Corona Virus

[revo]

Stupid is as stupid does:

"Seventy-two individuals who tested positive for Covid-19 in Wisconsin recently attended a “large-gathering” before their diagnosis, according to a report.

According to The Progressive, the state's Department of Health Services (DHS) confirmed that they had gathered tracing data on a number of people who had contracted the virus.

“We were able to pull some limited data—out of 1,986 cases with onset/diagnosis on or after 4/26, there were seventy-two cases who reported attending a large gathering," DHS spokesperson Jennifer Miller was quoted as saying in an email to The Progressive."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/coronavirus-wisconsin-protests-test-positive-department-of-health-services-a9509486.html?fbclid=IwAR3N0N3U1rHTGX_3zOCX3iTx4hhstYt4bo58MfkFtwx7GIHLORAyM2i2lCM

[Steve 2.0]

People expecting my usual bullshit were pleasantly surprised !

or disappointed?

[rhd]

Another stats update as of 7:46 AM today. Last stats were from 5/10 at 7:46 AM, exactly 3 days ago:

- 1,408,636 cases in US, up from 1,347,318, a 4.6% increase, which is a much smaller increase than last time (6.7%). The increases of the last 6 days give a doubling rate of about every 38.25 days. The new cases for this period were 61,318 compared to 84,075 for last time, for a ratio of 0.73, which is much lower than last time (1.13) but a comparison w the figure from 2 periods ago gives a more accurate picture. The new cases for 2 periods ago was 74,421 so a comparison w this period's new cases gives a rate of 0.82, which is lower than last time (0.90). Encouraging.
- 83,425 deaths in US, up from 80,040, a 4.2% increase which is a much smaller increase than last time (7.0%). The increases of the last 6 days give a doubling rate of about every 38 days. At this rate, the US projects to hit 100,000 deaths by about May 22. The US mortality rate is now 5.92%, down slightly from 5.94%.
- 4,361,691 cases worldwide, up from 4,126,075, a 5.7% increase which is a much smaller increase than last time (7.4%). The new cases for this period were 235,616 compared to 282,757 for last time, for a ratio of 0.83 which is much lower than last time (1.10) but a comparison w the figure from 2 periods ago gives a more accurate picture. The new cases for 2 periods ago was 257,890 so a comparison w this period's new cases gives a rate of 0.91, which is much lower than last time (1.10).
- 293,266 deaths worldwide, up from 280,958, a 4.4% increase which is a smaller increase than last time (5.8%). The world mortality rate is 6.72%, down from 6.81%. Italy's mortality rate is 13.97%, up slightly from 13.93%, Belgium's is 16.38%, up slightly from 16.31%, Spain's is 9.99%, down slightly from 10.06%, France's is 15.14%, up from 14.89%, UK's is 14.44%, down from 14.67%, Germany's is 4.48%, up from 4.41% and Canada's is 7.14%, up from 6.81%.
- 217 countries/territories/etc. have confirmed cases w suspected cases in 2 others (North Korea, Turkmenistan). There are only 11 countries, 10 of which are South Pacific Island republics, that have neither reported nor have suspected cases: Lesotho, Kiribati, Marshall Is., Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Samoa, Solomon Is., Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu. The vast majority of countries have at least 1 death, w Vietnam having the most cases w no reported deaths, 288.

Rates of increase were much smaller than last time and new cases rate were much smaller also for both the US and the world. Cases continue to surge in Russia, Brazil, Peru, India and the Middle East.

[chancellor]

Stupid is as stupid does:

"Seventy-two individuals who tested positive for Covid-19 in Wisconsin recently attended a “large-gathering” before their diagnosis, according to a report.

According to The Progressive, the state's Department of Health Services (DHS) confirmed that they had gathered tracing data on a number of people who had contracted the virus.

“We were able to pull some limited data—out of 1,986 cases with onset/diagnosis on or after 4/26, there were seventy-two cases who reported attending a large gathering," DHS spokesperson Jennifer Miller was quoted as saying in an email to The Progressive."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...IHLORAyM2i2lCM

So, if attending a large gathering was the root cause - which is virtually impossible to be true in 100% of the cases - 3.6% of the total cases could possibly be tied to a large gathering. Moreover, as the Independent article notes, it's completely unknown if any of these cases are tied to the protests in Madison.

I'd certainly posit that supports Phases 1 and 2 of reopening in Wisconsin, for sure.

[The Feral Slasher]

So, if attending a large gathering was the root cause - which is virtually impossible to be true in 100% of the cases - 3.6% of the total cases could possibly be tied to a large gathering. Moreover, as the Independent article notes, it's completely unknown if any of these cases are tied to the protests in Madison.

I'd certainly posit that supports Phases 1 and 2 of reopening in Wisconsin, for sure.

Could you please explain ? Up to 3.6% of cases from a single or very few large gatherings seems to indicate they are quite risky.

[The Feral Slasher]

Could you please explain ? Up to 3.6% of cases from a single or very few large gatherings seems to indicate they are quite risky.

With an estimated 1500 protestors nearly 5% were infected. Compared to about .03 % in the rest of the Wisconsin population. Just rough numbers .

[chancellor]

Could you please explain ? Up to 3.6% of cases from a single or very few large gatherings seems to indicate they are quite risky.

The article was trying to pin it on the protests in Madison, but if you dig down deeply, the statistics don't point to any such indication. In fact, they can't even identify where/when the "large gatherings" were, just that someone attended a "large gathering". Moreover, the implication is that the root cause of having the virus is being at a large gathering, when no such data exists to support that implication, other than they attended a large gathering. There's no cross-check, for example, on what percentage of the population, infected or not, attended a "large gathering". The article doesn't even bother to define what a "large gathering" is. So, other than not having any correlation to anything or causation to anything, it's a wonderful statistical analysis in the article. I'll just apologize now if my sarcasm drips out of your computer keyboard.

And since Phase 1 and 2 of reopening in Wisconsin allow for no more than 10 people (we're now at 5) in a retail establishment, followed by 20 people, along with rigorous requirements on cleaning, mask wearing, and social distancing, this data as is would give me a high degree of confidence the risk factor is quite low. My best guess is a "large gathering" is a lot more than 20 people, and that the "large gatherings" lacked the protections in the phased reopenings.

[The Feral Slasher]

The article was trying to pin it on the protests in Madison, but if you dig down deeply, the statistics don't point to any such indication. In fact, they can't even identify where/when the "large gatherings" were, just that someone attended a "large gathering". Moreover, the implication is that the root cause of having the virus is being at a large gathering, when no such data exists to support that implication, other than they attended a large gathering. There's no cross-check, for example, on what percentage of the population, infected or not, attended a "large gathering". The article doesn't even bother to define what a "large gathering" is. So, other than not having any correlation to anything or causation to anything, it's a wonderful statistical analysis in the article. I'll just apologize now if my sarcasm drips out of your computer keyboard.

And since Phase 1 and 2 of reopening in Wisconsin allow for no more than 10 people (we're now at 5) in a retail establishment, followed by 20 people, along with rigorous requirements on cleaning, mask wearing, and social distancing, this data as is would give me a high degree of confidence the risk factor is quite low. My best guess is a "large gathering" is a lot more than 20 people, and that the "large gatherings" lacked the protections in the phased reopenings.

I'm not sure how the data gives you confidence that the risk is low, but that is probably just a matter of what is considered "low risk". Anyway, hope the re-opening is successful.

[Ken]

The article was trying to pin it on the protests in Madison, but if you dig down deeply, the statistics don't point to any such indication. In fact, they can't even identify where/when the "large gatherings" were, just that someone attended a "large gathering". Moreover, the implication is that the root cause of having the virus is being at a large gathering, when no such data exists to support that implication, other than they attended a large gathering. There's no cross-check, for example, on what percentage of the population, infected or not, attended a "large gathering". The article doesn't even bother to define what a "large gathering" is. So, other than not having any correlation to anything or causation to anything, it's a wonderful statistical analysis in the article. I'll just apologize now if my sarcasm drips out of your computer keyboard.

And since Phase 1 and 2 of reopening in Wisconsin allow for no more than 10 people (we're now at 5) in a retail establishment, followed by 20 people, along with rigorous requirements on cleaning, mask wearing, and social distancing, this data as is would give me a high degree of confidence the risk factor is quite low. My best guess is a "large gathering" is a lot more than 20 people, and that the "large gatherings" lacked the protections in the phased reopenings.

I'm not following you - the lack of good statistical analysis in an article means that Wisconsin should open? That doesn't really make sense. If the analysis is poor then it tells you nothing, not the opposite of it's supposed conclusions.

[The Feral Slasher]

With an estimated 1500 protestors nearly 5% were infected. Compared to about .03 % in the rest of the Wisconsin population. Just rough numbers .

assuming the large gathering referred to the protest in Madison....which may be incorrect. Regardless we know enough to say that attending large gatherings is a bad idea at this point.

[Ken]

assuming the large gathering referred to the protest in Madison....which may be incorrect. Regardless we know enough to say that attending large gatherings is a bad idea at this point.

You'd think that would be more than obvious.

[revo]

Yes, the report is assuming the “large gathering” was the rally, because quite frankly, what else could it have been?

[heyelander]

Chance had a cookout and didn't invite ANY of us.

[chancellor]

Yes, the report is assuming the “large gathering” was the rally, because quite frankly, what else could it have been?

Actually, that's not true. The Progressive's headline to the article is "Wisconsin Still In Dark on Protest", with a sub-header of "Dozens of cases linked to large gatherings, but the state can’t say how many were from a rally held in defiance of health mandates." And in the first paragraph: "But there is no way of knowing how many of these cases trace back to a massive anti-quarantine rally at the state capitol on April 24."

The Progressive is - and rightfully so - frustrated the state didn't point blank ask the question whether people with positive tests attended the protest. To The Progressive's credit, they recognize this flaw and do not draw the conclusion you do; per the conclusion of the article:

"With today’s news that seventy-two people who contracted COVID-19 said they recently attended a large gathering, that means it’s possible that more people were infected while attending the protest rally than while voting.

It looks like we’ll never know."

Edit to add: And, LOL, turns out I even know the writer.

[chancellor]

Chance had a cookout and didn't invite ANY of us.

I had to do something to cook up all those recipes GITH and Knuckle Balls have been giving me, y'know?