US CV19 numbers are crap (I'm sure it's global)
 

If you start looking at these numbers, various totals as well as the various totals per million, you start to realize that the numbers are crap.

For instance, Louisiana is #7 in total cases and #3 in cases per million. Texas is #10 in cases and way, WAY down the list in cases per million. But then if you look at tests and tests per million, you see the issue, Texas is #4 on total tests, but also way, WAY down the list on tests per million. So considering the numbers for my assumption would be that Texas probably has far, far more cases than are reported.

These sorts of things are also, I'm sure, an issue globally. How can anyone create models when the numbers are so obviously crap. Clearly the numbers that we got from China are a joke. We know for instance that a couple of times they changed how they reported numbers or what numbers they reported or how they got their numbers.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1586524123.jpg

This morning, they were touting how well California has done in the Crisis. Not trying to disparage California, but if the testing/number are crap, well then no real conclusion can be made.

It does look like we have done more testing than any other country in the world and are on track to probably test more than the rest of the world combined.

To me, the "real" test will be the antibody test. Find out who has HAD the virus and is now immune. The test uses a finger prick and takes 15 minutes.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/simple-blood-test-covid-19-antibodies-reopen-economy/story?id=70024837

Masrum:
It has long been said that the 'infected cases' is a very squishy number due to a whole host of noise variables like testing delays, Testing false negatives, chosen test population, etc.

The deaths number has some noise in it as well, BUT is prob is the cleanest number to follow. A I have stated, if you die from COVID, there are multiple orthogonal tests that have been preformed along the way. Is there some semantic issues on cause of death with a comorbitidy, possibly... but ravaged lungs in a X-ray along with a positive COVID test and a cytokine measurement is hard to fudge.

My wife just read something on the internet, so it must be true that says that in the UK, they are only counting deaths that occur in hospitals, and therefore thing that they are under-counting by 15-20%.

But if someone dies with CV19 symptoms/effects, but they haven't been tested, I suspect no one is going to count that as a CV19 death.

NY is in that boat. It was estimated ~200 people a day who die at home are not being counted.

No number is perfect...at least till they chip you and monitor real time :-).

This will be the real data source. But it will be after the fact data in coming years. We need to test for the Covid-19 antibodies in all blood tests in the future. Then we can see what percentage of the population really had it, and what percentage really died. Hopefully the death certificates for the people dying outside of a hospital will show C-19 as the cause, or a contribution cause. If some 90+ year old diabetic lung cancer survivor dies from it, what really killed them?

I suspect it will be the lens of history that really tells us if the huge cost to the economy and the disruption was necessary, or total over reaction. The hindsight is 20-20 thing.

I, too, agree the numbers we get are suspect They change hourly. So hard to see clear, concise data when things are so dynamic.

I can't help but think the experts worldwide are putting in tirelessly long hours in the labs.

Tip o' the cap to them. http://forums.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/wat.gif

Good points Glen, and the faster the better in prep for another, more different one.

Investigative reason why California may have lower numbers.
Testing a 1,000 residents over the next two days for COVID-19 antibodies.
CA had a nasty respiratory wave go thru last year and with CA a non stop Wuhan destination - we may have gone undetected and developed a limited herd immunity.
Hard to think with destination flights arriving here that we don't have a higher concentration of infected folks.
I think Stanford may be performing the study.

People that show symptoms and don't go to the hospital are also not counted. Inflicted numbers are way low. Also depends on testing numbers. That's why I look at deaths.

China numbers are a joke. Their curve just goes flat. NFW.

There is good reason that actuaries are the highest paid employees.

That is, they have to make sense out of data that are not so complete.

There is a lot of information in that data, and many will read it wrong; often because they have a conclusion that they want to support.

Somehow we have very high expectation to get good data out of every state, country and local government on a daily basis. Isn't this asking for a lot? Who does all this counting? Especially once numbers start taking off!

Deaths are the best numbers to go by until the SHTF and people die in very high numbers. Then a lot of deaths will go uncounted.

So, in the case of CA, the death count is low and things are still in control, I would trust those numbers. And no, I doubt we had early waves and immunity. We would have seen high death rates in hospitals in January/February during a time the medical community definitely knew about COVID and its symptoms.

G

"I suspect it will be the lens of history that really tells us if the huge cost to the economy and the disruption was necessary, or total over reaction. The hindsight is 20-20 thing. "

That will be difficult. Any proper analysis would have to include a lot of variables, including the healthcare costs of morbidity associated with the Covid-19 disease. And of course as part of that, the realized healthcare costs (which will be rolled up actuals and estimates) and the cost avoidance from austere measures (which will be based on models). The latter could most certainly be affected by assumptions made about the spread of the virus that would be anticipated without austere measures.

I think it is important to remember that even without austere measures, the public's basic understanding of the morbidity and mortality associated with this somebeetch virus would have caused many (perhaps most?) to avoid large gatherings, restaurants, bars, casinos, airplanes, cruise ships and on an on.

All of these types of businesses are part of our economy. The public would get this understanding from the thousands of sources reporting on the internet, tv, radio, and in print. And of course the internet would include a broad spectrum of social media like these Forums.

Then there is the litigation cost, both ways (with and without austere measures). For example, if you were GM and there were no gubment orders to shelter in place, would you close down your factories anyway? If not, how would you protect yourself from widespread litigation?

I think that the numbers of "tests" and the numbers of deaths only tell part of the story.

I think there are already "economic impact" studies well underway in the public health and economics fields and related areas. And I think it is likely that there are myriad published studies on the economic impacts of things like social distancing compared to the morbidity, mortality and costs of alternative approaches or no approaches at all.

"To me, the "real" test will be the antibody test. Find out who has HAD the virus and is now immune. The test uses a finger prick and takes 15 minutes.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/simple-blood-test-covid-19-antibodies-reopen-economy/story?id=70024837"

For those interested, I posted some links related to antibody testing in the "Corona Virus..no joke?" thread, starting I think at post #3139.

I think it might be good to understand that this type of test is likely not a panacea, and to remember that the gubmint may have its hands full protecting the public from "opportunists" with poor antibody tests and/or test processes. I think that both the UK and the US gubmints have already indicated that some of the tests presented to them by private industry do not have the sensitivity, specificity and/or precision to be used in any meaningful way.

I think such tests may actually be dangerous to public health if used improperly.

And I think any retrospective economic analysis that uses antibody test data will be compromised by the possibility that such tests cannot estimate how long the antibodies have been present in a subjects blood, and so may not be able to provide information about where and how quickly the virus spread.

It is all very complex.

I posted this article in the Sweden CV thread.

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3078840/coronavirus-low-antibody-levels-raise-questions-about

I’m not confident that we’ll develop an effective antibody test. But this is all way beyond me.

L.A. County just extended the "Safer at home" quarantine through May 15th. Also masks required in public areas and stores beginning April 15th.

Welcome my friends to the show that never ends.....

Actuaries....really? LOL...they do just fine, but I just had to giggle at that one...

Of course, if a large portion of the deaths aren't counted because they weren't diagnosed or tested positive, then you're death numbers are as useless as the rest.

Exactly, the idea that people stopped dying of CV19 there is ridiculous

Yet LA county, with 10 million people, has had a total of 2,000 people get hospitalized so far, with 244 deaths.

Hospitaliiz. rate: 2,000/10,000,000 = .0002
Death rate: 244/10,000,000 = .00002

https://www.ocregister.com/

So much for lockdown being only to “flatten the curve.” LA County is going to milk this for as long as possible.

We will have really solid numbers on this pandemic in a few years, until then we wing it with whatever data we have.

Broad observations:
Italy Spain and NYC had extensive unknown community spread that completely overwhelmed their healthcare systems. By June they may have 500/M dead and a similar number leaving the hospital with severe heart, lung, or kidney damage.

CA and WA isolated very early and contained a lot of community spread. As a result hospitalization and death/M numbers are relatively low and so far it looks unlikely that their healthcare systems will become overwhelmed.

How do we get out of this mess? We need very high testing numbers along with containment and contact tracing so we can identify the haves from the have nots. The closer we get to the Taiwan and S. Korea model, the better our outcomes.