Coronavirus prep

1131132134136137747

Replies

  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,899 Member
    edited March 2020
    I wish the US media would report the number of people hospitalized, not just cases and deaths. The number of cases depends heavily on testing (which the CDC is no longer recommending except for the high-risk and/or seriously ill), and the death toll in the US probably sounds "low" to many here who insist this is so much better than the flu. If they included the number hospitalized, they might be able to better see how NYC hospitals will soon be overloaded.

    Agreed. This is the best I've found, but not all states have the hospitalized number, so it's not reliable. It's a good overall source anyway: https://covidtracking.com/data/

    Nate Silver has pointed out that due to the backlog in testing the positive numbers changing right now is not super informative about how fast it's actually spreading, but the hospitalization numbers likely reflect how much it was spreading as of 7-10 days ago. How fast they are increasing is really important.
  • lightenup2016
    lightenup2016 Posts: 1,055 Member
    edited March 2020
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    I wish the US media would report the number of people hospitalized, not just cases and deaths. The number of cases depends heavily on testing (which the CDC is no longer recommending except for the high-risk and/or seriously ill), and the death toll in the US probably sounds "low" to many here who insist this is so much better than the flu. If they included the number hospitalized, they might be able to better see how NYC hospitals will soon be overloaded.

    Agreed. This is the best I've found, but not all states have the hospitalized number, so it's not reliable. It's a good overall source anyway: https://covidtracking.com/data/

    Nate Silver has pointed out that due to the backlog in testing the testing numbers changing is not super helpful, but the hospitalization numbers likely reflect how much it was spreading as of 7-10 days ago. How fast they are increasing is really important.

    Thanks for that link. It's interesting to me that my state of NC has about 470 reported cases (as of today), but no deaths reported. Most other states with that many reported cases have at least 1, but in most cases, more than 1 death reported. I mean I'm thankful there aren't any, but just wondering why the difference.

    Of course NC is not reporting hospitalizations. I thought I saw it buried somewhere that it was around 30 as of today.
  • earlnabby
    earlnabby Posts: 8,171 Member
    Wisconsin is just shy of 500 cases but holding steady with only 5 deaths.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,899 Member
    We've got over 1500 cases now, and 16 deaths. Only one of the deaths is outside Chicago metro, and DuPage (which has a nursing home outbreak) has only 1 so far. Our first death was reported a week ago.
  • lightenup2016
    lightenup2016 Posts: 1,055 Member
    edited March 2020
    I wish the US media would report the number of people hospitalized, not just cases and deaths. The number of cases depends heavily on testing (which the CDC is no longer recommending except for the high-risk and/or seriously ill), and the death toll in the US probably sounds "low" to many here who insist this is so much better than the flu. If they included the number hospitalized, they might be able to better see how NYC hospitals will soon be overloaded.

    However what you're proposing doesn't include those, whom haven't sought medical attention yet because of being told to stay home since they'd be sent home anyway.

    I'm just saying that if people see how many of the sick wind up in the hospital, it might make it more clear the seriousness of the situation. If they see a large number of cases but "only" a small number of deaths, it might not look as dire. It's the overload of the hospitals with the thousands of patients, many in ICU, that take the toll on the medical workers.

    I read that in Italy, because of the nature of the illness and the fact that serious cases can wind up in the hospital for 2-3 weeks, that most of those who have left the hospital so far, are those who have died. :(

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/23/world/europe/italy-coronavirus-hospitals.html

    Some quotes from that article that emphasize the seriousness of this:

    "The near collapse of many of the region’s hospitals, and the dearth of mechanical ventilators, oxygen and personal protective equipment, has led many doctors to urge patients to stay away. They argue that overloaded hospitals increasingly seem to be sources of contagion, and that infected but asymptomatic ambulance workers sent to retrieve patients in their homes are actually spreading the virus."

    “If a patient has a low likelihood to benefit from the hospital, we have to not accept them. You send them home.” He added, “This is also what I am seeing every day.” [referring to older, very sick patients that are getting turned away, and go home to die]

    "And since the most serious virus patients require at least two weeks of hospitalization, practically the only patients who have left the hospital are those who have died."
  • goldthistime
    goldthistime Posts: 3,214 Member
    A grocery store clerk in a store near us has been diagnosed with covid-19. There are a few stores that deliver, but some of their websites are asking that we don't overwhelm them, that the service should be primarily for vulnerable or quarantined people (which is valid).
  • mph323
    mph323 Posts: 3,565 Member
    I'm in shock at the number of reported cases in New York (over 29,000), and I believe the number of new cases is doubling every three days. The state with the next highest numbers (NJ) has less than 2900. I don't know if NY is a special case or if we'll see this happening in other densely populated areas. Are they doing more testing than everyone else?
  • DecadeDuchess
    DecadeDuchess Posts: 315 Member
    I wish the US media would report the number of people hospitalized, not just cases and deaths. The number of cases depends heavily on testing (which the CDC is no longer recommending except for the high-risk and/or seriously ill), and the death toll in the US probably sounds "low" to many here who insist this is so much better than the flu. If they included the number hospitalized, they might be able to better see how NYC hospitals will soon be overloaded.

    However what you're proposing doesn't include those, whom haven't sought medical attention yet because of being told to stay home since they'd be sent home anyway.

    I'm just saying that if people see how many of the sick wind up in the hospital, it might make it more clear the seriousness of the situation. If they see a large number of cases but "only" a small number of deaths, it might not look as dire. It's the overload of the hospitals with the thousands of patients, many in ICU, that take the toll on the medical workers.

    I read that in Italy, because of the nature of the illness and the fact that serious cases can wind up in the hospital for 2-3 weeks, that most of those who have left the hospital so far, are those who have died. :(

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/23/world/europe/italy-coronavirus-hospitals.html

    Some quotes from that article that emphasize the seriousness of this:

    "The near collapse of many of the region’s hospitals, and the dearth of mechanical ventilators, oxygen and personal protective equipment, has led many doctors to urge patients to stay away. They argue that overloaded hospitals increasingly seem to be sources of contagion, and that infected but asymptomatic ambulance workers sent to retrieve patients in their homes are actually spreading the virus."

    “If a patient has a low likelihood to benefit from the hospital, we have to not accept them. You send them home.” He added, “This is also what I am seeing every day.”

    "And since the most serious virus patients require at least two weeks of hospitalization, practically the only patients who have left the hospital are those who have died."

    I don't disagree with you, I was explaining that it isn't comprehensive.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,899 Member
    mph323 wrote: »
    I'm in shock at the number of reported cases in New York (over 29,000), and I believe the number of new cases is doubling every three days. The state with the next highest numbers (NJ) has less than 2900. I don't know if NY is a special case or if we'll see this happening in other densely populated areas. Are they doing more testing than everyone else?

    I think they've done a bunch more testing (91,270 tests), even adjusted for population, but I also think it's because there have been some major outbreaks there. Given what an international city NYC is, it was probably circulating there for a while before the testing became available. I know there have been specific hotspots too, like New Rochelle.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,899 Member
    edited March 2020
    I wish the US media would report the number of people hospitalized, not just cases and deaths. The number of cases depends heavily on testing (which the CDC is no longer recommending except for the high-risk and/or seriously ill), and the death toll in the US probably sounds "low" to many here who insist this is so much better than the flu. If they included the number hospitalized, they might be able to better see how NYC hospitals will soon be overloaded.

    However what you're proposing doesn't include those, whom haven't sought medical attention yet because of being told to stay home since they'd be sent home anyway.

    I'm just saying that if people see how many of the sick wind up in the hospital, it might make it more clear the seriousness of the situation. If they see a large number of cases but "only" a small number of deaths, it might not look as dire. It's the overload of the hospitals with the thousands of patients, many in ICU, that take the toll on the medical workers.

    I read that in Italy, because of the nature of the illness and the fact that serious cases can wind up in the hospital for 2-3 weeks, that most of those who have left the hospital so far, are those who have died. :(

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/23/world/europe/italy-coronavirus-hospitals.html

    Some quotes from that article that emphasize the seriousness of this:

    "The near collapse of many of the region’s hospitals, and the dearth of mechanical ventilators, oxygen and personal protective equipment, has led many doctors to urge patients to stay away. They argue that overloaded hospitals increasingly seem to be sources of contagion, and that infected but asymptomatic ambulance workers sent to retrieve patients in their homes are actually spreading the virus."

    “If a patient has a low likelihood to benefit from the hospital, we have to not accept them. You send them home.” He added, “This is also what I am seeing every day.”

    "And since the most serious virus patients require at least two weeks of hospitalization, practically the only patients who have left the hospital are those who have died."

    I don't disagree with you, I was explaining that it isn't comprehensive.

    I did not at all understand lightenup to be claiming it was comprehensive (so thus not in need of that "explanation"), but that it was a valuable (perhaps the most valuable) measure to track.
  • Diatonic12
    Diatonic12 Posts: 32,344 Member
    @moonangel12 I hope it turns around for your uncle. This thing sticks around on surfaces for hours. It's durable and washing our hands is about the only thing we have as the first and last line of defense against it. I'm pulling for your family. <3
  • mph323
    mph323 Posts: 3,565 Member
    pinuplove wrote: »
    I needed this today. Possibly someone else here can benefit from reading it, too.

    https://hbr.org/2020/03/that-discomfort-youre-feeling-is-grief

    Thanks, that was a really good read 😊
  • lightenup2016
    lightenup2016 Posts: 1,055 Member
    Question: Those asymptomatic people who test positive--do they develop symptoms eventually, or do some never become symptomatic? In the above example of CA testing temperatures, can they be sure all of the people with normal temps are Covid-19 negative?
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 31,717 Member
    edited March 2020
    Question: Those asymptomatic people who test positive--do they develop symptoms eventually, or do some never become symptomatic? In the above example of CA testing temperatures, can they be sure all of the people with normal temps are Covid-19 negative?

    The testing temperatures thing (in what I posted) was just statistics, not diagnosis.

    All that company is saying is that they see a lot of temperature data get uploaded every day (probably thousands of temperature measurements). Under normal circunstances, the number of temperatures, and the percent of those that are fever temperatures, would tend to bounce around in a certain small range. Suddenly, they start seeing uploaded data that's different, maybe more temperatures taken, and maybe a higher percentage are fever temperatures. They have no idea which people have COVID, or don't have COVID. They're just seeing more people with fevers, and in current circumstances of pandemic, believing that most of the unusual variations in numbers are probably due to COVID. Just statistics.

    Google has advanced similar theories in the past, when they saw web seaches on some particular keyword start trending up, in some geographic area.

    I have no idea about your other question, regarding whether asymptomatic cases who test positive eventually develop symptoms or not.