Cases rising or dropping by you?

[choirfarm]

Rising, yet people are gathering in bigger and bigger groups. Our state continues to open. I'm predicting our local hospitals will be overrun in a month.

 

[Judique]

Massachusetts is still declining steadily...new cases, hospitalizations, deaths, etc.. All good news there.
We aren’t fully open yet, however, but everyone is wearing masks in stores and out in public if you are near other people. I am convinced the masks help and luckily most are doing what they are asked to. Hoping this downward trend continues.

Glad to see Massachusetts doing well! We have good cooperation here and I also believe the masks help.

But, some ladies walked down my street yesterday with a big dog accompanying them unleashed. He ran up and licked me. I was sitting in my chair near the street resting in between pulling weeds from my flower bed.

He wasn't wearing a mask! The ladies quickly said, 'he's been following us but is not ours.' Dog returned to their side quickly and they appeared unafraid of him. I was not alarmed when he approached me as I thought he was with them. I think they lied to me and just did not want to have him on a leash. Hands were washed and sanitized immediately. Haven't seen the dog or ladies since but I've got my eye out for them.

 

[jesusfreak75]

Rising, yet people are gathering in bigger and bigger groups. Our state continues to open. I'm predicting our local hospitals will be overrun in a month.

This has been predicting this since the pandemic started. It hasn't and probably won't happen.

 

[Colleen27]

This has been predicting this since the pandemic started. It hasn't and probably won't happen.

In fairness, to this point it has mostly been said about things that we now know to be lower risk - curbside retail/takeout, open beaches, outdoor protests. Now we're starting to see high-risk settings reopen in some places, some of them without any mitigation at all, so it may be a different situation. I hope not; I'd like nothing better than for the data to show seasonality that would let us have a mostly normal summer or for the whole thing to burn out for good. But based on what we know so far (which is still far from the whole picture), we are just now wading into riskier waters in the things we're reopening.

 

[minnie1012]

We are going down. We had 652 new cases in our state at the briefing today. We are still closed though. We are in phase 1 so still curbside pickup etc.

 

[minnie1012]

We are going down. We had 652 new cases in our state at the briefing today. We are still closed though. We are in phase 1, so still curbside pickup etc. We are supposed to open outdoor dining and hair salons this month though!

 

[godisney14]

Our cases are rising slowly, but our active cases have gone down. Our hospitalizations remain flat or down (it's been hard to get info, so hard to tell) and our deaths are flat. Currently our county of 500,000 has 566 cases (258 active, 304 recovered), 42 total hospitalizations, with 11 total in the ICU (but we don't know when those all happened) and 4 deaths.

Not following what you are saying. Cases rising, but active cases have gone down?

Overall, CA is rising proportionally. At least according to reported numbers, the percent positive from tests have been consistent at around 4% from the beginnings in March to yesterday when I checked. So, both actual cases and tests conducted are rising.

 

[wombat_5606]

I think things are starting to change.....

https://rt.live/
Be sure to click through the buttons to see how the states are changing through the time periods.

I wouldn't want to be in North Carolina, Georgia or Montana right now.

 

[Splat10]

I think things are starting to change.....

https://rt.live/
Be sure to click through the buttons to see how the states are changing through the time periods.

I wouldn't want to be in North Carolina, Georgia or Montana right now.

Montana's Rt may be slightly elevated but they are averaging 5 new cases a day. The population is so spread out that those cases are probably family transmissions. NC and GA both are averaging new case number significantly lower than many others. You can make data show whatever you want but C19 isn't as scarey as it's been portrayed.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I think things are starting to change.....

https://rt.live/
Be sure to click through the buttons to see how the states are changing through the time periods.

I wouldn't want to be in North Carolina, Georgia or Montana right now.

What you posted doesn't appear to capture targeted testing efforts. It assumes those are new cases just up and existing.

IDK I've stopped looking at models as much as I used to and I look more for they whys behind things. A chart unfortunately hasn't been made to actually show these things and the evolution of responses places have had.

 

[wombat_5606]

Montana's Rt may be slightly elevated but they are averaging 5 new cases a day. The population is so spread out that those cases are probably family transmissions. NC and GA both are averaging new case number significantly lower than many others. You can make data show whatever you want but C19 isn't as scarey as it's been portrayed.

Appararently, no one's data is perfect. The link shows you how the virus is spreading. I'd still rather be in a "green" state than a "red" one.

 

[wombat_5606]

What you posted doesn't appear to capture targeted testing efforts.

It does say that it has taken that into effect in April. I don't see their updated methodology, though.

Model Updates

• 4/26: Our model has been updated to correct for changes in the amount of testing done by each state over time. We will share the updated methodology soon.

 

[DisneyJamieCA]

Not following what you are saying. Cases rising, but active cases have gone down?

Overall, CA is rising proportionally. At least according to reported numbers, the percent positive from tests have been consistent at around 4% from the beginnings in March to yesterday when I checked. So, both actual cases and tests conducted are rising.

Yes, total cases have no place to go but up, until they're flat in which case that's where they're left.

Our active cases went from 327 last week to 271 today, meaning those cases moved over to recovered (which went from 222 to 304)

Editing to clarify this sentence better. Our cases were increasing 1-2% a day when under a complete SIP, with minimal testing. In the last few weeks it's been 0-3%, but our testing increased 3x.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

It does say that it has taken that into effect in April. I don't see their updated methodology, though.

Model Updates

• 4/26: Our model has been updated to correct for changes in the amount of testing done by each state over time. We will share the updated methodology soon.

I did see that. The amount of testing, to me, doesn't necessarily translate into targeting of testing. There hasn't been enough time IMO to really get a good picture when the testing parameters change every few weeks and I'm not sure we'll ever get an accurate representation of it just like race and ethnicity that was largely not tracked in the beginning.

I guess to me these charts are overviews but don't necessarily give the story I'm looking for when trying to drawl conclusions from them. They lack the sophistication (not in a mean way) of being able to take each state and their things within their state which is why honestly County levels and regional levels within a state tend to be better IMO to look at. And even better when counties separate by zip code and long-term care facilities and if they have prisons that too and meat processing plants if they have that, and when you have workplace outbreaks giving the indication is that spread through the workplace or not spread.

For example looking into Montana on May 30th it was said of the week prior: "Increased testing continues with sentinel {targeting] testing efforts in nursing homes and assisting living facilities, testing events in tribal areas, and drive through testing being conducted at a few sites." So yes increase in testing being accounted for in the chart but in part targeted testing. It's one thing to test because an outbreak is suspected but another to go actively looking for them. That corresponds to the chart showing an infection rate on the rise at that time frame. So is it really new spread throughout those populations (and just cropping up causing concerns with respects to reopening) or just discovery of such cases that were spreading before but going undetected? I'm not sure but the chart doesn't get that nitty gritty. Now there was an outbreak in mid-May of 8 employees at a private club (where horseback riding, fishing, golfing, etc occurs) and it's probably reasonable to assume the spread occurred at the club itself as there wasn't any indication from the business that it hadn't. But for Montana with their low numbers already that looked like a huge spike but that might have been a reasonable thing to be reflected in the chart as far as rate of infection spread.

Obviously you can kinda see I like to do the research lol so to me I look at the charts and graphs and my mind immediately goes to what's driving the data and off I go to investigating. It's why primarily I don't look at them anymore (and apologies on the long post).

 

[godisney14]

I did see that. The amount of testing, to me, doesn't necessarily translate into targeting of testing. There hasn't been enough time IMO to really get a good picture when the testing parameters change every few weeks and I'm not sure we'll ever get an accurate representation of it just like race and ethnicity that was largely not tracked in the beginning.

I guess to me these charts are overviews but don't necessarily give the story I'm looking for when trying to drawl conclusions from them. They lack the sophistication (not in a mean way) of being able to take each state and their things within their state which is why honestly County levels and regional levels within a state tend to be better IMO to look at. And even better when counties separate by zip code and long-term care facilities and if they have prisons that too and meat processing plants if they have that, and when you have workplace outbreaks giving the indication is that spread through the workplace or not spread.

For example looking into Montana on May 30th it was said of the week prior: "Increased testing continues with sentinel {targeting] testing efforts in nursing homes and assisting living facilities, testing events in tribal areas, and drive through testing being conducted at a few sites." So yes increase in testing being accounted for in the chart but in part targeted testing. It's one thing to test because an outbreak is suspected but another to go actively looking for them. That corresponds to the chart showing an infection rate on the rise at that time frame. So is it really new spread throughout those populations (and just cropping up causing concerns with respects to reopening) or just discovery of such cases that were spreading before but going undetected? I'm not sure but the chart doesn't get that nitty gritty. Now there was an outbreak in mid-May of 8 employees at a private club (where horseback riding, fishing, golfing, etc occurs) and it's probably reasonable to assume the spread occurred at the club itself as there wasn't any indication from the business that it hadn't. But for Montana with their low numbers already that looked like a huge spike but that might have been a reasonable thing to be reflected in the chart as far as rate of infection spread.

Obviously you can kinda see I like to do the research lol so to me I look at the charts and graphs and my mind immediately goes to what's driving the data and off I go to investigating. It's why primarily I don't look at them anymore (and apologies on the long post).

So, basically, you don’t believe any of the analyses available from any of the institutions and organizations as you could do it better.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

So, basically, you don’t believe any of the analyses available from any of the institutions and organizations as you could do it better.

Nope not at all what I said. Try re-reading

 

[Colleen27]

I think things are starting to change.....

https://rt.live/
Be sure to click through the buttons to see how the states are changing through the time periods.

I wouldn't want to be in North Carolina, Georgia or Montana right now.

I think the data is a bit more complex than that site reflects. It says my state was better off 6 weeks ago than now, but right now our daily case counts are around a third of what they were 6 weeks ago, our percent-positive rate for testing is a sixth of what it was then, and we're running 3-4 times as many tests per day. So I'm not sure what metric suggests the virus is spreading more rapidly now than then.

And when it comes to Montana? Their R0 might show steady rates of contagion but since that rate is steady at 5 to 7 cases per day (which is, admittedly, an uptick from a month ago when it was 1-2), I don't think I'd go so far as to say I'd hate to be there right now. From what I've read, most of their positives are coming from clustered testing - a group of nursing home patients or prisoners, for example - rather than from spread in the community at large.

Also, not all sources and analysts are interpreting the data the same way. This site, which has a strong bias toward the side of caution (they recently raised the bar for reopening to include a contact tracing metric, which pushed a lot of states from "green" to "yellow" based on not yet hiring thousands of contact tracers), lists Montana as one of only two states in the continental U.S. that can safely reopen: https://covidactnow.org/us/mt?s=39636 My state, on the other hand, meets all the data metrics but won't get the green rating because there's no way we're going to hire the 4000 contact tracers their formula says we need (based on a standard of full contact tracing for all new cases within 48 hours of a positive test) at a time when the state has 30,000 workers on partial furlough to deal with the revenue crisis this has created.

 

[wombat_5606]

I did see that. The amount of testing, to me, doesn't necessarily translate into targeting of testing. There hasn't been enough time IMO to really get a good picture when the testing parameters change every few weeks and I'm not sure we'll ever get an accurate representation of it just like race and ethnicity that was largely not tracked in the beginning.

I guess to me these charts are overviews but don't necessarily give the story I'm looking for when trying to drawl conclusions from them. They lack the sophistication (not in a mean way) of being able to take each state and their things within their state which is why honestly County levels and regional levels within a state tend to be better IMO to look at. And even better when counties separate by zip code and long-term care facilities and if they have prisons that too and meat processing plants if they have that, and when you have workplace outbreaks giving the indication is that spread through the workplace or not spread.

For example looking into Montana on May 30th it was said of the week prior: "Increased testing continues with sentinel {targeting] testing efforts in nursing homes and assisting living facilities, testing events in tribal areas, and drive through testing being conducted at a few sites." So yes increase in testing being accounted for in the chart but in part targeted testing. It's one thing to test because an outbreak is suspected but another to go actively looking for them. That corresponds to the chart showing an infection rate on the rise at that time frame. So is it really new spread throughout those populations (and just cropping up causing concerns with respects to reopening) or just discovery of such cases that were spreading before but going undetected? I'm not sure but the chart doesn't get that nitty gritty. Now there was an outbreak in mid-May of 8 employees at a private club (where horseback riding, fishing, golfing, etc occurs) and it's probably reasonable to assume the spread occurred at the club itself as there wasn't any indication from the business that it hadn't. But for Montana with their low numbers already that looked like a huge spike but that might have been a reasonable thing to be reflected in the chart as far as rate of infection spread.

Obviously you can kinda see I like to do the research lol so to me I look at the charts and graphs and my mind immediately goes to what's driving the data and off I go to investigating. It's why primarily I don't look at them anymore (and apologies on the long post).

Well, my post will be much shorter than yours. I do find the second guessing hilarious. Like, your information is more accurate than mine. I can't even find your information, so please, link us to it.

Tonight, I tried to spend some time beside the fire pit with some cocktails, but I can't find your information, nor do I want to spend any more of my time looking for it.

If you have sources you like, then use them. There is nothing anywhere that says your sources are more important or more factual than mine. It's merely your opinion and interpretation. Instead of schooling me on where I've gone wrong, please provide me and all of us with the information. Then everyone can read it for themselves and make up their own mind.

This is what I found.

https://www.mtpr.org/post/montana-coronavirus-and-covid-19-news05/29/20, 7:10 p.m.

Montana is reporting its largest single-day COVID-19 lab-confirmed new case count in weeks, adding eight cases to the state’s confirmed list May 29.

Friday afternoon Big Horn County announced 14 new lab-confirmed cases. Some of those cases will be reflected in the state’s update May 30.

Though Big Horn County has ramped up testing for the illness caused by the novel coronavirus in partnership with Crow Nation and Indian Health Service, officials say none of the new cases were identified from recent surveillance testing events.

Five of the new patients were tested after experiencing symptoms. Nine were identified after coming into contact with someone who previously tested positive in the area.

 

[wombat_5606]

[

I think the data is a bit more complex than that site reflects. It says my state was better off 6 weeks ago than now, but right now our daily case counts are around a third of what they were 6 weeks ago, our percent-positive rate for testing is a sixth of what it was then, and we're running 3-4 times as many tests per day. So I'm not sure what metric suggests the virus is spreading more rapidly now than then.

And when it comes to Montana? Their R0 might show steady rates of contagion but since that rate is steady at 5 to 7 cases per day (which is, admittedly, an uptick from a month ago when it was 1-2), I don't think I'd go so far as to say I'd hate to be there right now. From what I've read, most of their positives are coming from clustered testing - a group of nursing home patients or prisoners, for example - rather than from spread in the community at large.

Also, not all sources and analysts are interpreting the data the same way. This site, which has a strong bias toward the side of caution (they recently raised the bar for reopening to include a contact tracing metric, which pushed a lot of states from "green" to "yellow" based on not yet hiring thousands of contact tracers), lists Montana as one of only two states in the continental U.S. that can safely reopen: https://covidactnow.org/us/mt?s=39636 My state, on the other hand, meets all the data metrics but won't get the green rating because there's no way we're going to hire the 4000 contact tracers their formula says we need (based on a standard of full contact tracing for all new cases within 48 hours of a positive test) at a time when the state has 30,000 workers on partial furlough to deal with the revenue crisis this has created.

Yes, I get it. Every one of these analysis and charts have different perspectives and data that they use and dates that they cover. I posted one. You have posted another.

The infection rate on covidactnow.org has the infection rate in the green as of May 23 and increasing to the yellow by May 30. Today is June 3. They haven't made their projection for that day yet. We can all go and look at that site in a few days and see what's projected for that date and about a week later, see what the actual infection rate is.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Well, my post will be much shorter than yours. I do find the second guessing hilarious. Like, your information is more accurate than mine. I can't even find your information, so please, link us to it.

Tonight, I tried to spend some time beside the fire pit with some cocktails, but I can't find your information, nor do I want to spend any more of my time looking for it.

If you have sources you like, then use them. There is nothing anywhere that says your sources are more important or more factual than mine. It's merely your opinion and interpretation. Instead of schooling me on where I've gone wrong, please provide me and all of us with the information. Then everyone can read it for themselves and make up their own mind.

This is what I found.

https://www.mtpr.org/post/montana-coronavirus-and-covid-19-news05/29/20, 7:10 p.m.

Montana is reporting its largest single-day COVID-19 lab-confirmed new case count in weeks, adding eight cases to the state’s confirmed list May 29.

Friday afternoon Big Horn County announced 14 new lab-confirmed cases. Some of those cases will be reflected in the state’s update May 30.

Though Big Horn County has ramped up testing for the illness caused by the novel coronavirus in partnership with Crow Nation and Indian Health Service, officials say none of the new cases were identified from recent surveillance testing events.

Five of the new patients were tested after experiencing symptoms. Nine were identified after coming into contact with someone who previously tested positive in the area.

There's nothing on my comment about my information being more accurate than yours unless you're selectively deciding what accurate means. My entire comment centers around how the charts don't give the fine tuned information which is the truth of all charts. My comment pertaining to county and whatnot is because they have the ability (though not all choose to) give that fine tuned details. You think my state is going to give all the cases in all 105 counties for all the zip codes and then separate that out between how many cases are from long-term care facilities? My state does now give outbreaks (but not nitty gritty details of where those are at; you'd have to research to get that) including how many active and cases are closed with those outbreaks. I see no reason why it's an issue to seek out the information that generally speaking is too great to capture in one resource. I guess for me that weighs in on my opinion of how this and that is going on. If it doesn't to you that's great! We just approach it differently.

You saying you wouldn't want to be in those states (apparently warning away others) based on a chart well that's your prerogative and so is mine to want more in depth information to help give me context to form a conclusion based on that. I naturally seek out more information. And where is the problem in the discussion regarding models used? (total rhetorical question) I was speaking about models in general as they've been utilized during this pandemic and I'm far from the only person to discuss limitations of them which is occurring well outside the DIS. We should be looking for ways to improve and give more information-these models are used for policy making, these models are used for public opinion and these models are used by health officials. And oftentimes the limitations don't get mentioned.

No need to slide in that you were trying to spend time around a fire pit with cocktails and don't want to look any further as if I'm inconveniencing you considering you responded and did a cursory look at least. No worries you can (edited: corrected word) get back to your drinks and fire. I'll get back inquisitive self and move on in the discussion as we appear to just not agree (no harm no foul just different mindsets) but do enjoy the rest of your evening