Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

11 minutes ago, squire12 said:

I think it is fair to say that the numbers in some locations might be over stated (due to variance in testing and other components) and under stated ( for similar type reasons)

Contemplate that the early tests for the virus took labs a few hours to run.  running like 30-50 at a time.    I read a local article that it was like 4 hours.  that is around 200 to 300 tests a day.  For a city of 100K, that would be a full year to test everyone.  that is 1 time.  1 positive test then adds to that number of tests needing to be done.  

Not to mention the necessary reagents and supplies to perform the tests are not readily on hand in those quantities.  

I think that what many are missing is that there are standard tests for the other comon serious respiratory illnesses like influenza or rsv.  So a patient coming in may not have had Covid-19 teesting completed, but the others can be ruled out.  So its not like there are a bunch of influenza deaths being wrongly lumped in as Covid-19.

The system isn't perfect, but it likely isn't that far off as far as the acute care aspects occurring in hospitals.  What is going on in the community is a different issue, and I can understand the concern with the numbers there.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

27 minutes ago, mission27 said:

One question I do have

If you have a patient who is COVID positive who dies, but the cause of death is determined to probably not be COVID, how is that reflected in the reporting?  Like another extreme example but if I have COVID and get hit by a bus

Theoretically you have to close that case, its not a recovery, but listing it as a death is also misleading.  What do they do?

Typically things like that are reported under the category of the cause of death.  

Using a different example, in cancer care, survival statistics are reported as overall survival, and cancer specific survival.  this is a recognition that some cancer patients will die of something else prior to their cancer killing them.

So, as an example, if a Covid patient is quarentined at home, and their spouse shoots them, they would be recorded as a gun shot death.  On the death certificate would be a listing of gunshot as the cause of death and Covid 19 as a secondary medical condition existing at the time of death.

 

 

Edited April 14, 2020 by Ragnar Danneskjold

[pwny]

28 minutes ago, mission27 said:

One question I do have

If you have a patient who is COVID positive who dies, but the cause of death is determined to probably not be COVID, how is that reflected in the reporting?  Like another extreme example but if I have COVID and get hit by a bus

Theoretically you have to close that case, its not a recovery, but listing it as a death is also misleading.  What do they do?

In the actual data sets across total populations, they’d be listed as deceased, but not due to COVID so they wouldn’t be counted. As for how it’s being reported to the data sheets we’re seeing for COVID where it is solely tracking recovered and dead, they’d either be tracked as *discharged* which goes into the recovered group or they’d just be held until their recovery date and then processed as recovered, or they’ll just stay listed as outstanding. Which way it goes is dependent on how on top of tracking all patient data each hospital is in the middle of this. 

Edited April 14, 2020 by pwny

[dtait93]

1 hour ago, pwny said:

Probable deaths are not reported as part of the confirmed death total. That’s literally why they note them as probable and not confirmed.

See:

or

This is the standard for literally everything when it comes to reporting. Only confirmed cases are counted as confirmed cases, even if we assume that they are probable. New York will soon be adding cases that it’s highly suspected to their official list, but that’s not the case normally, nor has it been the case through all of this.

And no, what you’re reading there doesn’t mean that it’s just okay “to just guess”. It means that if it looks like it was COVID-19 related but you’re unable to verify, please make sure that’s noted and it will be counted once they’re able to confirm. 

No it is not the standard everywhere. That quote may be the standard for Kansas, but it may not be the standard elsewhere and it is specifically stated in the VSRG that certifiers are to follow the regulations of their specific jurisdictions on when to involve a coroner.

And that’s interesting that NY is backtracking to add more unconfirmed cases to their confirmed list. Since when did unconfirmed=confirmed?

[pwny]

13 minutes ago, dtait93 said:

No it is not the standard everywhere. That quote may be the standard for Kansas, but it may not be the standard elsewhere and it is specifically stated in the VSRG that certifiers are to follow the regulations of their specific jurisdictions on when to involve a coroner.

And that’s interesting that NY is backtracking to add more unconfirmed cases to their confirmed list. Since when did unconfirmed=confirmed?

And again

I’m going to trust the experts, not the fear mongers

[Hunter2_1]

Some lockdown measures being lifted in central europe now. Emphasis on 'some'.

But also some more stringent measures put on super markets.

[mistakey]

9 hours ago, theJ said:

This is a football forum. 

So?

legit people are appearing to get their legit info from these dudes.  Irresponsible not to challenge them

not like football has any chance of starting on time anyways.  

[theJ]

13 minutes ago, mistakey said:

So?

legit people are appearing to get their legit info from these dudes.  Irresponsible not to challenge them

not like football has any chance of starting on time anyways.  

If legit people are attempting to get legit medical statistics info on a football forum, there's no helping them.

I'm being a bit passive aggressive, but the point is that the same standard of care does not apply because of where the information is being posted.  If this was some medical forum or journal, obviously the standard would be different.

I think we're saying similar things, in a way.  Your approach (and the other dude's) is a direct confrontation demanding more information.  Mine is to say maybe don't take it so seriously?

[mistakey]

16 minutes ago, theJ said:

If legit people are attempting to get legit medical statistics info on a football forum, there's no helping them.

I'm being a bit passive aggressive, but the point is that the same standard of care does not apply because of where the information is being posted.  If this was some medical forum or journal, obviously the standard would be different.

I think we're saying similar things, in a way.  Your approach (and the other dude's) is a direct confrontation demanding more information.  Mine is to say maybe don't take it so seriously?

I literally take it with 0% seriousness.  In all honesty i think theyre jokes which is sad cause i used to like em.  I havent looked at a single number because of the fact they provide no methodology.

 

i do think it is sad that people are getting their medical info from them and i do think you and anyone else sane with a brain should be taking that fact more seriously. 

[mistakey]

Plus people do this about football research on this forum except for this is actually something that may matter in the world and now its all “yo who cares”?

[theJ]

2 minutes ago, mistakey said:

i do think it is sad that people are getting their medical info from them and i do think you and anyone else sane with a brain should be taking that fact more seriously. 

I stopped trying to take responsibility for people's thoughts and actions a long time ago.  I've avoided a lot of internet fights that way.  Maybe that's wrong, and maybe i should worry more about it.  But right now, it's the way i am.

[theJ]

Just now, mistakey said:

Plus people do this about football research on this forum except for this is actually something that may matter in the world and now its all “yo who cares”?

Well, it is a football forum.  I kind of get it when it's related to football.  I don't generally participate in the back and forth, but i get it.

The last 5-10 pages, i do not get.

[ramssuperbowl99]

11 minutes ago, mistakey said:

I literally take it with 0% seriousness.

Which is how its intended to be taken.

They're meme rankings. Like ranking Taylor Swift songs by smugness. Or Presidents by smugness. Or anything by smugness. It's a bit. It'd like "@RuskieTitan's 10 CFB Programs that Deserve the Death Penalty". If you take them with even a little bit of weight, just close out of the internet because you're not ready for the rest of it.

[BayRaider]

15 hours ago, mistakey said:

they also said not to wear masks, said china did a good job, and extremely late to label it a pandemic

The recommendation to not wear masks was just a lie by the CDC because they didn’t want hospitals to run out of masks (which they did). Saw through that lie right away. Of course a N95 Mask will help prevent you getting the virus. Common sense. Will it be bulletproof? No where close. But it will help, a lot. 
 

I’ve learned a lot about the government/CDC during this pandemic. Just non stop lies. 

[mistakey]

18 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

Which is how its intended to be taken.

They're meme rankings. Like ranking Taylor Swift songs by smugness. Or Presidents by smugness. Or anything by smugness. It's a bit. It'd like "@RuskieTitan's 10 CFB Programs that Deserve the Death Penalty". If you take them with even a little bit of weight, just close out of the internet because you're not ready for the rest of it.

yeah, i dont think this take is right.  i dont think they take it as a joke nor do i think some people take it as a joke.