re: Daily COVID Updated as of 11/2/20 8:00 PM

This is the link to the COVID-19 tracker that I have created and shared on Google Drive.
If you want to view the shared sheet, follow this link COVID-19 Tracker
If you want to download a copy of this sheet and manipulate it follow this link Downloadable COVID-19 Tracker
The source for the data is from https://covidtracking.com/data/















New Cases by State


New Deaths by State


7-day average growth rate of new cases

quote:

---

I may be reading this incorrectly, but this is a really odd sentence that is kind of buried in the article. We already have a huge issue with the accuracy of the tests we are using. I don’t have a rock solid handle on the pathology question, but a less sensitive test seems to indicate less accuracy. Is this test a coin flip? How does living our lives subject to a coin flip at every point of entrance into a group improve our situation?

---

i'm sure this has been linked before, but have a look at the definitions here:

LINK

accuracy is a derived thing (the formula is given in the entry).

creating (with all that goes into that) a high-sensitivity test is, broadly speaking, expensive (in time & money). so the article seems to be written to advance the idea that cheaper (t & m) and therefore more broadly available testing (even though it may be less sensitive) is a net gain.

quote:

---

We can’t test our way out of a virus. We were told we could. We can’t. This article subscribes to that fallacy.

---

I know this is one of your main tenets, but I disagree - at least in part. Certainly you agree that if we had instant contact testing (like, they take your temp and it tells you simultaneously if you have the virus or not), then it would be relatively easy to widely prevent the spread...enough so that we could bridge to a vaccine and/or have it just snuff out from isolation.

Thus, the goal should be getting as close to that ideal as possible. If we can get it down to 15-minute spit tests, then I would argue we are effectively there. At the very least, it would be a lot easier to re-open things en masse. People could fly to see their relatives, take an exit test at the airport, etc. etc.

I only got this anecdotally via friends there, so I'm looking for some corroboration, but Orlando had a vote of their taxpayers sending children to school to go remote or re-open. Only 20% voted to re-open. At this point - regardless of how we got here - the main thing killing the economy is the populace's fear itself and not government actions. I think the quickest way to win the populace back is rapid testing.

The numbers will be very low to none.


These kids haven’t been social distancing and staying home. They have been hanging out in large groups throughout the week, every week.

I found all the Karen’s in this thread. Jesus

Hospitalizations down over 5k from last Sunday. Deaths are about to fall off the cliff, allowing of course for somebody to magically reclassify a bunch of presumed COVID deaths and dump then into the count.

7 day positivity is going to plummet once Wednesday's frickery cycles through.

Beating the dead horse, but are we ever going to get 'good' data?

LINK

quote:

---

St. Louis area school parents voted to send their kids back at 60-90% rates (based on the school district). The districts basically ignored the parents.

---

I mean, I would say anything below 80% shows significant fear. Still, sounds like the 90s at least should have won out.

MERS and SARS were significantly less contagious.

New Zealand is an island with a small population. They locked everything down and have remained so.

It’s looking like they’re going to have to keep the country locked down indefinitely until a vaccine or all of their draconian measures were for naught.

The “rest of the first world” have extremely similar curves to us and even worse mortality per capita.