Midlife Crisis: Support for Left Behind Spouses
Archives => Archived Topics => Topic started by: OffRoad on March 29, 2020, 01:46:53 PM
-
I'm a facts kind of person and the statistics that are being reported make no sense to me in some cases. It makes it hard to figure out fact from fiction. A lot of Stats look accurate (Spain, Italy, France, etc--my heartfelt Prayers go out to all those hard hit countries), but some do not and some are downright puzzling. Logical extrapolation makes it even more puzzling.
I pulled the most recent numbers from https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/) How is it that China has a 92.64 recovery rate and the next highest percentage for any country over 9,000 cases (S Korea) is only 52%? Yet the US only shows 3.2 percent recovery rate? In all this time only 4,378 people who tested positive are considered "recovered " in the US. Why are the US recovery numbers less than a third of both Spain (14,709) and Italy(13,030)?
How do you suppose "Recovery" is being measured? I already believe China is under reporting new cases and deaths (personal opinion-a virus doesn't just "disappear") and must assume they consider "recovery" to be something different than the US or UK or Netherlands does.
Are some countries under reporting recovered for various reasons? Might their criteria for recovered be more stringent? Is there a specific criteria for "recovered" that I have not seen? The one I have seen (CDC-Absence of fever, with no use of fever-reducing medication, for three full days; improvement in other symptoms, such as coughing and shortness of breath; a period of seven full days since symptoms first appeared. Two negative swab tests on consecutive days are considered as the all-clear) would mean that the virus would be lasting MUCH longer, even for non serious cases, than initially determined if there is a low recovery rate. OR that there is no double swab testing going on for many "recovered" individuals. (which is completely understandable). On March 20 (9 days ago), there were 18965 COVID cases reported in the US. We currently have a total of 2391 deaths, so lets assume all those deaths came from that 18965. 4378 currently recovered and lets assume that 4378 came from the 18965. Suppose I count in the current serious cases of 2948 and say those were from the 18965. What happened to the other 9248 individuals? They aren't dead. They aren't in serious condition. They aren't recovered. What are they? Are they still floating around in non serious, but contagious condition? Or not contagious, not double swabbed, not anything-- kind of in limbo?
I realize the first reported case in the US was about a month behind China, but the numbers still don't track. (Actual numbers, not percents). Why such low "recovery" figures when the death rate/ critical rate is not proportionately high in the US? (UK and Netherlands are over 1% death rate, and Netherlands has a higher critical percent, so I might see their recovery rate being low at this time).
-
Interesting article here that bandies around some numbers https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-the-hammer-and-the-dance-be9337092b56
From what I can see OR, some of the shapes of the comparative patterns are clearer than the numbers if that makes sense. The identified cases numbers.....and therefore the mortality rates....are a function of testing. Or not. Very little testing is happening here until people are sick enough to require hospital care. There seems to be some info here that about 50% of those ill enough to require ICU care die and that the other 50% are in hospital not yet recovered for about 10 days? Some guesstimates about things like asymptomatic transmission periods or time from infection to symptoms or indeed recovery. As well as what recovery means or indeed immunity post-recovery.
But I agree - lots of gaps in the data as yet.
-
It's called GIGO. Garbage In Garbage Out. If the data you're putting into the system is poor quality you won't be able to turn it into meaningful information. The only statistics that seem to be reliable and meaningful are numbers hospitalized and deaths because those are the only ones we can be reasonably sure were tested. Half the cases in the US are here in NY state and hospitals in NY aren't testing unless the patient is serious enough to be admitted. Otherwise, people are being sent home and told to return if they get worse.
Even then, it's hard to draw any conclusions from those two categories because nobody's reporting how many patients are released from the hospital after treatment. I know of only 2 cases for sure. Tom Hanks and his wife. But from what I've heard, those who are sick enough to be admitted to the hospital often are there for quite a long time, like 7 to 14 days.
Our local health department has quit trying to track individual cases. Their official line now is that we should assume it's all around us and just stay home. Seems like good advice to me.
-
Off Road -
I agree that the data is very inconsistent and doesn't really make it easy to predict or postulate.
I think, as you said, that the reason there are so many "unrecovered" in the US is that our infection started so much later than Italy and Spain. That's also why our "curve" is shifted to the right.
We do have more positive cases than any other country.
Why is that though? I can't believe that it's because we're testing more, because I don't feel like we're testing as aggressively as we should be, if we had unlimited supplies (which we obviously don't).
I don't think we'll ever be able to compare apples-to-apples in this case, and may just have to learn what we can, and look it after the dust settles.
Thats just IMO anyway.
Sea
-
Off, I'm no good at numbers so I'm not going to be giving you a very precise answer. However, as far as Italy goes the numbers are based on people who were tested to start with, and tested twice after they were recovered. The US has only just started to enter the critical stage of the crisis so people have not been sick long enough to give a figure. In Italy, the people with mild symptoms, usually recovered after a week, but they were never tested. Those who were hospitalized, stayed there for a minimum of 2 weeks, some for a whole month, so that would mean that recovery figures could only come out much later. For Italy, our first cases appeared 2 months ago, and our recovery numbers started going up just recently.
In countries were tons of tests are done, it would seem logical to expect large numbers to be cured, as long as they are retested afterwards. In other countries, were there are fewer tests, there might be tons of people cured, but we just will never know.
-
Thanks, Treasur and and Brain, that helps. If the only testing being done in an area is when they are bad enough to be hospitalized, then that would surely skew the numbers. Same if there is no information if someone is tested positive, but is sent home because they are not severe enough to warrant hospital stay. I'm sure there is no follow up on those because there aren't the resources.
Sea, I agree to a certain extent, however if people are allowed back into the population after 7 days of onset of symptoms and 3 days of no fever, the numbers still don't match. There are over 9000 unaccounted for from 9 days ago. Do ALL 9000 still have a fever? Or had one as of five days ago? Italy and Spain's numbers have always made sense, even from the beginning, as did Iran and a few other countries. That was even factoring in the number of cases most likely unknown.
I also hear what you are saying , Milly. But do you mean to say that only hospitalized people are considered "recovered"? Because that changes what the stats mean. Recovery is supposed to mean you had symptoms or tested positive, but now you fit the criteria of the recovered so you are recovered. It should not apply to only hospitalized people. ???
I'm good with everyone stay home. I'm not good with people panicking they "are going to die" if they catch COVID 19 because scare tactics are being used to keep them home by not releasing accurate information . Until Italy saw such huge numbers, no one just came out and said "You might not get very sick, but someone who is exposed to your germs, especially the elderly and people with underlying health issues, might get very ill." That seems pretty straightforward. NOW I'm finally seeing ads that speak to this.
And, I want to know what those 9000 people are? Is 7 days long enough to stay home after onset of symptoms? If 9000 are not recovered after 9 days, maybe that time frame should be adjusted.
-
OR, I think you might find this article interesting, especially this part. This is what is filling up the hospitals.
Using available preliminary data, the median time from onset to clinical recovery for mild
cases is approximately 2 weeks and is 3-6 weeks for patients with severe or critical disease.
Preliminary data suggests that the time period from onset to the development of severe
disease, including hypoxia, is 1 week. Among patients who have died, the time from
symptom onset to outcome ranges from 2-8 weeks.
https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/who-china-joint-mission-on-covid-19-final-report.pdf (https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/who-china-joint-mission-on-covid-19-final-report.pdf)
The flu.
Uncomplicated influenza signs and symptoms typically resolve after 3-7 days for the majority of people, although cough and malaise can persist for >2 weeks, especially in elderly people and those with chronic lung disease.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/acip/clinical.htm (https://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/acip/clinical.htm)
-
Off Road -
People with covid frequently become ill again (the serious illness) up to 2 weeks after the initial event, eventhough they've "gotten better".
It makes looking at being "healed" difficult.
I also am not sure that they're capturing the people who weren't tested, because how would they know?
If I had the symptoms, I wouldn't go to the doctor because they wouldn't test me if I was doing okay, so how would anyone know to include me in the stats?
I don't know how long the virus "sheds" once someone is infected though. - That might be the magic question about staying home.
There are younger people getting it here compared to say, China.
10 year old death due to covid; but IDK what her pre-existing conditions were.
It's really a bunch of smoke and mirrors, kind of.
I heard that Chicago is trying to place a DNR order on all people who are believed to be unrecoverable, and that the family has no say in reversing it. The purpose is to save medical personnel from additional exposure in an apparent futile case.
I can kind of understand that mentality, but not until we've outstripped our resources. I, personally, don't think that's fair.
-
Here is where my current concern lies. Many people are in "essential" jobs that live day to day monetarily. I can't think of a one of them who, if they had symptoms that might be COVID 19 wouldnt take that 7 day the CDC has on their site as gospel. In other words, if they first got symptoms on day 1, had a fever for 3 days, after 4 days, they'd go back to work.
IF it takes over 7 days for COVID 19 to get to "serious" and if people "get better then get worse" (I haven't seen a report of this, but who knows), then there are a lot of people out there possibly infecting other people. For those 9000 I was talking about, if their major symptoms are gone by day 7, how many went back to work as soon as they could?
It looks to me like 7 days after onset of symptoms, or 7 days after diagnosis isn't enough.
-
“It looks to me like 7 days after onset of symptoms, or 7 days after diagnosis isn't enough. “
It isn’t. 14 days is the time we are told to isolate in the UK. the sick person and all in the same household.
-
I mean only people who were tested were considered recovered, whether hospitalized or not. Since here anyone with mild/not too serious symptoms are just being told to stay at home, they are not being tested. So, although they probably had Covid19 and recovered from it, we don't know for sure so they do not factor in the numbers.
Here if anyone is sick at home with flu like symptoms, even just a cold, they are to stay in quarantine for 14 days. That is what is considered a safe time to no longer be contagious.
-
We're also being told 14 day quarantine and if they tested positive the health department keeps an eye on them during that time.
Anecdotal reports indicate that this disease is exhausting and those who are sick with it won't be in a hurry to return to normal life.
-
We're also being told 14 day quarantine and if they tested positive the health department keeps an eye on them during that time.
Anecdotal reports indicate that this disease is exhausting and those who are sick with it won't be in a hurry to return to normal life.
Yes I have four friends in their fifties who have had it and they describe muscle and joint aches and utter exhaustion. I spoke to one yesterday who is over 14 days post infection, fit and healthy and she says she still sleeps 11 hours at night and a further 2 in the afternoon.
I also have an old school friend, now a political person so meets a lot of people, who has been put in an induced coma. He has no known pre existing health issues.
My own young adult children have friends who have had possible mild cases. Losing sense of smell seems to be common n young people and makes them feel they have it rather than ordinary flu or a cold. Given their lifestyles in a huge city it’s impossible a large proportion of my children’s friends haven’t been exposed.
For some info about wildly varying infection/death statistics, this might help explain:
https://time.com/5812555/germany-coronavirus-deaths/
-
Thanks Nerissa! That makes a lot of sense. I hope you and your family are able to stay healthy.