Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Worse than 9-11 [CallMeMaybe] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
CallMeMaybe wrote:
trail wrote:
CallMeMaybe wrote:

Here’s another number that is interesting: North Dakota is at a 10% positivity rate. That means (I think) that 1 out of every 10 people is positive for Covid. I’m not a numbers person. Correct me if I’m wrong.


You're wrong. :) The positivity rate is the percent of all COVID tests that are coming back positive. So if a state performs 100 tests today, and 10 of those tests come back positive, its positivity rate is at 10%.


Awesome! 😂

What do you call the number of infection per regular population? Is that infection rate?

Prevailence rate defines the current number of people infected. Ie 1 in 176 in the LA county currently. It is estimated, so a subject to the quality of the forecasting models.

Next races on the schedule: none at the moment
Quote Reply
Re: Worse than 9-11 [alex_korr] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
alex_korr wrote:

Be careful with the "ICU’s are at 75% capacity" thing being thrown around. Most hospitals in larger urban areas have capacity to expand their ICUs. Now they may face staffing shortages, but that's a different story.

The numbers I have seen coming from a couple folks I know that work in larger hospitals in LA (Cedars and St Johns in Santa Monica). They are hit with a ton of people walking in thinking they have COVID, but a lot of it is hypochondria, though requiring triage. They estimate that about 15% of true COVID cases end up needing some level of care from the hospitals. About 90% of those 15% leave within 2-3 days and are fine, though some end up with post-viral infection complications lingering for 1-2 months. 5% of those ending up in the hospitals end up needing ICU care. Getting into ICU is very bad news - the average length of stay in their hospitals was something like 22 days. Your chances of getting out alive are not very good if you go past that mark.

In what way should I be careful using the information? Please advise.

San Diego County currently has 23% of ICU beds available. The reports state that hospitals have the capacity to expand the number of ICU beds. That’s reassuring. However, our governor says that if the ICUs fill up too much (above 85%), he’s going close hair salons, indoor dining, bars, wineries, etc. I want those to stay open.
Quote Reply
Re: Worse than 9-11 [CallMeMaybe] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
CallMeMaybe wrote:
alex_korr wrote:


Be careful with the "ICU’s are at 75% capacity" thing being thrown around. Most hospitals in larger urban areas have capacity to expand their ICUs. Now they may face staffing shortages, but that's a different story.

The numbers I have seen coming from a couple folks I know that work in larger hospitals in LA (Cedars and St Johns in Santa Monica). They are hit with a ton of people walking in thinking they have COVID, but a lot of it is hypochondria, though requiring triage. They estimate that about 15% of true COVID cases end up needing some level of care from the hospitals. About 90% of those 15% leave within 2-3 days and are fine, though some end up with post-viral infection complications lingering for 1-2 months. 5% of those ending up in the hospitals end up needing ICU care. Getting into ICU is very bad news - the average length of stay in their hospitals was something like 22 days. Your chances of getting out alive are not very good if you go past that mark.


In what way should I be careful using the information? Please advise.

San Diego County currently has 23% of ICU beds available. The reports state that hospitals have the capacity to expand the number of ICU beds. That’s reassuring. However, our governor says that if the ICUs fill up too much (above 85%), he’s going close hair salons, indoor dining, bars, wineries, etc. I want those to stay open.

ICU capacity is somewhat elastic. Ie it can expand on demand, although it might impact the service levels if the staffing is not as elastic as the raw bed capacity.

Next races on the schedule: none at the moment
Quote Reply
Re: Worse than 9-11 [orphious] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
orphious wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
orphious wrote:


But that's not the reason Kay cancelled. It was because the line was to long and he didn't have time to wait. Not becasue there is a shortage of tests.


How is having to wait hours for a walk in test not symptomatic of a lack of testing capacity?


Given the shortage of tests, would you have taken it if you didn't have to wait an hour?

The waiting time is a function of supply vs demand, so if I didn’t have to wait for a test, then it means there is a plentiful supply, which, by the way, is exactly what this country needs to reduce the spread of the virus. You make it out like it’s a bad thing to just go and get a test with no symptoms or known contacts with someone with COVID, but that’s exactly the wrong attitude. We should all be getting tested as regularly as possible for surveillance of the virus (not diagnostics), and if that were happening we would be able to contain it dramatically.

So yes, if I could walk in and get tested in 15 minutes I would be doing it regularly, and so should you, and everyone else. Then we would know exactly where the virus was prevalent and could take targeted steps to contain it even further. Soon we’d have it virtually irradicated, even without a vaccine.
Quote Reply
Re: Worse than 9-11 [alex_korr] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
alex_korr wrote:
CallMeMaybe wrote:
alex_korr wrote:


Be careful with the "ICU’s are at 75% capacity" thing being thrown around. Most hospitals in larger urban areas have capacity to expand their ICUs. Now they may face staffing shortages, but that's a different story.

The numbers I have seen coming from a couple folks I know that work in larger hospitals in LA (Cedars and St Johns in Santa Monica). They are hit with a ton of people walking in thinking they have COVID, but a lot of it is hypochondria, though requiring triage. They estimate that about 15% of true COVID cases end up needing some level of care from the hospitals. About 90% of those 15% leave within 2-3 days and are fine, though some end up with post-viral infection complications lingering for 1-2 months. 5% of those ending up in the hospitals end up needing ICU care. Getting into ICU is very bad news - the average length of stay in their hospitals was something like 22 days. Your chances of getting out alive are not very good if you go past that mark.


In what way should I be careful using the information? Please advise.

San Diego County currently has 23% of ICU beds available. The reports state that hospitals have the capacity to expand the number of ICU beds. That’s reassuring. However, our governor says that if the ICUs fill up too much (above 85%), he’s going close hair salons, indoor dining, bars, wineries, etc. I want those to stay open.

ICU capacity is somewhat elastic. Ie it can expand on demand, although it might impact the service levels if the staffing is not as elastic as the raw bed capacity.

That’s reassuring. I won’t worry about a hard number representing ICU beds.

However, I don’t think our governor plans to impose or lift restrictions based upon the elastic, additional ICU beds that can become available. For planning purposes, I’ll use the number of actual available ICU beds, unless you have a compelling reason.
Quote Reply
Re: Worse than 9-11 [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Kay Serrar wrote:
orphious wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
orphious wrote:


But that's not the reason Kay cancelled. It was because the line was to long and he didn't have time to wait. Not becasue there is a shortage of tests.


How is having to wait hours for a walk in test not symptomatic of a lack of testing capacity?


Given the shortage of tests, would you have taken it if you didn't have to wait an hour?

The waiting time is a function of supply vs demand, so if I didn’t have to wait for a test, then it means there is a plentiful supply, which, by the way, is exactly what this country needs to reduce the spread of the virus. You make it out like it’s a bad thing to just go and get a test with no symptoms or known contacts with someone with COVID, but that’s exactly the wrong attitude. We should all be getting tested as regularly as possible for surveillance of the virus (not diagnostics), and if that were happening we would be able to contain it dramatically.

So yes, if I could walk in and get tested in 15 minutes I would be doing it regularly, and so should you, and everyone else. Then we would know exactly where the virus was prevalent and could take targeted steps to contain it even further. Soon we’d have it virtually irradicated, even without a vaccine.

Is there a shortage of tests overall in the country or not? Either there is or isn't. If there isnt , we can all get tested like you say. I do agree with you on that point of everyone getting tested. I just won't go get tested so I can claim to be safe for family visits and other plans...
Quote Reply
Re: Worse than 9-11 [CallMeMaybe] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
CallMeMaybe wrote:
alex_korr wrote:
CallMeMaybe wrote:
alex_korr wrote:


Be careful with the "ICU’s are at 75% capacity" thing being thrown around. Most hospitals in larger urban areas have capacity to expand their ICUs. Now they may face staffing shortages, but that's a different story.

The numbers I have seen coming from a couple folks I know that work in larger hospitals in LA (Cedars and St Johns in Santa Monica). They are hit with a ton of people walking in thinking they have COVID, but a lot of it is hypochondria, though requiring triage. They estimate that about 15% of true COVID cases end up needing some level of care from the hospitals. About 90% of those 15% leave within 2-3 days and are fine, though some end up with post-viral infection complications lingering for 1-2 months. 5% of those ending up in the hospitals end up needing ICU care. Getting into ICU is very bad news - the average length of stay in their hospitals was something like 22 days. Your chances of getting out alive are not very good if you go past that mark.


In what way should I be careful using the information? Please advise.

San Diego County currently has 23% of ICU beds available. The reports state that hospitals have the capacity to expand the number of ICU beds. That’s reassuring. However, our governor says that if the ICUs fill up too much (above 85%), he’s going close hair salons, indoor dining, bars, wineries, etc. I want those to stay open.


ICU capacity is somewhat elastic. Ie it can expand on demand, although it might impact the service levels if the staffing is not as elastic as the raw bed capacity.


That’s reassuring. I won’t worry about a hard number representing ICU beds.

However, I don’t think our governor plans to impose or lift restrictions based upon the elastic, additional ICU beds that can become available. For planning purposes, I’ll use the number of actual available ICU beds, unless you have a compelling reason.

You would be making an overly pessimistic assumption.
See page 51 of this document from 12/01/2020 to get a sense of the ratios between current capacity and the surge capacity in the LA county. Ie the normal ICU capacity is 2500, the surge capacity is 4067.

Next races on the schedule: none at the moment
Quote Reply
Re: Worse than 9-11 [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Kay Serrar wrote:
orphious wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
orphious wrote:


But that's not the reason Kay cancelled. It was because the line was to long and he didn't have time to wait. Not becasue there is a shortage of tests.


How is having to wait hours for a walk in test not symptomatic of a lack of testing capacity?


Given the shortage of tests, would you have taken it if you didn't have to wait an hour?


The waiting time is a function of supply vs demand, so if I didn’t have to wait for a test, then it means there is a plentiful supply, which, by the way, is exactly what this country needs to reduce the spread of the virus. You make it out like it’s a bad thing to just go and get a test with no symptoms or known contacts with someone with COVID, but that’s exactly the wrong attitude. We should all be getting tested as regularly as possible for surveillance of the virus (not diagnostics), and if that were happening we would be able to contain it dramatically.

So yes, if I could walk in and get tested in 15 minutes I would be doing it regularly, and so should you, and everyone else. Then we would know exactly where the virus was prevalent and could take targeted steps to contain it even further. Soon we’d have it virtually irradicated, even without a vaccine.

You would think that but Americans are dumb. There are enough of them that don't believe this virus is real, or even if they believe it is real they don't think it's actually that bad, and are unlikely to isolate themselves if they have it. And they would be the ones ordered to quarantine due to a positive test who would ignore such orders in the name of "freedom".

Then you have those who are knowingly positive who get on airplanes anyway...
Quote Reply
Re: Worse than 9-11 [alex_korr] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
alex_korr wrote:
CallMeMaybe wrote:
alex_korr wrote:


Be careful with the "ICU’s are at 75% capacity" thing being thrown around. Most hospitals in larger urban areas have capacity to expand their ICUs. Now they may face staffing shortages, but that's a different story.

The numbers I have seen coming from a couple folks I know that work in larger hospitals in LA (Cedars and St Johns in Santa Monica). They are hit with a ton of people walking in thinking they have COVID, but a lot of it is hypochondria, though requiring triage. They estimate that about 15% of true COVID cases end up needing some level of care from the hospitals. About 90% of those 15% leave within 2-3 days and are fine, though some end up with post-viral infection complications lingering for 1-2 months. 5% of those ending up in the hospitals end up needing ICU care. Getting into ICU is very bad news - the average length of stay in their hospitals was something like 22 days. Your chances of getting out alive are not very good if you go past that mark.


In what way should I be careful using the information? Please advise.

San Diego County currently has 23% of ICU beds available. The reports state that hospitals have the capacity to expand the number of ICU beds. That’s reassuring. However, our governor says that if the ICUs fill up too much (above 85%), he’s going close hair salons, indoor dining, bars, wineries, etc. I want those to stay open.

ICU capacity is somewhat elastic. Ie it can expand on demand, although it might impact the service levels if the staffing is not as elastic as the raw bed capacity.

Staffing is absolutely not elastic, especially since so many parts of the country are having outbreaks. That's why I generally see it reported as a 'staffed ICU bed'. It's not about the bed itself.
Quote Reply
Re: Worse than 9-11 [jharris] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jharris wrote:
CallMeMaybe wrote:
I just read that Covid has killed 1 in every 800 residents of North Dakota.

I’m a numbers guy. My first thought was:

1 in 100 is 1/100= .01

1 in 800 is 1/800= .00125

Or, .125%

This is less than the 1% death rate we have heard over and over. So, what makes this statistic so shocking?

ND data from worldometers

Total cases 81949
Total deaths 989
Population 762062

So while the death rate is indeed 0.1298%, that is based on the total population. But, if the total case count is reflective of the actual cases, the state has 89.42% of the population yet to be infected. If you had 100% infected, what is more plausible?

A) The rate will still be 0.1298%?
B) The rate will be 1.2%?

Obviously the answer is somewhere between, but I would say it will be closer to B). That is, you would expect

762062*(989/81949)=9197 deaths

Or, do you contend that the rate will still be 0.1298%, such that if the number of infections doubles, there will be no more deaths?

Math is hard for some, but not that hard....

Now you could say that your probability of death for a random ND resident is currently 0.1298%, but tomorrow that probability will go over 0.13%. And you can also say that the probability of death for an infected ND resident is around 1.2%.

Numbers have context. Don't misuse the context.
Quote Reply
Re: Worse than 9-11 [alex_korr] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
alex_korr wrote:
You would be making an overly pessimistic assumption.
See page 51 of this document from 12/01/2020 to get a sense of the ratios between current capacity and the surge capacity in the LA county. Ie the normal ICU capacity is 2500, the surge capacity is 4067.


My decisions take into account multiple things, including whether or not my actions increase the likelihood that the governor will impose additional restrictions.

I’m concerned about the availability of ICU beds, but whether a ton of businesses have to shut down is also very important to me. That’s why I use the in-elastic, regular capacity number for ICU beds. That’s not being pessimistic.
Last edited by: CallMeMaybe: Dec 4, 20 13:32
Quote Reply
Re: Worse than 9-11 [CallMeMaybe] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
when the country is burying 3000 a day would think your main concern is not dying or getting covid and inadvertently killing some one else.

But heck worry about the inelastic regular number for ICU beds. Place is mad
Quote Reply
Re: Worse than 9-11 [stevie g] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
stevie g wrote:
when the country is burying 3000 a day would think your main concern is not dying or getting covid and inadvertently killing some one else.

But heck worry about the inelastic regular number for ICU beds. Place is mad

😂
Quote Reply
Re: Worse than 9-11 [CallMeMaybe] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
CallMeMaybe wrote:
alex_korr wrote:
You would be making an overly pessimistic assumption.
See page 51 of this document from 12/01/2020 to get a sense of the ratios between current capacity and the surge capacity in the LA county. Ie the normal ICU capacity is 2500, the surge capacity is 4067.


My decisions take into account multiple things, including whether or not my actions increase the likelihood that the governor will impose additional restrictions.

I’m concerned about the availability of ICU beds, but whether a ton of businesses have to shut down is also very important to me. That’s why I use the in-elastic, regular capacity number for ICU beds. That’s not being pessimistic.

Four hospitals in Berlin had to close their ERs because they are so overloaded with covid cases in the ICU and can no longer care for new patients.
Quote Reply
Re: Worse than 9-11 [A-A-Ron] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
A-A-Ron wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
A-A-Ron wrote:

I am genuinely curious as to what people want the government to do about COVID. Give me the list of what you think the federal government can accomplish regarding this virus. Keep in mind the following.

States do have rights, and are prone to exercise those rights, especially when it is the federal government attempting to force a state to enforce their mandates.

Enforcement so far has been on the local level. So unless a Mayor or Sheriff are willing to follow the order of a Governor or President and utilize their police and sheriff forces to enforce mandates from higher up, there is no other enforcement arm short of the National Guard.

Even then, the issue you are trying to have enforced is what? Masks and 6'? Is that really doing much? CA has been very strict, they won't even let the Niners play football in an empty stadium anymore, they have over 1.2 million cases.

The only argument I can see is putting resources behind a vaccine. Do we really think the world isn't working as fast and hard as possible on a vaccine?

What is the magic wand that any level of government is going to wave to make a disease go away?


I'm really struggling to avoid a flippant response.

So I'll just give you one example:

https://forum.slowtwitch.com/...end%20covid#p7384525


So in 4 pages of that thread you came up with masks and testing.

We have both. Do you seriously think anyone is having a problem getting ahold of a mask? Testing is easy to find and free.

So again, what does the Federal Government do about COVID? You think that a President saying "wear a mask and take a test" is going to stop a virus? Do you think if COVID came around under Obama or next year under Biden it would cease to exist due to who was in office? Same question still applies as to enforcement. Do you think Biden is going to convince a local Mayor to jail someone over a mask?

Fareed Zakaria interviewed Dr. Michael Mina today on his GPS show on CNN. Mina has also penned a report in Time Magazine called, How We Can Stop the Spread of COVID by Christmas.

Some facts:
Rapid results antigen tests are cheap and easy to use
They can be used in the home without the need for a lab
They return near instant results
They are 98% accurate for testing COVID infectiousness
They cost less than $5 each
They could easily be delivered by USPS to most households in the US
If just half of Americans tested themselves twice a week, the rate of infection would fall by an estimated 30% per week, based on modeling

The government spent $760m on distributing 150m of these tests in August, so they know the merit in them. Why did they stop there? It’s madness that we are sitting on this ability to stop the spread of this virus, waiting for a few more months for widespread vaccine distribution while thousands die every day. Over 500k are expected to die by April. It doesn’t have to happen.

Please reach out to your congressional representative. I have done so and he has said he will press for this solution. We need more to do so. Funding for this needs to be included in the new relief bill. It would only cost $3-5bn.
Quote Reply
Re: Worse than 9-11 [slink] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
slink wrote:
CallMeMaybe wrote:
alex_korr wrote:
You would be making an overly pessimistic assumption.
See page 51 of this document from 12/01/2020 to get a sense of the ratios between current capacity and the surge capacity in the LA county. Ie the normal ICU capacity is 2500, the surge capacity is 4067.


My decisions take into account multiple things, including whether or not my actions increase the likelihood that the governor will impose additional restrictions.

I’m concerned about the availability of ICU beds, but whether a ton of businesses have to shut down is also very important to me. That’s why I use the in-elastic, regular capacity number for ICU beds. That’s not being pessimistic.

Four hospitals in Berlin had to close their ERs because they are so overloaded with covid cases in the ICU and can no longer care for new patients.

I’ve seen tweets this weekend from nurses in various American cities saying they are out of ICU beds. SoCal is getting our new restrictions tonight because we have only 13% ICU capacity left. I think LA county might be where it’s bad. We still have 23% capacity in San Diego, I think.

I’m also seeing lots of tweets about fatigue in health care workers. One of my favorite nurses to follow said she was too tired to eat after work last night. That’s just a small mundane complaint, but she generally tweets her full menu. And it reminds me of when you’re too tired to eat at 80 miles of a 100 mile ride. You know you need the calories because it’s impossible that you’re not depleted. Being too tired to eat sets off my warning bells.
Quote Reply

Prev Next