4 ms·

> even when numbers show it’s time to start things again. Which numbers would those be? Because I'm looking at https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/new-cases https

> even when numbers show it’s time to start things again. Which numbers would those be? Because I'm looking at https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/new-cases https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/new-cases, and it does not in any way support your claim.

zests 6y ago
It seems lazy for that website to not show per-capita numbers or positive test percentage numbers. https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/en/test https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/en/test
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Retric 6y ago
  Positive test percentage numbers depend greatly on the rate of testing. People with the most severe symptoms are generally tested first. A declining number of hospital beds used is an extremely good sign, but there is very limited data for this nationwide.
cdash 6y ago
Maybe, just maybe you shouldn't look at new cases as your measurement when you are constantly ramping up testing. If you test more people of course you will find more people with the virus. You should be looking at hospitalizations and those numbers are pretty much down across the board.
- CydeWeys 6y ago
  An alternative way to look at this is that you shouldn't remotely consider reopening if you don't even have enough testing capacity available to identify nearly every case. You can't control outbreaks if you don't have the data needed for contact tracing.
  - koheripbal 6y ago
    Why is that? I don't see the need for testing when we already know that folks under 60 are usually fine if they take the standard precautions, and everyone over 60 or in a risk group should remain isolated. The testing is nice to have, but shouldn't really alter people's behavior.
  - walterbell 6y ago
    Testing is a point-in-time measurement. Means little if someone with a negative test can get infected an hour later. We should instead be teaching people to recognize early symptoms so they can immediately isolate during the time-bounded phase of virus shedding. Testing is sanitation theater with the side effect of creating a surveillance society.
    - maxerickson 6y ago
      It's pretty clear that a positive test is the early symptom for a large percentage of people. It's also not the interval immediately after infection takes place (your hour later) that matters, it's the period starting a few days later. Get them out of circulation before they have a chance to spread the virus and we can slow it down further than we have till now, even with more activity taking place.
- Scipio_Afri 6y ago
  If you look at % positive it accounts for increases in testing ability. So are you just testing more, or are you actually finding an increase in cases in your sample of the total population. That is what they're looking at to get a true determination of if the infection rate is increasing, decreasing or flat.
rement 6y ago
For most of the United States the total lockdown has been overkill. A better way to compare the US to most European countries would be to compare individual states and even then some states have rural populations that would have been fine without lockdowns. For example, New York City is one of the hardest hit cities but the rest of the state of New York has had significantly less cases and deaths. Is this because of the lockdowns? Probably, but at the same time our hospitals have not been running at capacity or even close to that (some have even furloughed workers because all elective procedures have been cancelled). If the goal is to find a cure before we lift lockdowns we better do something to help those economically impacted by them (and giving away free money is not a viable option). If the goal is to not overwhelm our healthcare systems we are doing that great but a country wide lockdown is not viable either. The New York Times has a good map [0] to show how little most of the country has been affected. That is why state governments should be handling the outbreaks in their own state instead of shutting down the country all together. These lockdowns were implemented because we had no idea how this virus worked or where it was. We have a much better idea now and each state can act accordingly. [0]: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-cases.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-c...
- rement 6y ago
  Georgia is a good example of a state that has started to open it's economy and is still seeing a decline in new cases. NPR has been tracking state restrictions and Georgia lifted some restrictions April 24[0] more restrictions were lifted May 1 [0]: https://www.npr.org/847415273#georgia https://www.npr.org/847415273#georgia edit: April 24 was earlier than May 1 for some lifted restrictions.
  - mkr-hn 6y ago
    Georgia's cities and counties mostly put their own measures in place without waiting for the governor to decide to do something. I don't think they're waiting for or depending on the state's call on it.
    - rement 6y ago

zests 6y ago

It seems lazy for that website to not show per-capita numbers or positive test percentage numbers. https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/en/test https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/en/test

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Retric 6y ago
Positive test percentage numbers depend greatly on the rate of testing. People with the most severe symptoms are generally tested first. A declining number of hospital beds used is an extremely good sign, but there is very limited data for this nationwide.

cdash 6y ago

Maybe, just maybe you shouldn't look at new cases as your measurement when you are constantly ramping up testing. If you test more people of course you will find more people with the virus. You should be looking at hospitalizations and those numbers are pretty much down across the board.

CydeWeys 6y ago
An alternative way to look at this is that you shouldn't remotely consider reopening if you don't even have enough testing capacity available to identify nearly every case. You can't control outbreaks if you don't have the data needed for contact tracing.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  Why is that? I don't see the need for testing when we already know that folks under 60 are usually fine if they take the standard precautions, and everyone over 60 or in a risk group should remain isolated. The testing is nice to have, but shouldn't really alter people's behavior.
- walterbell 6y ago
  Testing is a point-in-time measurement. Means little if someone with a negative test can get infected an hour later. We should instead be teaching people to recognize early symptoms so they can immediately isolate during the time-bounded phase of virus shedding. Testing is sanitation theater with the side effect of creating a surveillance society.
  - maxerickson 6y ago
    It's pretty clear that a positive test is the early symptom for a large percentage of people. It's also not the interval immediately after infection takes place (your hour later) that matters, it's the period starting a few days later. Get them out of circulation before they have a chance to spread the virus and we can slow it down further than we have till now, even with more activity taking place.
Scipio_Afri 6y ago
If you look at % positive it accounts for increases in testing ability. So are you just testing more, or are you actually finding an increase in cases in your sample of the total population. That is what they're looking at to get a true determination of if the infection rate is increasing, decreasing or flat.

rement 6y ago

For most of the United States the total lockdown has been overkill. A better way to compare the US to most European countries would be to compare individual states and even then some states have rural populations that would have been fine without lockdowns. For example, New York City is one of the hardest hit cities but the rest of the state of New York has had significantly less cases and deaths. Is this because of the lockdowns? Probably, but at the same time our hospitals have not been running at capacity or even close to that (some have even furloughed workers because all elective procedures have been cancelled). If the goal is to find a cure before we lift lockdowns we better do something to help those economically impacted by them (and giving away free money is not a viable option). If the goal is to not overwhelm our healthcare systems we are doing that great but a country wide lockdown is not viable either. The New York Times has a good map [0] to show how little most of the country has been affected. That is why state governments should be handling the outbreaks in their own state instead of shutting down the country all together. These lockdowns were implemented because we had no idea how this virus worked or where it was. We have a much better idea now and each state can act accordingly. [0]: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-cases.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-c...

rement 6y ago
Georgia is a good example of a state that has started to open it's economy and is still seeing a decline in new cases. NPR has been tracking state restrictions and Georgia lifted some restrictions April 24[0] more restrictions were lifted May 1 [0]: https://www.npr.org/847415273#georgia https://www.npr.org/847415273#georgia edit: April 24 was earlier than May 1 for some lifted restrictions.
- mkr-hn 6y ago
  Georgia's cities and counties mostly put their own measures in place without waiting for the governor to decide to do something. I don't think they're waiting for or depending on the state's call on it.
  - rement 6y ago