Formerly DT: COVID-19 - Featuring Lots of Politics, now CR because political talk not going away

[Nice Guy Eddie 13391]

6 minutes ago, XYZ said:

Why doesn’t the Y axis on that fucking chart start at zero? Is the author stupid or disingenuous?

Charts often don't have 0 on the Y axis. It allows you to see small(er) trend changes which of course can overemphasize an immaterial change. But you can't imply intent with a legitimate chart.

Edited June 8, 2020 by Nice Guy Eddie

[Iceman 2628]

Hmmm...all of these people that delayed elective surgeries finally got the green light.

"Look here, Marge, hospitalizations are up since they said hospitals could do their jobs again..."

 

Nowhere on that graph or post does it say the hospitalizations are limited to Cv-19 only.

Edited June 8, 2020 by Iceman

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

1 minute ago, Iceman said:

Hmmm...all of these people that delayed elective surguries finally got the green light.

"Look here, Marge, hospitalizations are up since they said hospitals could do their jobs again..."

 

Nowhere on that graph or post does it say the hospitalizations are limited to Cv-19 only.

He says they are CV19 in the "comments". But holy shit that guys twitter account gave me cancer. 

[bschoolprof 6232]

0 wouldn't be very meaningful in this chart because the first time the state start reporting this datapoint it was in the 1400s.  Hospitalizations have spiked recently.  The key is hospitals not getting overwhelmed.  

[Anastasis 23375]

Would like to see that chart broken down at county level. 

[strangulation! 1699]

On 6/5/2020 at 8:26 PM, dcar00 said:

I live in a Irish-German-Portuguese neighborhood and I'd say it is about 99.3%

well, listen here my kraut mick amigo

[Incredulity 11532]

14 minutes ago, Newdoc said:

He uses “side effect” inappropriately and his profile picture has him in some kind of tatical looking mask. I think I want to wait for an expert to weigh in on this data.

He graduated just ahead of Fauci. So it's legit.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13391]

24 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Would like to see that chart broken down at county level. 

the state breaks it down by area.  Here are the major areas, as defined by the state, and I grouped everything else together.  You can breakdown the "everything else" at this link:  https://dshs.texas.gov/coronavirus/TexasCOVID-19HospitalizationsOverTimebyTSA.xlsx

Houston looks to be the cause of the recent state increase since everything else is down or even.

https://images2.imgbox.com/82/a2/MmfcBLlS_o.jpg

 

Edited June 8, 2020 by Nice Guy Eddie

[Guest Lobo]

14 minutes ago, strangulation! said:

well, listen here my kraut mick amigo

Woulda pos-repped you had you stuck the landing, 

The correct term would be "Kraut-Mick-Portagee Friend"

I had to get a new this morning at Discount Tires.  And I gotta say their Covid19 counter-measures were damn impressive.  I highly recommend them if you need tires during this shitshow.

[strangulation! 1699]

amigo is friend in portuguese, per the googles

[XYZ 2154]

Going back to that stupid “things are looking bad” chart, look at the red dots. What do you see? What I see is hospitalizations bouncing between 1500 and 1900. There are even jumps of a couple hundred from one day to the next. So between 1500 and 1900 it’s “noise”, for lack of a better word. So where are we now? Near 1900, still within the band. Maybe if we climb clearly out of that band we can then say that we have a new trend.

[Guest Lobo]

Just now, strangulation! said:

amigo is friend in portuguese, per the googles

Yeah, but the point of Kraut & Mick are they are the two derogatory terms for people of German and Irish descent.  If the neighborhood is also of Portuguese descent, then you add on the derogatory term for Portuguese to the Kraut-Mick term, which is Portagee.  Then...only when you're done with all the ethnic slurs, you add the term of endearment like friend, or pal. If a bunch of Italians move into that neighborhood, then it becomes Kraut-Mick-Portagee-Wop friend, not Kraut-Mick-Portagee-Amico.  

See, that's how we bring people of different backgrounds together in this troubled time in America.  

[BradInATX 9208]

20 minutes ago, XYZ said:

Going back to that stupid “things are looking bad” chart, look at the red dots. What do you see? What I see is hospitalizations bouncing between 1500 and 1900. There are even jumps of a couple hundred from one day to the next. So between 1500 and 1900 it’s “noise”, for lack of a better word. So where are we now? Near 1900, still within the band. Maybe if we climb clearly out of that band we can then say that we have a new trend.

You should probably stick to your day job, because data analysis is clearly not your strong suit. None of what you are saying is at all how any of this works. Charts very commonly set a range that contains all of the data, and don't start at zero. As you were already told, it's to show smaller more nuanced trends that don't show up where the chart starts at zero.

The chart also shows that we've basically been above the highest point we've ever been for a week now with an purely upward trend. We're higher than we've been since the beginning of April, we're remaining higher than we've been since the beginning of April, and we're on the sharpest upward trajectory that we've ever been on. It's not "bouncing around between 1500 and 1900". I'm not making any comment on what it actually means or whether or not the relaxing of restrictions was prudent, I'm simply commenting on your terrible interpretation of the chart.

 

Does this chart make you angry too?

 

 

Edited June 8, 2020 by BradInATX

[Dahobbs 17420]

16 minutes ago, XYZ said:

Going back to that stupid “things are looking bad” chart, look at the red dots. What do you see? What I see is hospitalizations bouncing between 1500 and 1900. There are even jumps of a couple hundred from one day to the next. So between 1500 and 1900 it’s “noise”, for lack of a better word. So where are we now? Near 1900, still within the band. Maybe if we climb clearly out of that band we can then say that we have a new trend.

That's not how this works at all. This is a bad take and you should feel bad. 

[B00M 6278]

57 minutes ago, XYZ said:

Why doesn’t the Y axis on that fucking chart start at zero? Is the author stupid or disingenuous?

Blank chart space is really important to you huh? 

[Anastasis 23375]

28 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

the state breaks it down by area.  Here are the major areas, as defined by the state, and I grouped everything else together.  You can breakdown the "everything else" at this link:  https://dshs.texas.gov/coronavirus/TexasCOVID-19HospitalizationsOverTimebyTSA.xlsx

Houston looks to be the cause of the recent state increase since everything else is down or even.

https://images2.imgbox.com/82/a2/MmfcBLlS_o.jpg

 

 

What has been so different about Houston during course of May compared to rest of the state?  It's interesting that they actually improved quite a bit during May, and then return to April levels.  The rest of the state basically peaked early may and then went flat. They peaked mid-april, dropped, and have returned to where they were in April.

 

I am not sure what is going on here, but clearly combining all regions is not appropriate and obfuscates our ability to visualize. 

[BradInATX 9208]

Grouping the data together to analyze an overall trend after various changing of restrictions is not inappropriate or meant to obfuscate at all. The changes in rules were implemented statewide, so looking at data for the entire state makes sense. Looking at individual cities to get an idea of your local risk is fine as well, but for the purpose of getting a general sense of how behavior is impacting the numbers, that chart is also fine. 

You say "Houston is dragging our numbers up" and someone else could say that every line on that chart save Dallas is at or near all-time highs. I guess it depends on what your agenda is.

Edited June 8, 2020 by BradInATX

[Lhorn 4884]

Blank chart space is really important to you huh? 

#blankchartspacematters

[XYZ 2154]

17 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

That's not how this works at all. This is a bad take and you should feel bad. 

You know what I DO feel bad about, though?

[utee94 15742]

COVID hospitalizations and ICU use compared to capacity is the more relevant metric.

[Royalfan5 2344]

Livestock continues to calm down. Packers are at 98% on cattle, and 93% on hogs now. Fresh pork and beef are back into normal ranges, biggest residual issue currently is processed meats are tighter because of the production hole last month. 

[Hate 20102]

Grouping the data together to analyze an overall trend after various changing of restrictions is not inappropriate or meant to obfuscate at all. The changes in rules were implemented statewide, so looking at data for the entire state makes sense. Looking at individual cities to get an idea of your local risk is fine as well, but for the purpose of getting a general sense of how behavior is impacting the numbers, that chart is also fine. 
You say "Houston is dragging our numbers up" and someone else could say that every line on that chart save Dallas is at or near all-time highs. I guess it depends on what your agenda is.

I don’t think it’s an agenda. I think it’s curiosity as to why one city seems to be spiking more quickly or at a higher rates than others. With the opening up on a state and now country wide basis, I think most “agendas” are gone for now.

[Anastasis 23375]

1 minute ago, BradInATX said:

Grouping the data together to analyze an overall trend after various changing of restrictions is not inappropriate or meant to obfuscate at all.

Clearly in this case resolution at service area level provides meaningful information that the combined state level data do not clearly demonstrate.  One region (TSA-Q) appears to be driving the increase in statewide hospitalization numbers in June. Every other region appears to be either flat or on same slope since reopening. Sure you can do the analysis at state wide level, but it doesn't tell the full story. There appears to be something different about the Houston area compared to the other populous areas.  They reversed course around June 1. 

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

1 hour ago, strangulation! said:

well, listen here my kraut mick amigo

[Nice Guy Eddie 13391]

18 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Grouping the data together to analyze an overall trend after various changing of restrictions is not inappropriate or meant to obfuscate at all. The changes in rules were implemented statewide, so looking at data for the entire state makes sense. Looking at individual cities to get an idea of your local risk is fine as well, but for the purpose of getting a general sense of how behavior is impacting the numbers, that chart is also fine. 

You say "Houston is dragging our numbers up" and someone else could say that every line on that chart save Dallas is at or near all-time highs. I guess it depends on what your agenda is.

Good points. Houston and Dallas will have greater impacts overall for the state #s, but that doesn't mean that other areas are all doing well.

 

7 minutes ago, utee94 said:

COVID hospitalizations and ICU use compared to capacity is the more relevant metric.

ICU use is absolutely a great metric but difficult to fully interpret. I posted this in the re-opening thread but the Texas Med Center is currently at full ICU capacity for COVID-19 in terms of ICU beds they budgeted for COVID-19. But they have open ICU beds and they have the ability to increase ICU beds if needed. They report all of these numbers but I don't know if there is a clear metric definition.

[BradInATX 9208]

17 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Clearly in this case resolution at service area level provides meaningful information that the combined state level data do not clearly demonstrate.  One region (TSA-Q) appears to be driving the increase in statewide hospitalization numbers in June. Every other region appears to be either flat or on same slope since reopening. Sure you can do the analysis at state wide level, but it doesn't tell the full story. There appears to be something different about the Houston area compared to the other populous areas.  They reversed course around June 1. 

Nothing wrong with this statement, and I agree with both what you and @Hate are saying. I was just pointing out that saying the statewide chart is "inappropriate" and obfuscatory is not really a fair or accurate statement. There is some value in the chart as a whole.

Obviously to get the full picture you need multiple views on it. Unfortunately we're not even close to that. It's been one of my frustrations the entire time. The increase in moving average could be four nursing homes or two meat packing plants or it could be indicative of a bigger problem. We have no idea, because the people in charge either aren't collecting data on a granular enough level or they're not providing what they do have to the public. We need to see age cohorts, we need to see it by more granular geography to understand if the increase is a few super spread events or a more worrying trend, we need to see it by occupation, etc. I know there are concerns with PII but there are way around that, and providing aggregated data by various demographic breakdowns is not a HIPAA violation.

It's kind of sad that we have to look at research out of Scandinavia to make informed decisions on whether or not to send our kids back to day care. And I'm not targeting any particular leadership here; there are plenty of governors and mayors of all political affiliations that have failed to collect and/or properly analyze the data. It's disappointing. We as a country, more than any other place in the world, have the resources and the subject matter expertise to do it. We should be the best at this, not drafting off of Denmark.

/rant

Edited June 8, 2020 by BradInATX

[Nice Guy Eddie 13391]

I think viewing the major cities is the best path of understanding policy impact. Some small towns could end up being the worst hot spots in terms of percent of the population but it's immaterial to the state #s.

As far as comparing cities, it might even be best to put DFW and Houston in one category and Austin & SA in another given the differences in population.

Austin went from 55 to 90 average hospitalizations over the last 2 weeks whereas Houston went from 416 to 522. Depending on your view, either could be viewed as worse. And that question can't be fully answered until you see where we are in 2 more weeks. 

EDIT: and when I mention a city, I mean the metro area. Katy, Sugar Land, etc within Houston.

Edited June 8, 2020 by Nice Guy Eddie

[bschoolprof 6232]

40 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

 

What has been so different about Houston during course of May compared to rest of the state?  It's interesting that they actually improved quite a bit during May, and then return to April levels.  The rest of the state basically peaked early may and then went flat. They peaked mid-april, dropped, and have returned to where they were in April.

 

I am not sure what is going on here, but clearly combining all regions is not appropriate and obfuscates our ability to visualize. 

I thought the same thing. I have no explanation, but it's an obvious and odd pattern.  

21 minutes ago, utee94 said:

COVID hospitalizations and ICU use compared to capacity is the more relevant metric.

Agree. The latest dashboard figures I saw suggest the state has ~15,000 hospital beds available, so an increase of a few hundred covid patients is not much.  If covid hospitalizations really start taking off in the next week or so, then we need to reassess.  

[Burt Macklin 18988]

1 hour ago, Iceman said:

Hmmm...all of these people that delayed elective surgeries finally got the green light.

"Look here, Marge, hospitalizations are up since they said hospitals could do their jobs again..."

 

Nowhere on that graph or post does it say the hospitalizations are limited to Cv-19 only.

Really good work here, detective, except that he stated in the next reply he got the info from DSHS website and it’s only COVID hospitalizations. But now that you mention it, the tweet also doesn’t definite “hospitalizations,” so maybe he’s also including hotel stays as part of “hospitalizations.” Why don’t you go put your best men on that one and report back to us? 
 

The more relevant point will be whether this trend continues. The state opening back up plus all the protests would understandably cause this type of rise, but if it doesn’t keep spiking, then it’s really nothing too worrisome or meaningful at this point. 

[BradInATX 9208]

5 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I think viewing the major cities is the best path of understanding policy impact. Some small towns could end up being the worst hot spots in terms of percent of the population but it's immaterial to the state #s.

As far as comparing cities, it might even be best to put DFW and Houston in one category and Austin & SA in another given the differences in population.

Austin went from 55 to 90 hospitalizations over the last 2 weeks whereas Houston went from 416 to 522. Depending on your view, either could be viewed as worse. And that question can't be fully answered until you see where we are in 2 more weeks. 

Yeah, but when you break it down by cities you're getting into such small numbers that they don't tell you much. An extra 35  hospitalizations in Austin could be one single nursing home, which while tragic, doesn't really move the needle in terms of public risk. The weird nature of this virus where people are avoiding catching it from their wives and kids but one super spreader event can get 100 people sick makes sample sizing important. 

I'd also like to see the small towns broken down a little better. Perhaps by size and/or distance from the next closest city (IE The Woodlands is quite different than Corsicana). I'm of the mind that a lot of the small towns probably don't need any mitigation measures at all unless they get hit with a bunch of cases suddenly; but we'd need better data to understand where those places are.

Edited June 8, 2020 by BradInATX

[Iceman 2628]

4 minutes ago, Burt Macklin said:

Really good work here, detective, except that he stated in the next reply he got the info from DSHS website and it’s only COVID hospitalizations. But now that you mention it, the tweet also doesn’t definite “hospitalizations,” so maybe he’s also including hotel stays as part of “hospitalizations.” Why don’t you go put your best men on that one and report back to us? 
 

The more relevant point will be whether this trend continues. The state opening back up plus all the protests would understandably cause this type of rise, but if it doesn’t keep spiking, then it’s really nothing too worrisome or meaningful at this point. 

If you're scared, stay home.

 

We ain't shutting down again, Holmes.

[Hate 20102]

I’d love to see an age breakdown in the Covid hospitalizations spike. Are these young healthy people or are these older people (60+) that should be heeding warnings to stay at home or be especially cautious?

[Nice Guy Eddie 13391]

1 minute ago, Iceman said:

If you're scared, stay home.

 

We ain't shutting down again, Holmes.

I agree there won't be state orders, and the state isn't going to allow cities/counties to have shut down orders. BUT that doesn't mean that consumers or employers won't take action on their own. I don't think Houston restaurants are below 100% just because of state orders. People shut down businesses in the first go-round, not the govt.

[B00M 6278]

5 minutes ago, Iceman said:

If you're scared, stay home.

We ain't shutting down again, Holmes.

 

[Burt Macklin 18988]

15 minutes ago, Iceman said:

If you're scared, stay home.

 

We ain't shutting down again, Holmes.

You should probably write Tech a letter and ask them for all your tuition money back and use these posts as your evidence. Do you know how to read?

 

I never advocated for shutting things down again or said anything about fear of Covid getting worse. I literally said this chart is likely nothing meaningful and won’t change the current plan, because the change in circumstances (opening things up plus protests) explains the rise and things will likely fall back down. 
 

You’re the one who’s so against seeing any data that shows a legitimate rise in Covid (even if explainable) that you just start spouting out nonsensical scenarios, like what if the chart includes all hospitalizations without even checking to see what it represents. 

[Anastasis 23375]

31 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

There is some value in the chart as a whole.

Well sure, but it does not tell the story as to what it going on in the state. The regional break downs help with that. 

 

32 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

we need to see it by more granular geography to understand if the increase is a few super spread events or a more worrying trend

That's precisely the point that was being made. We are in general agreement. I use the various country arcgis sites, to the extent that they are available to drill down on zip code.  I closely follow the travis county and corpus ones for example. The state site is useful, and has gotten better, but could be so much more informative with drill down and interactive capabilities.  I assume that the some of the problem is inconsistent level of reporting by the various counties.    

 

[Iceman 2628]

5 minutes ago, Burt Macklin said:

You should probably write Tech a letter and ask them for all your tuition money back and use these posts as your evidence. Do you know how to read?

 

I never advocated for shutting things down again or said anything about fear of Covid getting worse. I literally said this chart is likely nothing meaningful and won’t change the current plan, because the change in circumstances (opening things up plus protests) explains the rise and things will likely fall back down. 
 

You’re the one who’s so against seeing any data that shows a legitimate rise in Covid (even if explainable) that you just start spouting out nonsensical scenarios, like what if the chart includes all hospitalizations without even checking to see what it represents. 

I'm not against legitimate numbers.   When do we get to see them?

I did look at the graph/chart.  No I am not reading the whole conversation.  Fuck that to hell.  Not my problem I took it at face value.  It is clearly labeled as ' hospitalizations.'

 

The fact that people don't take the crazy fucked up math that has been part of this whole thing is beyond your understanding, no?  Why don't people just believe us?

 

 

LO-FUCKING-L

Edited June 8, 2020 by Iceman

[BradInATX 9208]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I assume that the some of the problem is inconsistent level of reporting by the various counties.    

 

For sure. That's one of the frustrating parts to me. There should be some kind of national or at least state-wide reporting standards (in all states) developed for this so that we can get good, clean data where you're comparing like to like and able to draw conclusions from. I guess I'll need to leave it there so as to keep it from getting too CR in here, but again, the failure is by a lot of people, not just one particular politician or party. 

[Burt Macklin 18988]

1 minute ago, Iceman said:

I'm not against legitimate numbers.   When do we get to see them?

Actually, that’s exactly what you are.  You’re against numbers that don’t fit what you want to believe, legitimate or not, and then reach hard to illegitimize any numbers that don’t fit your beliefs. 
 

I’d love to hear you try to explain what was illegitimate about the numbers he posted, which were obtained directly from DSHS. 

[justhookit 4174]

6 minutes ago, Iceman said:

I'm not against legitimate numbers.   When do we get to see them?

I did look at the graph/chart.  No I am not reading the whole conversation.  Fuck that to hell.  Not my problem I took it at face value.  It is clearly labeled as ' hospitalizations.'

 

The fact that people don't take the crazy fucked up math that has been part of this whole thing is beyond your understanding, no?  Why don't people just believe us?

 

 

LO-FUCKING-L

Wow.

this has been a great discussion this morning between posters that normally wouldn’t agree on anything. Maybe sit this one out.

[Iceman 2628]

1 minute ago, justhookit said:

Wow.

this has been a great discussion this morning between posters that normally wouldn’t agree on anything. Maybe sit this one out.

Yep.  it's all so reasonable.  LOlz.

[Iceman 2628]

7 minutes ago, Burt Macklin said:

Actually, that’s exactly what you are.  You’re against numbers that don’t fit what you want to believe, legitimate or not, and then reach hard to illegitimize any numbers that don’t fit your beliefs. 
 

I’d love to hear you try to explain what was illegitimate about the numbers he posted, which were obtained directly from DSHS. 

After everything we've been through and stats/ numbers have been all over the place, why don't these people believe our agenda driven math?

They have their own agenda.

 

How dare they!!!

Edited June 8, 2020 by Iceman

[Anastasis 23375]

46 minutes ago, bschoolprof said:

I thought the same thing. I have no explanation, but it's an obvious and odd pattern.  

1 hour ago, utee94 said:

 

Seriously.  The easy answers don't lend themselves.  Too early for protest related bump, inconsistent with what we are seeing in the other regions to be strictly related to re-opening. This is where the drill down capabilities @BradInATX and the rest of us are looking for would come in handy.

Here is a pretty good site for TSA Q: https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiYjU5MzU4NjAtZWJjMC00MTllLTkwYjYtMzE4ODY1YjAyMGU2IiwidCI6ImI3MjgwODdjLTgwZTgtNGQzMS04YjZmLTdlMGUzYmUxMGUwOCIsImMiOjN9

Lots of different data points and visualizations at county level for the Q, H, and R (South East Texas).

  

Edited June 8, 2020 by Anastasis

[gmr548 16463]

Lol y'all responding to slorch

[ABSR 5289]

On 6/5/2020 at 6:48 PM, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

It depends on where you live. Some places there are virtually no masks and other places it’s near 100%.

Around here it is also store dependent.  I went to Lowe’s and while employees had masks, I would say it was 15-20% with masks on customers.  Then in same small suburb town I went to Tom Thumb grocery and it was 90% masks.

[EuroHorn 3204]

For what’s it’s worth - the WHO (not buffalo Springfield)

KEY POINTS

• Government responses should focus on detecting and isolating infected people with symptoms, the World Health Organization said.
• Preliminary evidence from the earliest outbreaks indicated the virus could spread even if people didn’t have symptoms.
• But the WHO says that while asymptomatic spread can occur, it is “very rare.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/08/asymptomatic-coronavirus-patients-arent-spreading-new-infections-who-says.html

 

[bullzak 411]

2 hours ago, Hate said:

I’d love to see an age breakdown in the Covid hospitalizations spike. Are these young healthy people or are these older people (60+) that should be heeding warnings to stay at home or be especially cautious?

Demographics is everything on this. 

The base data is messy, the interpretation are even worse. 

For now I will ascribe that to stupidity and not malice. For now. 

[B00M 6278]

1 hour ago, Iceman said:

After everything we've been through and stats/ numbers have been all over the place, why don't these people believe our agenda driven math?

They have their own agenda.

 

How dare they!!!

Next time you want to post here about a "narrative" or "agenda" can you just not? It's either CR bait or tin foil hat bullshit.

[dcar00 14023]

who cares.   this thing is over as of 2 weeks ago(it was over before that).  summer's here, the beaches are open and amity as you know means friendship.  

in case anyone misunderstands, more people will die...

[atomheartbevo 89362]

6 hours ago, CHIEF said:

 Mom would make me strip down before going inside

Pics of your mom?