News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans ... by nostromo on Monday July 13, 2020 @05:00PM (#23825508)
My guess is that no states will do that.

Even as the number of cases goes up, deaths (the more important number) keeps coming down.

https://i.imgur.com/LMVNbBD.png

We keep hearing about how this trend will reverse soon, ("two weeks from now"), but that hasn't happened yet.

It seems pretty clear now that even our low estimates of fatality were too high and that many people had Covid-19 in March/April/May and were never tested/counted.

Re:California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans ... by morsch on Monday July 13, 2020 @05:12PM (#23825631)
> We keep hearing about how this trend will reverse soon, ("two weeks from now"), but that hasn't happened yet.

It happened a week ago. It's easier to see when you look at a moving average.

https://imgur.com/a/xGLRjGa

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covid-daily-deaths-trajec...

Re:California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans ... by nostromo on Monday July 13, 2020 @05:19PM (#23825695)
Yes, there's a blip at the end of the chart.

But the headline is clearly that deaths have fallen ~70% even as total (reported) cases has continued to grow exponentially.

Re:California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans ... by perl4ever on Monday July 13, 2020 @05:59PM (#23826039)
That seems to me to be obfuscating the factors that everyone knows. Cases are growing exponentially in some states, while deaths fell tremendously in the states that previously had the most cases. California and Florida didn't have deaths fall 70%; they had deaths more or less plateau, while the age of the infected shifted younger, and now the increase in cases is getting to the point where it more than compensates for the lower death rate.
Re:California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans ... by cameldrv on Tuesday July 14, 2020 @02:45AM (#23829221)
3 weeks ago there was a blip at the end of the cases chart just like this one. You don't need to be a super genius to understand that the growth rate in deaths is roughly going to lag the growth rate in cases by about the amount of time it takes someone to die, which is about 3 weeks.

3 weeks from today we will have about 2200 deaths per day, based on the 7 day moving average.

Re:California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans ... by javagram on Tuesday July 14, 2020 @08:32AM (#23831078)
3 weeks from today we’ll likely be at around 1000 deaths per day, not 2200. https://covid19-projections.com/us

The case fatality rate for the virus is going down due to increased testing (identifying more cases) and better treatment (Remdesivir, dexamethasone, and better medical knowledge in general).

So it won’t be as bad as a naive extrapolation might make things look. Still bad though.

Re:California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans ... by cameldrv on Tuesday July 14, 2020 @10:37AM (#23832462)
C19pro is the best model out there, but it only uses deaths as its input. That's good because cases are a noisier measurement, but it's bad because of the lag effect I just described. It will take time to correct if there is a large transient in R.

All else being equal, if the case count triples, the death count is going to triple. Now in this case there are two things that aren't equal. #1 is that the cases are more biased towards younger people, and #2 is that positivity has increased. I expect that these two factors will roughly cancel each other out and the death count will be about 2200. Would you care to place a wager on the over/under at 1600?

Re:California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans ... by anarazel on Monday July 13, 2020 @05:49PM (#23825954)
The US wide totals are muddling the picture substantially. Deaths have continued to shrink substantially in previously severely affected states like NY or NJ.

The other big issue of course is lag. If you look at daily positive tests, current hospitalizations and newly reported deaths in one graph the lag becomes more visible.

Here I e.g. just used a log y axis to show all three in one plot: https://anarazel.de/t/2020-07-13/all_in_one.png

which imo makes that more visible.

Re:California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans ... by Xavdidtheshadow on Monday July 13, 2020 @05:06PM (#23825570)
> deaths (the more important number)

One of the more interesting things I've been reading is that we shouldn't think about this as a total binary. There are reports that survivors exhibit have long-term effects, such as neurological issues [1] and lung damage.

So yes, it's good that fewer people are dying! But that doesn't mean everything is simply great now.

[1]: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200622-the-long-term-ef...

Re:California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans ... by Bahamut on Monday July 13, 2020 @05:12PM (#23825630)
My guess is that the deaths probably would maintain roughly the same rate for the true number of infected, which is a number we do not know because of asymptomatic cases. That numbers of people testing positive is going up doesn’t mean that the overall rate is going up given we do not know the true infected rate, but number of deaths provides a reasonable proxy for that.
Re:California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans ... by fragmede on Monday July 13, 2020 @09:47PM (#23827687)
We understand the disease a bit better, and have better treatments (eg dexamethasone) than we had in March, so I'd expect the true fatality to go down somewhat. (read carefully, this is not in contradiction with the CDC raising their estimate of the IFR). Better treatments are of no use if hospitals are overwhelmed, unfortunately.
Re:California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans ... by dwaltrip on Tuesday July 14, 2020 @12:31PM (#23834038)
The percentage of tests with a positive result has increased, which indicates an increase in the true number of cases.

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/testing/individual-states

Re:California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans ... by anarazel on Monday July 13, 2020 @05:14PM (#23825664)
> Even as the number of cases goes up, deaths (the more important number) keeps coming down. > We keep hearing about how this trend will reverse soon, ("two weeks from now"), but that hasn't happened yet.

Your graph shows an increase over the last week. A rolling average shows that more clearly:

https://covidtracking.com/data/charts/us-daily-deaths

If you look at the currently worse off regions / states you can see the rise in deaths more clearly. E.g. in the south and west there's a pretty clearly recognizable rise:

https://covidtracking.com/data/charts/regional-deaths

Here's a link to per-region stats: https://covidtracking.com/data/charts/all-metrics-per-state and some example states with pretty clear trends:

AZ: https://public.tableau.com/shared/6GDK353C7?:display_count=y...

CA: https://public.tableau.com/shared/GKK6SFGNR?:display_count=y...

FL: https://public.tableau.com/shared/P2SSPXC3Y?:display_count=y...

TX: https://public.tableau.com/shared/M8KY224BR?:display_count=y...

> deaths (the more important number) keeps coming down.

Deaths are important, obviously, but they are also a severely lagging indicator.

Edit: Formatting

Re:California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans ... by throw0101a on Monday July 13, 2020 @05:12PM (#23825634)
> deaths (the more important number)

Is it though?

> For every one person who dies:

> 19 more require hospitalization.

> 18 of those will have permanent heart damage for the rest of their lives.

> 10 will have permanent lung damage.

> 3 will have strokes.

> 2 will have neurological damage that leads to chronic weakness and loss of coordination.

> 2 will have neurological damage that leads to loss of cognitive function.

* https://www.quora.com/How-can-a-disease-with-1-mortality-shu...

Re:California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans ... by refurb on Monday July 13, 2020 @05:27PM (#23825756)
How does this pass the sniff test (or am I misinterpreting it?).

Assume 1% fatality rate for infections (it’s actually lower), you’re saying somewhere 19% to 60% (depending on overlap of those categories) have permanent damage?

That’s clearly not what we’re seeing.

Re:California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans ... by woeirua on Monday July 13, 2020 @06:43PM (#23826444)
You're misinterpreting it. It says that for every 1 fatality there are 19 covid patients that have longlasting complications. It doesn't state though how many mild, uncomplicated cases there will be for every 1 hospitalized, i.e. what the denominator is. For example, if there are 1000 cases for every hospitalized case, then 19/1000 isn't that high.
Re:California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans ... by refurb on Monday July 13, 2020 @06:45PM (#23826475)
I’m still confused. We know the fatality rate is ~1% (0.6% as per CDC’s latest).

So for every death there are 99 other cases. There is no way that 19 of those have permanent disabilities. That would means several million Americans are seriously disabled by the virus.

Re:California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans ... by fragmede on Monday July 13, 2020 @09:57PM (#23827733)
The Quora link cites sources if you doubt the math.
Re:California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans ... by refurb on Monday July 13, 2020 @11:19PM (#23828134)
They are funky. The source of the “19% had heart damage” is 19% of those hospitalized.

We know that approximately 10-20% of all cases are hospitalized. So that 19% is actually 2-4% (19% of 10-20%).

Re:California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans ... by throw0101a on Monday July 13, 2020 @06:21PM (#23826226)
> How does this pass the sniff test (or am I misinterpreting it?).

Article links to sources. Interpret as you will.

Just a counter-'claim' against the GP that all we have to worry about is the fatality rate.

As hospitals fill up, even with a low mortality rate, it means all sorts of other procedures are delayed or cancelled.

Re:California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans ... by banads on Monday July 13, 2020 @05:24PM (#23825732)
>18 of those will have permanent heart damage for the rest of their lives.

Adding critical context: Nearly half of americans are obese and/or have heart disease, and ~650,000 are killed by it each year.

How much lower would all those numbers be if americans simply exercised and ate healthy on a regular basis?

Re:California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans ... by azinman2 on Monday July 13, 2020 @05:16PM (#23825673)
This is the point that so many people miss.

We’re also 1/3 of the way to WWII deaths in the US.

Re:California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans ... by hvac on Monday July 13, 2020 @08:27PM (#23827272)
I can't edit my comment now, but I also just noticed that the CDC recently revised the IFR upwards from 0.26% to 0.65% (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scena...), apparently as of a few days ago. Our death rate estimates were too low, if anything.
Re:California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans ... by bachmeier on Monday July 13, 2020 @05:19PM (#23825693)
> We keep hearing about how this trend will reverse soon, ("two weeks from now"), but that hasn't happened yet.

It hasn't?

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/10/coronavirus-deaths-tick-up-i...

You're mixing those states together with New York, for which cases and deaths are strongly positively correlated:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/new-york-coronav...

Re:California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans ... by codezero on Monday July 13, 2020 @05:09PM (#23825614)
Deaths may look stable/going down, but that's potentially difficult to understand given regional reporting. I think deaths are naturally down as the "first wave" hit many long term care facilities with a much higher death rate than the rest of the population.

Check out the SF data: comparing "All California" to Bay Area shows that we're rising in cases and deaths in california as a whole, but flat/declining in northern california.

This phenomenon, I believe, is happening all over the place.

https://projects.sfchronicle.com/2020/coronavirus-map/

Re:California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans ... by digsy on Monday July 13, 2020 @06:36PM (#23826393)
>We keep hearing about how this trend will reverse soon, ("two weeks from now"), but that hasn't happened yet.

Deaths are down if you look at the US as a whole.

However, if you look at the state level its not always the same picture.

Florida's death toll is up from a 7-day rolling average of 51 in April (the peak of its first wave) to 71 as of yesterday.

Re:California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans ... by bigcorp-slave on Tuesday July 14, 2020 @12:51AM (#23828643)
Nostromo has been consistently spreading misinformation about the pandemic on HN since it started. When are they going to be banned?

Having a wide and healthy discussion on this site does not require that we entertain people advocating mass death.

The constant refrain that this isn’t a big deal seems belied somewhat by the five hundred thousand dead people.

Re:California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans ... by hvac on Monday July 13, 2020 @05:18PM (#23825685)
The linked NYT article says that deaths are up 28% over the last two weeks.
Re:California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans ... by nostromo on Monday July 13, 2020 @05:22PM (#23825719)
... after dropping 80% from the peak
Re:California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans ... by perl4ever on Monday July 13, 2020 @06:01PM (#23826064)
The places that had the drop in deaths aren't the places that are having the exponential increase in cases now.

It makes no sense to say that deaths have plummeted in NY, as cases have too, and therefore Arizona or Florida doesn't have to worry about deaths increasing as cases skyrocket.

Re:California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans ... by statop on Tuesday July 14, 2020 @01:47AM (#23828930)
You guess, keep hearing, seems pretty clear.

Thanks doctor.

Maybe next you can educate us on why the data you linked literally contradicts everything you said. The trend in deaths is increasing.