Got some interesting info from my doctor. Thought it was worth sharing.

This is on the supposed drug treatment some have suggested could help.

Quote:

---

1) Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin: There is consensus among the physicians at Caras
Health, Stanford Concierge Medicine, Stanford Primary Care, and the Infectious Disease
Department at Stanford that hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin cannot be currently
recommended alone or in combination for outpatients for COVID-19. The French study which
brought this to the headlines was a "non-randomized open label" study- which is a weak
method to obtain information on which to base medical treatment decisions. In this study which
started with 26 patients, only 6 actually received this combination, of which only 4 had severe
infection including pneumonia.

According to the Stanford Infectious Disease Department consensus, the hydroxychloroquine
/azithromycin combination will put patients at risk of dangerous cardiac side effects. Also, there
is no reliable data on "synergy" between the two medications. There are about 40 other
potential drug treatments being studied for COVID-19 in close to 100 clinical trials. As the
results come in from these trials we will be able to draw conclusions about the most promising
treatments. At Stanford they would only consider a hydroxychloroquine/ azithromycin
treatment regimen in hospitalized patients who are not eligible for other treatments.

---

And here's the new testing protocol from Stanford Hospital. Again it's insane to think we can limit the spread of a disease we can't test for.

Quote:

---

As testing capacity increased over the last week, unfortunately hospitals around the nation
including Stanford are now faced with a shortage of personal protective equipment (N95 masks,
gowns). They are actively researching the safest ways to reuse them but have no conclusion on
that yet. Stanford has therefore changed its criteria for testing to currently include only patients
with fever or cough AND risk factors which include: immunocompromised, healthcare worker,
first responder, living in congregate setting, working in essential business, pending hospital
admission, or comorbid disease. The "comorbid" disease category can include cardiac disease,
lung disease, diabetes, etc. The inclusion of those working in essential businesses or first
responder is to try to preserve essential workforce while limiting spread. These guidelines for
testing are updated regularly as the situation and strategy shifts so expect more changes along
the way!

---

And last here's what is happening at Stanford hospital specifically. This is the biggest hospital on the peninsula by the way. I'm afraid 20 ICU beds is going to be woefully inadequate.

Quote:

---

- Currently Stanford is conducting 500-900 COVID-19 tests a day. They are seeing 8-10% of
the tested individuals being positive. Of patients found to have COVID-19, 84% have cough
and 82% have fever. 14% go the Emergency Department within 5-10 days, and 4% are
hospitalized.

- All elective cases and procedures at Stanford are postponed, which has created capacity for
anticipated increase in patients requiring ICU and isolation beds. Currently there are 20 ICU
beds available although plans are underway to convert space in both the old and new
hospitals to increase that number. Currently the number of cases at Stanford of admitted
patients is "manageable" with 13 admitted, and of those five are on a ventilator. They feel
this is the "calm before the storm" and are hopeful the shelter in place will make the storm
a "harsh rain" instead of full storm. Stanford leadership expressed that premature lifting of
shelter in place precautions would be "catastrophic" and "devastating." They expressed
that the decision needs to be based on scientific data about community prevalence.

---

Sebastabear said:

---

And here's the new testing protocol from Stanford Hospital. Again it's insane to think we can limit the spread of a disease we can't test for.

Quote:

---

As testing capacity increased over the last week, unfortunately hospitals around the nation
including Stanford are now faced with a shortage of personal protective equipment (N95 masks,
gowns). They are actively researching the safest ways to reuse them but have no conclusion on
that yet. Stanford has therefore changed its criteria for testing to currently include only patients
with fever or cough AND risk factors which include: immunocompromised, healthcare worker,
first responder, living in congregate setting, working in essential business, pending hospital
admission, or comorbid disease. The "comorbid" disease category can include cardiac disease,
lung disease, diabetes, etc. The inclusion of those working in essential businesses or first
responder is to try to preserve essential workforce while limiting spread. These guidelines for
testing are updated regularly as the situation and strategy shifts so expect more changes along
the way!

---

---

Well, that's been the California Strategy, thus far (little testing): Assume everybody can transmit it and stay as isolated as possible. Treat the symptoms.

Hopefully by early April, we will be able to test tons of people, in tons of places, with same-day results.

Good guy. He really loves his adopted community.

Sebastabear said:

---

Got some interesting info from my doctor. Thought it was worth sharing.

This is on the supposed drug treatment some have suggested could help.

Quote:

---

1) Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin: There is consensus among the physicians at Caras
Health, Stanford Concierge Medicine, Stanford Primary Care, and the Infectious Disease
Department at Stanford that hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin cannot be currently
recommended alone or in combination for outpatients for COVID-19. The French study which
brought this to the headlines was a "non-randomized open label" study- which is a weak
method to obtain information on which to base medical treatment decisions. In this study which
started with 26 patients, only 6 actually received this combination, of which only 4 had severe
infection including pneumonia.

According to the Stanford Infectious Disease Department consensus, the hydroxychloroquine
/azithromycin combination will put patients at risk of dangerous cardiac side effects. Also, there
is no reliable data on "synergy" between the two medications. There are about 40 other
potential drug treatments being studied for COVID-19 in close to 100 clinical trials. As the
results come in from these trials we will be able to draw conclusions about the most promising
treatments. At Stanford they would only consider a hydroxychloroquine/ azithromycin
treatment regimen in hospitalized patients who are not eligible for other treatments.

---

---

Interesting info, I did see word yesterday from an infectious disease specialist in New York who is prescribing the Hycroxychoroquine and Azirhromycin combination to virtually all his patients. It did not sound like he was part of the clinical trials.

NVBear78 said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

Got some interesting info from my doctor. Thought it was worth sharing.

This is on the supposed drug treatment some have suggested could help.

Quote:

---

1) Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin: There is consensus among the physicians at Caras
Health, Stanford Concierge Medicine, Stanford Primary Care, and the Infectious Disease
Department at Stanford that hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin cannot be currently
recommended alone or in combination for outpatients for COVID-19. The French study which
brought this to the headlines was a "non-randomized open label" study- which is a weak
method to obtain information on which to base medical treatment decisions. In this study which
started with 26 patients, only 6 actually received this combination, of which only 4 had severe
infection including pneumonia.

According to the Stanford Infectious Disease Department consensus, the hydroxychloroquine
/azithromycin combination will put patients at risk of dangerous cardiac side effects. Also, there
is no reliable data on "synergy" between the two medications. There are about 40 other
potential drug treatments being studied for COVID-19 in close to 100 clinical trials. As the
results come in from these trials we will be able to draw conclusions about the most promising
treatments. At Stanford they would only consider a hydroxychloroquine/ azithromycin
treatment regimen in hospitalized patients who are not eligible for other treatments.

---

---

Interesting info, I did see word yesterday from an infectious disease specialist in New York who is prescribing the Hycroxychoroquine and Azirhromycin combination to virtually all his patients. It did not sound like he was part of the clinical trials.

---

It brings an interesting question. Understanding that there are not valid long term studies/testing/results showing the efficacy of this drug what would you do if given the diagnosis of coronavirus, went down hill, were on a ventilator, had compromising medical history (say diabetes, heart or cancer history) and were over 60,

Would you or wouldn't you take hydroxychloroquine with azirhomycin? I know I sure as hell would. Now, am I out trying to acquire same? No. But just saying.

Bingo Oden, and if you were in a clinical trial it is my understanding that you might be receiving a placebo instead of those two drugs.

I sure hope HCQ/AZ works for COVID, but at the moment I've heard a number of people who currently rely on HCQ (for Lupus) are having trouble filling prescroptions which is definitely going to lead to problems in their care. I hope we are able to quickly ramp up production. The problem with proclaiming something a miracle cure when the supply chain isn't ready to produce it should be easily understood by all.

I can't wait until we have professionals running our government again.

As a follow up,
On March 16th California had 11 deaths and NY had 10.

The Bay Area shut down when there were 11 deaths. NY shut down when there were 148

7 days and a 15x increase in deaths. That 7 day delay is a 15x delay in a virus that grows exponentially.






Granted, these are only my estimates based on the growth rate of deaths, with no slow down for 17 days after the spread is slowed (apparently that is a median infection to death time). would put my Ca forecast on the chart, but its insignificant on this time scale.

We know that testing is irrelevant because no one is getting tested. We know that deaths are not irrelevant, because those are well known. We know that basically x% of people with COVID-19 die, and it doesnt matter what % right now (unless all of NY was infected 17 days ago). We know how long it takes to die. We know that NY didnt take any serious effort to stop the spread until 4 days ago. And at least I can say that the simple model works for both regions,, several countries including Italy, so far.

NY, specifically NYC is going to have a 9/11 scale disaster and human tragedy on its hands. There isnt really any way to stop it. Even with all the beds they need, event with all the PPE they need, its already in motion, and has been for almost a month.

The only help at this point would be finding an effective treatment for the worst symptoms.

FWIW, this is my best case scenario. The rate of growth from the 16th to 25th is 50% per day. That would put us at 60k dead by the 7th in NY.

It's a slow motion 9/11 with no one outside to blame.

OaktownBear said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

And last here's what is happening at Stanford hospital specifically. This is the biggest hospital on the peninsula by the way. I'm afraid 20 ICU beds is going to be woefully inadequate.

Quote:

---

- Currently Stanford is conducting 500-900 COVID-19 tests a day. They are seeing 8-10% of
the tested individuals being positive. Of patients found to have COVID-19, 84% have cough
and 82% have fever. 14% go the Emergency Department within 5-10 days, and 4% are
hospitalized.

- All elective cases and procedures at Stanford are postponed, which has created capacity for
anticipated increase in patients requiring ICU and isolation beds. Currently there are 20 ICU
beds available although plans are underway to convert space in both the old and new
hospitals to increase that number. Currently the number of cases at Stanford of admitted
patients is "manageable" with 13 admitted, and of those five are on a ventilator. They feel
this is the "calm before the storm" and are hopeful the shelter in place will make the storm
a "harsh rain" instead of full storm. Stanford leadership expressed that premature lifting of
shelter in place precautions would be "catastrophic" and "devastating." They expressed
that the decision needs to be based on scientific data about community prevalence.

---

---

The ICU beds is an interesting problem.

As I understand it, there is big pushback in hospitals against taking trauma ICU beds for COVID patients.

I am not clear on the doctor's arguments, but it has to do with need for the highest quality ICU care and morbidity with and without those beds for COVID and non COVID cases.

Anyway, while California is probably ahead of the curve, and will see the worst of it next week, and then slowly get better, New York is like 3 weeks away from the worst of it, and simple math shows their R0 is significantly above California's.

FWIW testing is so poor that confirmed cases is basically irrelevant. Deaths, OTOH, are what they are. California is increasing at about 20% per day, and should peak at the end of the week next week, with maybe 1500 deaths total.

New York, because Cuomo refused to allow a stay at home order until this week, is WAY behind, and is seeing a 30% increase in deaths per day. They probably are looking at 20k deaths. They will probably get to 11k before things even start start slowing down for them in two more weeks.

Its honestly scary to me how poorly New York managed this, and its honestly sickening to see Cuomo treated like a hero of the story when he is clearly not. I think when there are 1000 people dying a day in NYC, there will be another massive disruption in the markets and economy as we try to understand why something we had under control is now out of control again.

There needs to be a strict travel ban in and out of New York, at least lower NY, until it is possible to test everyone entering and exiting, starting today. With 100 people dying per day when they started seriously slowing the spread... its unbelievable.

Newsom, and the Bay Area county health and political leadership, OTOH, will go down as an invisible heros and not be remembered for anything because what they did will be comparatively effective.

---

I hope your picture for California is right. Time will tell. One thing I do want to say is that there are a lot of unsung contributors. A lot of companies were encouraging or allowing workers to telecommute early. A lot of people were taking them up on that and were at least mildly social distancing. My wife works downtown SF, and the Monday before the health departments made their announcement, she said nobody was there. And yes, the Bay Area county health departments lead the charge. I'm sure somebody orchestrated that joint announcement. Newsom DOES deserve credit, but a lot of private businesses and citizens and local officials were in the lead.

My big concern was that week before they announced the stay in place order, the grocery stores were packed. I'm really looking forward to getting 14 and 21 days out from the shut down and hoping the numbers hold.

I do wonder if the prevalence of the Tech industry and the familiarity that so many here have with telecommuting helped us significantly.

I am also unsure about Cuomo. His messaging is good. I think he is doing a great job NOW. But ultimately he may have just failed to act early enough. I'm very scared for many places in this country that are also refusing to act until deaths are at 100+ in their area. I am dumbfounded by Mississippi's governor not only refusing to act but overriding any actions at the local level. I fear he is going to have a lot of consequences he has to live with.

---

We may have to let the south go.

We may need passports to play Auburn.

The NE is doing worse than the South right now.

OaktownBear said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

And last here's what is happening at Stanford hospital specifically. This is the biggest hospital on the peninsula by the way. I'm afraid 20 ICU beds is going to be woefully inadequate.

Quote:

---

- Currently Stanford is conducting 500-900 COVID-19 tests a day. They are seeing 8-10% of
the tested individuals being positive. Of patients found to have COVID-19, 84% have cough
and 82% have fever. 14% go the Emergency Department within 5-10 days, and 4% are
hospitalized.

- All elective cases and procedures at Stanford are postponed, which has created capacity for
anticipated increase in patients requiring ICU and isolation beds. Currently there are 20 ICU
beds available although plans are underway to convert space in both the old and new
hospitals to increase that number. Currently the number of cases at Stanford of admitted
patients is "manageable" with 13 admitted, and of those five are on a ventilator. They feel
this is the "calm before the storm" and are hopeful the shelter in place will make the storm
a "harsh rain" instead of full storm. Stanford leadership expressed that premature lifting of
shelter in place precautions would be "catastrophic" and "devastating." They expressed
that the decision needs to be based on scientific data about community prevalence.

---

---

The ICU beds is an interesting problem.

As I understand it, there is big pushback in hospitals against taking trauma ICU beds for COVID patients.

I am not clear on the doctor's arguments, but it has to do with need for the highest quality ICU care and morbidity with and without those beds for COVID and non COVID cases.

Anyway, while California is probably ahead of the curve, and will see the worst of it next week, and then slowly get better, New York is like 3 weeks away from the worst of it, and simple math shows their R0 is significantly above California's.

FWIW testing is so poor that confirmed cases is basically irrelevant. Deaths, OTOH, are what they are. California is increasing at about 20% per day, and should peak at the end of the week next week, with maybe 1500 deaths total.

New York, because Cuomo refused to allow a stay at home order until this week, is WAY behind, and is seeing a 30% increase in deaths per day. They probably are looking at 20k deaths. They will probably get to 11k before things even start start slowing down for them in two more weeks.

Its honestly scary to me how poorly New York managed this, and its honestly sickening to see Cuomo treated like a hero of the story when he is clearly not. I think when there are 1000 people dying a day in NYC, there will be another massive disruption in the markets and economy as we try to understand why something we had under control is now out of control again.

There needs to be a strict travel ban in and out of New York, at least lower NY, until it is possible to test everyone entering and exiting, starting today. With 100 people dying per day when they started seriously slowing the spread... its unbelievable.

Newsom, and the Bay Area county health and political leadership, OTOH, will go down as an invisible heros and not be remembered for anything because what they did will be comparatively effective.

---

I hope your picture for California is right. Time will tell. One thing I do want to say is that there are a lot of unsung contributors. A lot of companies were encouraging or allowing workers to telecommute early. A lot of people were taking them up on that and were at least mildly social distancing. My wife works downtown SF, and the Monday before the health departments made their announcement, she said nobody was there. And yes, the Bay Area county health departments lead the charge. I'm sure somebody orchestrated that joint announcement. Newsom DOES deserve credit, but a lot of private businesses and citizens and local officials were in the lead.

My big concern was that week before they announced the stay in place order, the grocery stores were packed. I'm really looking forward to getting 14 and 21 days out from the shut down and hoping the numbers hold.

I do wonder if the prevalence of the Tech industry and the familiarity that so many here have with telecommuting helped us significantly.

I am also unsure about Cuomo. His messaging is good. I think he is doing a great job NOW. But ultimately he may have just failed to act early enough. I'm very scared for many places in this country that are also refusing to act until deaths are at 100+ in their area. I am dumbfounded by Mississippi's governor not only refusing to act but overriding any actions at the local level. I fear he is going to have a lot of consequences he has to live with.

---

I've been reading the Mississippi newspapers the past few days. It's such a stark contrast. They're taking it more seriously than Tate Reeves, who absolutely looks the part.

LunchTime said:

---

As a follow up,
On March 16th California had 11 deaths and NY had 10.

The Bay Area shut down when there were 11 deaths. NY shut down when there were 148

7 days and a 15x increase in deaths. That 7 day delay is a 15x delay in a virus that grows exponentially.






Granted, these are only my estimates based on the growth rate of deaths, with no slow down for 17 days after the spread is slowed (apparently that is a median infection to death time). would put my Ca forecast on the chart, but its insignificant on this time scale.

We know that testing is irrelevant because no one is getting tested. We know that deaths are not irrelevant, because those are well known. We know that basically x% of people with COVID-19 die, and it doesnt matter what % right now (unless all of NY was infected 17 days ago). We know how long it takes to die. We know that NY didnt take any serious effort to stop the spread until 4 days ago. And at least I can say that the simple model works for both regions,, several countries including Italy, so far.

NY, specifically NYC is going to have a 9/11 scale disaster and human tragedy on its hands. There isnt really any way to stop it. Even with all the beds they need, event with all the PPE they need, its already in motion, and has been for almost a month.

The only help at this point would be finding an effective treatment for the worst symptoms.

FWIW, this is my best case scenario. The rate of growth from the 16th to 25th is 50% per day. That would put us at 60k dead by the 7th in NY.

It's a slow motion 9/11 with no one outside to blame.

---

Yeah, I know this is the apolitical thread, but...

That's some good stuff. Thanks for posting.

https://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/03/26/ole-miss-football-eli-johnson-parents-test-positive-coronavirus-quarantined/

CalFan777 said:

---

The NE is doing worse than the South right now.

---

The last two words being key.

The rate of increase of cases in red states is substantially higher right now than blue states while the rate of testing is higher in blue states. Blue states have more cases because they got hit first, but red states are catching up.

Numbers in Louisiana and Texas are really rising significantly this week. Florida and Georgia, too.

Big C said:

---

Numbers in Louisiana and Texas are really rising significantly this week. Florida and Georgia, too.

---

The states we have to look out for right now are, in order:

Michigan (this stood out to me today as the potential nightmare scenario)
New York
New Jersey
Texas
Louisiana

Georgia isn't super bad, Florida seems to not be very bad at all.
TBH, Texas is maybe too early to call the rate, but it looks bad. They shouldn't be open like they are... Michigan is a little early, but is looking horrendous.

That said, we are in for worst in the world rates with Michigan and New York.

Michigan might be saved by low population, but Detroit looks really bad. Shutting off poor peoples water, mixed with ... well Detroit. The numbers are bonkers. Hopefully the shutdowns on the 16th makes a a huge difference coming up next week, because the shelter in place on Monday may be too late. It may be a good indication of what measures work, TBH.

Here are the cumulative deaths for various states indexed from ~10 deaths. You may see a standout. Michigan's current rate is WELL above that. Florida is hidden behind Washington, FWIW.
I added Italy (the assumed worst case scenario, last week) for scale.

OaktownBear said:

---

CalFan777 said:

---

The NE is doing worse than the South right now.

---

The last two words being key.

The rate of increase of cases in red states is substantially higher right now than blue states while the rate of testing is higher in blue states. Blue states have more cases because they got hit first, but red states are catching up.

---

I dont actually see the data to back that up. Maybe because I am ignoring testing and confirmed cases?

Either way, TBH, I would separate the country into Far Western states, and the West+East. Only Washington and California have had a proactive "good" response. Florida seems lucky so far (probably because tourists dont mingle with the residents as much as we think so the spread is slowed by people leaving for home).

Its interesting though. I think the West is doing well largely because the economy of Washington and California is so geared towards remote work anyway (compared to the rest of the country), so the decision to shut down has a smaller economic footprint. My work had us WFH two weeks before the shelter in place, as an example. GDC was canceled around that time, with most companies pulling out in late February.

Interesting article from two years ago: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/02/cdc-funding-pandemics/552224/

NVBear78 said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

Got some interesting info from my doctor. Thought it was worth sharing.

This is on the supposed drug treatment some have suggested could help.

Quote:

---

1) Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin: There is consensus among the physicians at Caras
Health, Stanford Concierge Medicine, Stanford Primary Care, and the Infectious Disease
Department at Stanford that hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin cannot be currently
recommended alone or in combination for outpatients for COVID-19. The French study which
brought this to the headlines was a "non-randomized open label" study- which is a weak
method to obtain information on which to base medical treatment decisions. In this study which
started with 26 patients, only 6 actually received this combination, of which only 4 had severe
infection including pneumonia.

According to the Stanford Infectious Disease Department consensus, the hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin combination will put patients at risk of dangerous cardiac side effects. Also, thereis no reliable data on "synergy" between the two medications. There are about 40 other potential drug treatments being studied for COVID-19 in close to 100 clinical trials. As the results come in from these trials we will be able to draw conclusions about the most promisingtreatments. At Stanford they would only consider a hydroxychloroquine/ azithromycin treatment regimen in hospitalized patients who are not eligible for other treatments.

---

---

Interesting info, I did see word yesterday from an infectious disease specialist in New York who is prescribing the Hycroxychoroquine and Azirhromycin combination to virtually all his patients. It did not sound like he was part of the clinical trials.

---

Chloroquine works best in the early/mid stages, it has been shown to lower the viral infection load. From what I understand it is no longer very effective once a patient reaches an advanced pulmonary infection stage.

This professor is wrong about its side effects, the drug is very well known, and has been used for 70 years, and is safe with the administered dosage. It has been used extensively in France, given the high level of travel and high number of expats in sub-Saharan Africa, and is widely used there to contain malaria. I am surprised the Stanford prof is highlighting potential chloroquine side effects on the heart, given that covid19 is clearly orders of magnitude more dangerous to the cardiological system, often resulting in myocarditis and heart probelms, even in patients without prior heart conditions.

In France Dr. Raoult, who is one of the main proponents of this treatment, has been under a lot of criticism by the medical establishment and health officials from the Macron administration. The drug industry hates it, because it is a cheap generic drug. Supposedly in the testing conducted with chloroquine there, the drug is set up to fail by administrating it in a very sub-optimal regime, given to patients in very advanced stages, instead of in an optimal treatment as part of an aggressive early symptom testing and tracking program.

The Macron administration has fared at least as bad as Trump's, with the health minister claiming in late January that the contagion in Wuhan had been contained, and keeping borders open with no safeguards or no screening of any kind with neighboring Italy well into March. Closing intra-European borders, even momentarily in this time of great crisis, was deemed to be anti-EU and xenophobic. There is a strategic stash of one billion masks that was set up by the last good French president, Jacques Chirac. It turns out that his successors let that reserve deplete to around 1/10 of its original size, through poor maintenance and bad inventory management.

I have a friend in the pharmaceutical trade France from a town that is getting hit early in the east, he had secured a load of 40 million masks from sources in Turkey and China over a month ago, his shipment was held up at the border in Luxembourg for weeks with government officials mired in red tape. His shipment ended up going to Italy instead.

calumnus said:

---

Interesting article from two years ago: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/02/cdc-funding-pandemics/552224/

---

This sounds like the basis for a claim that is going around now. I am not sure the Atlantic article is up to date, though.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/mar/12/joy-behar/view-co-host-wrongly-says-trump-shut-down-37-globa/

Or is that claim different than what the article is saying?

OaktownBear said:

---

CalFan777 said:

---

The NE is doing worse than the South right now.

---

The last two words being key.

The rate of increase of cases in red states is substantially higher right now than blue states while the rate of testing is higher in blue states. Blue states have more cases because they got hit first, but red states are catching up.

---

The red states are inherently a bit safer with a lower local R0 due to their suburban, car-centered lifestyle, vs much denser cities like NYC with extensive crowded public transit use. There are a few exceptions like New Orleans and parts of Florida. But generally speaking most people in places like Dallas or Phoenix have fewer opportunities to rub elbows in crowded environments in their daily lives. This kind of somewhat antisocial suburban truck-centered lifestyle is an inherently slower ground for an epidemic than say NYC, Madrid or Milan.

LunchTime said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

CalFan777 said:

---

The NE is doing worse than the South right now.

---

The last two words being key.

The rate of increase of cases in red states is substantially higher right now than blue states while the rate of testing is higher in blue states. Blue states have more cases because they got hit first, but red states are catching up.

---

I dont actually see the data to back that up. Maybe because I am ignoring testing and confirmed cases?

Either way, TBH, I would separate the country into Far Western states, and the West+East. Only Washington and California have had a proactive "good" response. Florida seems lucky so far (probably because tourists dont mingle with the residents as much as we think so the spread is slowed by people leaving for home).

Its interesting though. I think the West is doing well largely because the economy of Washington and California is so geared towards remote work anyway (compared to the rest of the country), so the decision to shut down has a smaller economic footprint. My work had us WFH two weeks before the shelter in place, as an example. GDC was canceled around that time, with most companies pulling out in late February.

---

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-coronavirus-isnt-just-a-blue-state-problem/

OaktownBear said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

CalFan777 said:

---

The NE is doing worse than the South right now.

---

The last two words being key.

The rate of increase of cases in red states is substantially higher right now than blue states while the rate of testing is higher in blue states. Blue states have more cases because they got hit first, but red states are catching up.

---

I dont actually see the data to back that up. Maybe because I am ignoring testing and confirmed cases?

Either way, TBH, I would separate the country into Far Western states, and the West+East. Only Washington and California have had a proactive "good" response. Florida seems lucky so far (probably because tourists dont mingle with the residents as much as we think so the spread is slowed by people leaving for home).

Its interesting though. I think the West is doing well largely because the economy of Washington and California is so geared towards remote work anyway (compared to the rest of the country), so the decision to shut down has a smaller economic footprint. My work had us WFH two weeks before the shelter in place, as an example. GDC was canceled around that time, with most companies pulling out in late February.

---

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-coronavirus-isnt-just-a-blue-state-problem/

---

This is a terrible article, they are trying to spin the data. The data they provide actually counters the point they are trying to make. The embryonic growth rate in percentage term is almost always going to be higher at the very beginning of an epidemic before it matures.

There is also a lot of dubious info and methodology, like putting PA as a red state just because Trump won there, and not drilling down at the state and county level, lumping together for instance Philadelphia and rural PA, or N.O. and northern LA.

Poor effort by Nate Silver.

OaktownBear said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

CalFan777 said:

---

The NE is doing worse than the South right now.

---

The last two words being key.

The rate of increase of cases in red states is substantially higher right now than blue states while the rate of testing is higher in blue states. Blue states have more cases because they got hit first, but red states are catching up.

---

I dont actually see the data to back that up. Maybe because I am ignoring testing and confirmed cases?

Either way, TBH, I would separate the country into Far Western states, and the West+East. Only Washington and California have had a proactive "good" response. Florida seems lucky so far (probably because tourists dont mingle with the residents as much as we think so the spread is slowed by people leaving for home).

Its interesting though. I think the West is doing well largely because the economy of Washington and California is so geared towards remote work anyway (compared to the rest of the country), so the decision to shut down has a smaller economic footprint. My work had us WFH two weeks before the shelter in place, as an example. GDC was canceled around that time, with most companies pulling out in late February.

---

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-coronavirus-isnt-just-a-blue-state-problem/

---

That might be the dumbest Nate Silver article I have ever seen.

The methodology is poor, from using confirmed cases, to comparing established rates to ramping from no testing to testing is terrible.


Want a simple baseline? Nate silver shows Texas at the top, going from 352 to 1396 (+300%). Awesome. He also uses New York the same week going from 20.8k to 30.3k (78%)

But if you index to similar times, NY went from 327 on March 12 to 5699 a week later (+1700%).

Sorry, but Texas starting larger scale testing CLEARLY doesnt indicate it is growing faster than NY. It shows there is absolutely no value in number of confirmed cases. We know New York doesnt have a 17x increase per week. That's silly. But Nate wants to show Texas data as evidence that the rate is growing faster there?

So, let's make the argument that Texas does have a faster increase in infection. For arguments sake. That VERY clearly is not reflected in mortality. Texas mortality is increasing at a massively lower rate than NY. So either Texas has a much better healthcare system, a massive delta % of healthy people, climate is a critical factor, etc, but also that Texas' mortality is declining against growth of infected meaning they also have better treatments that they aren't sharing?

Personally I dont think there is a significant delta in healthcare, healthy people, or climate (given Italian rates). I also dont buy that infection rate in Texas is higher but Mortality is lower and declining. It just doesnt pass the sanity check.

Look, when we can do massively wide scale real testing we can see what the rate of increase is through that. Until hospitals reach capacity causing the mortality rate to increase, the rate of spread, 17 days ago, can only be realistically calculated through deaths.

I usually trust 528s analysis, because they are usually pretty good, but this is poor data, terrible analysis and very transparently so.

NY starting antibody testing is the best news I've heard this week. Robust and widescale antibody testing is one of the few exit paths from this pandemic so that people know if they are safe or not. This will be especially useful for healthcare workers and other people in essential industries.

None of these statistics are accurate. Period. The only ones worth watching are confirmed cases, deaths and health care capacities.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

NY starting antibody testing is the best news I've heard this week. Robust and widescale antibody testing is one of the few exit paths from this pandemic so that people know if they are safe or not. This will be especially useful for healthcare workers and other people in essential industries.

---

Quote:

---

ensure the first cartridges used to perform the tests are sent to where they are most needed. They are targeting hospital emergency rooms, urgent-care clinics and doctors' offices

---

Where is the best place to do wide scale tests? NY where it's already completely out of control, or a state with low impact where the spread could be completely stopped?

What a conundrum.