Tiger Board Logo

Donor's Den General Leaderboards TNET coins™ POTD Hall of Fame Map FAQ
GIVE AN AWARD
Use your TNET coins™ to grant this post a special award!

W
50
Big Brain
90
Love it!
100
Cheers
100
Helpful
100
Made Me Smile
100
Great Idea!
150
Mind Blown
150
Caring
200
Flammable
200
Hear ye, hear ye
200
Bravo
250
Nom Nom Nom
250
Take My Coins
500
Ooo, Shiny!
700
Treasured Post!
1000

YOUR BALANCE
Current Facts and Stats
storage This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
Archives - Tiger Boards Archive
add New Topic
Replies: 25
| visibility 1

Current Facts and Stats


Aug 13, 2020, 2:14 PM

for COVID-19, from the CDC's own web site and Johns Hopkins data. Percentage calculations are mine, but I used a calkylater, so should be good. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/index.html


To date in the United States:
5,176,018 - confirmed positive test results (some individuals may have tested positive more than once)
1.5819% - percentage of the population that has tested positive
165,148 - deaths attributed to COVID-19
3.1906% - mortality rate of positive test results (96.8% of positive tests will live)
0.0505% - mortality rate of the entire population (99.95% of the population will NOT die from it)

70,212,154- total tests reported (some individuals have been tested more than once)
9% - percentage of total tests that were positive (91% of test results are negative)

In terms of how we compare to other nations (those in favor of more restrictions cite these often - the common things are first, the more significant and perhaps surprising last)
2 - US rank in terms of most populous nations with highest confirmed positive test results (1 is India)
1 - US rank for most positive test results
2 - US rank for % of positive test results compared to the total population
1 - US rank for total number of deaths attributed to COVID-19
14 - US rank for mortality rate as a % of positive tests (Belgium, UK, Italy, Netherlands and France are top 5)
7 - US rank for mortality rate as a % of total population (Belgium, UK, Peru, Spain and Italy are top 5)
According to Johns Hopkins, "the US has conducted more COVID-19 tests than any other country."

Regarding hospitalizations in adults and underlying conditions:
(I know these add up to way more than 100%, but this is what CDC has listed - maybe due to individuals reporting multiple underlying conditions?) https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/COVIDNet/COVID19_5.html

52.6% - hypertension
50.2% - obesity
40.4% - metabolic disease
30.5% - cardiovascular disease
22.0% - neurological disease
18.4% - chronic lung disease
14.8% - renal disease
12.2% - asthma
9.3% - no known condition

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Facts!***


Aug 13, 2020, 2:33 PM



2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Here is a fact for you. Those numbers have been greatly


Aug 13, 2020, 8:14 PM

manipulated, and the people in charge of their manipulation have admitted as much.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Here is a fact for you. Those numbers have been greatly


Aug 14, 2020, 8:24 AM

And where have they admitted to the so called manipulation. I would be better to stick to fishing rather than epistemology. The undeniable fact is that the U.S. in the top group of countries for deaths per capita from this pandemic. When we have the best hospitals, best doctors, best scientists, more money and spend more on healthcare than any country in the world, the only possible explanation is lack of leadership.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Here is a fact for you. Those numbers have been greatly


Aug 16, 2020, 9:46 AM

Check this out from the Ilinois director of Health, Dr. Abaco! Pretty hard to grasp, b ut try!

(CHICAGO) WEEK - State Health officials have acknowledged a bending of the "Covid Curve" seeing smaller spikes in positive cases, or rather, not as exponential of a jump as recorded weeks ago when virus testing capability was much lower.

Additionally, despite the additional virus-related deaths being reported everyday, Illinois Department of Public Health reports those numbers are decreasing too.

Still, the department's Director, Dr. Ngozi Ezike used part of her time during Sunday's health briefing to explain how the department determines if a death is related to Coronavirus.

Essentially, Dr. Ezike explained that anyone who passes away after testing positive for the virus is included in that category.

"If you were in hospice and had already been given a few weeks to live, and then you also were found to have COVID, that would be counted as a COVID death. It means technically even if you died of a clear alternate cause, but you had COVID at the same time, it's still listed as a COVID death. So, everyone who's listed as a COVID death doesn't mean that that was the cause of the death, but they had COVID at the time of the death." Dr. Ezike outlined.

She reiterated Illinois health officials will continue to work vigorously to protect the state's most vulnerable populations.

military_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Here is a fact for you. Those numbers have been greatly


Aug 14, 2020, 9:21 AM [ in reply to Here is a fact for you. Those numbers have been greatly ]

I don’t believe their has been a conspiracy to inflate Covid umbers. Any false reporting is considered fraud by Medicare and doctors could lose their license. I can’t think of anyone who would risk their license to practice medicine in order to falsely report numbers. Contrary to earlier rumors hospitals do not get more money for higher Covid numbers.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Good post putting info in a concise manner, a couple thought


Aug 13, 2020, 2:38 PM

1) On your mortality rates, consider that people who have tested positive today but die tomorrow aren't in that calculation. While it probably won't make a huge jump to the percentages and with every passing day that calculation becomes more and more stable, it is a thing to consider.

2) I really wish data was reported for people who have tested more than once. We should be testing at such a rate so that people get tested more than once - especially in higher risk environments - but that makes numbers based on whole population hard to process.

3) Your calculations are looking backward not forward, so it isn't accurate to say "will not". You can only say "have not". If we get a vaccine or something, then the mortality rate could go down. Also, if we can never find a solution and it becomes a normal virus that you can get more than once, then the total death rate would probably be higher.

4) At the rate of 165,000 deaths in 4 months that puts us at an annual rate of just under 400,000 deaths which would be the 3rd highest killer in the US on an annual basis after heart disease and cancer.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm


flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Good post putting info in a concise manner, a couple thought


Aug 13, 2020, 2:47 PM

I didn't put it in my OP, but from what I read - if I read it correctly - the mortality rates and death counts are for "pneumonia, influenza and COVID-19," so they're not exclusive to COVID-19. And even then, people are coded as dying from COVID-19 if the test positive and then die while still positive, even if they are otherwise asymptomatic and have one or many underlying conditions. One of my brother's mothers-in-law died after testing positive. She was 92 and had a myriad of health conditions and was pretty much in hospice care prior to testing positive. Did the COVID kill her? Or would she have died anyway within a similar time-frame? No way to know. But I guarantee you she was counted as a COVID death.

The numbers are all messed up. With positive cases, there's no measure of unique positive tests. Many people don't get tested as well (I haven't), so the mortality rate as a % of positive tests can really only go down if all of us were tested. It is known that MANY more people are positive than are tested positive, simply because not everyone is tested and 80-90% of those with it are asymptomatic.

Bottom-line is we're taking very extreme measures based off of very shaky numbers. Data for hospitalizations is even worse because there has really been no uniform data collection for that information, so those numbers don't line up at all with the other numbers.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Good post putting info in a concise manner, a couple thought


Aug 13, 2020, 2:54 PM

Good read!

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgringofhonormyfavorange.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Containment would be much easier with a more aggressive


Aug 13, 2020, 3:02 PM [ in reply to Re: Good post putting info in a concise manner, a couple thought ]

measurement of people who have COVID, including who they are (and have recently been) in contact with. It also requires a more strict enforcement.

It wouldn't be hard to use GPS to track people who have been identified as COVID positive. They would be required to stay home, and if they don't then they would face charges. In addition, those who have been in close contact with that person would also be required to stay home, or at least monitor symptoms closely.

This is obviously an aggressive approach, but it works. I'm not saying that we should do that here, but if we truly want to get COVID behind us faster and save lives in the process, it would be a much better solution than what we have now.

If we aren't willing to do that, fine, but in that case we should stop whining about no football.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

"All those 'Fire Brownell' guys can kiss it." -Joseph Girard III

"Everybody needs to know that Coach Brownell is arguably the best coach to come through Clemson." -PJ Hall


Re: Containment would be much easier with a more aggressive


Aug 13, 2020, 3:17 PM

The bottom line - to me, my opinion only - is that this virus isn't going anywhere (that much has been documented and reported on) and will not disappear in the spring, or next summer, nor will wearing masks stop it (it can "slow the spread" but it will still spread and eventually when we quit wearing masks, it will still be out there). Vaccines are who-knows-how-long away. Once they are available, not everyone will get them for a variety of reasons - some good, some not so good, but same difference in the end. I posted this the other day, but I think we need to accept that this thing is part of life, quit hiding from it, and carry on with life. The more vulnerable should continue to take precautions with this just like they do anything else.

If you think there are only two alternatives - try to hide from it or wait for a vaccine, then you're mistaken. There is also herd immunity, which is ultimately what takes care of most viruses, and will with this one once the virus is given a chance to work through the population. That sounds really harsh, but keep in mind that by now, hospitals and dr offices are generally very well equipped to handle the virus, testing is widespread, and up to 90% or maybe more of those who do get it are completely asymptomatic. The vulnerable need to "stay in hiding" so those of us who are more healthy can help develop that herd immunity, and that includes the young and the healthy, which would be college and younger athletes. There is loads of documentation on this.

Risk is a part of life (at least it used to be). Illness and death are also a part of life, unfortunately. We do our best to minimize the risk, but life must go on. Just my opinion.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Containment would be much easier with a more aggressive


Aug 13, 2020, 3:34 PM

The real challenge with Covid as compared to MERS/SARS (high mortality rate, slow infection rate) or the flue (lower mortality rate, moderate infection rate)is that the infection rate and spread is so aggressive that outbreaks can and will overwhelm medical capacity. When that happens, the mortality jumps significantly.

THAT is why Italy took a beating and had appalling rates early on. They basically ran out of capacity and thus you had issues with otherwise survivable cases leading to death because of a lack of access to the more critical care element. We saw this in NY to a lesser extent and reached that level in places of AZ etc. Covid can basically jump regions extremely quickly and then have a extremely fast infection rate in a jurisdiction.

I live in a county that has a major hospital system. It has 140 ICU units. However, my region has 500,000 folks. If only 10% in my region is infected (50,000), and of those 10% need hospitalization, then I am looking to need 5,000 beds/ICU unit. Assuming that there is no other need for ICU, then we have to figure out how to make 140 beds cover 5,000 people. Worse and in a bit of irony, my hospital system did major layoff to nursing etc staff just before covid. So for them, they might have had a few extra "beds" but they did not have the staffing either.

It isn't that people die, it is that people die without access to care. That is when you really anger the population. It isn't that grandma dies, it is that grandma died in the waiting room so to speak.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Containment would be much easier with a more aggressive


Aug 13, 2020, 3:40 PM

All of that is true, and that is why we shut everything down back in Mar/Apr - to "flatten the curve" and give hospitals time to gear up accordingly. In the US, for the vast majority of areas (major exception, NYC), it worked. It many places it worked TOO well - here in SC (and other areas) they actually were laying off hospital workers because they didn't have the patients coming in that they used to. The regular patients were told not to come in so they could prepare for the wave of COVID patients that, in most areas, never materialized.

Hospitals (in the US, anyway) are now well equipped and staffed to handle any new surge, should that come. The thing that's been driving all of the decision making, however, has NOT been mortality rates or hospitalization rates, but positive tests. Given that 80-90% or more are asymptomatic, they really don't matter. What SHOULD be driving decision making is hospitalizations and mortality rates of positive tests and of those hospitalized. But it's not. So here we are - trying to "slow the spread" (not "kill the virus" or "eliminate the spread," notably) of a virus that WILL NOT just go away. Ever. Our bodies will adapt. Our hospitals and healthcare systems will adapt. Procedures at places like nursing homes will adapt, and even in places like colleges and athletic facilities. They will all adapt. It's what we do, and we do it because it's the only thing that will truly be effective over the long term.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Containment would be much easier with a more aggressive


Aug 13, 2020, 3:55 PM

I agree to a point. The shutdown was to buy time. However, coming out of the shutdown wasn't "back to normal". A lot of folks missed that memo.

I spent a lot of time visiting a hospital in April/May. I say My father passed from pulmonary fibrosis and lung cancer. It is not an easy thing to help as people struggle with a clear mind while not getting oxygen. It down right sucks. Still, those with major illnesses were still seeing regular traffic and while hospiitals were less busy (and keep in mind they were understaffed because of their own covid exposure/QT). Sure, he was likely an easy covid stat with his late-state condition. However, he still had access to care. However, my bigger worry then and now is my mother. Generally healthy but would be high risk. Access to care would be critical for her. Worse, my sister-in-law is a physician that was exposed to a positive case 10 days before my father passed and my brother had to basically quarantine during the final days and afterwards my dad's passing. He never developed symptoms so, who knows. The thing is bigger that just a fever and really stinks. Even non-critical cases have a big impact.

Still, it all comes back to the rate of spread and access to care. And how much that will cost. The lower we keep the cases and spread the less impact it has overall.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Containment would be much easier with a more aggressive


Aug 16, 2020, 9:56 AM [ in reply to Re: Containment would be much easier with a more aggressive ]

Unfortunately, we can't build hospitals and staff them for "worse case scenarios". This may sound harsh, but that is just the truth. When engineers design highways, they may use a 10-year storm frequency to design the drainage systems. That means anytime it rains more than a 10-year frequency then the highways are going to flood to a certain extent. If they were built to handle storms so that they would never flood then they would be unaffordable. (not sure what the frequency is, but using 10-year as an example). Hospitals are essentially the same. Of course that was the whole purpose of "flattening the curve". I'm afraid if the worse case hits, then we will have to improvise.

military_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Containment would be much easier with a more aggressive


Aug 16, 2020, 10:18 AM

Well, the first few months were about 'buying time for the hospitals to prepare for that contingency'. By now, there should be enough capacity to handle any surges. Shame on the hospital system if this is not the case.
Most everyone on this board of whom I have read above this post seems to 'get it' that there are serious problems/confusion with the reported numbers. At this point I don't see how anyone has a truly clear picture of what is the best thing to do. Everyone seems to have their own opinion and unfortunately, rather than just saying 'we don't really know, we'll have to just muddle through and leave the understanding of it to hindsight' folks are more than willing to get their opinions out. Still, the media wants to push their own agendas to the detriment of the population in general. By now, true data is so compromised that I don't think anyone can truly say what is the proper course of action going forward. It doesn't help that different areas of the country are experiencing different scenarios, so what might work for one area might be exactly the wrong thing to do for another area. I am thankful the pandemic seems to be calming down from earlier in the year. Again, who knows why exactly, but I am thankful nonetheless.
Aside note - It would be a good thing to know what the death rates/year are for the United States overall vs. this year. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that it is not much different from previous years.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Containment would be much easier with a more aggressive


Aug 14, 2020, 9:19 AM [ in reply to Re: Containment would be much easier with a more aggressive ]

O2bn... I agree with you 100 percent. All we are doing is kicking the can down the road. Protect the vulnerable and let the healthy get on with life.

2024 white level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

"If a pig had a better personality, he would cease to be a filthy animal."


Re: Good post putting info in a concise manner, a couple thought


Aug 16, 2020, 12:12 AM [ in reply to Re: Good post putting info in a concise manner, a couple thought ]

I noticed that as well on the CDC site. Their data folds COVID, pneumonia, and influenza together. Pneumonia and influenza have pretty significant annual numbers that result in death.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

thanks a lot you non mask wearers!


Aug 13, 2020, 2:43 PM

Look what YOU are responsible for!

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: thanks a lot you non mask wearers!


Aug 13, 2020, 3:46 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_iQM5x9wF8&feature=emb_title

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Ugh... this type of rhetoric is far from helpful


Aug 13, 2020, 4:31 PM

Does he have a few good points, yes, but his conclusion is way off base and I can use his own video to make that conclusion.

1) With how much exertion did he breathe out through the masks? More or less than normal breathing through your nose. I sure bet he breathed as hard as he could to make a point.

2) He had no "control" showing me how much the vapor spreads with no mask at all... not hard to imagine that it would spread quite a bit more - especially in the forward direction.

3) Do masks "stop" one from being able to exhale or inhale COVID into or from the environment? No, but they aren't supposed to. Does it greatly diminish the amount of COVID particles from being in the air and the overall dispersal of those particles - most likely.

So, should we be wearing masks in order to reduce the overall spread of the virus? Yes, we absolutely should be.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Remember my mask protects you and your mask protects me.


Aug 13, 2020, 8:30 PM [ in reply to Re: thanks a lot you non mask wearers! ]

Or at least that’s what I keep hearing any way.

military_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Nothing to argue either way, just a TU for "calkylater"


Aug 13, 2020, 4:37 PM

of course, you have to take my praise with a grade of slaw.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Nothing to argue either way, just a TU for "calkylater"


Aug 13, 2020, 8:47 PM



2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I got 4 of the top 6 of those lying conditions, so if


Aug 14, 2020, 9:36 AM

the Covid finds me, I am probably a goner. I try to joke about it, but the reality really ain't that funny. :(

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


One more Current Fact and Stat


Aug 16, 2020, 10:49 AM

Between March and the end of July America suffered over 200,000 more deaths from all causes than were recorded in the same period in 2019.

The libs attribute all those excess deaths to President Trump. I attribute them all to Covid-19.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Replies: 25
| visibility 1
Archives - Tiger Boards Archive
add New Topic