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

[dragontamer5788]

Nor is this a competition. There is no success or failure in this pandemic, only the results and information about survival as well how the virus is spreading.

This isn't a "competition", but we can see from our states which policies are working, and which ones aren't. This is the graph that kicked off the current discussion, I'm sure you've seen it.

Some states, like VT / Vermont never had a wave to begin with, but their 90% mask usage is clearly protecting them. (IE: VT doesn't have any "herd immunity" at all, they've pretty much never been hit by the virus). So keep that in mind if you're arguing for herd immunity or something: we're no where close to that yet.

Locking down for example also has its side effects and those will only show up in the long run, we don't have that data yet. In five years time we might draw a different conclusion on what consitutes 'success'.

We will absolutely have a different viewpoint come 5 years from now. But why should we ignore the current evidence that we've spent the last year collecting? At this point, we seem to have extremely solid evidence for what is, and isn't working, with regards to mask policy and lockdown policies. The USA's 50-states provide 50 different data points on mask usage, local laws, and more.

What we know from this latest spike in North Dakota / South Dakota is that the virus does NOT care about the urban/rural divide, and is perfectly willing to replicate itself exponentially even in the midwest.

-----

I hate the USA's spotty one-state-at-a-time approach to this subject. But... at least there's something we can learn from it. Ideally, our states would be learning from each other and adopting similar policies, working together to keep the numbers down. But instead, our states are all learning about this event one-at-a-time. Nonetheless, we can look at the information in aggregate, keep in mind local mask policies, and then make pretty clear conclusions about how policies affect the growth of the virus at this point.

 

[lexluthermiester]

@dragontamer5788
The data in those graphs has shown us that the spikes are not universal from state to state. When we get into more fine grained details of city by city, that data becomes even more interesting as no real pattern emerges. It would not surprise me at all if there was an unknown factor yet to be discovered.

 

[dragontamer5788]

@dragontamer5788
The data in those graphs has shown us that the spikes are not universal from state to state. When we get into more fine grained details of city by city, that data becomes even more interesting as no real pattern emerges. It would not surprise me at all if there was an unknown factor yet to be discovered.

Of course its not uniform! Geography plays a huge role in the first waves. When the virus was only in New York City back in February / March, the main locations of concern were the states connected to New York: Maryland, Florida, etc. etc.

But now the spike is uniformly across the states with less than 85% mask usage. Alaska and North Dakota don't really have any physical connections at all, aside from shoddy mask policies.

-------

We in Maryland never eradicated the virus. Our %Positive was 3% to 4% for the past several months. What we've learned to do was how to live our lives without having the virus take over the state entirely. Now I'm very concerned about the winter (because of the "winter spread" theory, which seems to be confirmed with this latest 3rd wave, being higher and spikier than before... at least in other states). We'll see if our Mask policies are enough, but Maryland is currently open. We can move to lockdown if things get bad.

 

[Vayra86]

@dragontamer5788
The data in those graphs has shown us that the spikes are not universal from state to state. When we get into more fine grained details of city by city, that data becomes even more interesting as no real pattern emerges. It would not surprise me at all if there was an unknown factor yet to be discovered.

Unknown factors, and much more so, how we should weigh each individual one. Both on how it grows so quickly in certain places and how the measures stack up. Its definitely a stacking up, and I'm not going to deny that masks do something. I've seen some impact of them in the numbers too. But whether that impact is meaningful, and whether it is a useful measure in the long run or overall remains open for debate.

In the end those factors determine how we should organize society. I still don't believe long term mask usage (as it looks now, several years ongoing) is going to help us. And even still if I look around... of the few dozen people I see its a lucky streak if five of them wear and use masks correctly.

 

[dragontamer5788]

Unknown factors, and much more so, how we should weigh each individual one. Both on how it grows so quickly in certain places and how the measures stack up. Its definitely a stacking up, and I'm not going to deny that masks do something. I've seen some impact of them in the numbers too. But whether that impact is meaningful, and whether it is a useful measure in the long run or overall remains open for debate.

In the end those factors determine how we should organize society. I still don't believe long term mask usage (as it looks now, several years ongoing) is going to help us.

Even if you disagree with Mask policies, the fact that South Dakota refuses to lockdown is part of their failure in policy.

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem says lockdowns are 'useless' as state's COVID-19 cases soar

South Dakota's governor is doubling down on her controversial stance against state-wide lockdown measures even as the local positivity rate continues to soar.

abcnews.go.com

I don't like pulling in American-centric issues into this international thread: but around here, the lack of masks is equivalent to "not locking down". Its not like your country where people can keep the concept separate, the two issues are conflated in the USA. South Dakota should have locked down weeks ago. But even today, it seems like they refuse to give that a try.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Of course its not uniform! Geography plays a huge role in the first waves.

But does it? In a world where air and automobile travel is so easy, geography may not make much of a difference.

the fact that South Dakota refuses to lockdown is part of their failure in policy.

Is it a failure? South Dakota's numbers, by the graph you showed above, are not all that bad. They're not even in the top fifteen, by percentages. They are on the bottom 5 of states for mask usage and yet do not top the charts for infections. So are lock downs and mask requirements actually working as intended?

 

[dragontamer5788]

Is it a failure? South Dakota's numbers, by the graph you showed above, are not all that bad. They're not even in the top fifteen, by percentages. They are on the bottom 5 of states for mask usage and yet do not top the charts for infections. So are lock downs and mask requirements actually working as intended?

South Dakota is #2 infection rate per capita. South Dakota has a population of 884,659, smaller than many cities.

American Hospital Directory - Individual Hospital Statistics for South Dakota

The American Hospital Directory provides operational data, financial information, utilization statistics and other benchmarks for acute care hospitals.

www.ahd.com

And they have something like 2000 hospital beds. Not ICU beds, just... normal hospital beds. With a very tiny medical system, and very small population, the level of infections they're getting is definitely worrisome.

---------

With the population of a midsized city, South Dakota had 1063 new cases on Sunday alone, and seems to be consistently hitting 1000+ infections/day.

 

[lexluthermiester]

South Dakota is #2 infection rate per capita. South Dakota has a population of 884,659, smaller than many cities.

But not by percentage. Look at the percentages shown just below each state's name. The total numbers need context and those percentage numbers define that. Based on those numbers South Dakota is not in the top fifteen. Per capita numbers are only meaningful when the percentage of population is factored in. That's why the percentage numbers are shown. When you rearrange the order of the states by the percentages, the picture changes dramatically.

And they have something like 2000 hospital beds. Not ICU beds, just... normal hospital beds. With a very tiny medical system, and very small population, the level of infections they're getting is definitely worrisome.

Now that could be a good point if all the cases confirmed require hospitalization, but most do not. So worrying about that point might be premature.

 

[EarthDog]

But not by percentage. Look at the percentages shown just below each state's name.

The percentage is the growth for that state. It uses that states values so each will be different and is only good when looking at the state itself. dragontamer said infection rate per capita. You seem to be shooting at a different target than you responded to(?).

 

[lexluthermiester]

The percentage is the growth for that state. It uses that states values so each will be different and is only good when looking at the state itself. dragontamer said infection rate per capita. You seem to be shooting at a different target than you responded to(?).

Then, as usual, it seems we're both looking at the same object and seeing two different things.

 

[dragontamer5788]

Look at the percentages shown just below each state's name.

That's the 2nd derivative, the change-in-infection rate. The graph itself graphs the 1st derivative: the number of additional infections per day divided by the population.

The 2nd derivative is noisier, and I'm not exactly sure... what the 2nd derivative is supposed to indicate to you? Could you elaborate on why you would rather look at the 2nd derivative instead of the 1st derivative?

I think the 2nd derivative might be useful to see if any policy changes in the past days (or weeks) are helping the situation. But aside from that, we've got +1000 cases/day in South Dakota, growing at +17% / day over day EDIT: Week-over-week . That's... pretty bad by any measurement.

 

[lexluthermiester]

That's the 2nd derivative, the change-in-infection rate.

The graph itself graphs the 1st derivative: the number of additional infections per day divided by the population.

Got a link to the originating article?

 

[dragontamer5788]

Got a link to the originating article?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/national/coronavirus-us-cases-deaths/?itid=hp_pandemic-guide-box

I usually assume WashPo articles are paywalled (I have a subscription). Let me know if you can't see the article...

-------

The description of the graphs is: "7-day rolling average of daily new reported cases per 100,000 residents". The %Change you're focusing on is the "%rise in new cases in past week". Alternatively, we know that South Dakota is ~1000 cases/day on a population of 850,000 or so, or 0.112% of its population got infected with COVID19 on Sunday alone. WashPo averages it out over the past week, so WashPo is only reporting 0.098% (or 98 cases per 100,000).

North Dakota and South Dakota are the only ones with numbers anywhere near this bad. And I'm sure the Europeans are looking at those absurd numbers and going WTF, because South Dakota is giving European-like numbers on a faction of the population. (That's a population of 884,659... or 884.659 for you weird Europeans).

 

[the54thvoid]

(That's a population of 884,659... or 884.659 for you weird Europeans).

Probably why we're leaving the EU. We don't use the 'dot'. 1,000 is one thousand. 1.000 is one to three decimal places.

Anyway, those numbers for a place as sparsely populated as mentioned are pretty bad. I'd imagine it's concentrated in one or two cities? I mean, NYC was the crucible of infection early on but it's loaded with people per square mile. I can't think of any airborne, or effusively transmitted bloodborne viruses that dont love a people party.

 

[dragontamer5788]

Now that could be a good point if all the cases confirmed require hospitalization, but most do not. So worrying about that point might be premature.

Note: South Dakota is #1 in hospitalizations rate in the country.

EDIT: Its not "hospitalization rate", but raw number of hospitalizations.

 

[lexluthermiester]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/national/coronavirus-us-cases-deaths/?itid=hp_pandemic-guide-box

I usually assume WashPo articles are paywalled (I have a subscription). Let me know if you can't see the article...

-------

The description of the graphs is: "7-day rolling average of daily new reported cases per 100,000 residents". The %Change you're focusing on is the "%rise in new cases in past week". Alternatively, we know that South Dakota is ~1000 cases/day on a population of 850,000 or so, or 0.112% of its population got infected with COVID19 on Sunday alone. WashPo averages it out over the past week, so WashPo is only reporting 0.098% (or 98 cases per 100,000).

North Dakota and South Dakota are the only ones with numbers anywhere near this bad. And I'm sure the Europeans are looking at those absurd numbers and going WTF, because South Dakota is giving European-like numbers on a faction of the population. (That's a population of 884,659... or 884.659 for you weird Europeans).

Yeah, it's paywalled. Based on the way the numbers are presented in that picture, it would seem(to me at least) to correlate a way different from the one you described. Let us be clear, no insult is intended to you personally.

 

[dragontamer5788]

Anyway, those numbers for a place as sparsely populated as mentioned are pretty bad. I'd imagine it's concentrated in one or two cities? I mean, NYC was the crucible of infection early on but it's loaded with people per square mile. I can't think of any airborne, or effusively transmitted bloodborne viruses that dont love a people party.

If it were in one city, that'd be great. What's so bad about this "3rd wave" in the USA is that its a "rural surge", evenly distributed across the land.

The big challenge for this 3rd wave is: how do we deal with a large increase across the country, where there's no clear "central" spot to lockdown?

EDIT: For those unfamiliar with South Dakota:

 

[lexluthermiester]

Note: South Dakota is #1 in hospitalization rate in the country.

View attachment 173415

I question that conclusion for the following reason, SD has 850,000 people total, so 42 per 100k is not a big total number(357). My county alone has more hospitalized than that, but then again we have a large populace comparatively. This is where interpretation of declared numbers might fail. If you look more closely at that image, the other numbers show a %in change as well as ICU beds in use. This data must factor into the total picture. All things considered, SD still doesn't look all that bad.

 

[Tomgang]

Denmark is as so many other countries seing increasingly higher numbers of infected.

Friday the number whas 689 and today it's 1056 infected confirmed. But bear in mind Friday only around 44000 whas tested while the latest numbers today is above 59000 people tested. So off cause with more tests, we will se more comfirmed cases.

Danish government has put out new regulations that from today is guidelines.
They are as follows:
No more that 10 people can be together private as well as social places.
All now have to wear mask in supermarket and other public places with many people.
Alcohol is now not legal to sell past 10 PM
Also bars and restaurants and likewise places has to close 10 PM as well.

With new regulations on those all ready made in September. Danish government hope we can get cases down again. But we first know in 10 to 14 days as regulation needs time to see an effect of it. I don't think this is enough, I mean we are now in the dark and colder times so virus has better options to spread as people now seeking indoors and warm amd good weather is no help either anymore. I hope I am wrong about these regulations are enough, but I certainly is concerned.

The last thing we need is a new lock down. Cause then goodbye job for the second time do to covid-19.

 

[harm9963]

Texas go's as Harris County go's , Hospital, Schools, Restaurant ,Hotels what they have in common , people cooking and serving and cleaning , low paying jobs ,need to work two jobs or more , board with 4 or 5 others to pay rent .
When María Sarat saw her brother, she wept, and, shaking, embraced him. He was so pale. The four men with whom he shared a westside apartment were paralyzed, fearful of authorities, of deportation. But she called 911.

COVID is hitting Houston Hispanics hard — and it's getting worse

Roughly a third of Hispanics being tested for the virus in Harris County are receiving a...

www.houstonchronicle.com

 

[Ahhzz]

Texas go's as Harris County go's , Hospital, Schools, Restaurant ,Hotels what they have in common , people cooking and serving and cleaning , low paying jobs ,need to work two jobs or more , board with 4 or 5 others to pay rent .

COVID is hitting Houston Hispanics hard — and it's getting worse

Roughly a third of Hispanics being tested for the virus in Harris County are receiving a...

www.houstonchronicle.com

Yup. Typically over here, the Hispanic population is very tight-knit with multiple family members living in the same house to save money, and their financial status doesn't allow them to run to the hospital/health center for a test or care every time one of them is ill. I worked closely with an outreach program in our area for tech support, and those ladies (and a couple of guys) worked overtime to try to get their patients in for serious things like mammograms and cancer care. Getting them to take time off for something like Covid was not something they easily manage at all.... Community is hit pretty hard.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Yup. Typically over here, the Hispanic population is very tight-knit with multiple family members living in the same house to save money, and their financial status doesn't allow them to run to the hospital/health center for a test or care every time one of them is ill. I worked closely with an outreach program in our area for tech support, and those ladies (and a couple of guys) worked overtime to try to get their patients in for serious things like mammograms and cancer care. Getting them to take time off for something like Covid was not something they easily manage at all.... Community is hit pretty hard.

Our community is having a similar experience unfortunately. There are efforts to help where-ever possible. The one positive thing to come from Covid19 is that our community has come together like never before. The stigma's of shame for asking for and receiving help have gone away. Strange times to say the least.

 

[harm9963]

As i predicted !

Houston has 'plan in place' to avoid massive spike in COVID-19 hospitalizations

Multiple cities in Texas are seeing a spike in the number of COVID-19 cases, but Houston leaders are hoping we can turn that around.

abc13.com

 

[harm9963]

When you turn a blind eye, this is what you get!

 

[lexluthermiester]

When you turn a blind eye, this is what you get!View attachment 173581

Looking at that graph, it seems there was a spike for a day or two and then things dropped back down. Wondering what that is about... In comparison to other states Texas seems to be doing alright.

When we look at the nation as a whole, we're about the same place we were in July.