Federal Re-opening guidance

[Por_sha911]

Originally Posted by Shaun @ Tru6

This state sees record jump in coronavirus cases days after lockdown protests

Infections take more than a day or two to present symptoms. The sudden rise has nothing to do with people who were at the protests. The legal term is Circumstantial evidence.

[legion]

Originally Posted by Por_sha911

Infections take more than a day or two to present symptoms. The sudden rise has nothing to do with people who were at the protests. The legal term is Circumstantial evidence.

The other explanation is that the results were measured to drive an outcome.

[McLovin]

Increased testing = increased number of known cases.

It’s science (i.e., math).

In any event, Kentucky is going to be on lockdown for a long time. Tennessee, South Carolina and Georgia have taken less restrictive policies and will be starting reopening very soon.

We’ll see in 2-6 weeks who was right.

[McLovin]

That’s looking forward.

Looking at current data:

Deaths per million:

KY: 35
SC: 25
GA: 75
TN: 23

[pmax]

Local government construction's still happening ... this is BART.



No social distancing rules apply it would appear.

[pmax]

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.01.20050542v2

Together, the surge in ILI and analysis of doubling times suggest that SARS-CoV-2 has spread rapidly throughout the US since it’s January 15th start date and is likely accompanied by a large undiagnosed population of potential COVID outpatients with presumably milder distribution of clinical symptoms than estimated from prior studies of SARS-CoV-2+ inpatients.

Well, first case resulting in death has been confirmed in SC as early as Feb 6.

https://www.sccgov.org/sites/covid19/Pages/press-release-04-21-20-early.aspx

Santa Clara County, CA – The County of Santa Clara Medical Examiner-Coroner has identified three individuals who died with COVID-19 in Santa Clara County before the COVID-19 associated death on March 9, 2020, originally thought to be the first death associated with COVID-19 in the county.

The Medical Examiner-Coroner performed autopsies on two individuals who died at home on February 6, 2020 and February 17, 2020. Samples from the two individuals were sent to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Today, the Medical Examiner-Coroner received confirmation from the CDC that tissue samples from both cases are positive for SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19).

[island911]

Good info pmax.

The State of Washington, in the spirit of shelter in place, released 300 prisoners early.

But don't go fishing, they'll arrest you, doncha know.

[KFC911]

Go fishing if it's safe....I will and do.

But don't be stooopid...

We, here in NC will continue the path that's been proposed by folks who know more about this than I do....or any of y'all for that matter.

It's not about politics here....

[jyl]

Originally Posted by Deschodt

The several big hospitals I work for in SFO area also show nothing significant - we've been between 14-21 people in intensive care for the past month (Covid related), 1 death I think... Hard to draw conclusions as to why but the numbers are *very* low... Fair amount of infected (though tests show only a low% of people tested showing positive, single digits) but very few in need of intensive care from the looks of it. Hard to reconcile that picture with NYC reports... Other parts of the bay are somewhat worse off, it's very localized in terms of outcomes...

In fact the lack of "normal" business is killing us...which is somewhat ironic.

SF Bay is doing better than LA metro. I think the tech companies acted much earlier than the local/state govts, starting WFH etc.

[jyl]

Originally Posted by pmax

Yeah, I skimmed through the Stanford study and that's part of the adjustment methodology, looks like they are well aware of these discrepancies hence the 2x range. Still better than the 10x 10000-100000 models !

No.

They had three problems.

1. Test accuracy. The manufacturer specs said 100% sensitivity (of positive samples, 0% are reported as false negative) and 98% specificity (of negative samples, 2% are reported as false positive). The manufacturer is a little Chinese company, the Chinese FDA didn't approve their test, China has now forbidden the export of the test, the specs are based on only 375-ish samples, so how much do you trust the specs? So Stanford tried to revalidate by running the test on 30 known positives and 30 known negatives. They got only 68% sensitivity (32% false negatives) and 100% specificity (0% false positives). But 60 samples is nowhere near enough to validate a test, especially if you don't have confidence in the manufacturing consistency etc. Well, Stanford ended up using a range of possible test accuracies ranging from 68% to 100% sensitivity and 98% to 100% specificity. That's one reason for their extremely wide range of inferred results. The problem is, the real value could easily be outside of that range entirely.

2. Sample non-representative. They advertised for participants on Facebook and those ads got passed around on FB and Nextdoor. The people who ended up coming to be tested were heavily skewed to female, white, living around Palo Alto, and FB users. Which is very different from Santa Clara's demographics. They tried to adjust, by, for example, taking the results in a zip code and scaling up/down to match the % of population in that zip code. They didn't adjust by age, income or other important criteria, don't know why. They didn't adjust by symptom history. Their adjustment took the raw rate from 1.5% to the inferred result of 2.5-4%. When your adjustment results in a 2-3X increase in the result, that tells you your metholodology is a problem. The "result" is mostly reflecting your adjustment decisions.

3. Sample self-selection bias. Who would be most likely to drive to the test location, especially if they live on the other side of Santa Clara county? Maybe people who had reason to think they'd been sick and wanted to find out? Self selection is a big problem in polling and it probably was here too.

This study will not pass peer review - it is getting ripped apart by peers - but the Stanford docs quickly published an Op-Ed touting the study, trying to get the most publicity before their study is retracted or revised. There is really sloppy work going on, under the pressure and incentives created by covid - unfortunately this group of Stanford docs is an example.

Note Stanford has developed its own in-house antibody test, that was not used in this study. The Stanford webpage announcing the new test explicitly notes it is not the same as the test used in the Santa Clara study. Hmm.

TL-DR if your test has a 2% false positive rate, and you're testing for something present in 1-2% of the population, you're going to get junk answers.

[Sooner or later]

Originally Posted by jyl

No.

They had three problems.

1. Test accuracy. The manufacturer specs said 100% sensitivity (of positive samples, 0% are reported as false negative) and 98% specificity (of negative samples, 2% are reported as false positive). The manufacturer is a little Chinese company, the Chinese FDA didn't approve their test, China has now forbidden the export of the test, the specs are based on only 375-ish samples, so how much do you trust the specs? So Stanford tried to revalidate by running the test on 30 known positives and 30 known negatives. They got only 68% sensitivity (32% false negatives) and 100% specificity (0% false positives). But 60 samples is nowhere near enough to validate a test, especially if you don't have confidence in the manufacturing consistency etc. Well, Stanford ended up using a range of possible test accuracies ranging from 68% to 100% sensitivity and 98% to 100% specificity. That's one reason for their extremely wide range of inferred results. The problem is, the real value could easily be outside of that range entirely.

2. Sample non-representative. They advertised for participants on Facebook and those ads got passed around on FB and Nextdoor. The people who ended up coming to be tested were heavily skewed to female, white, living around Palo Alto, and FB users. Which is very different from Santa Clara's demographics. They tried to adjust, by, for example, taking the results in a zip code and scaling up/down to match the % of population in that zip code. They didn't adjust by age, income or other important criteria, don't know why. They didn't adjust by symptom history. Their adjustment took the raw rate from 1.5% to the inferred result of 2.5-4%. When your adjustment results in a 2-3X increase in the result, that tells you your metholodology is a problem. The "result" is mostly reflecting your adjustment decisions.

3. Sample self-selection bias. Who would be most likely to drive to the test location, especially if they live on the other side of Santa Clara county? Maybe people who had reason to think they'd been sick and wanted to find out? Self selection is a big problem in polling and it probably was here too.

I can't find what test or details on what was used in the USC/LA test ot the Chelsea test. Do you have any idea?

[island911]

Originally Posted by KC911

Go fishing if it's safe....I will and do.

But don't be stooopid...
..

Yes! If parked at the lake is a cop and a news van, don't go fishing there.

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by island911

Yes! If parked at the lake is a cop and a news van, don't go fishing there.

That's why ya stop by Krispy-Kreme....shoot the news bimbo, bribe the cop .

Other than prison....no one is locked in their houses....anywhere in the USA.

We're getting there with local efforts to produce masks and now local LabCorp has the tests becoming available. NC has never "totally shut down" per se, but folks are indeed being smart.

Inaccurate polling for sure, but 85% on the local news say it's premature to stop what we're doing now.

We'll get through this...it's just what we do...

Got any 7s? Naw...go fishin' ...

[island911]

Originally Posted by KC911

..

Other than prison....no one is locked in their houses....anywhere in the USA.
....

Actually, prisons are opening up and many people are mentally locked in their homes.

[cabmandone]

Originally Posted by Por_sha911

Infections take more than a day or two to present symptoms. The sudden rise has nothing to do with people who were at the protests. The legal term is Circumstantial evidence.

Even more impressive is the fact that 100 protesters turned into 200+ cases just two days after the protest! It's a coronavirus miracle!

[legion]

There will be no reopening. Those of us in states whose governors expect to use this crisis for political gain will keep us imprisoned in our homes, without trial or due process, at least through the election. We are now subjects who must seek permission from our lords before undertaking any action.

[tadd]

^^^^

Me thinks you have been off to see Tabs...

[Crowbob]

They'll have to change it from quarantine to curfew. How else are they gonna control the seething masses?

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by Crowbob

.... How else are they gonna control the seething masses?

Shutting down a few DNS servers should do it....easy peasy

[RWebb]

anybody know the DNS server for legion?