Wisconsin

[Hards Alumni]

Not sure about an explosion, but cases have risen steadily in Florida and Georgia since they've eased restrictions.

https://www.firstcoastnews.com/mobile/article/news/health/coronavirus/curve-in-context-heres-what-florida-georgia-covid-19-case-curve-looks-like-as-of-may-14/77-af0dec59-c6ed-478d-8b6b-606c27ab6371

Not to mention that Wednesday was the highest number of new cases reported in Texas since the beginning.  Obviously, new cases go up when we test more.  But I think the real question is why are we opening without quick testing and full contact tracing?  Because life is hard?

[jficke13]

Not to mention that Wednesday was the highest number of new cases reported in Texas since the beginning.  Obviously, new cases go up when we test more.  But I think the real question is why are we opening without quick testing and full contact tracing?  Because life is hard?

No we're opening without those things because of the simple reality of who bears the costs of both options.

Stay closed and we all bear the costs of economic pain.
Reopen and someone else bears the risk of infection. Someone older, someone sicker, someone *else*.

[pacearrow02]

Not sure about an explosion, but cases have risen steadily in Florida and Georgia since they've eased restrictions.

https://www.firstcoastnews.com/mobile/article/news/health/coronavirus/curve-in-context-heres-what-florida-georgia-covid-19-case-curve-looks-like-as-of-may-14/77-af0dec59-c6ed-478d-8b6b-606c27ab6371

As testing gets drastically increased I think the % positive gives a better snap shot of how deeply engrained the virus is in a community.  To expect the raw number of positive tests to go down when testing is severely ramped up is a tough ask for any state.

Intend to dig in and look at hospitalization rate, vent usage, etc.   if you have a bunch of people testing positive that have minor to no symptoms that can be misleading to the pressure that is actually being put on local health systems.

[pacearrow02]

No we're opening without those things because of the simple reality of who bears the costs of both options.

Stay closed and we all bear the costs of economic pain.
Reopen and someone else bears the risk of infection. Someone older, someone sicker, someone *else*.

Because that wasn’t what was asked of us when everything was shut down.  Once we are able to check your two new boxes there will be something else that needs to be accomplished before we can “safely” open. 

Goal posts have shifted so many times there seems to be no end in sight for what some demand before lifting restrictions.

[Hards Alumni]

As testing gets drastically increased I think the % positive gives a better snap shot of how deeply engrained the virus is in a community.  To expect the raw number of positive tests to go down when testing is severely ramped up is a tough ask for any state.

Intend to dig in and look at hospitalization rate, vent usage, etc.   if you have a bunch of people testing positive that have minor to no symptoms that can be misleading to the pressure that is actually being put on local health systems.

Personally, I think the most important number isn't the total number of cases, its the number of severe cases, beds available to treat those cases, and then anticipated severe cases within the next month.

If severe cases plus anticipated severe cases > beds available then we have problems.  If you flip that > to a < then we are in decent shape.  Deaths will happen, and cases will happen, but we want to be able to effectively treat the severe cases to limit death.

[Warrior2008]

Pace personally I think people are being more cautious and are spending their time outside vs. indoors like earlier this year.  But if you want a timeline I would loosely follow NYC.  Since it was the euro strain that is prevalent, lets assume it started in late jan and wasnt a raging problem until early March (~5-6 wks).  Thats with a lot of density.  So that is what I would watch. 

Again though, we are in a different place.  If people are feeling sick they are more likely to take themself out of circulation and there are some that are being more cautious.  So maybe we can strike a better balance as no one thinks 'shut-down' completely is sustainable.

While yes the Euro strain is the prevalent strain both here and in NYC, I think drawing any comparison to NYC is useless. NYC's density is what got NYC into trouble in the first place.  10 of the top 11 densest areas in the United States are in NYC and they all coincide with the hardest hit areas of covid.  Mix that with incompetent local leadership from Cuomo and DeBlasio like sticking recovering covid patients back into nursing homes and waiting until May to actually clean the subway and that's how NYC became the epicenter of this in the USA.  The media blasted governors like Kemp and DeSantis for their premature openings, yet have skated on Cuomo and that is unfortunate because Cuomo's decisions exacerbated an already huge problem.  Wisconsin, even in Milwaukee, does not have those problems so any chance of repeating what happened in NYC here is highly unlikely, especially at the present time.  Now who knows what this looks like in the fall/winter when we have to deal with the flu as well, but in many ways, I would argue that Wisconsin is a success story for virus mitigation thanks to leadership of Gov Evers and Wisconsinites taking personal responsibility. 

As an aside, we now over 500k Wisconsinites are out of work and it is paramount we start getting people back to work asap.  Stimulus money and PPP will begin to phase out next month with unemployment the following month.  The clock is ticking.  I've seen a couple mentions that 90% of those who are furloughed think their job will come back while several economists think only 60% will.  If that's true, that means 200kish Wisconsinites are out of work after this is over because their jobs are permanently gone.  We have to be more nuanced and work the problem rather than sitting in our political camps yelling "end the tyranny" or "you idiots are all gonna die if you go out".

[Pakuni]

As testing gets drastically increased I think the % positive gives a better snap shot of how deeply engrained the virus is in a community.  To expect the raw number of positive tests to go down when testing is severely ramped up is a tough ask for any state.

Has testing in Florida and Georgia severely ramped up since they eased restrictions?

[StillAWarrior]

Personally, I think the most important number isn't the total number of cases, its the number of severe cases, beds available to treat those cases, and then anticipated severe cases within the next month.

If severe cases plus anticipated severe cases > beds available then we have problems.  If you flip that > to a < then we are in decent shape. 

And where is that data found?  Is it available anywhere?  Is there a reason to assume that it is ">" and not "<"?

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

Warrior - I’m not sure your comments are tied to mine even though you quoted me. I was just saying that 5-6 weeks of time is a reasonable time period to judge looser restrictions. 

The euro piece was just dating the starting point and nothing more. 

[pacearrow02]

Personally, I think the most important number isn't the total number of cases, its the number of severe cases, beds available to treat those cases, and then anticipated severe cases within the next month.

If severe cases plus anticipated severe cases > beds available then we have problems.  If you flip that > to a < then we are in decent shape.  Deaths will happen, and cases will happen, but we want to be able to effectively treat the severe cases to limit death.

https://www.wha.org/Covid-19Update

Bunch of great data here....hospitals are sitting about 60-70% empty.  And over 95% of hospitals reported to Evers they could handle a local outbreak without having to implement emergency protocols. 

[pacearrow02]

Has testing in Florida and Georgia severely ramped up since they eased restrictions?

Yup.  The % of positive cases in both states has almost been cut in half and the actual number of positive people has generally remained the same.  I would guess without tracking down the actual numbers they’ve doubled their testing.

[Hards Alumni]

And where is that data found?  Is it available anywhere?  Is there a reason to assume that it is ">" and not "<"?

I posted a link a few pages back with Wisconsin's data regarding that... except anticipated cases.  I'm not sure how one would calculate that, but I would imagine that someone has done that work.

[pacearrow02]

https://www.wha.org/Covid-19Update

Bunch of great data here....hospitals are sitting about 60-70% empty.  And over 95% of hospitals reported to Evers they could handle a local outbreak without having to implement emergency protocols.

Not sure you can do much about trying to guesstimate future severe cases but obviously plenty of beds and resources available in case positive tests go up after reopening.

[Hards Alumni]

Not sure you can do
much about trying to guesstimate future severe cases but obviously plenty of beds and resources available in case positive tests go up after reopening.

https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/covid-19/hosp-data.htm

This was the link I was referring to.  Breaks it down to beds available by region.  Also, your 60-70% number is at odds with their data.

edit:  Just checked into a bit more, and it looks like the link I posted is about a week out of date... so don't use it.   
edit2: wait, nope, it's fine to use.

[mu03eng]

I thought average was closer to 5-7 days when people start seeing symptoms. It%u2019s possible up to 14, but most experience sooner than that.

Per the CDC website:
Incubation period

The incubation period for COVID-19 is thought to extend to 14 days, with a median time of 4-5 days from exposure to symptoms onset.1-3 One study reported that 97.5% of persons with COVID-19 who develop symptoms will do so within 11.5 days of SARS-CoV-2 infection.3

So best case timeline from infection to showing up in the data is 5 days + 5 days of self treatment + 3 days for test results (13 days)
Worst case timelines is going to be 14 days + 7 days of self treatment + 3 days for test results (24 days)
Median is going to be something like 7 days + 6 days of self treatment + 3 days for test results (16 days)
*Note this assumes the standard path of going to a hospital for results as testing broaden the lag time lowers

Bottom line, hospitalizations and test results lag by roughly 14-16 days....so three weeks is enough time that we should have seen see indications of a significant ground swell of cases.

[Hards Alumni]

Per the CDC website:
Incubation period

The incubation period for COVID-19 is thought to extend to 14 days, with a median time of 4-5 days from exposure to symptoms onset.1-3 One study reported that 97.5% of persons with COVID-19 who develop symptoms will do so within 11.5 days of SARS-CoV-2 infection.3

So best case timeline from infection to showing up in the data is 5 days + 5 days of self treatment + 3 days for test results (13 days)
Worst case timelines is going to be 14 days + 7 days of self treatment + 3 days for test results (24 days)
Median is going to be something like 7 days + 6 days of self treatment + 3 days for test results (16 days)
*Note this assumes the standard path of going to a hospital for results as testing broaden the lag time lowers

Bottom line, hospitalizations and test results lag by roughly 14-16 days....so three weeks is enough time that we should have seen see indications of a significant ground swell of cases.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't those states open back up on the 1st?  If so, we should see whether or not we're good in the next couple of days.

[mu03eng]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't those states open back up on the 1st?  If so, we should see whether or not we're good in the next couple of days.

I was referring to the 3 weeks of data for Wisconsin. I haven't been paying attention to other states but yes if they opened on the 1st and if there is going to be significant spread I would anticipate we'd see a statistically significant in crease in positive tests Wednesday next week followed by a statistically relevant increase in hospitalfixations by the following Wednesday.

[mu03eng]

Side note, one of the biggest failures on the data side is the data isn't indexed to date of accordance, its date reporting. This is introduces a lot of noise and gamesmanship with the data, especially deaths.

[Jockey]

I was referring to the 3 weeks of data for Wisconsin. I haven't been paying attention to other states but yes if they opened on the 1st and if there is going to be significant spread I would anticipate we'd see a statistically significant in crease in positive tests Wednesday next week followed by a statistically relevant increase in hospitalfixations by the following Wednesday.

On May 1, Texas lifted restrictions. On May 14, Texas has their highest single day increase in deaths since this started. Numbers of tests do not affect this stat.

On May 14, Texas also had their biggest single day increase in new cases. We can't use a direct cause and effect for cases since more tests are being run now than in the past.

[mu03eng]

On May 1, Texas lifted restrictions. On May 14, Texas has their highest single day increase in deaths since this started. Numbers of tests do not affect this stat.

On May 14, Texas also had their biggest single day increase in new cases. We can't use a direct cause and effect for cases since more tests are being run now than in the past.

Death data, especially a single point, is a horrible metric. By all accounts deaths are occurring at least a month after first infection so the single day death rates wouldn't be reflected of "opening up" until at least the end of May. Further the deaths reported today all happened at least a day or two ago, if not longer depending on autopsies, reporting infrastructure, etc.

Positive test rate would be the earliest indicator of an issue because it accounts for increased testing, anything else is just fearmongering quite frankly

[Jockey]

Positive test rate would be the earliest indicator of an issue because it accounts for increased testing, anything else is just fearmongering quite frankly

Not necessarily. Just weeks ago, most tests administered were to sick patients. The population as a whole was getting very few tests. So even if the positive rate is lower, it could well indicate that more people are getting sick. We just don't know yet. It will take at least several more weeks of data.

[#UnleashSean]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't those states open back up on the 1st?  If so, we should see whether or not we're good in the next couple of days.

We would already see a jump. The 14 days is the max and safety reg, not the norm.  A majority of cases present within 4 days

[Hards Alumni]

Death data, especially a single point, is a horrible metric. By all accounts deaths are occurring at least a month after first infection so the single day death rates wouldn't be reflected of "opening up" until at least the end of May. Further the deaths reported today all happened at least a day or two ago, if not longer depending on autopsies, reporting infrastructure, etc.

Positive test rate would be the earliest indicator of an issue because it accounts for increased testing, anything else is just fearmongering quite frankly

Positive test rate would be the earliest indicator if we had widespread testing.  That is an important factor.  I agree with you on the death data to some degree.  The people getting sick don't get a positive test and drop dead the next day.  Some do, but others drag on very sick for weeks in addition to the other reasons you listed.

[Hards Alumni]

We would already see a jump. The 14 days is the max and safety reg, not the norm.  A majority of cases present within 4 days

I mean, the post right before mine refutes this... from the CDC.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Various counties are now recinding their safter at home orders because they don't believe they will hold up in court.  Legislature, governor, supreme court....stick them all in a rocket and shoot them to the moon.