We're testing 150,000 people daily for CV, that number does not appear to be growing. On average between 17% and 20% result in positives giving us about 30,000 positive people per day.
If the tests do not increase in numbers, we're going to be stuck at 30,000 people per day making the curve look "flat" while it could and probably is anything but.
The numbers of new infected per day are complete horseshit.
Am I missing something?
The numbers of newly infected per day will always be an estimate, based only in part on the numbers of new diagnosed positives per day. Hopefully the latter number is pretty accurate. It would be nice if the estimates are also pretty accurate, but modeling can fail.
Also, if the curve is steepening the "between 17% and 20%" positives will increase to a higher percentage, increasing the newly infected estimate. Otherwise, we've plateaued, unless the characteristics of who is being tested is changing. For example, if the percent positive drops in the short term that does not necessarily mean we've reached the apex. It could be just that the ongoing or increased testing is broadening to reach somewhat less vulnerable people or people that we're less suspicious of having the disease.
Complex stuff. I'm good with accepting whether the epidemiologists and public health folks tell us if things are getting better or not.
A clown with a flamethrower still has a flamethrower.
-- Charlie Sykes on MSNBC
1312. ETTD.
One must take a careful look at the legends for each axis.
For example, is the graph of new cases each day? Or of total cases to date each day?
Wouldn't a graph of "total cases to date" by definition include "new cases each day?" If not, why not? And if not, the first graph could not correctly be referred to as "total cases to date" because that figure would necessarily have to include cases for that particular day. Any graph that is named "total cases to date," assuming it's accurate, would automatically reveal "new cases each day" just by looking at the difference between one day and the next or the next or the next......
One must take a careful look at the legends for each axis.
For example, is the graph of new cases each day? Or of total cases to date each day?
Wouldn't a graph of "total cases to date" by definition include "new cases each day?" If not, why not? And if not, the first graph could not correctly be referred to as "total cases to date" because that figure would necessarily have to include cases for that particular day. Any graph that is named "total cases to date," assuming it's accurate, would automatically reveal "new cases each day" just by looking at the difference between one day and the next or the next or the next......
Well, if the Y axis shows new cases per day, and the X axis shows days, then if there are 30 new cases each day the curve would be perfectly flat. But, if the Y axis shows all active cases to date, then the curve could rise until the rate of transmission tapers off, and existing cases are cured. It could flatten at some point and then approach zero. That's assuming the social distancing and other measures reduce the rate of transmission and cured (or deceased) cases are no longer counted.
In other words, for the same data set, the two graphs would show different curves, because different subsets of data is being plotted in each graph.
Well, as you say, if the Y axis shows "total cases to date" and the X axis is time, each gradation being a calendar day, the "new cases each day" data can be easily determined from the "total cases to date" data just by adding or subtracting one day's data from the previous or next day's data. After all, the set of data called "total cases to date" HAS to include the cases that are discovered that day, or the next day, etc. Once a case is included in the "total cases to date" figure, that case, nor any others already discovered, does not just go away; it's part of the total cases to date. I don't see how two separate graphs would be needed to come up with either total cases to date or total new cases per day. The two sets of data are co dependent; new cases per day become part of total cases to date as each day passes. This graph would not be a curve, but instead a linear progression; total cases to date cannot be anything other than an increasing quantity until it stops, at which point the end of total cases to date will by default represent NO new cases per day. The graph I see looks like a steep hill that at some point along the time axis becomes a plateau or straight horizontal line indicating no new cases per day but still shows total cases to date. If I drink a case of beer on Monday and drink half a case on Tuesday, total cases to date equals 1.5 and it would be apparent from the difference between Monday and Tuesday that new cases per day between those two days equals .5 and this can continue until either the beer or the money is gone.
... trump himself turns these supposedly serious briefings into a brag fest about himself, how popular he is on Facebook, how high his tv ratings are, or why nothing is his fault....
The Wall Street Journal always “forgets” to mention that the ratings for the White House Press Briefings are “through the roof” (Monday Night Football, Bachelor Finale, according to @nytimes) & is only way for me to escape the Fake News & get my views across. WSJ is Fake News!
What a self-absorbed crybaby!
Mark Hamill
@HamillHimself
Perpetually obsessed with ratings & praise for himself, but still not a word of sympathy for the suffering or those who died. The lack of empathy is remarkable. The Thing imitates human behavior far more convincingly than he does.
A clown with a flamethrower still has a flamethrower.
-- Charlie Sykes on MSNBC
1312. ETTD.
... trump himself turns these supposedly serious briefings into a brag fest about himself, how popular he is on Facebook, how high his tv ratings are, or why nothing is his fault....
Here's a great video on Trump's latest excuse for dropping the ball... he claims he was "distracted" by his own impeachment, so his inadequate response is not his fault... but the facts say otherwise...
Now that's an ad that needs to run on fox. Where do I donate?
Trump: “We had the safest border in the history of our country - or at least recorded history. I guess maybe a thousand years ago it was even better.”
Now that's an ad that needs to run on fox. Where do I donate?
Forget Fox News.
No, take the battle to them. Fox News watchers are gullible, but never get exposed to anything but the Fox/Trump line. Put something else in front of them and do it often and in a manner they're susceptible to, and some will believe it.
Here's a great video on Trump's latest excuse for dropping the ball... he claims he was "distracted" by his own impeachment, so his inadequate response is not his fault... but the facts say otherwise...
Great ad - for election tomorrow, but by November he will be claiming success as the facts become more and more muddled.
Trump: “We had the safest border in the history of our country - or at least recorded history. I guess maybe a thousand years ago it was even better.”
Good luck with that. Best to go online to learn how to make your own.
I've seen several places to order cloth masks - popped up right after the CDC changed its mind, just like mushrooms after a rain. I want to get one that looks like Hannibal Lecter's mask. Or maybe a dog snout. So far, it's mostly flags, camo, plaids, and plain.
I've seen several places to order cloth masks - popped up right after the CDC changed its mind, just like mushrooms after a rain. I want to get one that looks like Hannibal Lecter's mask. Or maybe a dog snout. So far, it's mostly flags, camo, plaids, and plain.
Good ideas. I'd like one that looks like a coughing mouth .
A clown with a flamethrower still has a flamethrower.
-- Charlie Sykes on MSNBC
1312. ETTD.
I've seen several places to order cloth masks - popped up right after the CDC changed its mind, just like mushrooms after a rain. I want to get one that looks like Hannibal Lecter's mask. Or maybe a dog snout. So far, it's mostly flags, camo, plaids, and plain.
Good ideas. I'd like one that looks like a coughing mouth .
Found some masks on Etsy for 10 bucks. They won't keep you from breathing it in, but they'll help you from infecting other people if you have the 'rona.
.