Could this be why cases are spiking?
 

Let’s try to keep this out of PARF. Always wondered why we don’t simply track active infections. Clearly “cases” include much more than active infections...thoughts?

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1595003974.jpg

Our local paper ran a list of Those we Have Lost

It was overwhelmingly full of people in their late 60’s ,70’s and 80’s and more

San Antonio was reporting the "probable" cases with the confirmed cases. Texas reduced the confirmed count by over 3400, yesterday. They keep count of both, but separate.

No question reporting and record keeping has been inconsistent. I’d like to see the source of the statement in the OP For context.

NJ added 1850 deaths as an adjustment end of June. Looks like a spike when it's a supposed correction.

Arent they also classifying any covid death as any death when the person pops positive with covid?
In other words, dude dies in a car accident but is positive for covid, that is a covid death.

They were. I know Colorado retracted about 300-400 deaths because they were car accident victims, who happened to have COVID

CDC

FAQ: COVID-19 Data and Surveillance Updated June 3, 2020

A COVID-19 case includes confirmed and probable cases and deaths. This change was made to reflect an interim COVID-19 positionpdf iconexternal icon statement issued by the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists on April 5, 2020. The position statement included a case definition and made COVID-19 a nationally notifiable disease.



A probable case or death is defined as:

A person meeting clinical criteria AND epidemiologic evidence with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID-19;
A person meeting presumptive laboratory evidence AND either clinical criteria OR epidemiologic evidence;
A person meeting vital records criteria with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID-19.


The rise in the number of COVID-19 cases reflects the rapid community spread of COVID-19 in many U.S. states, territories and communities. Community spread means people have been infected with the virus in an area, including some who are not sure how or where they became infected. Also, the number of cases of COVID-19 being reported in the United States is rising due to increased laboratory testing and reporting across the country.

As other countries start opening up there will be a spike in cases. Not PARFING but: The BLM protests didn't help.

There's been a spike in cases in Melbourne Australia and they've shut down the borders again.
Something a friend said months ago: "Just like the annual flu, most of us are going to get this at some point".

I think it’s due to the shortage of testing. Tracking known active cases requires that there are enough tests to test everyone with symptoms + epidemiological evidence to confirm the infection. They’re making the assumption that if it looks like a duck and it’s been hanging out with ducks, it’s a duck.

Finding more cases because testing more is only part of the story.

Increasingly higher percentages of positive tests indicate undetected community spread and not testing enough for track and trace to work. For example:

WHO says you need a positive test rate of around 5%.

In terms of tests/million of population, the US is ranked 24th in the world.

Various issues w/ the data, both under-reporting and over-reporting. The biggest issue is that roughly half of infected persons are asymptomatic, some other portion of infected persons have symptoms mild enough that they don't seek testing , and some additional portion of persons don't have access to testing for various reasons. Almost all those cases go un-reported. As a result, overall Covid infections are seriously under-reported.

This matters because infected persons who are asymptomatic or have only mild symptoms will still be shedding virus and thus infecting other persons. That's the thing about this disease, it creates hundreds of thousands of "Typhoid Marys".

For a while I was studying the data for my state (Oregon) very closely, and my estimate was that only 1 in 10 cases were reported. Turned out that was also the estimate of the state health dept. The implication was that back then, when Oregon was reporting 100 new cases/day, we were actually having 1,000 new/ infections/day. Now we are reporting 300-400 new cases/day, I suspect the under-reporting has gone down a little, but likely we are still actually having at least 2,000-3,000 new infections/day.

Don't know what the situation is in other states but I suspect actual infections are significantly under-reported in all states.

Now there is an increasing data problem, which is that various levels of government are trying to withhold, suppress, and minimize the data. Even in Oregon we've seen this. It seems that whether you're in a blue or red state, one of the first instincts of top government officials is to lie and that instinct seems to increase the farther the official is from actually taking care of people on the street and in the hospital. Sorry for the PARF-ish sentiment but I'm pretty f*cking mad about it.

Yeah, the stats are hard to follow. What I would want is:

Total number of tests administered
Total number of positive tests
Total number of negative tests
Total number of people hospitalized or under care due to tested or probable Covid infection
Total number of deaths with positive Covid test
Total number of deaths with Covid as the probable cause

Then look at the trendlines.

I get concerned because the big variable is the number tested, particularly when there are so many asymptomatic infections...you would expect then to see a direct proportion of increased positives but WITHOUT material illness.

Our illustrious leaders and foolish media gerrymander every piece of data they get to support their agenda.

Dennis

Ask yourself why.

This is not the CDC's first cut at the plate and they are chartered to be prepared: Why were not protocols for accounting for the cause of death from CV-19 on a national scale in place; the contribution of other morbidities (fat, high BP, age, diabetes) already accounted for and in place; verified models already developed based on past pandemics that could also be adjusted for regional issues and the unique properties of this CV in place; protective clothing, or f'ing checklists already in place?

The numbers are corrupt, folks. Sorry. The above is System Engineering 101.

Until a baseline process for validating the data is in place, we are just chatting about opinions based on random digits.

Sorry. Four billion a year to the CDC for this.

Reporting the information something like this would be nice. No idea if this data, supposedly, from Lubbock County is correct or if it is even in their format since it was forwarded to me...

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1595008969.JPG

Link to the official Lubbock COVID stats

https://ci.lubbock.tx.us/departments/health-department/about-us/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19

Something else I would like clarity on, if one person is tested multiple times, does each positive test count both towards the % positive, and towards the case count?

As an example we have a friend who was pregnant and ended up being in the hospital for over a month. She tested positive, no symptoms, and during the stay was tested 6 times. 5 of the tests were positive.

So did that count add 5 to NC's total? Or does the system correct for that?

Further her presence in the hospital counted as a covid case hospitalized, even if she was there for complications with child birth. I'd like to see a break down of people who are there because of covid, and who is just there and just tested positive per hospital protocols.

If Biden wins they’ll quietly change the rules for reporting to make it look like its subsiding or basically disappeared. Count on it.

It’s not unlike how they changed the way unemployment stats were calculated under the Obama administration to make it look not as bad.

Lies, damn lies and statistics...

and down we go

No question that cases are under-reported. Simply impossible to test every single person (symptomatic or not). That translates to CFR/IFR rates that are actually lower than reported. However, including "probable" cases/deaths helps nothing.
At least if we maintained strict reporting protocols on confirmed cases only, we could extrapolate more accurately.

The bigger issue IMO is using the "probable" protocol for reporting deaths. Currently, a death is reported as C19 COD if it is either lab-confirmed, or probable. And, even the lab-confirmed deaths include people who die from all manner of things, but happened to also be positive for C19 at TOD. Then you throw in financial incentives to hospital admins for each C19 case/death, and you basically guarantee that we will never have anything close to accurate numbers.