|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Jun 25, 2020 15:35:10 GMT -8
He has a graduate degree in Mathematics and Statistics. He's more than qualified to "knock" whatever data people on these boards find in the Cracker Jacks bags. Hey Mr. Bitter-I only asked why he doesn’t post the site of the “accurate” information. I’ll let a Johns Hopkins and others know that pitsbeavs thinks they are not credible. I’m sure that will shake them to their core. it's a fair question. I don't need defender, not that I don't appreciate it. I was probably too condescending in my reply too. calling it "poop" data wasn't fair. I was probably in a bad mood when I posted that. I apologize. I would give you a link, but I am literally not allowed to. It is a proprietary tracking system that has no link to give. Yes, I am well aware that sounds suspiciously like "my uncle works for Nintendo..." however, there is reporting done out of the system, and it shows up every day on the OHA daily reports, found here: govstatus.egov.com/OR-OHA-COVID-19. you can use this link to see they are off on their testing projections. they are not that off on deaths though... sadly. Where I was unfair is not being more descriptive as to what I mean. My umbrage was pegging resource capacity at 210 ICU beds. That number is an estimation, and the site makes it clear. It is fine a site estimates this, as bed capacity is notoriously difficult to get. But the issue is I don't think it is really a great thing to track in the manner they are tracking it. Hell, we are having a very difficult time doing it at OHA. This is because in reality, a bed is a bed is a bed in a hospital. The state does not license bed types. it licenses beds. period. There is no separate license for an ICU bed. What makes an ICU bed different than a regular bed is the level of staffing it has and the equipment that supports it. These things can, and do, fluctuate. a hospital can scale ICU beds up and down to the maximum they have staff and equipment for. The site is trying to estimate it, but the estimate is probably off. We have an excess of 700 unused ventilators in the state. Importantly, something not reported publicly or on this site, is we have a large availability of negative flow rooms. rooms in which the pressure in the room is lower than the outside pressure, such that when you open the door the outside air sucks in. This is pretty critical for isolating contagious individuals. There is capacity to expand ICU beds as needed, above and beyond the 210 bed availability. I think it is important to track patients needing ICU care, but I do not believe it is an appropriate measure of resource capacity. It is too flexible. Total beds available, in general, is a better measure. Because once you run out of ANY beds, you are gonna start having problems. The site does do this, and I have no problems with that. If you read a hospital has 20 ICU beds and 19 are occupied, it isn't necessarily cause for alarm. That hospital can just convert some beds over with a semi-trivial amount of effort in most cases. However, a hospital that has 200 total beds and 195 are occupied, it might be time to panic. Hospital notoriously run both lean, and under report their actual capacity. This is for many reasons. 1. it isn't sustainable to run at max. 2. it isn't safe. 3. it costs a poop load to staff heavy. ICU care requires more nurses per patient, it isn't ideal to have a high percentage of your beds be ICU care. you have to staff at a higher ratio. Also I would remiss if I didn't give Johns Hopkins a shout out. I have worked with researchers from there on a couple projects and they are all great. They are also free. free help is fantastic, because contractors and consultants cost a s%#tload. So there you go, Johns Hopkins is out there saving Oregon taxpayer money! |
|
|
|
Post by pitbeavs on Jun 25, 2020 15:50:34 GMT -8
Here is a breakout for Texas:  Testing has increased. For some reason (if I had to guess, riots), the % positive rate increased from 4.7% to 10.7% from the week of May 24-30 to last week. As of Tuesday, the positive rate is back down again. The previous high in the positive rate was April 5-11. The death rate has been trending downward since May 21st. There has been a week over drop in deaths in Texas. The rest of America is a month ahead of Texas with regards to the death rate. Increased testing is one thing, the huge spike in hospitalized is another. What needs to be done as well is antibody testing. If we can find out who has actually had it (probably 5x or more the number tested, then we can get a true sense of how fast this illness is spreading. If we end the summer at a 10% true infected and done with rate, we probably can anticipate one hell of an outbreak once people move back indoors. So far the medical community has not noted a significant increase in illness due to outdoor gatherings, be it picnics or protests. It appears to be really difficult to get this virus in an outdoor setting. But indoors, it appears to be really easy, and there are many people not being safe indoors. Ask the packing plant workers, or church members, retirement and convalescent centers and prisons about that. I wonder how hard the local canneries are going to have it trying to recruit people to work this summer. There may be a lot of people who can work the lines, but the older experienced men and women who manage the crews and plants are going to be a bit more hesitant about being there. See,, that's the stupid thing --- test, test, test. My wife and I were certain that we came down with MLK weekend after a dozen or so at her office. If we knew what percentage of the population had antibodies we'd have a much better idea of risk. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jun 25, 2020 15:59:33 GMT -8
Here is a breakout for Texas: Testing has increased. For some reason (if I had to guess, riots), the % positive rate increased from 4.7% to 10.7% from the week of May 24-30 to last week. As of Tuesday, the positive rate is back down again. The previous high in the positive rate was April 5-11. The death rate has been trending downward since May 21st. There has been a week over drop in deaths in Texas. The rest of America is a month ahead of Texas with regards to the death rate. Increased testing is one thing, the huge spike in hospitalized is another. What needs to be done as well is antibody testing. If we can find out who has actually had it (probably 5x or more the number tested, then we can get a true sense of how fast this illness is spreading. If we end the summer at a 10% true infected and done with rate, we probably can anticipate one hell of an outbreak once people move back indoors. So far the medical community has not noted a significant increase in illness due to outdoor gatherings, be it picnics or protests. It appears to be really difficult to get this virus in an outdoor setting. But indoors, it appears to be really easy, and there are many people not being safe indoors. Ask the packing plant workers, or church members, retirement and convalescent centers and prisons about that. I wonder how hard the local canneries are going to have it trying to recruit people to work this summer. There may be a lot of people who can work the lines, but the older experienced men and women who manage the crews and plants are going to be a bit more hesitant about being there. Most of your post is great stuff. The bolded part is the part that appears to be incorrect to me. I cannot be certain, but it appears that you are misinterpreting the misleading headlines from the media. Hospitalizations are down and have been falling since April 12-18. This is supported by the fact that the media is not reporting that nationwide hospitalizations are up. Instead, the media says that hospitalizations are up in 16 states. That sounds like a lot, but that means that hospitalizations are down in 34 states. This is further compounded by the fact that they are barely up in nine states, falling well short of peak levels. There are seven states, where hospitalizations are potentially problematic: Arizona, Arkansas, California, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas. Those are states that are at peak or near peak in hospitalizations. Everywhere else is below peak. |
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Jun 25, 2020 16:59:16 GMT -8
Hey Mr. Bitter-I only asked why he doesn’t post the site of the “accurate” information. I’ll let a Johns Hopkins and others know that pitsbeavs thinks they are not credible. I’m sure that will shake them to their core. it's a fair question. I don't need defender, not that I don't appreciate it. I was probably too condescending in my reply too. calling it "poop" data wasn't fair. I was probably in a bad mood when I posted that. I apologize. I would give you a link, but I am literally not allowed to. It is a proprietary tracking system that has no link to give. Yes, I am well aware that sounds suspiciously like "my uncle works for Nintendo..." however, there is reporting done out of the system, and it shows up every day on the OHA daily reports, found here: govstatus.egov.com/OR-OHA-COVID-19. you can use this link to see they are off on their testing projections. they are not that off on deaths though... sadly. Where I was unfair is not being more descriptive as to what I mean. My umbrage was pegging resource capacity at 210 ICU beds. That number is an estimation, and the site makes it clear. It is fine a site estimates this, as bed capacity is notoriously difficult to get. But the issue is I don't think it is really a great thing to track in the manner they are tracking it. Hell, we are having a very difficult time doing it at OHA. This is because in reality, a bed is a bed is a bed in a hospital. The state does not license bed types. it licenses beds. period. There is no separate license for an ICU bed. What makes an ICU bed different than a regular bed is the level of staffing it has and the equipment that supports it. These things can, and do, fluctuate. a hospital can scale ICU beds up and down to the maximum they have staff and equipment for. The site is trying to estimate it, but the estimate is probably off. We have an excess of 700 unused ventilators in the state. Importantly, something not reported publicly or on this site, is we have a large availability of negative flow rooms. rooms in which the pressure in the room is lower than the outside pressure, such that when you open the door the outside air sucks in. This is pretty critical for isolating contagious individuals. There is capacity to expand ICU beds as needed, above and beyond the 210 bed availability. I think it is important to track patients needing ICU care, but I do not believe it is an appropriate measure of resource capacity. It is too flexible. Total beds available, in general, is a better measure. Because once you run out of ANY beds, you are gonna start having problems. The site does do this, and I have no problems with that. If you read a hospital has 20 ICU beds and 19 are occupied, it isn't necessarily cause for alarm. That hospital can just convert some beds over with a semi-trivial amount of effort in most cases. However, a hospital that has 200 total beds and 195 are occupied, it might be time to panic. Hospital notoriously run both lean, and under report their actual capacity. This is for many reasons. 1. it isn't sustainable to run at max. 2. it isn't safe. 3. it costs a poop load to staff heavy. ICU care requires more nurses per patient, it isn't ideal to have a high percentage of your beds be ICU care. you have to staff at a higher ratio. Also I would remiss if I didn't give Johns Hopkins a shout out. I have worked with researchers from there on a couple projects and they are all great. They are also free. free help is fantastic, because contractors and consultants cost a s%#tload. So there you go, Johns Hopkins is out there saving Oregon taxpayer money! "I would give you a link, but I am literally not allowed to. It is a proprietary tracking system that has no link to give." Thanks, I needed a good laugh. And I'll remember that comeback whenever someone challenges me on an unsupported assertion. Almost as good as, "I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you". |
|
|
|
Post by lebaneaver on Jun 25, 2020 18:04:45 GMT -8
Good God. The truths of this whole damn thing are; it’s highly contagious. It is a death sentence to some members of our society. it isn’t “disappearing like magic.” It is NOT a “Democrat hoax.” States that ignored it and “had it beat,” didn’t. Masks and social distancing DO minimize the risk of contracting and spreading the virus. And, the present “administration” screwed the pooch early on, exacerbating the spread AND increasing the number of dead. Show me an argument relating to the aforementioned, and I’ll “listen.” What, in hell is wrong with facts?
|
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Jun 25, 2020 19:09:25 GMT -8
it's a fair question. I don't need defender, not that I don't appreciate it. I was probably too condescending in my reply too. calling it "poop" data wasn't fair. I was probably in a bad mood when I posted that. I apologize. I would give you a link, but I am literally not allowed to. It is a proprietary tracking system that has no link to give. Yes, I am well aware that sounds suspiciously like "my uncle works for Nintendo..." however, there is reporting done out of the system, and it shows up every day on the OHA daily reports, found here: govstatus.egov.com/OR-OHA-COVID-19. you can use this link to see they are off on their testing projections. they are not that off on deaths though... sadly. Where I was unfair is not being more descriptive as to what I mean. My umbrage was pegging resource capacity at 210 ICU beds. That number is an estimation, and the site makes it clear. It is fine a site estimates this, as bed capacity is notoriously difficult to get. But the issue is I don't think it is really a great thing to track in the manner they are tracking it. Hell, we are having a very difficult time doing it at OHA. This is because in reality, a bed is a bed is a bed in a hospital. The state does not license bed types. it licenses beds. period. There is no separate license for an ICU bed. What makes an ICU bed different than a regular bed is the level of staffing it has and the equipment that supports it. These things can, and do, fluctuate. a hospital can scale ICU beds up and down to the maximum they have staff and equipment for. The site is trying to estimate it, but the estimate is probably off. We have an excess of 700 unused ventilators in the state. Importantly, something not reported publicly or on this site, is we have a large availability of negative flow rooms. rooms in which the pressure in the room is lower than the outside pressure, such that when you open the door the outside air sucks in. This is pretty critical for isolating contagious individuals. There is capacity to expand ICU beds as needed, above and beyond the 210 bed availability. I think it is important to track patients needing ICU care, but I do not believe it is an appropriate measure of resource capacity. It is too flexible. Total beds available, in general, is a better measure. Because once you run out of ANY beds, you are gonna start having problems. The site does do this, and I have no problems with that. If you read a hospital has 20 ICU beds and 19 are occupied, it isn't necessarily cause for alarm. That hospital can just convert some beds over with a semi-trivial amount of effort in most cases. However, a hospital that has 200 total beds and 195 are occupied, it might be time to panic. Hospital notoriously run both lean, and under report their actual capacity. This is for many reasons. 1. it isn't sustainable to run at max. 2. it isn't safe. 3. it costs a poop load to staff heavy. ICU care requires more nurses per patient, it isn't ideal to have a high percentage of your beds be ICU care. you have to staff at a higher ratio. Also I would remiss if I didn't give Johns Hopkins a shout out. I have worked with researchers from there on a couple projects and they are all great. They are also free. free help is fantastic, because contractors and consultants cost a s%#tload. So there you go, Johns Hopkins is out there saving Oregon taxpayer money! "I would give you a link, but I am literally not allowed to. It is a proprietary tracking system that has no link to give." Thanks, I needed a good laugh. And I'll remember that comeback whenever someone challenges me on an unsupported assertion. Almost as good as, "I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you". Here to help. You also ignored the rest of what I said, on a daily basis the number from this system are publicly stated in the daily report from OHA at the link I provided. They differ significantly from the site's projections, actually for the worse even. OHA is reporting lower availability than this site predicts. by quite a bit even. Just like any other person with some "insider info" angle posting on an anonymous message board, you are well advised to be skeptical. All I am trying to say is that site is a 3rd part projection site using bed capacity estimations. They aren't overly great for beds. *Shrug* take it or leave it. The fate of the world does not hinge on this information. |
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Jun 25, 2020 19:11:25 GMT -8
Hey Mr. Bitter-I only asked why he doesn’t post the site of the “accurate” information. I’ll let a Johns Hopkins and others know that pitsbeavs thinks they are not credible. I’m sure that will shake them to their core. it's a fair question. I don't need defender, not that I don't appreciate it. I was probably too condescending in my reply too. calling it "poop" data wasn't fair. I was probably in a bad mood when I posted that. I apologize. I would give you a link, but I am literally not allowed to. It is a proprietary tracking system that has no link to give. Yes, I am well aware that sounds suspiciously like "my uncle works for Nintendo..." however, there is reporting done out of the system, and it shows up every day on the OHA daily reports, found here: govstatus.egov.com/OR-OHA-COVID-19. you can use this link to see they are off on their testing projections. they are not that off on deaths though... sadly. Where I was unfair is not being more descriptive as to what I mean. My umbrage was pegging resource capacity at 210 ICU beds. That number is an estimation, and the site makes it clear. It is fine a site estimates this, as bed capacity is notoriously difficult to get. But the issue is I don't think it is really a great thing to track in the manner they are tracking it. Hell, we are having a very difficult time doing it at OHA. This is because in reality, a bed is a bed is a bed in a hospital. The state does not license bed types. it licenses beds. period. There is no separate license for an ICU bed. What makes an ICU bed different than a regular bed is the level of staffing it has and the equipment that supports it. These things can, and do, fluctuate. a hospital can scale ICU beds up and down to the maximum they have staff and equipment for. The site is trying to estimate it, but the estimate is probably off. We have an excess of 700 unused ventilators in the state. Importantly, something not reported publicly or on this site, is we have a large availability of negative flow rooms. rooms in which the pressure in the room is lower than the outside pressure, such that when you open the door the outside air sucks in. This is pretty critical for isolating contagious individuals. There is capacity to expand ICU beds as needed, above and beyond the 210 bed availability. I think it is important to track patients needing ICU care, but I do not believe it is an appropriate measure of resource capacity. It is too flexible. Total beds available, in general, is a better measure. Because once you run out of ANY beds, you are gonna start having problems. The site does do this, and I have no problems with that. If you read a hospital has 20 ICU beds and 19 are occupied, it isn't necessarily cause for alarm. That hospital can just convert some beds over with a semi-trivial amount of effort in most cases. However, a hospital that has 200 total beds and 195 are occupied, it might be time to panic. Hospital notoriously run both lean, and under report their actual capacity. This is for many reasons. 1. it isn't sustainable to run at max. 2. it isn't safe. 3. it costs a poop load to staff heavy. ICU care requires more nurses per patient, it isn't ideal to have a high percentage of your beds be ICU care. you have to staff at a higher ratio. Also I would remiss if I didn't give Johns Hopkins a shout out. I have worked with researchers from there on a couple projects and they are all great. They are also free. free help is fantastic, because contractors and consultants cost a s%#tload. So there you go, Johns Hopkins is out there saving Oregon taxpayer money! Wow! That’s a lot! Thank you for taking the time and effort to post that. I’m an engineer, so somebody puts data in front of me I interpret it the best I know. I realize you are doing exactly what you think is best. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Jun 25, 2020 19:12:44 GMT -8
Good God. The truths of this whole damn thing are; it’s highly contagious. It is a death sentence to some members of our society. it isn’t “disappearing like magic.” It is NOT a “Democrat hoax.” States that ignored it and “had it beat,” didn’t. Masks and social distancing DO minimize the risk of contracting and spreading the virus. And, the present “administration” screwed the pooch early on, exacerbating the spread AND increasing the number of dead. Show me an argument relating to the aforementioned, and I’ll “listen.” What, in hell is wrong with facts? Thanks Doc. You do realize you’re part of the problem, not the solution don’t you? Maybe not. |
|
|
|
Post by mbabeav on Jun 25, 2020 19:18:02 GMT -8
Increased testing is one thing, the huge spike in hospitalized is another. What needs to be done as well is antibody testing. If we can find out who has actually had it (probably 5x or more the number tested, then we can get a true sense of how fast this illness is spreading. If we end the summer at a 10% true infected and done with rate, we probably can anticipate one hell of an outbreak once people move back indoors. So far the medical community has not noted a significant increase in illness due to outdoor gatherings, be it picnics or protests. It appears to be really difficult to get this virus in an outdoor setting. But indoors, it appears to be really easy, and there are many people not being safe indoors. Ask the packing plant workers, or church members, retirement and convalescent centers and prisons about that. I wonder how hard the local canneries are going to have it trying to recruit people to work this summer. There may be a lot of people who can work the lines, but the older experienced men and women who manage the crews and plants are going to be a bit more hesitant about being there. Most of your post is great stuff. The bolded part is the part that appears to be incorrect to me. I cannot be certain, but it appears that you are misinterpreting the misleading headlines from the media. Hospitalizations are down and have been falling since April 12-18. This is supported by the fact that the media is not reporting that nationwide hospitalizations are up. Instead, the media says that hospitalizations are up in 16 states. That sounds like a lot, but that means that hospitalizations are down in 34 states. This is further compounded by the fact that they are barely up in nine states, falling well short of peak levels. There are seven states, where hospitalizations are potentially problematic: Arizona, Arkansas, California, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas. Those are states that are at peak or near peak in hospitalizations. Everywhere else is below peak. I was only looking at the graphs above, which show a large increase in current people hospitalized for Texas, nothing else. Not paying attention to the media, just to the numbers as given in the graphs for Texas. This disease is like most illnesses, the hot spots can move around from state to state, and while at any one time a small percentage of states might be up, the next month or two that percentage may still be similar, but other states are involved. And given that Texas and California and Florida are I think 3 of the top 4 most populous states, hot spots there are that much more significant. The other factors discussed in my post have to do with demonstrated loci of infections in Oregon and other places. Dense work space areas, elder care facilities, churches and prisons are by nature much more susceptible to rapid infection in almost any communicable disease situation. |
|
|
|
Post by lebaneaver on Jun 25, 2020 19:33:23 GMT -8
Good God. The truths of this whole damn thing are; it’s highly contagious. It is a death sentence to some members of our society. it isn’t “disappearing like magic.” It is NOT a “Democrat hoax.” States that ignored it and “had it beat,” didn’t. Masks and social distancing DO minimize the risk of contracting and spreading the virus. And, the present “administration” screwed the pooch early on, exacerbating the spread AND increasing the number of dead. Show me an argument relating to the aforementioned, and I’ll “listen.” What, in hell is wrong with facts? Thanks Doc. You do realize you’re part of the problem, not the solution don’t you? Maybe not. Did I text something(s) you disagree with? HOW does that make ME part of the problem? |
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Jun 25, 2020 19:38:54 GMT -8
Thanks Doc. You do realize you’re part of the problem, not the solution don’t you? Maybe not. Did I text something(s) you disagree with? HOW does that make ME part of the problem? Nope. Not biting. |
|
|
|
Post by lebaneaver on Jun 25, 2020 19:51:48 GMT -8
Did I text something(s) you disagree with? HOW does that make ME part of the problem? Nope. Not biting. It wasn't "bait," Spud. Be well |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Jun 25, 2020 20:41:15 GMT -8
Increased testing is one thing, the huge spike in hospitalized is another. What needs to be done as well is antibody testing. If we can find out who has actually had it (probably 5x or more the number tested, then we can get a true sense of how fast this illness is spreading. If we end the summer at a 10% true infected and done with rate, we probably can anticipate one hell of an outbreak once people move back indoors. So far the medical community has not noted a significant increase in illness due to outdoor gatherings, be it picnics or protests. It appears to be really difficult to get this virus in an outdoor setting. But indoors, it appears to be really easy, and there are many people not being safe indoors. Ask the packing plant workers, or church members, retirement and convalescent centers and prisons about that. I wonder how hard the local canneries are going to have it trying to recruit people to work this summer. There may be a lot of people who can work the lines, but the older experienced men and women who manage the crews and plants are going to be a bit more hesitant about being there. Most of your post is great stuff. The bolded part is the part that appears to be incorrect to me. I cannot be certain, but it appears that you are misinterpreting the misleading headlines from the media. Hospitalizations are down and have been falling since April 12-18. This is supported by the fact that the media is not reporting that nationwide hospitalizations are up. Instead, the media says that hospitalizations are up in 16 states. That sounds like a lot, but that means that hospitalizations are down in 34 states. This is further compounded by the fact that they are barely up in nine states, falling well short of peak levels. There are seven states, where hospitalizations are potentially problematic: Arizona, Arkansas, California, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas. Those are states that are at peak or near peak in hospitalizations. Everywhere else is below peak. The media has pretty much buried the fact that recent US Covid-19 hospitalizations have dropped by 70-75% since the 18th of April. There's no way they can handle having it look like things are improving in at least one measurable, better to look at overall totals or point out spots where things aren't getting better. Here's a link to the weekly hospitalization chart... gis.cdc.gov/grasp/COVIDNet/COVID19_5.html (I couldn't figure out how to display the chart). It'll be interesting to see if the hospitalizations are on an uptick when the next week or two numbers come in. |
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Jun 25, 2020 20:56:34 GMT -8
Most of your post is great stuff. The bolded part is the part that appears to be incorrect to me. I cannot be certain, but it appears that you are misinterpreting the misleading headlines from the media. Hospitalizations are down and have been falling since April 12-18. This is supported by the fact that the media is not reporting that nationwide hospitalizations are up. Instead, the media says that hospitalizations are up in 16 states. That sounds like a lot, but that means that hospitalizations are down in 34 states. This is further compounded by the fact that they are barely up in nine states, falling well short of peak levels. There are seven states, where hospitalizations are potentially problematic: Arizona, Arkansas, California, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas. Those are states that are at peak or near peak in hospitalizations. Everywhere else is below peak. The media has pretty much buried the fact that recent US Covid-19 hospitalizations have dropped by 70-75% since the 18th of April. There's no way they can handle having it look like things are improving in at least one measurable, better to look at overall totals or point out spots where things aren't getting better. Here's a link to the weekly hospitalization chart... gis.cdc.gov/grasp/COVIDNet/COVID19_5.html (I couldn't figure out how to display the chart). It'll be interesting to see if the hospitalizations are on an uptick when the next week or two numbers come in. Take a look at the disclaimer on your site. They only track about a dozen states, about 10% of the population of the US. |
|
|
|
Post by beaver94 on Jun 26, 2020 8:30:43 GMT -8
We are seeing a spike in cases or positive results. What I'm curios about is what percentage of the increase are people testing positive for having had the virus at some point versus currently having the virus? I usually check the site that atownbeaver linked and focus mostly on Benton county. Cases have spiked recently but thankfully deaths for the county have not.
|
|
