Jump to content

COVID-19 2nd wave - Texas only - Stats and such

justhookit

By justhookit
in Daily Texan

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 13.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

whithou
whithou

It has been a disheartening journey and it is only starting. I did not realize how there really is no definitive treatment for the illness until we got COVID patients. When they first come on our unit

South Austin
South Austin

He didn't get COVID.  He just ran out of immunity.

safe sex
safe sex

I cannot stress this enough for anyone who lives in Austin (although this really applies to pretty much everywhere at this point) BE SAFE. What this means is don't get on your motorcycles. D

Posted Images

dcar00

dcar00 14035

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

Flu is %35-45.

I don't trust 20% in regards to my elderly in-laws, my senior citizen parents, my elderly great-aunts, my elderly neighbors.

I've now known too many people who have had covid, and know of a couple of relatives of friends/co-workers who have died from it, to be ready to throw things open just yet.

 

I'd be surprised if we werent very close to 20% but I certainly wouldn't think that would be herd either.  no can really know the percentage we would need to reach herd and with the crazy large numbers of asymptomatic you'll never really know.  hopefully the hospitalizations keep declining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dcar00

dcar00 14035

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, bschoolprof said:

There are an increasing number of epidemiological studies released recently that offer explanations for a much lower HIT than ~60-80%.  I can link some of them if you like.  The idea, as I understand it, is the classical models tend to make strong assumptions of homogeneity - that is, individuals have similar susceptibility, infectivity, and interaction in the broad population. But there's evidence that most infected people don't actually infect anyone else, whereas some people are super spreaders.  Newer models are taking this heterogeneity into account - that some are more susceptible, or more infective, or interact with a lot more people than others.  In these models, the highly interactive and susceptible agents get the virus first and quickly spread it, but they drop out of the infection pool fairly quickly and viral spread slows. My understanding is the HIT in these models can be quite low (e.g., 15% of the population).  Not sure I completely understand it or buy it fully, but there are reputable scientists putting out these kinds of models.   

There are so few counterfactuals, so it's hard to argue with this, but Sweden is one.  They have had a massive fall off in cases and deaths (down to almost none), and the vast majority of the country has not been infected.  Yet there is no widespread masking.  

masks help but the impact is overblown IMO, this virus is gonna virus.  that said, its a stupid mask so if businesses and govt facilities want us to wear one indoors we can do it or we can not go in.  at some point  soon I believe we won't need them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23395

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, dcar00 said:

masks help but the impact is overblown IMO, this virus is gonna virus.  that said, its a stupid mask so if businesses and govt facilities want us to wear one indoors we can do it or we can not go in.  at some point  soon I believe we won't need them. 

Correlation does not equal causation but look at the numbers in ATX and Texas since mask mandates. Look at the Asian countries where mask wearing is a cultural norm. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dcar00

dcar00 14035

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Correlation does not equal causation but look at the numbers in ATX and Texas since mask mandates. Look at the Asian countries where mask wearing is a cultural norm. 

california was masks and shutdown and they still blew up.  sweden has no masks and their curve is 4 months.  we are looking at about 3 to 3.5.  NYC was 3ish.

I don't disagree that masks help.  I just think the percentage it helps is not as great as people like to think it is.  no one can really know and every little bit helps IMO so I'm OK with masks.  the school thing is my biggest gripe at this point.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
utee94

utee94 15745

Posted
Posted (edited)

It's possible that seeing the masks is a constant reminder for people to stay away from one another, as well.  Plus the inability to touch your mouth and nose whilst wearing a mask (properly).  

So I think there are some ancillary benefits that might add up to more protection than the mask itself.

 

Edited by utee94
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23395

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, utee94 said:

It's possible that seeing the masks is a constant reminder for people to stay away from one another, as well.  Plus the inability to touch your mouth and nose whilst wearing a mask (properly).  

So I think there are some ancillary benefits that might add up to more protection than the mask itself.

 

I'm not sure California was so mask compliant initially, but willing to entertain the notion. Look at Japan and other locations where mask wearing is the cultural norm.  They shit the bed on COVID response much as we did, but their numbers are much better. Again, correlation/causation etc. But the reality is that we instituted mask mandates and the numbers came down. Maybe confounding by other issues, but just keep wearing the fucking masks for god's sake. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dcar00

dcar00 14035

Posted
Posted

japan's numbers are suspect.  but South Korea did an amazing job.  their sars experience and contact tracing were IMO the biggest reason.  being able to quarantine quickly is a huge difference maker.

Interestingly, south Korea is seeing a case spike, not sure why

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89428

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I'm not sure California was so mask compliant initially, but willing to entertain the notion. Look at Japan and other locations where mask wearing is the cultural norm.  They shit the bed on COVID response much as we did, but their numbers are much better. Again, correlation/causation etc. But the reality is that we instituted mask mandates and the numbers came down. Maybe confounding by other issues, but just keep wearing the fucking masks for god's sake. 

It's California, regardless of all of the mask ordinances, plenty were still partying, out and about around others, etc.  Whatever lockdowns there were, were not nearly as draconian as people think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

Correlation does not equal causation but look at the numbers in ATX and Texas since mask mandates. Look at the Asian countries where mask wearing is a cultural norm. 

I'd be surprised if @dcar00 or anyone else who seems to be anti-mask could find a single instance of a country implementing a mask mandate and not seeing a sharp decline in their numbers. Obviously I agree with the correlation =/= causation thing as a stats guy, but as a human being there's also a certain threshold of anecdotal, real-world evidence that adds up to me believing it's more than likely to be causation.

There's a standard that my work product has to meet, and there's the standard that meets common sense, and they are different. The common sense standard has been met in terms of masks, IMO.

But as dcar also mentioned, we could be seeing both things (masks + higher than expected immunity) happening at the same time. That's not out of the question. I vote that as an experiment we make everyone in Oklahoma throw away all of their masks and see what happens.

Edited by BradInATX
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dcar00

dcar00 14035

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

I'd be surprised if @dcar00 or anyone else who seems to be anti-mask could find a single instance of a country implementing a mask mandate and not seeing a sharp decline in their numbers. Obviously I agree with the correlation =/= causation thing as a stats guy, but as a human being there's also a certain threshold of anecdotal, real-world evidence that adds up to me believing it's more than likely to be causation.

There's a standard that my work product has to meet, and there's the standard that meets common sense, and they are different. The common sense standard has been met in terms of masks, IMO.

of course as usual your reading comprehension sucks shit through a straw.  I'm not anti mask.  I'm saying it doesn't help as much as people like to think.  of course this is my opinion.  just like it is yours.  cali implemented lockdown and masks and they blew up.  Sweden didn't do masks and they have a curve/time frame similar to others.  they help but IMO the virus was always going to cycle through a population regardless of masks.  no one knows how much they help.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

of course as usual your reading comprehension sucks shit through a straw.  I'm not anti mask.  I'm saying it doesn't help as much as people like to think.  of course this is my opinion.  just like it is yours.  cali implemented lockdown and masks and they blew up.  Sweden didn't do masks and they have a curve/time frame similar to others.  they help but IMO the virus was always going to cycle through a population regardless of masks.  no one knows how much they help.

My reading comprehension is fine. I'm just able to see through your bullshit facade of "I'm not anti mask, but" (insert hundreds of posts downplaying mask usage) in this thread.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dcar00

dcar00 14035

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

My reading comprehension is fine. I'm just able to see through your bullshit facade of "I'm not anti mask, but" (insert hundreds of posts downplaying mask usage) in this thread.

yes, ive been clear masks are a small part of helping.  I'm not hiding anything. if anything you are the bullshit artist in the thread.  everytime I miention California someone comes in and says yeah but they didn't really wear masks and they weren't really locked down.  everytime I mention sweden, someone comes in and says yeah but they are a very compliant culture.  always some excuse to explain the data.  you don't know how much it helps and neither do I.

wear a mask if you are required. don't be an ass about it and move on.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt

DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, dcar00 said:

masks help but the impact is overblown IMO, this virus is gonna virus.  that said, its a stupid mask so if businesses and govt facilities want us to wear one indoors we can do it or we can not go in.  at some point  soon I believe we won't need them. 

You wear clown shoes.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
justhookit

justhookit 4180

Posted
  • Author
Posted
6 hours ago, dcar00 said:

yes, ive been clear masks are a small part of helping.  I'm not hiding anything. if anything you are the bullshit artist in the thread.  everytime I miention California someone comes in and says yeah but they didn't really wear masks and they weren't really locked down.  everytime I mention sweden, someone comes in and says yeah but they are a very compliant culture.  always some excuse to explain the data.  you don't know how much it helps and neither do I.

wear a mask if you are required. don't be an ass about it and move on.  

Actually you and @MNLonghornFUKM are the ones we need out of this thread. I guarantee you @BradInATX and I wouldn’t vote the same ever, but we can agree on data. I bailed a little before it happened but when the only 10,000 death thing started getting passed around last week I knew I wasn’t coming back to this thread. 
 

see y’all in a month

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MNLonghornFUKM

MNLonghornFUKM 8799

Posted
Posted
Actually you and [mention=37]MNLonghornFUKM[/mention] are the ones we need out of this thread. I guarantee you [mention=2008]BradInATX[/mention] and I wouldn’t vote the same ever, but we can agree on data. I bailed a little before it happened but when the only 10,000 death thing started getting passed around last week I knew I wasn’t coming back to this thread. 

 

see y’all in a month

 

When you need to make a formal announcement that you’re leaving a thread(you’ll check back in).

 

 

Nobody cares

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BrazilHorn

BrazilHorn 6576

Posted
Posted

Another great day for Travis County with 57 cases yesterday.(Makes 12 in a row <200) They removed some from the 1 to 9 age group (this type of adjustment seems to happen 1-2x a week). 10 to 19 & 20 to 29 are higher than their normal share of cases (off small base though). For those of you tracking AISD and fall sports the daily admits yesterday was 13. Rolling 7 day admits is 17.85 (needs to be <10 for 2-3 weeks).

Age Bracket <1 1 to 9 10 to 19 20 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 59 60 to 69 70 to 79 >80 Total
New Cases 9/2 vs 9/1 1 -2 7 20 11 5 5 7 2 1 57
% of Daily Change 1.75% -3.51% 12.28% 35.09% 19.30% 8.77% 8.77% 12.28% 3.51% 1.75%  
% of Total Cases 0.49% 2.96% 8.10% 26.69% 21.50% 16.38% 11.56% 6.62% 3.28% 2.42%   26,622
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
smoky

smoky 837

Posted
Posted

Have we figured out what counts as a covid hospitalization?

Meaning if an asymptomatic, expecting mom comes in to deliver a baby and tests positive, is that a covid hospitalization? Or just a mom and her newborn?

That situation is going to be a fraction, but I don't see those situations going away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89428

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

Those who don't think masks are really helping, you know who else thinks that?  A shitload of TexAgs posters.  When you find yourself agreeing with TexAgs, a group that includes a shitload of Qanon idiots, on something the experts are pretty unanimous about, you should maybe rethink your priorities.

  • Hook 'Em 9
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Scary Stranger

Scary Stranger 1712

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, smoky said:

Have we figured out what counts as a covid hospitalization?

Meaning if an asymptomatic, expecting mom comes in to deliver a baby and tests positive, is that a covid hospitalization? Or just a mom and her newborn?

That situation is going to be a fraction, but I don't see those situations going away.

To my understanding from a Dr and also a murse who both work in DFW hospitals, is that they do count as covid.  Once they test positive, even if asymptomatic, they have to be treated like the other covid patients in case they are contagious (since the science on that isn't settled).  Who knows if that's true all over TX or in other states. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VolenteHawk

VolenteHawk 495

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, BradInATX said:

I'd be surprised if @dcar00 or anyone else who seems to be anti-mask could find a single instance of a country implementing a mask mandate and not seeing a sharp decline in their numbers. Obviously I agree with the correlation =/= causation thing as a stats guy, but as a human being there's also a certain threshold of anecdotal, real-world evidence that adds up to me believing it's more than likely to be causation.

There's a standard that my work product has to meet, and there's the standard that meets common sense, and they are different. The common sense standard has been met in terms of masks, IMO.

But as dcar also mentioned, we could be seeing both things (masks + higher than expected immunity) happening at the same time. That's not out of the question. I vote that as an experiment we make everyone in Oklahoma throw away all of their masks and see what happens.

If there is a hypothetical herd immunity number that we're approaching, I think it would be hard to tease out of the data.  Anecdotal experience is of course ripe with confirmation bias...either way, I think reasonable people can disagree.  My anecdotal experience was the mask usage was pretty good in and around Austin well before the state mandate.  It was pretty terrible in the exurbs until San Marcos had an outbreak, then even those places started having high compliance, still before it was technically mandated statewide.  Marginal differences in ubiquitous mask usage is probably swamped by the way reopening happened.

I do find it interesting, and increasingly hard to explain without some kind of existing immunity, how similar the backside of infection curves and positive test rates are.  We haven't put our finger on it via science, yet...but I'm nearly convinced that SOMETHING is going on there.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Neonmoon

Neonmoon 38127

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, smoky said:

Have we figured out what counts as a covid hospitalization?

Meaning if an asymptomatic, expecting mom comes in to deliver a baby and tests positive, is that a covid hospitalization? Or just a mom and her newborn?

That situation is going to be a fraction, but I don't see those situations going away.

The hospitals have already figured it out, but the general public? No, they're still trying to flesh out plausible conspiracy theories 

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted
People will latch on to anything that makes the numbers seem better, not matter how silly it is.

The worst part is that you don't even need to create reasons to make the numbers feel good to you. All we need from the numbers is a consistent measure, and no matter how they're calculated, hospitalizations are consistent. And the trend here and most everywhere looks fantastic. There's plenty of good news without having to fabricate it over a bed of political undertones.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
smoky

smoky 837

Posted
Posted

The City/ County is currently using 7 day average hospitalization rates as their metric to either ease or restrict activities.  Many other organizations use that same Staging Levels to determine when it can do things.  Scouts, Little League, Schools, Libraries... all of these things can be done in safe ways, but as of right now everything will be on hold until we move to the next level.

To get to Stage 2 in Austin, we need to be well below 10 hospitalizations per day.  That's a small window.  

Agree with Brad that every metric is looking great currently.  We need to use that momentum as advertising that what everyone has been doing over the past month is working and to keep it up.  

Carrots need to be dangled in front of people to keep them moving in the right direction.  We need to be marketing this situation as "You want that?  Keep doing this."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BrazilHorn

BrazilHorn 6576

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, smoky said:

Have we figured out what counts as a covid hospitalization?

Meaning if an asymptomatic, expecting mom comes in to deliver a baby and tests positive, is that a covid hospitalization? Or just a mom and her newborn?

That situation is going to be a fraction, but I don't see those situations going away.

I think that as long as the hospitals have been consistent in how they have accounted for these scenarios then over time the data will normalize and it won't really matter from a reporting perspective (whether to the pos or neg)

Since March 12th through Sept 2 the average % of Travis County CV19 Positive cases that end up in the hospital is 15.33%. So for every 100 cases ~15 people end up hospitalized.

Hospitalizations to me are the key measure as it won't take into account the various things that can artificially move "Positivity Rate" up or down. This is absolutely in Travis Co moving in the right direction. The rolling 7 day # of hospitalizations is 142.14. Encouraging thing is the past four days have all been below this number so I would expect to see this rolling 7 day to improve. Since 7/21 the rolling 7 day avg (viewed per day) has declined day over day. This is a very positive trend.

Now if hospitals have been inconsistent in how the report CV19 positive patients then all bets are off, but again the longer this data is viewed the more things should normalize.

 

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MNLonghornFUKM

MNLonghornFUKM 8799

Posted
Posted
People will latch on to anything that makes the numbers seem better, not matter how silly it is.

Cool. And you said yesterday or the day before many of us know someone who’s been hospitalized due to covid. What kind of bs is that. No I don’t know anyone who’s been hospitalized.  

With 373k total national hospitalizations in a country of 329,000,000. You’ve had some shit luck. That’s .1% of The country who’s been hospitalized. Your coworkers BFs step mom doesn’t count

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...