CDC Director: Impending Doom

[RamblingMad]

The news has been all over a report about an 800% increase in the number of 40-somethings hospitalized and a 633% increase in hospitalizations of 30-somethings. Which did alarm me at first, until I tried to dig further into the data and found out that they don't release raw numbers. So that increase could be going from 1 to 8 40-something patients or 100 to 800 or anything in between. It is hard to glean any significance from the rate of increase without the additional context of overall prevalence. And if they're hospitalizing less-sick patients, as my friend said, that would at least partially account for why the profile of hospitalized patients is getting younger (and make the rate-of-increase numbers even more difficult to contextualize because "sick enough to be hospitalized" wouldn't have a consistent definition across the entire span of time).

If my guess that it's the UK variant spreading like wildfire in MI is true, then MI should look a lot like the UK before it shutdown.

 

[jlwhitney]

The news has been all over a report about an 800% increase in the number of 40-somethings hospitalized and a 633% increase in hospitalizations of 30-somethings. Which did alarm me at first, until I tried to dig further into the data and found out that they don't release raw numbers. So that increase could be going from 1 to 8 40-something patients or 100 to 800 or anything in between. It is hard to glean any significance from the rate of increase without the additional context of overall prevalence. And if they're hospitalizing less-sick patients, as my friend said, that would at least partially account for why the profile of hospitalized patients is getting younger (and make the rate-of-increase numbers even more difficult to contextualize because "sick enough to be hospitalized" wouldn't have a consistent definition across the entire span of time).

Thank you for this! Makes total sense!

 

[jlwhitney]

If my guess that it's the UK variant spreading like wildfire in MI is true, then MI should look a lot like the UK before it shutdown.

I really am not sure the UK variant is causing that much concern for MI, in fact it still is barely causing concern anywhere but maybe Florida, and NJ behind (but not a close behind).

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/variant-proportions.html

 

[EveDallas]

With over half a million deaths just about every single person in this country knows of someone who has died of COVID. This disease has spared no one from loss. That being said, closing down now appears to be the wrong thing to have done. The states that stayed semi open (Florida and Texas to name 2) are not seeing the large increases in cases as the states that closed down tight (California, Michigan, NY). It is interesting that while Texas claimed to be fully open, when my daughter was on vacation there all businesses still required masks. You can be open and still use some common sense protecting yourself and those around you.

I don't know anyone who has died from it and can't think of anyone I know who does. Definitely not saying lots of people do, but saying every single person knows someone who has died from it is an exaggeration.

 

[sam_gordon]

Positive test rate is up 0.8% over last week in New Jersey so it's not just the number of tests:
View attachment 566478
https://covidactnow.org/us/new_jersey-nj/?s=1723645
I agree that data has to be looked at holistically but every metric is trending the wrong direction right now in the northeastern states.

What sounds worse? "There's been a 35% increase in cases!" or "The positivity rate went up 0.8%."? I agree, you don't want anything going UP. But focusing on the 35% is "doom and gloom"... exactly what people on here criticize news people and officials for.

.

I don't see why percentage, tests v. cases, means crap honestly. If you're positive count is up, covid is spreading. You could test 10,000 or 1,000,000 ...you're still up 35%! People get tests for various reasons -work, because they sneezed, whatever. In my opinion, case count is everything and any increase is worrisome -even more so when people are being vaccinated so the number should be level or down. But for sure, hospital bed/ventilator availability would be critically important.

By your definition, until the number is zero, covid is spreading. It's simple mathematics. Test 10,000 people and get 1,000 positives. That's 10%. Test 100,000 and get 10,000 positives. "OMG!, we have 10 times as many people getting sick!". No. You still have 10% of the people tested being sick. Granted, still not ideal, but all that means is 10% of whatever number you test is sick. Unless you test everyone everyday, in order to compare the positive results, you must compare the number tested. Who's the better baseball batter? The person who gets 100 hits out of 300 at bats or the person who gets 200 hits out of 600 at bats? The second guy got twice as many hits, right?

And this is not a "stop the testing and we'll have 0 sick people".

 

[Starport Seven-Five]

What sounds worse? "There's been a 35% increase in cases!" or "The positivity rate went up 0.8%."? I agree, you don't want anything going UP. But focusing on the 35% is "doom and gloom"... exactly what people on here criticize news people and officials for.

Positive case percentage is not really a good metric for the conditions within a state beyond knowing if enough testing is being performed. I'm not sure about NJ but around me, testing availability is not a constraint anymore.

If twice as many people are testing, it's likely because twice as many people have a condition (symptoms or known exposure) that lead them to think they should get tested. It's not a random sampling.

Case numbers have been the best metric since ~May of last year when testing became widespread. I like looking at everything but I'm a nerd and have done the research regarding how the data is best interpreted.

 

[dez1978]

Not scared but the same I have been for the past year, never been scared of the virus and neither are our families/extended families.

Same here. I’ve never really been worried about it. Mostly bc it would have done me no good to be scared. I still had to go into work, working with mental health patients coming in from jails, still had to go shopping in the store bc there no delivery/curbside pick up here. My kids still had to go to daycare and have been in school since Aug. there was never much I could do to avoid it so no point in letting myself be afraid of it. And thru all that, none of us got it.

 

[adkkev]

With over half a million deaths just about every single person in this country knows of someone who has died of COVID. This disease has spared no one from loss. That being said, closing down now appears to be the wrong thing to have done. The states that stayed semi open (Florida and Texas to name 2) are not seeing the large increases in cases as the states that closed down tight (California, Michigan, NY). It is interesting that while Texas claimed to be fully open, when my daughter was on vacation there all businesses still required masks. You can be open and still use some common sense protecting yourself and those around you.

The increases in NewYork are generally in NYC and some of the counties just north of the city. AND New York STATE was NOT “closed down tight”, NYC was but most of upstate was not (restaurants went to take out, gyms closed, and some things like that but most places were open).

 

[RamblingMad]

I don't know anyone who has died from it and can't think of anyone I know who does. Definitely not saying lots of people do, but saying every single person knows someone who has died from it is an exaggeration.

I know a guy hospitalized with it that came out with lung damage and has been seeing a pulmonologist since last summer. He’s not dead. But he’s not back to normal.

 

[sam_gordon]

Positive case percentage is not really a good metric for the conditions within a state beyond knowing if enough testing is being performed. I'm not sure about NJ but around me, testing availability is not a constraint anymore.

OK, I'll bite. Please explain how the percentage tells you "enough testing is being performed."

If twice as many people are testing, it's likely because twice as many people have a condition (symptoms or known exposure) that lead them to think they should get tested. It's not a random sampling.

Or they have suspected exposure, or were tested for work reasons or were going somewhere or doing something that required a negative test.

Case numbers have been the best metric since ~May of last year when testing became widespread. I like looking at everything but I'm a nerd and have done the research regarding how the data is best interpreted.

I don't think there is any "best metric". It depends on what you do with the data. Case numbers will tell you the virus is still out there, and will POSSIBLY tell you whether the spread is going up or down, but they're not going to tell you that without looking at OTHER metrics. Just because you have an increase in positive cases does NOT necessarily mean the spread is getting worse. As I said, you need to look at the number of tests conducted. Case numbers on their own won't tell you how dangerous the virus is. You've got to look at hospitalization, ICU, ventilator use, long term effects, and death. If we had 300 Million Americans come down with this, but only 50,000 went to the hospital and 1,000 died, we wouldn't really blink an eye.[/quote][/quote]

 

[GAN]

By your definition, until the number is zero, covid is spreading. It's simple mathematics. Test 10,000 people and get 1,000 positives. That's 10%. Test 100,000 and get 10,000 positives. "OMG!, we have 10 times as many people getting sick!". No. You still have 10% of the people tested being sick. Granted, still not ideal, but all that means is 10% of whatever number you test is sick. Unless you test everyone everyday, in order to compare the positive results, you must compare the number tested. Who's the better baseball batter? The person who gets 100 hits out of 300 at bats or the person who gets 200 hits out of 600 at bats? The second guy got twice as many hits, right?

And this is not a "stop the testing and we'll have 0 sick people".

I agree. You have very "simple" math! I'm not sure why you couldn't interpret my initial statement, "If your positive count is up, covid is spreading." All you did was prove my point... Everyone should understand that the majority of people who get tested, are people that either have been in contact with a positive or feel sick. Did you get a test yesterday -probably not, unless you felt sick. So let's figure this out -you're saying if you jumped from 3,000 to 5,000 cases in a week and it's 4% of tested ...just test more people so the percentage number will look better at 3%??? That would work but you still have more people sick. Because if you tested those 100,000 each week, you will still have an increase in percentage and actual number sick -from 3,000 to 5,000. More testing doesn't make more people sick, anymore than less testing would. In fact, because of asymptomatic cases, the numbers would actually be higher in both regards. I'm not sure if I can explain it better than that. Sorry....

 

[sam_gordon]

I agree. You have very "simple" math! I'm not sure why you couldn't interpret my initial statement, "If your positive count is up, covid is spreading." All you did was prove my point... Everyone should understand that the majority of people who get tested, are people that either have been in contact with a positive or feel sick. Did you get a test yesterday -probably not, unless you felt sick. So let's figure this out -you're saying if you jumped from 3,000 to 5,000 cases in a week and it's 4% of tested ...just test more people so the percentage number will look better at 3%??? That would work but you still have more people sick. Because if you tested those 1,000,000 each week, you will still have an increase in percentage and actual number sick -from 3,000 to 5,000. More testing doesn't make more people sick, anymore than less testing would. In fact, because of asymptomatic cases, the numbers would actually be higher in both regards. I'm not sure if I can explain it better than that. Sorry....

No, that's not what I'm saying. If you jumped from 3,000 to 5,000 cases in a week, and it's 4% of cases, that means you tested 75k the first week and 125k the second week. My point is simply claiming "our case numbers went up 60%", although true, is painting a false picture.

As I said, who is the better batter? The one who hits 100 out of 300 or the one who hits 200 out of 600? The higher the denominator, the more "true" the result IMO. So I would not want to compare someone who gets a hit one time out of three in a single game to the person who hits 200 out of 600. More testing will get you a "truer" picture than less testing. More testing will never bring the number of cases down. Less testing WILL, but it doesn't give you as accurate a picture.

 

[GAN]

No, that's not what I'm saying. If you jumped from 3,000 to 5,000 cases in a week, and it's 4% of cases, that means you tested 75k the first week and 125k the second week. My point is simply claiming "our case numbers went up 60%", although true, is painting a false picture.

As I said, who is the better batter? The one who hits 100 out of 300 or the one who hits 200 out of 600? The higher the denominator, the more "true" the result IMO. So I would not want to compare someone who gets a hit one time out of three in a single game to the person who hits 200 out of 600. More testing will get you a "truer" picture than less testing. More testing will never bring the number of cases down. Less testing WILL, but it doesn't give you as accurate a picture.

LESS testing will not bring the numbers DOWN -unless you do what you said you don't want to do ...go to zero testing. Testing isn't like baseball ..yeah, if you have 2 players who are .300 hitters and one has twice as many at bats they will both still be .300 hitters. Covid doesn't work that way. Because if you test 125k instead of 75k (or vice versa)...the 5,000 people who are sick will STILL be sick and would have tested positive no matter how many got a test that week. Unless you're suggesting people become knowingly sick and don't get tested -which in that case they're a nuisance to society at this point. You can't magically make them go away because you tested less people. And a lower percentage positive doesn't necessarily ease a burdened hospital ...you still have potentially 5,000 people that might need a bed. It would be much better to only have 3,000 need a bed. So my point is that percentage means next to nothing ...the real thing to watch is the actual number -who cares how many were tested. If you live in a community of 100,000 people ...and have averaged 300 cases per week with 10,000 tests ...then did 20,000 tests and had 600 cases; that's the same percentage but you now have 300 more people sick. What's worse than that, is you have doubled the people either coming in contact with positives or feeling sick themselves. Even though you kept your percentage the same ...you clearly are headed in the WRONG direction. The best picture to paint in this country is to have less people feeling sick and test centers to be near empty ...they aren't testing random people -they're testing people that brought themselves there for one reason or another.

 

[sam_gordon]

LESS testing will not bring the numbers DOWN -unless you do what you said you don't want to do ...go to zero testing. Testing isn't like baseball ..yeah, if you have 2 players who are .300 hitters and one has twice as many at bats they will both still be .300 hitters. Covid doesn't work that way. Because if you test 125k instead of 75k (or vice versa)...the 5,000 people who are sick will STILL be sick and would have tested positive no matter how many got a test that week. Unless you're suggesting people become knowingly sick and don't get tested -which in that case they're a nuisance to society at this point. You can't magically make them go away because you tested less people. And a lower percentage positive doesn't necessarily ease a burdened hospital ...you still have potentially 5,000 people that might need a bed. It would be much better to only have 3,000 need a bed. So my point is that percentage means next to nothing ...the real thing to watch is the actual number -who cares how many were tested. If you live in a community of 100,000 people ...and have averaged 300 cases per week with 10,000 tests ...then did 20,000 tests and had 600 cases; that's the same percentage but you now have 300 more people sick. What's worse than that, is you have doubled the people either coming in contact with positives or feeling sick themselves. Even though you kept your percentage the same ...you clearly are headed in the WRONG direction. The best picture to paint in this country is to have less people feeling sick and test centers to be near empty ...they aren't testing random people -they're testing people that brought themselves there for one reason or another.

And a higher number of positive cases doesn't necessarily mean an over burdened hospital. That's my point... you want to look at a single data point and use that to correlate that things are getting worse. I disagree with that. I don't care if you look at the percentage, the hospitalizations, deaths, etc, you need to look at SOMETHING other than a single data point. Case numbers can go up ten fold, but if the number of people going into the hospital or dying doesn't increase at the same rate, is it as important?

If you have 5% of people infected one week, and the following week you still have 5% people infected, but you tested more, it's nothing but fear mongering to say "we've had a 50% increase in our case numbers!".

 

[LovesTimone]

I have several friends that work in health care and hospitals... and according to them things at the hospital are returning to normal, and they only have a small section on one floor that is for Covid patient's, and most of them have other issues such as COPD, pneumonia, Lung issues or lung cancer, or other medical issues that compromise them. My one friend who works on the Cardiac floor, said that in her Unit that they are keeping patients in the Unit, and treating them like they have Covid whether they do or not... She said that if they are not positive with Covid, that they are being offered the vaccine and in most cases people are saying yes...

Everyone that I know that is over 65 including my parents have had both their vaccines, DH and I both just got our first shot, pretty much all of our friends and family have gotten it or not available to their age group yet. One couple that we know is refusing to get it, other than that pretty much everyone we know is on board to get it and move on... Even our friends families are all getting it...

I will say that DH and I expected not to be able to get it till most likely the summer, so we were super happy to get in last weekend for the first dose, looking forward to getting the second one, it will be a relief to get it... It looks like here in Florida on April 5th - 18 and over will able to get the vaccine... To which my Daughter and Son in Law have said they can't wait to be able to get it...

DH and I want to be able to travel so having the vaccine puts us closer to doing that, as well I think that we will see in the future that you will need that vaccine passport or medical passport to show before you can travel, in any form, it will be just like having your regular passport when traveling abroad... International for sure... it might even happen domestically... Which I have no problem with... This is how this whole thing spread in the first place, so this is something that will become part of traveling for sure...

I really feel we all need some encouragement from places like the CDC, and the Government...If all you hear is doom and gloom pretty much you start to ignore it, as its just more of the same thing... Like Charlie Browns teacher, blah blah blah and people just tune it out...
I'm not saying we don't have to be cautious, and keep working at this... Maybe some light at the end of the tunnel would be nice...

As well I know alot of people feel that this is a way of distracting us from other problems happening in the country... get everyone up in arms about this and we won't see or hear what going on over there... Bait and Switch... Not saying I agree or disagree- just putting it out there.

 

[dvcgirl67]

And a higher number of positive cases doesn't necessarily mean an over burdened hospital.

Nobody said that....and nobody is looking at a single data point.

 

[sam_gordon]

Nobody said that....and nobody is looking at a single data point.

At least two people are... PP who said "our cases increase 65%!" and GAN who said the only important stat is case count.

 

[dvcgirl67]

At least two people are... PP who said "our cases increase 65%!" and GAN who said the only important stat is case count.

GAN also said this "But for sure, hospital bed/ventilator availability would be critically important."

But make no mistake, cases rising with surges all over the world do matter. Even as vaccines roll out and hospitalizations and deaths go down (particularly in countries with good vaccine distribution)....cases rising mean that we've still got serious community spread. And here's why this matters....the longer the virus is allowed to spread, the more likely we end up with a new variant which will evade our current vaccines. We'll be chasing covid, like we do the flu....likely forever, because we haven't been able to contain it.

https://www.cuimc.columbia.edu/news...s-evolving-escape-current-vaccines-treatments

 

[KingAugie]

GAN also said this "But for sure, hospital bed/ventilator availability would be critically important."

But make no mistake, cases rising with surges all over the world do matter. Even as vaccines roll out and hospitalizations and deaths go down (particularly in countries with good vaccine distribution)....cases rising mean that we've still got serious community spread. And here's why this matters....the longer the virus is allowed to spread, the more likely we end up with a new variant which will evade our current vaccines. We'll be chasing covid, like we do the flu....likely forever, because we haven't been able to contain it.

https://www.cuimc.columbia.edu/news...s-evolving-escape-current-vaccines-treatments

Hasn't that been said by medical experts since the beginning of all this?

 

[sam_gordon]

GAN also said this "But for sure, hospital bed/ventilator availability would be critically important."

But make no mistake, cases rising with surges all over the world do matter. Even as vaccines roll out and hospitalizations and deaths go down (particularly in countries with good vaccine distribution)....cases rising mean that we've still got serious community spread. And here's why this matters....the longer the virus is allowed to spread, the more likely we end up with a new variant which will evade our current vaccines. We'll be chasing covid, like we do the flu....likely forever, because we haven't been able to contain it.

https://www.cuimc.columbia.edu/news...s-evolving-escape-current-vaccines-treatments

I didn't say rising cases don't matter. I'm simply saying you have to put it in perspective. Worrying because your case counts went up 65% without finding out if testing also went up 65% (or more, or less) doesn't do anyone any good. If case counts went up 65% BUT testing went up 100%, IMO, that's a good thing. If case counts go up 65% but testing only went up 20%, that's bad.