Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. Day 122: COVID-19 Why Are States Obscuring the Data? Part 2

 

The screengrab above is from the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) website tracking COVID-19 nationally — both disease information and public policy responses. A larger image is available here. In order to know what the slide purports to tell us, this data must be being collected and reported, right? Note that data (to put it politely) is “incomplete” — death data for long-term care facilities is only disaggregated from other COVID-19 deaths in 35 of the 50 states. KFF draws its numbers from “available state reports, press releases, press conferences, and official state data from news reports.” Further,

Data as of May 14th, 2020

All available LTC facility data reported by state is presented. Cumulative data is presented, where available. Number of cases is reported for residents and staff, where available. Definition of “long-term care facility” differs by state, but data reflect a combination of nursing facilities, residential care communities, adult care centers, intermediate care facilties, and/or other long-term care facilities. Given the rapidly developing situation and states reporting new data every day, updated data may be available.

*Vermont officials have reported that 50% of deaths in state are in LTC facilities, but did not release raw data.

So the data is incomplete, but is it even accurate? (Well, “accurate” to the same extent all reported COVID-19 deaths are accurate.) Let’s take a look at California. They published a Skilled Nursing Facilities COVID-19 report. The most current report has the following preface:

Data collection is undergoing a transition during the weeks of May 10, 2020 and May 17, 2020 as CDPH enhances its data collection process to improve accuracy, timeliness, and to align with new guidance from the federal Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). CDPH guidance for the new reporting process is in All Facilities Letter 20-43.2.

The May 19, 2020 data below is the first report under the new reporting system.

NOTE: The cumulative data under the new reporting system includes cases from January 1, 2020 through May 19, 2020.

NOTE: The data for healthcare worker COVID-19 positive cases and deaths is being validated, and will be included in subsequent data reports.

In the reporting period ending May 19, 2020, 94% of skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) in California reported data to the California Department of Public Health.

As of May 19, the data below is both a point-in-time snapshot of SNFs in California that have reported one or more confirmed COVID-19 cases within the previous 24 hours, as well as a cumulative total since January 1, 2020. SNFs that did not report daily data are listed as “N/A.”

Case numbers are provisional and may change as facilities correct or add data. Values of less than eleven (11) are masked (shown as <11) in accordance with de-identification guidelines. [emphasis added]

COVID-19 fatalities in the chart below include deaths that were reported by facilities to the best of their knowledge. These include deaths that occurred at nursing homes and those that occurred in other locations, such as a hospital or private home, if the death occurred within the 14-day bed hold period after the resident transferred from the SNF. Deaths that occurred outside of this 14-day period may not be captured. Some of these deaths may include residents who had COVID-19, but died of something else.

Given these complexities, fatality totals may not exactly match other data sources or, in some instances, the death may be double counted in more than one data source such as county-level fatality totals.

All data in this chart is provided to offer a snapshot of COVID-19 in skilled nursing facilities in California, and does not imply wrongdoing on the part of the facility.

Based on the reporting date, this report includes fatalities not included in the KFF data referenced above. According to this latest California report, a total of 1,434 SNF residents have died of COVID-19. That is 41% of the reported 3,512 deaths reported statewide as of May 19. That is consistent with the KFF graph showing California as among the 15 states with LTC deaths being 25-49% of their totals. But also note that KFF acknowledges that LTC does not have a common definition between states. What are the characteristics of a facility that should be uniquely identified for particularized infection protocols?

According to an April 28 report in the Sacramento Bee with the headline “At least 40 percent of COVID-19 deaths in California are from eldercare homes, state reveals”:

Residents of long-term care homes in California make up nearly 40 percent of the COVID-19 deaths in the state, new public health data shows, making skilled nursing and assisted living facilities by far the deadliest hotspots in the coronavirus pandemic.

At least 578 nursing home residents in California have died of complications caused by the new coronavirus, according to state health department data quietly published over the weekend and updated Tuesday — representing approximately one-third of all confirmed COVID-19 deaths in the state.

This is the first time California officials have released any numbers about deaths at nursing homes from COVID-19. The numbers could be higher because the current ones only include those “known by the facility” and might not include deaths that occurred after a resident was transferred to a hospital or private home.

By Friday, at least 144 residents in California assisted living facilities, which cater to the elderly but do not provide the same level of medical care as nursing homes, had died of COVID-19 complications, according to the most recent report from the California Department of Social Services[*].

[* The current reporting (as of 5/19/20) is 284 deaths in Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly (RCFE) and some unspecified number in Adult Residential Facilities (ARF) because “there were no facilities with at least eleven (11) COVID-19 positive cases or deaths.” So how many facilities had between 1-10 deaths but those deaths are not identified as being associated with LTC?]

When you combine SNF, RECFE, and ARF deaths for California, the percentage of COVID-19 deaths for all of California represented by elder care facilities is at least 49%. So by focusing on infection control in “elder care facilities,” you can cut your risk for total deaths in the state by half. Seems like this would not only be a priority but, if publicized and emphasized, it would help shift people’s perception of their own risk and facilitate return to normal economic life.

The KFF chart suggests that for at least two-thirds of the states 25% of COVID-19 deaths occur amongst residents of LTCs. That fairly begs for attention and emphasis when discrete concentrations of people like this can be identified. But that is not happening when they are simply part of a presumed larger grouping of the “most vulnerable.” Gathering and collecting consistent information about disease and death in residences with concentrations of elderly would seem an important strategy for refining our public health response. Not doing so transparently and effectively makes the governmental response to feel more like it is about population and economic control than disease prevention and healing.

[Note: Links to all my COVID-19 posts can be found here.]

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 40 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Hammer, The Member

    There is absolutely no way New York only has 0-24% nursing home deaths. Unless they’re transferring them all to hospitals and calling them hospital deaths.

    • #1
    • May 21, 2020, at 10:49 AM PDT
    • 5 likes
  2. Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… Thatcher

    Hammer, The (View Comment):

    There is absolutely no way New York only has 0-24% nursing home deaths. Unless they’re transferring them all to hospitals and calling them hospital deaths.

    They weren’t transferring them all there but the ones they did and who died in hospital were not counted as nursing home deaths.

    • #2
    • May 21, 2020, at 11:01 AM PDT
    • 5 likes
  3. Hammer, The Member

    In Washington State, the number is greater than 60%. It’s not that the virus isn’t spreading elsewhere, but there seem to be very few fatalities when it does. I’ve read several times about outbreaks of 40-50 people (my town has a lot of fruit-packing plants) with zero fatalities. The nursing homes are where people get this thing and actually die from it, and my understanding (as I mentioned, above) is that if people get infected in a nursing home but die in the hospital, it is not counted as a nursing home death.

    As I mentioned in my post from last night (yes, I’m sorry, I know it is too long for most people to read), cutting the death rate even in half would be enormous, and as you said, it would absolutely change people’s perceptions and fears – but having people be well-informed about the reality of their own risk is also enormous.

    I didn’t mention it in the already-too-long post, but after I made my argument in court, the state’s attorney chimed in w/ 2 things. First, she said “Well… our hospital isn’t admitting children, so Mr. M__’s point that children aren’t being hospitalized is misleading” (um… ok?) and then she said “I believe placement has a child with underlying conditions or who is immunocompromised, is that right?” followed by a discussion of the fact that placement’s 10 year old has asthsma… So, now people’s perception of this illness is that if you have any sort of medical illness, this thing is a death sentence, and that is simply not true.

    The misinformation is astonishing. I understand that @mendel said on your last post that it is a problem that so many people think of this as being no big deal at all, comparable to the common flu… but if you consider the actual threat to the vast majority of people in the United States, I think you’d be hard pressed to show that this is in any meaningful way different or more dangerous than the common flu.

    Again – if we were to actually isolate and vigorously protect nursing homes and care facilities… I mean this as a serious question: Why on earth should we not encourage everyone else to treat this exactly the same way we treat the flu?

    • #3
    • May 21, 2020, at 11:02 AM PDT
    • 7 likes
  4. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Meat packing and treating our elderly like meat seems to be the main issues.

    The former is caused by the refrigeration needed to prevent spoilage. The latter is caused by the spoilage of an entire generation.

    • #4
    • May 21, 2020, at 11:07 AM PDT
    • 6 likes
    • This comment has been edited.
  5. Susan Quinn Contributor

    I am not a numbers person, but what is the point of reporting incomplete and inconsistent data? Are we supposed to be impressed and applaud them for making the effort??

    • #5
    • May 21, 2020, at 11:32 AM PDT
    • 4 likes
  6. Rodin Member
    Rodin

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    I am not a numbers person, but what is the point of reporting incomplete and inconsistent data? Are we supposed to be impressed and applaud them for making the effort??

    It satisfies our “do something” urges. Attacking the wrong thing is still attacking. Feels good, right?

    • #6
    • May 21, 2020, at 11:41 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  7. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Stats? What do want to say? We can produce the numbers to do that.

    • #7
    • May 21, 2020, at 12:08 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  8. D.A. Venters Member

    Hammer, The (View Comment):

    The misinformation is astonishing. I understand that @mendel said on your last post that it is a problem that so many people think of this as being no big deal at all, comparable to the common flu… but if you consider the actual threat to the vast majority of people in the United States, I think you’d be hard pressed to show that this is in any meaningful way different or more dangerous than the common flu.

    Again – if we were to actually isolate and vigorously protect nursing homes and care facilities… I mean this as a serious question: Why on earth should we not encourage everyone else to treat this exactly the same way we treat the flu?

    I agree with a lot of this. These better statistics emerging as to who is most likely to be killed by the disease, and under what circumstances, should ease the anxiety of many.

    That said, it is much easier said than done to isolate and vigorously protect nursing homes and otherwise vulnerable population. Nursing home employees often have young children in school, they shake hands at church, stand in lines, go to basketball games etc… Also, I doubt nursing homes add much to the vulnerability equation, it just happen to be where a lot of vulnerable people are gathered, and where it is particularly difficult to control an outbreak.

    In fact, that nursing home patients are such a large percentage of the deaths may indicate the lockdowns (and by that I mean to include those voluntarily going out less, working from home, etc.) and social distancing was effective in protecting vulnerable populations outside of nursing homes. In other words, where social distancing was particularly difficult to do – nursing homes, dense urban areas – that’s where the most damage was done.

    In nursing homes or out, the flu doesn’t cause this much destruction. It doesn’t sweep through and kill 60,000 nursing home patients in 2 months. I don’t think you can both isolate and vigorously protect vulnerable populations AND have everyone else just treat it like the flu. We all know and love people in the vulnerable categories, and will have to take precautions we don’t take with the flu.

     

     

    • #8
    • May 21, 2020, at 12:32 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  9. Hammer, The Member

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):

    Hammer, The (View Comment):

    The misinformation is astonishing. I understand that @mendel said on your last post that it is a problem that so many people think of this as being no big deal at all, comparable to the common flu… but if you consider the actual threat to the vast majority of people in the United States, I think you’d be hard pressed to show that this is in any meaningful way different or more dangerous than the common flu.

    Again – if we were to actually isolate and vigorously protect nursing homes and care facilities… I mean this as a serious question: Why on earth should we not encourage everyone else to treat this exactly the same way we treat the flu?

    I agree with a lot of this. These better statistics emerging as to who is most likely to be killed by the disease, and under what circumstances, should ease the anxiety of many.

    That said, it is much easier said than done to isolate and vigorously protect nursing homes and otherwise vulnerable population. Nursing home employees often have young children in school, they shake hands at church, stand in lines, go to basketball games etc… Also, I doubt nursing homes add much to the vulnerability equation, it just happen to be where a lot of vulnerable people are gathered, and where it is particularly difficult to control an outbreak.

    In fact, that nursing home patients are such a large percentage of the deaths may indicate the lockdowns (and by that I mean to include those voluntarily going out less, working from home, etc.) and social distancing was effective in protecting vulnerable populations outside of nursing homes. In other words, where social distancing was particularly difficult to do – nursing homes, dense urban areas – that’s where the most damage was done.

    In nursing homes or out, the flu doesn’t cause this much destruction. It doesn’t sweep through and kill 60,000 nursing home patients in 2 months. I don’t think you can both isolate and vigorously protect vulnerable populations AND have everyone else just treat it like the flu. We all know and love people in the vulnerable categories, and will have to take precautions we don’t take with the flu.

    I am not saying that it would be easy to protect nursing homes, but what are we doing right now? We are attempting to get to zero spread overall, in hopes of having a vaccine, when we know that this virus can relatively safely spread among the healthy population. If we focused even just that effort on protecting nursing homes, we would be doing far more, at far less of a cost. Of course it wouldn’t be perfect, but I cannot imagine how it wouldn’t be better than our current strategy. And, it seems that this is the exact approach that Florida has taken, with pretty good results.

     

     

    • #9
    • May 21, 2020, at 1:03 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  10. Buckpasser Member
    Buckpasser Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    The data is being obscured to make sure we remain under house arrest for as long as possible. I will venture to say that there have been more deaths of people over 80 years old than all the deaths of people age 0 to 65. However, I haven’t seen those statistics. Powerline has been following MN very closely and says that the average age for all covid deaths is over 80. I will never be able to understand why this “lock down/quarantine/house arrest is still going on after it became clear, within 30 days, who was really vulnerable to this.

    • #10
    • May 21, 2020, at 1:13 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  11. Hammer, The Member

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):
    In fact, that nursing home patients are such a large percentage of the deaths may indicate the lockdowns (and by that I mean to include those voluntarily going out less, working from home, etc.) and social distancing was effective in protecting vulnerable populations outside of nursing homes. In other words, where social distancing was particularly difficult to do – nursing homes, dense urban areas – that’s where the most damage was done.

    This is certainly one explanation, and it is the one we are most likely to read about in the news, for obvious reasons. But I don’t think it is the most plausible. Even in areas where you do see wide spread of the virus, the fatality demographics do not change. Young people aren’t less likely to die because they are less likely to be infected, they are less likely to die no matter what.

    I am very skeptical about the actual benefit of social distancing and masks, as anyone who interacts regularly on Ricochet is well aware. We see the virus behaving in the same way past pandemic viruses have behaved, and we are hasty to pat ourselves on the back – especially those who were in favor of the lockdowns. In WA, if you drive down the I-90, they have big electronic signs everywhere that say “staying home is saving lives!” That is being claimed by a lot of people, and while it seems undeniable, as a theoretical matter, that lockdowns and social distancing couldn’t possibly have zero impact, it does not necessarily follow that what we’re seeing is actually a result of our own actions.

    • #11
    • May 21, 2020, at 1:23 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  12. Mendel Member
    Mendel Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Hammer, The (View Comment):
    The misinformation is astonishing. I understand that @mendel said on your last post that it is a problem that so many people think of this as being no big deal at all, comparable to the common flu… but if you consider the actual threat to the vast majority of people in the United States, I think you’d be hard pressed to show that this is in any meaningful way different or more dangerous than the common flu.

    Well, let’s take a closer look at your statement. Almost nobody under the age of 65 lives in a nursing home, so that’s a good reflection of the non-nursing home vast majority of Americans. In an average year, seasonal influenza is estimated to kill about 7,500 people below the age of 65. As of last week, Covid had already killed 24,000 people below the age of 65 – and that’s despite the fact that we’ve prevented it from meaningfully spreading through the vast majority of the country, and the seroprevalence isn’t even that high in the regions with the most deaths.

    So even for non-seniors the risk of dying from Covid-19 is likely at least 10-20x higher than common flu. I would call that “more dangerous”. Wouldn’t you?

    I agree with the general point that people are freaking out too much over this and overestimating their personal risk. But making oversimplified and inaccurate statements in the opposite direction that can be disproven by 2 minutes of Googling is not a productive counterargument.

    • #12
    • May 21, 2020, at 1:50 PM PDT
    • 6 likes
  13. Al French of Damascus Moderator

    Mendel (View Comment):

    Hammer, The (View Comment):
    The misinformation is astonishing. I understand that @mendel said on your last post that it is a problem that so many people think of this as being no big deal at all, comparable to the common flu… but if you consider the actual threat to the vast majority of people in the United States, I think you’d be hard pressed to show that this is in any meaningful way different or more dangerous than the common flu.

    Well, let’s take a closer look at your statement. Almost nobody under the age of 65 lives in a nursing home, so that’s a good reflection of the non-nursing home vast majority of Americans. 

    Nursing homes do care for persons under 65: those with brain injuries and other neurological problems, and those with chronic diseases severe enough to require institutional care, among others. I don’t know the numbers, but from anecdotal information from family members who have worked in nursing homes, the numbers are not insignificant. 

     

    • #13
    • May 21, 2020, at 2:31 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  14. Hammer, The Member

    Mendel (View Comment):

    Hammer, The (View Comment):
    The misinformation is astonishing. I understand that @mendel said on your last post that it is a problem that so many people think of this as being no big deal at all, comparable to the common flu… but if you consider the actual threat to the vast majority of people in the United States, I think you’d be hard pressed to show that this is in any meaningful way different or more dangerous than the common flu.

    Well, let’s take a closer look at your statement. Almost nobody under the age of 65 lives in a nursing home, so that’s a good reflection of the non-nursing home vast majority of Americans. In an average year, seasonal influenza is estimated to kill about 7,500 people below the age of 65. As of last week, Covid had already killed 24,000 people below the age of 65 – and that’s despite the fact that we’ve prevented it from meaningfully spreading through the vast majority of the country, and the seroprevalence isn’t even that high in the regions with the most deaths.

    So even for non-seniors the risk of dying from Covid-19 is likely at least 10-20x higher than common flu. I would call that “more dangerous”. Wouldn’t you?

    I agree with the general point that people are freaking out too much over this and overestimating their personal risk. But making oversimplified and inaccurate statements in the opposite direction that can be disproven by 2 minutes of Googling is not a productive counterargument.

    I did not say that it wasn’t “more dangerous,” I said that it is not so significantly more dangerous (which is what I meant by “in any meaningful way,” which maybe wasn’t clear) as to necessitate the response that we’ve given it. These numbers are pretty difficult to really pin down. You’ve observed a difference of roughly 16,000 people dying from covid as opposed to the flu. Consider the daily number of deaths in this demographic, consider the different types of risks that we face every year – 16,000 people sure seems like a big number, but I’m not sure that it really is such a big number in the grand scheme of things, especially when we translate that into percentage increase of personal risk. But again, I’m not denying that the risk exists, as obviously it does.

    • #14
    • May 21, 2020, at 2:33 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  15. Hammer, The Member

    Mendel (View Comment):

    Hammer, The (View Comment):
    The misinformation is astonishing. I understand that @mendel said on your last post that it is a problem that so many people think of this as being no big deal at all, comparable to the common flu… but if you consider the actual threat to the vast majority of people in the United States, I think you’d be hard pressed to show that this is in any meaningful way different or more dangerous than the common flu.

    Well, let’s take a closer look at your statement. Almost nobody under the age of 65 lives in a nursing home, so that’s a good reflection of the non-nursing home vast majority of Americans. In an average year, seasonal influenza is estimated to kill about 7,500 people below the age of 65. As of last week, Covid had already killed 24,000 people below the age of 65 – and that’s despite the fact that we’ve prevented it from meaningfully spreading through the vast majority of the country, and the seroprevalence isn’t even that high in the regions with the most deaths.

    So even for non-seniors the risk of dying from Covid-19 is likely at least 10-20x higher than common flu. I would call that “more dangerous”. Wouldn’t you?

    I agree with the general point that people are freaking out too much over this and overestimating their personal risk. But making oversimplified and inaccurate statements in the opposite direction that can be disproven by 2 minutes of Googling is not a productive counterargument.

    Also – I don’t know how confidently we can claim that “we’ve prevented it from meaningfully spreading.” We just take it for granted because we a) did these things, b) the pandemic didn’t turn out to be as awful as predicted, and c) we have a hard time understanding how they wouldn’t be effective. But I think these declarations are still premature. Earlier, I mentioned our experiences with past pandemics. I direct that question at you, specifically, because I am curious to hear your take on it.

    • #15
    • May 21, 2020, at 2:35 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  16. MISTER BITCOIN Member

    Hammer, The (View Comment):

    There is absolutely no way New York only has 0-24% nursing home deaths. Unless they’re transferring them all to hospitals and calling them hospital deaths.

    Minnesota and NY forced nursing homes to take in covid positive patients.

    Let’s isolate the healthy so we can increase the death count among the elderly so we can justify the bogus models and more shelter in place.

    By the way, the director of LA county public health, an unelected official, does not have MD or degree related to infectious diseases. She has a PhD in social welfare. Her salary is over 400k and with bonuses her compensation in 2018 was over 500k.

    Barbara Ferrer

     

    • #16
    • May 21, 2020, at 2:57 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  17. MISTER BITCOIN Member

    Hammer, The (View Comment):

    Mendel (View Comment):

    Hammer, The (View Comment):
    The misinformation is astonishing. I understand that @mendel said on your last post that it is a problem that so many people think of this as being no big deal at all, comparable to the common flu… but if you consider the actual threat to the vast majority of people in the United States, I think you’d be hard pressed to show that this is in any meaningful way different or more dangerous than the common flu.

    Well, let’s take a closer look at your statement. Almost nobody under the age of 65 lives in a nursing home, so that’s a good reflection of the non-nursing home vast majority of Americans. In an average year, seasonal influenza is estimated to kill about 7,500 people below the age of 65. As of last week, Covid had already killed 24,000 people below the age of 65 – and that’s despite the fact that we’ve prevented it from meaningfully spreading through the vast majority of the country, and the seroprevalence isn’t even that high in the regions with the most deaths.

    So even for non-seniors the risk of dying from Covid-19 is likely at least 10-20x higher than common flu. I would call that “more dangerous”. Wouldn’t you?

    I agree with the general point that people are freaking out too much over this and overestimating their personal risk. But making oversimplified and inaccurate statements in the opposite direction that can be disproven by 2 minutes of Googling is not a productive counterargument.

    Also – I don’t know how confidently we can claim that “we’ve prevented it from meaningfully spreading.” We just take it for granted because we a) did these things, b) the pandemic didn’t turn out to be as awful as predicted, and c) we have a hard time understanding how they wouldn’t be effective. But I think these declarations are still premature. Earlier, I mentioned our experiences with past pandemics. I direct that question at you, specifically, because I am curious to hear your take on it.

    Yitzak Ben Israel says covid has a life span of 8 weeks regardless of country or policy.

    peak during week 6.

    rapid decline after week 8.

    look at CDC deaths for covid and covid/influenza/pneumonia by week

    CDC data confirms his hypothesis

    https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/COVID19/index.htm

    look at table 1

     

    • #17
    • May 21, 2020, at 3:00 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  18. MISTER BITCOIN Member

    Hammer, The (View Comment):

    Mendel (View Comment):

    Hammer, The (View Comment):
    The misinformation is astonishing. I understand that @mendel said on your last post that it is a problem that so many people think of this as being no big deal at all, comparable to the common flu… but if you consider the actual threat to the vast majority of people in the United States, I think you’d be hard pressed to show that this is in any meaningful way different or more dangerous than the common flu.

    Well, let’s take a closer look at your statement. Almost nobody under the age of 65 lives in a nursing home, so that’s a good reflection of the non-nursing home vast majority of Americans. In an average year, seasonal influenza is estimated to kill about 7,500 people below the age of 65. As of last week, Covid had already killed 24,000 people below the age of 65 – and that’s despite the fact that we’ve prevented it from meaningfully spreading through the vast majority of the country, and the seroprevalence isn’t even that high in the regions with the most deaths.

    So even for non-seniors the risk of dying from Covid-19 is likely at least 10-20x higher than common flu. I would call that “more dangerous”. Wouldn’t you?

    I agree with the general point that people are freaking out too much over this and overestimating their personal risk. But making oversimplified and inaccurate statements in the opposite direction that can be disproven by 2 minutes of Googling is not a productive counterargument.

    Also – I don’t know how confidently we can claim that “we’ve prevented it from meaningfully spreading.” We just take it for granted because we a) did these things, b) the pandemic didn’t turn out to be as awful as predicted, and c) we have a hard time understanding how they wouldn’t be effective. But I think these declarations are still premature. Earlier, I mentioned our experiences with past pandemics. I direct that question at you, specifically, because I am curious to hear your take on it.

    according to CDC data, the number of total (covid and non covid) expected deaths is up since lockdown.

    How is the lockdown saving lives if total expected deaths are up?

    • #18
    • May 21, 2020, at 3:02 PM PDT
    • 1 like
    • This comment has been edited.
  19. MISTER BITCOIN Member

    Hammer, The (View Comment):

    Mendel (View Comment):

    Hammer, The (View Comment):
    The misinformation is astonishing. I understand that @mendel said on your last post that it is a problem that so many people think of this as being no big deal at all, comparable to the common flu… but if you consider the actual threat to the vast majority of people in the United States, I think you’d be hard pressed to show that this is in any meaningful way different or more dangerous than the common flu.

    Well, let’s take a closer look at your statement. Almost nobody under the age of 65 lives in a nursing home, so that’s a good reflection of the non-nursing home vast majority of Americans. In an average year, seasonal influenza is estimated to kill about 7,500 people below the age of 65. As of last week, Covid had already killed 24,000 people below the age of 65 – and that’s despite the fact that we’ve prevented it from meaningfully spreading through the vast majority of the country, and the seroprevalence isn’t even that high in the regions with the most deaths.

    So even for non-seniors the risk of dying from Covid-19 is likely at least 10-20x higher than common flu. I would call that “more dangerous”. Wouldn’t you?

    I agree with the general point that people are freaking out too much over this and overestimating their personal risk. But making oversimplified and inaccurate statements in the opposite direction that can be disproven by 2 minutes of Googling is not a productive counterargument.

    I did not say that it wasn’t “more dangerous,” I said that it is not so significantly more dangerous (which is what I meant by “in any meaningful way,” which maybe wasn’t clear) as to necessitate the response that we’ve given it. These numbers are pretty difficult to really pin down. You’ve observed a difference of roughly 16,000 people dying from covid as opposed to the flu. Consider the daily number of deaths in this demographic, consider the different types of risks that we face every year – 16,000 people sure seems like a big number, but I’m not sure that it really is such a big number in the grand scheme of things, especially when we translate that into percentage increase of personal risk. But again, I’m not denying that the risk exists, as obviously it does.

    Influenza is more dangerous than covid 19 for children and teenagers

     

    • #19
    • May 21, 2020, at 3:04 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  20. MISTER BITCOIN Member

    Mendel (View Comment):

    Hammer, The (View Comment):
    The misinformation is astonishing. I understand that @mendel said on your last post that it is a problem that so many people think of this as being no big deal at all, comparable to the common flu… but if you consider the actual threat to the vast majority of people in the United States, I think you’d be hard pressed to show that this is in any meaningful way different or more dangerous than the common flu.

    Well, let’s take a closer look at your statement. Almost nobody under the age of 65 lives in a nursing home, so that’s a good reflection of the non-nursing home vast majority of Americans. In an average year, seasonal influenza is estimated to kill about 7,500 people below the age of 65. As of last week, Covid had already killed 24,000 people below the age of 65 – and that’s despite the fact that we’ve prevented it from meaningfully spreading through the vast majority of the country, and the seroprevalence isn’t even that high in the regions with the most deaths.

    So even for non-seniors the risk of dying from Covid-19 is likely at least 10-20x higher than common flu. I would call that “more dangerous”. Wouldn’t you?

    I agree with the general point that people are freaking out too much over this and overestimating their personal risk. But making oversimplified and inaccurate statements in the opposite direction that can be disproven by 2 minutes of Googling is not a productive counterargument.

    it is not 10 to 20x more dangerous than the common flu.

    the death stats have been inflated for covid.

    person A tested positive for covid. person A died in a car accident. covid is so deadly.

     

    • #20
    • May 21, 2020, at 3:06 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  21. Hammer, The Member

    MISTER BITCOIN (View Comment):

    Hammer, The (View Comment):

    Mendel (View Comment):

    Hammer, The (View Comment):
    The misinformation is astonishing. I understand that @mendel said on your last post that it is a problem that so many people think of this as being no big deal at all, comparable to the common flu… but if you consider the actual threat to the vast majority of people in the United States, I think you’d be hard pressed to show that this is in any meaningful way different or more dangerous than the common flu.

    Well, let’s take a closer look at your statement. Almost nobody under the age of 65 lives in a nursing home, so that’s a good reflection of the non-nursing home vast majority of Americans. In an average year, seasonal influenza is estimated to kill about 7,500 people below the age of 65. As of last week, Covid had already killed 24,000 people below the age of 65 – and that’s despite the fact that we’ve prevented it from meaningfully spreading through the vast majority of the country, and the seroprevalence isn’t even that high in the regions with the most deaths.

    So even for non-seniors the risk of dying from Covid-19 is likely at least 10-20x higher than common flu. I would call that “more dangerous”. Wouldn’t you?

    I agree with the general point that people are freaking out too much over this and overestimating their personal risk. But making oversimplified and inaccurate statements in the opposite direction that can be disproven by 2 minutes of Googling is not a productive counterargument.

    Also – I don’t know how confidently we can claim that “we’ve prevented it from meaningfully spreading.” We just take it for granted because we a) did these things, b) the pandemic didn’t turn out to be as awful as predicted, and c) we have a hard time understanding how they wouldn’t be effective. But I think these declarations are still premature. Earlier, I mentioned our experiences with past pandemics. I direct that question at you, specifically, because I am curious to hear your take on it.

    Yitzak Ben Israel says covid has a life span of 8 weeks regardless of country or policy.

    peak during week 6.

    rapid decline after week 8.

    look at CDC deaths for covid and covid/influenza/pneumonia by week

    CDC data confirms his hypothesis

    https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/COVID19/index.htm

    look at table 1

    That’s why I asked Mendel the question… Seems to be the pattern for respiratory virus pandemics going back to the Spanish flu. For all this talk of herd immunity, I can’t help but wonder if there is something else at play. As far as I know, it wasn’t 80% infection that ended prior pandemics.

    • #21
    • May 21, 2020, at 3:07 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
    • This comment has been edited.
  22. MISTER BITCOIN Member

    https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#PlaceDeath

    table 3

    lot of deaths in nursing homes, covid or not

    https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm

    table 2c

    The median age of covid death is over 75, probably 80

    Look at table 1: the number of influenza deaths is remarkably low. We have done a fantastic job of minimizing flu deaths!

    • #22
    • May 21, 2020, at 3:14 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
    • This comment has been edited.
  23. Old Bathos Moderator

    Our masters leaders have realized that an extended general lockdown instead of a full-court press to protect the vulnerable was a stupid policy. We are in in full revisionism and denial mode.

    Just like every “bombshell” leaked from Schiff or Mueller, the mass murder by the governors of FL and GA for re-opening did not accrue.

    Forbidding Granny from buying gardening supplies instead of focusing on protecting her (which geniuses mandated COVID-positives be admitted to nursing homes?! ); focusing testing on her and her providers, rushing prophylactic meds for all the vulnerable (hey, if it worked for Fredo Cuomo..) … lots of bad choices.

    “Lockdown lover“ is my new favorite insult.

    • #23
    • May 21, 2020, at 4:54 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
    • This comment has been edited.
  24. Rodin Member
    Rodin

    MISTER BITCOIN (View Comment):

    https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#PlaceDeath

    table 3

    lot of deaths in nursing homes, covid or not

    https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm

    table 2c

    The median age of covid death is over 75, probably 80

    Look at table 1: the number of influenza deaths is remarkably low. We have done a fantastic job of minimizing flu deaths!

    It is a fair point that there are a lot of deaths in nursing homes under any circumstance. But that is the question that Mrs Rodin persists with: how many more deaths (what Scott Adams refers to as “net” deaths) are occurring because of COVID-19? No one wants to accelerate deaths. But we do not kill the future of the young to obtain an increment of time for the elderly (and I am included in that description). At least we don’t make it involuntary — and that’s exactly what the governors are doing that are maintaining house arrest.

    • #24
    • May 21, 2020, at 6:09 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  25. Hammer, The Member

    Rodin (View Comment):

    MISTER BITCOIN (View Comment):

    https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#PlaceDeath

    table 3

    lot of deaths in nursing homes, covid or not

    https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm

    table 2c

    The median age of covid death is over 75, probably 80

    Look at table 1: the number of influenza deaths is remarkably low. We have done a fantastic job of minimizing flu deaths!

    It is a fair point that there are a lot of deaths in nursing homes under any circumstance. But that is the question that Mrs Rodin persists with: how many more deaths (what Scott Adams refers to as “net” deaths) are occurring because of COVID-19? No one wants to accelerate deaths. But we do not kill the future of the young to obtain an increment of time for the elderly (and I am included in that description). At least we don’t make it involuntary — and that’s exactly what the governors are doing that are maintaining house arrest.

    The tables are pretty interesting. At its peak, we were at 133% of total expected deaths. 102% over the whole time period. It is not a significant increase. A lot of people will say that the lockdowns have saved a lot of lives that might have been lost to traffic and other accidents. Not sure.

    • #25
    • May 21, 2020, at 6:29 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  26. MISTER BITCOIN Member

    Rodin (View Comment):

    MISTER BITCOIN (View Comment):

    https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#PlaceDeath

    table 3

    lot of deaths in nursing homes, covid or not

    https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm

    table 2c

    The median age of covid death is over 75, probably 80

    Look at table 1: the number of influenza deaths is remarkably low. We have done a fantastic job of minimizing flu deaths!

    It is a fair point that there are a lot of deaths in nursing homes under any circumstance. But that is the question that Mrs Rodin persists with: how many more deaths (what Scott Adams refers to as “net” deaths) are occurring because of COVID-19? No one wants to accelerate deaths. But we do not kill the future of the young to obtain an increment of time for the elderly (and I am included in that description). At least we don’t make it involuntary — and that’s exactly what the governors are doing that are maintaining house arrest.

    good question — I will research so that Mrs Rodin will have a plausible answer

     

    • #26
    • May 21, 2020, at 6:35 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  27. MISTER BITCOIN Member

    Hammer, The (View Comment):

    Rodin (View Comment):

    MISTER BITCOIN (View Comment):

    https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#PlaceDeath

    table 3

    lot of deaths in nursing homes, covid or not

    https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm

    table 2c

    The median age of covid death is over 75, probably 80

    Look at table 1: the number of influenza deaths is remarkably low. We have done a fantastic job of minimizing flu deaths!

    It is a fair point that there are a lot of deaths in nursing homes under any circumstance. But that is the question that Mrs Rodin persists with: how many more deaths (what Scott Adams refers to as “net” deaths) are occurring because of COVID-19? No one wants to accelerate deaths. But we do not kill the future of the young to obtain an increment of time for the elderly (and I am included in that description). At least we don’t make it involuntary — and that’s exactly what the governors are doing that are maintaining house arrest.

    The tables are pretty interesting. At its peak, we were at 133% of total expected deaths. 102% over the whole time period. It is not a significant increase. A lot of people will say that the lockdowns have saved a lot of lives that might have been lost to traffic and other accidents. Not sure.

    33% is not significant?

     

    • #27
    • May 21, 2020, at 6:36 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  28. MISTER BITCOIN Member

    Hammer, The (View Comment):

    Rodin (View Comment):

    MISTER BITCOIN (View Comment):

    https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#PlaceDeath

    table 3

    lot of deaths in nursing homes, covid or not

    https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm

    table 2c

    The median age of covid death is over 75, probably 80

    Look at table 1: the number of influenza deaths is remarkably low. We have done a fantastic job of minimizing flu deaths!

    It is a fair point that there are a lot of deaths in nursing homes under any circumstance. But that is the question that Mrs Rodin persists with: how many more deaths (what Scott Adams refers to as “net” deaths) are occurring because of COVID-19? No one wants to accelerate deaths. But we do not kill the future of the young to obtain an increment of time for the elderly (and I am included in that description). At least we don’t make it involuntary — and that’s exactly what the governors are doing that are maintaining house arrest.

    The tables are pretty interesting. At its peak, we were at 133% of total expected deaths. 102% over the whole time period. It is not a significant increase. A lot of people will say that the lockdowns have saved a lot of lives that might have been lost to traffic and other accidents. Not sure.

    I don’t recall flatten the curve to mean reducing traffic fatalities

     

    • #28
    • May 21, 2020, at 6:37 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  29. MISTER BITCOIN Member

    Hammer, The (View Comment):

    Rodin (View Comment):

    MISTER BITCOIN (View Comment):

    https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#PlaceDeath

    table 3

    lot of deaths in nursing homes, covid or not

    https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm

    table 2c

    The median age of covid death is over 75, probably 80

    Look at table 1: the number of influenza deaths is remarkably low. We have done a fantastic job of minimizing flu deaths!

    It is a fair point that there are a lot of deaths in nursing homes under any circumstance. But that is the question that Mrs Rodin persists with: how many more deaths (what Scott Adams refers to as “net” deaths) are occurring because of COVID-19? No one wants to accelerate deaths. But we do not kill the future of the young to obtain an increment of time for the elderly (and I am included in that description). At least we don’t make it involuntary — and that’s exactly what the governors are doing that are maintaining house arrest.

    The tables are pretty interesting. At its peak, we were at 133% of total expected deaths. 102% over the whole time period. It is not a significant increase. A lot of people will say that the lockdowns have saved a lot of lives that might have been lost to traffic and other accidents. Not sure.

    the lockdown supporters keep moving the goal posts, of course the irony is most don’t follow soccer or football

     

    • #29
    • May 21, 2020, at 6:38 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  30. Old Bathos Moderator

    My kids have not yet conspired to move me to a rest home. Having a small, messy estate reduces incentives to thus intervene. I expect to live an obnoxiously long life like the majority of my forbears. But America does Not have to make fostering that outcome the main thrust of federal policy.

    However, it would have been nice if our leaders were smart enough to focus their hideously expensive current efforts toward those who were actually vulnerable.

    I used to joke that when the end is near I would take the advice of Jonathan Winters and jump off the Empire State Building with a pig under one arm and a chicken under the other “just to keep the coroner on his toes.” I think my grandchildren would prefer that I did not do that and I will defer to that sensibility.

    • #30
    • May 21, 2020, at 7:07 PM PDT
    • 6 likes
    • This comment has been edited.