7 ms·

I'm working on a COVID data website using public data from the New York Times. It's on my list to make the code open source but I'm just not there yet. FWIW, b

• artvark11 6y ago
  Right now this is the most upvoted thing in this thread, once people actually see the point of this website, they will flag it and down vote it into oblivion, as it does not fit their narrative.
  • hnrodey 6y ago
    Censorship with my site has been off the charts. Definitely does not fit the public narrative.
    • Erik816 6y ago
      People not agreeing with you is not censorship, or at least not the kind anyone should worry about. Let us know if the government has restricted your speech in any way.
      • hnrodey 6y ago
        Fair enough on the censorship term - no one from the government has reached out to me yet ; )
      • zests 6y ago
        Where in the definition of censorship does it say government?
        • zests 6y ago
          GP comment edited and make my comment irrelevant. Please ignore.
    • phonethrowaway 6y ago
      Maybe because you need to learn basic statistics... You need to compare the number of tests to results, not the total population where nobody is getting tested. C'mon man... I don't disagree with the spirit of self directed data exploration, but you need to be careful.
      • hnrodey 6y ago
        Test positivity is part of the story, but not the story. If you are not getting tested it’s almost certainly because you’re not actively sick and/or been exposed. There’s value, in my opinion, to knowing how people people have not have a positive test. This does not imply COVID negative. I also make the assumption that once you have taken a test you quarantine like a responsible person. I would say that the amount of people who tested positive is roughly the same as the amount of people who are contagious yet don’t know.
        • tinix 6y ago
          > I would say that the amount of people who tested positive is roughly the same as the amount of people who are contagious yet don’t know. Based on what? Do you have anything to demonstrate that assumption and back it up with facts?
          • hnrodey 6y ago
            Facts? I don't have anything cite other than common sense. We know that case counts generally do not have wild swings. In other words, prior performance indicates future behavior. If the two week moving average of positive case counts is 500 - then we can roughly predict what to expect the following day for positive case counts plus or minus the current infection trend. My experience has been that people who simply get tested are already isolating/quarantining. That has been my approach. So if 500 people tested positive then I generally believe those 500 people isolate themselves and they are no longer infecting people because of their quarantine. Then 500ish people show up tomorrow to take their place. That's my point. Once people are identified as sick then they aren't spreading the disease because of "hey don't be a giant dickhead".
  • chapium 6y ago
    Nice try at trying to frame others who disagree. There's possibly many reasons its getting downvoted. The site is some aggregated stats and armchair analysis on cherry picked data.
  • iron0013 6y ago
    Truth isn’t really a “narrative”
• libraryatnight 6y ago
  My moms co-worker got it. Now 2 of his family is dead after he spread it. One of those was a 24 year old athlete. Can we PLEASE stop adding to noise on the internet with our opinions and pet projects? Young, healthy, fit people are getting this and dying. Your hypothesis may be accurate overall, I do not know, but frankly it's noise nobody needs.
  • gvfdabgea 6y ago
    Whoever the group is that has been spreading the whole anti-science trend this year is very active in this thread unfortunately.
  • VLM 6y ago
    How can we fight a widespread infection using emotional anecdotes instead of statistics?
    • jawarner 6y ago
      An emotional anecdote conveys the personal impact of an issue. It helps with empathy, something OP is not demonstrating. Statistics do back that it is possible for young people to die of COVID, albeit less likely than older people.
      • hnrodey 6y ago
        I have a significant amount empathy which is why I have invested personal time and actual dollars in building this site and engaging in professional discussions. My empathy is primarily towards the people who have worked hard for what they have only to have it ripped away because of arbitrary government decisions. Regardless, the people who have passed directly from and because of this disease is a tragic story in the history of our country.
  • irq11 6y ago
    Nationwide in the US in 2020, 7,151 people under the age of 45 have died after Covid diagnosis. Under the age of 25, only 528 people have died. During the same time period, over 50,000 people under age 25 have died from all causes: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm
• camgunz 6y ago
  > My bias is that the COVID-19 response in and across the United States is overblown and hysterical. Can you say more about this? Lots of people have died; if anything my feeling is that our response has not at all been commensurate.
  • hnrodey 6y ago
    Read the remainder of that paragraph.
    • camgunz 6y ago
      I'm just gonna skip a bunch of steps here, which may be unwise but whatever. Your argument is that if you're fit and healthy, you shouldn't have your behavior dictated by people who aren't. They've made poor choices, they're the ones who should bear the consequences. You further argue that the low per-capita positive tests indicates that COVID-19 doesn't deserve the response we've (so far) given it. Here's why you're wrong: - Fit, healthy people do die from COVID-19. They can also suffer long-term effects. - There are people with high vulnerability to COVID-19 through no fault of their own. They can have autoimmune disorders, or simply be old. You acknowledge this. However, you generally can't choose to transmit COVID-19 only to the obese and not the old (for example). - Further, you broadly can't choose to contract COVID-19 and not transmit it to others. It's possible to be asymptomatic and shedding for days. To be clear: you can have COVID-19, not know it, and infect dozens of others who can do the same. - Tests are a poor measure of the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic. They do lend themselves very well to manipulation and motivated reasoning, which I would guess is why people who are motivated to diminish the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic like using them. The only stat that matters is death count per capita.
      • hnrodey 6y ago
        First, I appreciate the thought you put in to your response. Every possible demographic has experienced some type of negative outcome from COVID. Most people make a full recovery. Have the fit and healthy passed from COVID? Absolutely, albeit at a staggeringly lower rate than others. Personally, my wife and I made a decision back in the summer to get back to living our lives and accepting the consequence because we are a family of four healthy individuals. We workout several days per week. Our children are healthy. We don't eat like assholes. We are not licking doorknobs. We have stayed at home when we knowingly came in to contact with someone who tested positive. We respect others' decisions who have decided that stricter measures are right for their situation. On the site I acknowledge asymptomatic transmission of COVID. If I am worried about getting sick then I should be taking all possible precautions to minimize my risk including self isolation, etc. A large part of my personal motivation for starting this in the first place is because of the terrible way the media currently reports COVID which is almost exclusively through number of confirmed cases. I'd argue that stat means very little. It seems true to reason that the sick and unhealthy are the group who suffer the largest impact from COVID. Health is a choice (obviously there are exceptions). Millions of people die every year in the US from otherwise preventable causes like heart disease, lung disease and various forms of cancer. Therefore my thesis is that we are punishing the responsible people in the world to prioritize those who have willfully neglected their health for a significant portion of their life. It's really straightforward to not be significantly overweight and workout 2-3 days per week.
• Trasmatta 6y ago
  3100 people died in a single day, and your response is: > My bias is that the COVID-19 response in and across the United States is overblown and hysterical. In other words, the juice has not been worth the squeeze. These are the kind of statements that people in future generations will look back on in embarrassment. "How could people be so purposefully blind to what's happening right in front of them?" Also this; > I argue that getting sick is a human right and that no one can deny you this right. Do you not realize the fundamental issue with this statement? Edited to add: 3,100 deaths reported in a single day, not necessarily all dead on the same day.
  • heartbreak 6y ago
    > 3100 people died in a single day Realistically 3,100 people died over several days, possibly weeks, and due to reporting delays caused by the Thanksgiving holiday, the numbers were all reported on one day. There's never a more important time to follow the seven-day rolling average than around a major holiday. A lot of people died of covid yesterday, and a lot of people will die of covid today, but not 3,100 people. We have a significant number of people in this country (including the person you replied to) who sincerely believe that covid is overblown. Obviously incorrect statements like "3100 people died in a single day" reinforce those beliefs and are counterproductive.
    • Trasmatta 6y ago
      You're right, thanks for the correction. Either way, the fact is still that we're at nearly 280k thousand deaths in just the US, and are very likely to hit 400k or more, and people are still out there saying we're overreacting. It's absurd.
      • hnrodey 6y ago
        What would be your response to the small business owners who lost their livelihood because government arbitrarily decided to cut off their revenue stream? The kids who are being left behind because schools across the country have gone virtual? The increases in domestically violence? Suicide and depression rates? The unavoidable health decline because people have been forced in to their homes and apartments for several months? There’s a boatload of problems in the US. COVID is a symptom - not the cause. Health is the antidote to COVID - not lockdown. And as we see, far too many people have spent years upon years sacrificing their health and now suffering consequences.
• g8oz 6y ago
  https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
• roytries 6y ago
  I'm not sure your data rhymes with your interpretation. Having 0.5%~1% of people having a positive corona test in the last two weeks means that every week 3.2~1.6 million people are walking around with Corona. I would not call that a handful of people. (This is even the lower bound as it excludes untested people which are positive) With a fatality rate of 2% (source: https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid?country=~USA https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid?country=~USA) that means 64~32 thousand die every two weeks. This translates to 1.7~0.8 million people dying every year. With that I'm obviously ignoring the large spectrum between 'no lasting symptoms' and 'death'. With one of the most lax responses in the western world I cannot see how you conclude from this that the US's response is 'overblown and hysterical'
  • hnrodey 6y ago
    655,000 people die every year from heart disease. In the US. Where’s the outrage and concern from eating pie and cookies for breakfast?