deaths in the US every year. We might actually end up net zero deaths out of this if we stay shutdown the rest of the year. Scratch that, wrong numbers.

In any case, the 'cure' is worse than the disease at this point. All we are doing is pushing the next wave down the road a month or two. Let's just it get over with.

 

[dragontamer5788]

What I am hearing from doctors in the field (both friends and family), don't agree with anything close to 90%. And those are the ones that are actually real, and not the counterfeit ones.

There's a reason why there's more specific language. Your doctor friends could be seeing a 30% false positive rate, and the discussion points I made earlier could still be correct. Selectivity and specificity mean very precise things for a reason. (and I'm still not 100% sure if I'm using the terms correctly. But I'm doing the best I can).

EDIT: Case in point. Consider an area that conducts 10000 tests, with a "true positive" set of 300 infected. Our test is 95% sensitive and 99% specific. (These numbers are made up, but the 95% sensitive + 99% specific are from the real test I linked to earlier).

Given these made up numbers... 99% specificity means that 300 true positives come back as 397 positives, that is, 97 (or ~30%) of the tests were false-positives. The number of false-positives and false-negatives is variable, depending on the number of tests being conducted, and the size of the "true infected" population.

The other end, 95% sensitive, means 15 of the 300 "true infected" would be reported as a negative result. So we let "15" of the true infected back into the wild. But with an R0 of only ~3 or so, these 15 people will only become ~45 infected people over the next 2 weeks. Catching the 285 true infected through contact tracing would still drop the total number of true infected down. (We've gone from ~300 infected down to ~45 infected in one time step).

In any case, the 'cure' is worse than the disease at this point. All we are doing is pushing the next wave down the road a month or two. Let's just it get over with.

How is contact tracing worse than the disease? Everyone, except those who were in contact with an infected person, carries on as usual. The entire point of contact tracing is that we as a society can largely get back to normal. But we're still protected as long as we keep track of say... 60% or 70%ish of the infected population.

Contact tracing requires a very large number of tests, and the lockdown period has allowed the testing kits to ramp up significantly (and it also reduced the population of infected significantly). We're getting close to the point where contact tracing will be effective in certain parts of the USA.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Frankly, I give up. If I LQ everything, I'll get called bad names.

Not by me...

 

[Vayra86]

And what if that person is not known to have it? What if it takes them two weeks to figure it out? What if they don't figure it out?

Then you have missed one source of infection, which results in 3 new opportunities to catch those that were infected.

Its not necessary to have a 100% hit rate here. If your hit rate is enough to push the infection rate number at or preferably below 1, you have a stable situation, not much unlike the norm for every other illness.

There is no catch all solution. Even a vaccine wont be. The conclusion I draw from that is similar to yours, but luckily that is also what most governments build policy on. The misunderstanding and FUD only happens based on the irrational idea you can somehow avoid catching it.

Its an invisible enemy.

 

[HTC]

Portugal's numbers have been updated:



On the left, yesterday's numbers and on the right, today's numbers (click for full picture):

- 27406 confirmed infected --- 138 more
- 2499 recovered --- 77 more
- 1126 fatalities --- 12 more
- 272443 suspected cases --- 3177 more
- 517660 tests taken --- 15942 more
- 2955 waiting for test results --- 29 more
- 26667 under watch from authorities --- 162 less
- 815 hospitalized --- 27 less
- 120 in ICU --- 7 less

Remember that chart i made a while back with 13 countries' data, using a logarithmic scale of 2?



Here's how it looks with data up to yesterday (click for full picture).

Russia is definitely "winning", with Brazil close behind ...

 

[dirtyferret]

That's an assumption because US is incentivizing claiming COVID-19 without a burden of proof for reimbursement reasons.

Lets stop watching fox entertainment for our news (and I'm stating this as a former fox cable network employee). This lie is insulting to those of us who live in the current epicenter of the epidemic and know people who fight this disease and have died from it.

Me too. What I loath is governments ordering people to wear face coverings (effectiveness be damned) over threat of fine or imprisonment. The research doesn't support that at all.

I don't like the mask and question how effective it may be overall (I don't doubt it does have some effectiveness) but I have no problem wearing it if it gives peace of mind to people especially those that have to work minimum wage jobs yet are deemed "essential".