New and Improved Coronavirus Thread

[Sybil D. Sobydianz]

Welcome to a re-start of the previous discussion, previously found here : https://www.trackforum.org/forum/com...40-coronavirus

if your post is about the virus from a statistical, medical, or cultural perspective, it goes here. If it is about the civic response to the virus, it probably goes in the political thread about the virus in the political forum.

Let me know if you need access to the political forum.

[Baulz]

Thanks DIA it is about time for a fresh start on this topic.

My office is having 1/2 staff come back starting Monday on 2 weeks rotations between here and home, they have all worked from home since mid-March (hard to believe it's been that long). It's interesting to hear their concerns, some have none and some are terrified. I suspect one person has not left their house in almost 4 months. Not a single active case in our country and it has been that way for over 3 weeks.

[RS2]

I agree. It has been a very weird time these past months. But gladly it is mostly behind us. In our area of over a million people there are 130 infections at the moment Up from 51 last week.

[Sweaty Teddy]

The previous thread was allowed to go on for a bit too long, was closed down, then reopened again. Perhaps a bit too soon.

There's a lesson in here somewhere...

[Muskie4041]

The previous thread was allowed to go on for a bit too long, was closed down, then reopened again. Perhaps a bit too soon.

There's a lesson in here somewhere...

Lol

[Jim Wilke]

Anchor for Dallas Evening News: The State of Texas today had to remove 3,484 cases from its Covid-19 positive case count, because the San Antonio Health Department was reporting “probable” cases for people never actually tested, as “confirmed” positive cases.- TDHS
What other departments make this same mistake?

[Ren Butler]

The previous thread was allowed to go on for a bit too long, was closed down, then reopened again. Perhaps a bit too soon.

There's a lesson in here somewhere...

And a few people had to be masked.

Speaking of which, I just went to the gym, where they started a mask requirement for the entire building, except when you're actively exercising (but they do require you to sanitize every piece of equipment you use with a provided cleaning bottle and non-sweat towel).

Anyway, for those of us who are hard of hearing, it's impossible to hold a conversation, given the music and machine noises on top of masks, which muffle voices and hide lips.

We also stopped by Kroger, where masks aren't required until next week. I hope I don't have to ask an employee where something is.

I'll comply with all rules, and I'm not complaining as much as I am sharing thoughts about an inconvenience. I'm just saying that it's not always as simple as people make it out to be.

[DavidM]

Anchor for Dallas Evening News: The State of Texas today had to remove 3,484 cases from its Covid-19 positive case count, because the San Antonio Health Department was reporting “probable” cases for people never actually tested, as “confirmed” positive cases.- TDHS
What other departments make this same mistake?

This seems to be happening far too often.

[Ren Butler]

Anchor for Dallas Evening News: The State of Texas today had to remove 3,484 cases from its Covid-19 positive case count, because the San Antonio Health Department was reporting “probable” cases for people never actually tested, as “confirmed” positive cases.- TDHS
What other departments make this same mistake?

Somebody on Twitter (in Ohio, maybe?) created quite the discussion when they explained what their mom was going through. She's elderly and in the hospital, but she keeps taking COVID tests daily and keeps coming back positive each time. The Twitter poster had somebody with access check the positive case data, and they found the mom was shown in the data 15 times as a "positive case" (even though it was a single case). This was verified by a guest I saw on a TV news show last night.

I'm not suggesting that numbers are inflated by 15x, but it wasn't exactly an unusual circumstance. How many "positive cases" are merely positive tests, with duplicates? I don't know the answer, but one has to wonder whether it's enough to inflate the numbers beyond a statistical anomaly.

[Sybil D. Sobydianz]

If it's on Twitter it must be true, so...

[Jim Wilke]

LA Times: More than 50,000 Black and Latino middle and high school students in Los Angeles did not regularly participate in the school system’s main platform for virtual classrooms after campuses closed in March, a reflection of the deep disparities faced by students of color amid the COVID-19 pandemic and of the difficulties ahead as L.A. Unified prepares for continued online learning.

The numbers, reflected in a first-of-its-kind report by Los Angeles Unified School District analysts examining student engagement during campus closures, paint a stark picture of students in the nation’s second largest school district struggling under the new pressures of online learning.

Nearly every category of students — sorted by race, income and learning needs — included large numbers who did not regularly participate in distance learning. But low-income students and Black and Latino students showed participation rates between 10 and 20 percentage points lower than white and Asian peers.

English learners, students with disabilities, homeless students and those in the foster-care system had lower rates of online participation.

The engagement report dated July 7, was completed before Supt. Austin Beutner announced Monday that campuses would remain closed when the new school year begins on Aug. 18. In making the decision he acknowledged that online learning would be no substitute for the classroom.

[Jim Wilke]

these are the numbers released earlier this afternoon by the State of Michigan. The total number of confirmed cases: 71,842 which is a 645 person increase from the previous day. Deaths: 6,101 total deceased which is a *16 person increase from the previous day.

*Note on deaths (07/16/20): Regular reviews of death certificate data maintained in Vital Records reporting systems are conducted by MDHHS staff three times per week. As a part of this process, records that identify COVID-19 infection as a contributing factor to death are compared against all laboratory confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the Michigan Disease Surveillance System (MDSS). If a death certificate is matched to a confirmed COVID-19 case and that record in the MDSS does not indicate the individual died, the MDSS record is updated to indicate the death and the appropriate local health department is notified. These matched deaths are then included with mortality information posted to the Michigan Coronavirus website. As a result of the most recent assessment, today’s data includes 13 additional deaths identified by this methodology.

So...only 3 died, not 16. Okay.

[Sybil D. Sobydianz]

I don't think that's what that says. They're just using death certificates (one per death) to update the other database where the deaths had not yet been recorded. Since the records are matched, not appended, there is no duplication there, either. It just means the MDSS is synched with death certificates.

Was your post composed from your own research, or are you passing along a conclusion someone else made?

[Jim Wilke]

The portion in italics is from the State of Michigan release. What it says is they have re-classified old deaths and then put them in today’s numbers.

The State of Alaska does this, too. Two weeks ago, they announced 2 deaths but when reporters asked for the data, turns out they were 7 weeks old and had died at nursing homes out of state where they had been for some time. Nobody has died of COVID in Alaska for almost 2 months.

[Will O'Hargan]

Somebody on Twitter (in Ohio, maybe?) created quite the discussion when they explained what their mom was going through. She's elderly and in the hospital, but she keeps taking COVID tests daily and keeps coming back positive each time. The Twitter poster had somebody with access check the positive case data, and they found the mom was shown in the data 15 times as a "positive case" (even though it was a single case). This was verified by a guest I saw on a TV news show last night.

I'm not suggesting that numbers are inflated by 15x, but it wasn't exactly an unusual circumstance. How many "positive cases" are merely positive tests, with duplicates? I don't know the answer, but one has to wonder whether it's enough to inflate the numbers beyond a statistical anomaly.

There are multiple reporting numbers, including active cases, new cases, etc. Her mother won't be part of the new cases numbers, or the positive testing numbers, it is only being used to confirm her number as part of an active case count.