Georgia reopened...media is quiet about numbers

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,695
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Here's a summary of all the states that are reopening, with graphs of their cases. Many, maybe even most, have cases at a plateau but not going down. Health experts would like to see the cases going down, but many states may think it's OK as long as they stay constant and don't start going up a lot.

It wasn't that long ago we were being told the goal was to "flatten the curve" but now it seems that governors have become drunk with power and don't want to let the little people (you know, the likes of you and I) make decisions for ourselves until another endless list of unknown and variable objectives are achieved. Chief among them appears to be making sure the economy is flatter than the curve that is already massively below even the best case projections from barely a month ago.

A few weeks back a million deaths was considered an optimistic projection. Now 10% of that is considered slightly pessimistic, yet still the fuhrer says it is too dangerous to allow small businesses to open.

But who knows, maybe there's another reason the Democrat governor allowed a Democrat-leaning urban county to reopen while disallowing a Republican-leaning rural county with better statistics from opening.
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,649
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Our state is counting prisoners cases which is preventing my county fromreopening, need to get rid of these so called experts. Prisoners do not roam our community therefore their numbers should not be counted toward reopening

I didn't know about that but wow, that's really tyrannical!
 

hedrick

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
683
Age
75
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
A few weeks back a million deaths was considered an optimistic projection. Now 10% of that is considered slightly pessimistic, yet still the fuhrer says it is too dangerous to allow small businesses to open.
Just to clarify: 1 million was optimistic if no controls were done. With controls, models showed around 100,000 though the summer.

The lowest figure I saw was 70,000. That was from the IHME model during a fairly brief period. We're now a bit over 80,000 dead. The IHME model is now showing 137,000. That model has generally overestimated how fast decreases will happen, though they've been tweaking it and the estimate for NJ now looks plausible. (Previously the projected decreases were too fast.) It also assumes that current policies will stay in place, which they will not.

So most likely the current wave will have more than 137,000 deaths. But there will be more waves. I don’t think we’ll get 1,000,000, but we could get to 200,000 or more by the time it’s done.

I’m not advocating any particular policy here. I think there are plenty of areas that could be fairly open, as long as they have testing and contact tracing in place. But 100,000 is certainly not pessimistic, with 80,000+ already.

Here's a good review of US data: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-cases.html.
Here's the IHME model, which the White House has tended to use: http://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america. (Note that, as always, it shows the decrease as speeding up the moment you go from real data to projection. That's been consistently wrong.)

When looking at current data, be aware that the overall decrease in the US is driven by decreases in NY and NJ. Cuomo has said that if you remove NY, the US would still be increasing. I'm not in a position to check that, but it's plausible. The general US increase is spotty, though.
 
Last edited:

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,695
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Just to clarify: 1 million was optimistic if no controls were done. With controls, models showed around 100,000 though the summer.

The lowest figure I saw was 70,000. That was from the IHME model during a fairly brief period. We're now a bit over 80,000 dead. The IHME model is now showing 137,000. That model has generally overestimated how fast decreases will happen, though they've been tweaking it and the estimate for NJ now looks plausible. (Previously the projected decreases were too fast.) It also assumes that current policies will stay in place, which they will not.

So most likely the current wave will have more than 137,000 deaths. But there will be more waves. I don’t think we’ll get 1,000,000, but we could get to 200,000 or more by the time it’s done.

I’m not advocating any particular policy here. I think there are plenty of areas that could be fairly open, as long as they have testing and contact tracing in place. But 100,000 is certainly not pessimistic, with 80,000+ already.

The trouble is that it's hard to even believe numbers from so many sources. At the time the media was wailing with its comparisons to Vietnam and claiming 60,000+ the CDC's web site was saying closer to 40,000. Throw in the disputed figures - as I mentioned elsewhere over a quarter of PA's county coroners are apparently disputing the figures reported for their county - and the chances are the numbers are lower still.

And still nobody can explain why it's safe to go shopping at Walmart but deadly to go shopping at a local mom-and-pop store, or indeed how it's safe to get an abortion but deadly to get a haircut. The whole thing stinks of politics.
 

hedrick

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
683
Age
75
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
There's a cross-check on fatality numbers from "excess deaths." That is, compare death statistics with what they are in other years. Those comparisons suggest that the official Covid death numbers are a bit too low.
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,695
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
There's a cross-check on fatality numbers from "excess deaths." That is, compare death statistics with what they are in other years. Those comparisons suggest that the official Covid death numbers are a bit too low.

It's still pretty sad that it's as much about guesswork as a useful figure.

One single death doesn't change an overall statistic but when people comment (as one friend has to me personally) that an elderly relative died of a heart attack but had the cause of death listed as COVID-19 on the death certificate, you have to wonder how many others have been fudged and kludged. A while back I read a report about (I think) New York state adding "presumptive" COVID deaths to the tally. In Pennsylvania it was announced at some recalculation had been done and the death toll dropped by a couple of hundred and in the next couple of weeks it mysteriously spiked again by..... about 200.

It's very hard to have much faith in official figures when things like this happen.

For good measure, back when we were allegedly in the thick of it all, a friend had an appointment for a totally routine annual checkup with his doctor. He assumed it would be postponed because everything was being cleared out to make room for the surge in COVID patients. But it wasn't - he called to figure how soon he could reschedule it and was told to go in as booked. Obviously the hospital wasn't buried in patients. But it's still apparently far too dangerous for this area to reopen.
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,695
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Here's an interesting article about the concept of risk mitigation rather than risk elimination. Being The Atlantic they can't miss a chance to mention a few favorite left-wing concepts but overall I thought the article made some very good points. It likens quarantine to the age when AIDS was largely a "gay plague" and how the expectation that gay men would simply abstain from their activities proved unrealistic so the focus shifted to choosing lower-risk activities rather than expecting total abstinence.

In the context of the coronavirus they note that extended social isolation is very bad for people and it's pointless to expect people to endure it forever, and it's therefore better to look at activities that are relatively high risk and low risk. It also looks at the problem of shaming certain behaviors and how all it does is drive them underground. We might as well accept that people want to see friends and family members so we should focus on the concept of meeting in small numbers and outside if possible as opposed to holding house parties, rather than demanding that no more than two people gather at all and expecting people to forego any social contact for an indefinite period.

Obviously, given the comparison, it has some mild sexual language in it but I don't recall anything more explicit than what I've summarised here. For those unfamiliar with the source, The Atlantic has a left-wing bias in its reporting, and has a limited number of free articles per month before you hit the paywall.

 

hedrick

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
683
Age
75
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
The reason presumptive deaths are included is that many people who die aren't tested. They're counting people whose symptoms suggest to a doctor that they had COVID.

One of the ways China hid the epidemic for a while was by reporting the final cause of death, which was often pneumonia, although of course that's a result of the virus. Heart problems are another possible result.
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,649
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The reason presumptive deaths are included is that many people who die aren't tested. They're counting people whose symptoms suggest to a doctor that they had COVID.

One of the ways China hid the epidemic for a while was by reporting the final cause of death, which was often pneumonia, although of course that's a result of the virus. Heart problems are another possible result.

Those same symptoms can be other things though since we have millions of people in the country who have been tested (having had symptoms) but came back negative.
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,695
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The reason presumptive deaths are included is that many people who die aren't tested. They're counting people whose symptoms suggest to a doctor that they had COVID.

One of the ways China hid the epidemic for a while was by reporting the final cause of death, which was often pneumonia, although of course that's a result of the virus. Heart problems are another possible result.

The trouble is that it means that just about all of the statistics are little more than guesswork. We've got a mortality rate calculated based on a numerator that is padded by guesswork and a denominator that is understated because of a limited number of tests.

When county coroners dispute official figures I'd be inclined to suggest that is indicative of something more serious than simply counting a few deaths involving symptoms that suggest the patient had COVID.

It's all well and good to say that "symptoms suggest to a doctor that they had COVID" but even if it were assured they had COVID it doesn't necessarily mean they died of it. It becomes rather like finding a car that crashed at speed into a tree with a body inside, finding a packet of TUMS in the deceased's pocket and concluding they died of indigestion. You know, the evidence says they probably had indigestion, right?
 
Last edited:

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,695
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
An interesting observation - a few state fuhrer's denounced protesters who gathered in numbers, not observing physical distancing and not wearing masks, as being so very irresponsible and likely to cause the virus to spread. That was nearly 14 days ago now and yet I didn't notice any governors pointing to a surge in infections and deaths caused by this "irresponsible action".

Maybe, just maybe, it is the state fuhrers and their constantly crying wolf that is very irresponsible. There is no doubt that some areas have been badly affected but shutting down entire states for the sake of a single city is reckless. The trouble now is that so much goodwill from the public is squandered - people who have been shut down for weeks, people who haven't seen a paycheck in weeks, yet see life continuing much as normal even if small businesses are shuttered can hardly be called unreasonable for wondering if it was all a grotesque overreaction. Especially when people live in a rural county with fewer than 50 cases in total and zero deaths.
 

hedrick

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
683
Age
75
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Here’s an article summarizing early data from states that are reopening. https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...hat-reopened-their-economies-its-complicated/. infections have stayed roughly constant, while they have gone down in states that have remained closed. It’s up to the citizens whether that an acceptable result. Many states may consider it OK. NY and NJ wouldn’t, because of our higher numbers. (These are averages. Georgia’s infections are down.)

Georgia is seeing about 30 a day. If stays at that rate it’s about 9000 in a year. About 0.1% of the population. However IHME thinks it will continue down, even with the relaxed rules.

FYI, NJ is starting to relax. We haven’t gone as far as Georgia, but I think we will within a few weeks. There are obvious reasons for us to do it later. I think most states will follow the CDC stages over May and June. NYC remains the most difficult.
 
Last edited:

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,649
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Here’s an article summarizing early data from states that are reopening. https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...hat-reopened-their-economies-its-complicated/. infections have stayed roughly constant, while they have gone down in states that have remained closed. It’s up to the citizens whether that an acceptable result. Many states may consider it OK. NY and NJ wouldn’t, because of our higher numbers. (These are averages. Georgia’s infections are down.)

Georgia is seeing about 30 a day. If stays at that rate it’s about 9000 in a year. About 0.1% of the population. However IHME thinks it will continue down, even with the relaxed rules.

FYI, NJ is starting to relax. We haven’t gone as far as Georgia, but I think we will within a few weeks. There are obvious reasons for us to do it later. I think most states will follow the CDC stages over May and June. NYC remains the most difficult.

Thanks for posting that info! I haven't kept up with numbers in the past few days like I've normally been doing so I appreciate it. I'm seeing a lot of unrest in my state and it's almost like there is a civil war about to happen with people needing to get back to work to stay alive. It's hard for those who are poor (I grew up poor but we're okay now), out of a job, unemployment sites can't be reached and not sending out money in a timely manner and being told you will go to jail if you open your business.

I can't believe the judge in Texas who called that woman selfish for wanting to feed her family. That's messed up.
 

hedrick

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
683
Age
75
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Just about all areas are in the process of opening up. The trick now is to set up sufficient rules to keep us out of trouble in the future, while letting most activity continue.

It's a bit odd that the war would happen at the point where opening is already happening. I can't help wondering whether we have some politicians that want to get credit for pressuring governors to open when it was happening anyway.

There's another concern. IHME is now showing mobility. That's based on things like cell phone data. In most cases travel was already stopping before stay at home orders were issued. The economy would have been in trouble even without orders. That means that removing them won't get it back to normal. One thing governors need to do is reopen with sufficient precautions that people feel safe in using all those businesses that have reopened. At this point, building confidence is more important than removing regulations.

Here's a NY Times article on the topic: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/07/upshot/pandemic-economy-government-orders.html. The title is "Government Orders Alone Didn’t Close the Economy. They Probably Can’t Reopen It." It's worth reading. There's lots of interesting data there.

The big problem now is going to be schools. I think we'll be OK during the summer. While IHME's projections have been a bit optimistic in the past, I'm inclined to accept the current versions, which show things slowly getting better. By the end of June all businesses will be open but with additional precautions, and I think it will be OK. But evidence now suggests that while kids don't commonly get seriously ill, they still get the virus and can spread it. Schools are the kind of close environment where it's going to spread easily.

From a practical point of view, we'll have to reopen schools in the fall, except maybe in NYC. They'll do things to make them safer, but I wonder how effective that will be. My prediction is that we'll have another wave in the fall due primarily to spreading in the schools.
 
Last edited:

hedrick

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
683
Age
75
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
I would argue that from an economic point of view, the best approach is a slow opening, putting distancing rules in place for each area. They will start out fairly serious, but they'll make people feel safe. Then as confidence builds, slowly relax.
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,695
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Just about all areas are in the process of opening up. The trick now is to set up sufficient rules to keep us out of trouble in the future, while letting most activity continue.

The key thing is that rules have to be proportionate and consistent. A large part of the problem is when there is a total lack of consistency. As I've said before I really need a new pair of sneakers. Apparently it's far too dangerous for me to go to the local shoe store, where I can try on shoes at my leisure and probably not come within 20 feet of anyone else except when it's time to pay, but at the same time it's apparently safe for me to go to Walmart with everyone else.

It's a bit odd that the war would happen at the point where opening is already happening. I can't help wondering whether we have some politicians that want to get credit for pressuring governors to open when it was happening anyway.

Opening is happening in some areas but if you've been without a paycheck for eight weeks, have been trying to feed your family using whatever's left of your credit line knowing that credit line is going to cost you 20% interest or more until you pay it off, which you'll struggle to do, there's no sign of your area reopening for no apparent reason, and the fuhrer is calling you and people like you cowardly for wanting nothing more selfish and cowardly than to feed your family, it's easy to see the potential for serious civil unrest. Seriously, I'm surprised we haven't already seen civil unrest.

You're almost certainly right that people want to take credit for things. It seems to be that both sides of the political aisle are as bad as each other there - Democrat governors seem quite happy with flouting federal law in setting up sanctuary cities while being unhappy when counties flout their executive orders to reopen, while Republicans seem happy to flout a Democrat governor's orders while being unhappy about the flouting of federal law involved in sanctuary cities. I guess it's just human nature - we want the credit for the good stuff without the blame for the bad stuff.

There's another concern. IHME is now showing mobility. That's based on things like cell phone data. In most cases travel was already stopping before stay at home orders were issued. The economy would have been in trouble even without orders. That means that removing them won't get it back to normal. One thing governors need to do is reopen with sufficient precautions that people feel safe in using all those businesses that have reopened. At this point, building confidence is more important than removing regulations.

This is certainly a very serious point, and I think it supports the case for opening earlier rather than later. The fact that people are allowed to do something doesn't mean they are required to do it. People who feel unsafe, for whatever reason or no reason, will still be welcome to stay home and isolate themselves if they consider it wise. The fact we are allowed to go for a dine-in meal at a restaurant doesn't obligate anyone to do it, and if people regard everyone else as a long range deadly threat they are less likely to gather in places like stadiums, pubs, restaurants etc.

A major problem the economy will have is the way the media is hyping the virus on a daily basis. When the constant talk is of people "risking their lives for a haircut" all it does is stoke fear. People were risking their lives for a haircut before the virus - driving to the salon is not a risk-free activity - but deaths and injuries on the roads are more or less accepted as the price we pay for free movement.

The simple reality is that life comes with risk. Freedom comes with risk. My freedom to ride my mountain bike down a steep rocky trail implies the risk of coming off my bike at speed. The freedom to drive to the store implies the risk of a motor accident along the way. The freedom to go for a drive just for the pleasure of the drive implies, to use the parlance beloved by the media lately, the freedom to risk my life and the lives of others purely for my own pleasure. Going back to the difference between permission and mandate, the people who are comfortable with a higher level of risk will do things like mountain biking and bungee jumping. People who are unhappy with any level of risk are free to lock the doors and hide under the bed.

Here's a NY Times article on the topic: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/07/upshot/pandemic-economy-government-orders.html. The title is "Government Orders Alone Didn’t Close the Economy. They Probably Can’t Reopen It." It's worth reading. There's lots of interesting data there.

I'll need to read that later so I can take in the data, although the headline makes the same (valid) point you made earlier.

The big problem now is going to be schools. I think we'll be OK during the summer. While IHME's projections have been a bit optimistic in the past, I'm inclined to accept the current versions, which show things slowly getting better. By the end of June all businesses will be open but with additional precautions, and I think it will be OK. But evidence now suggests that while kids don't commonly get seriously ill, they still get the virus and can spread it. Schools are the kind of close environment where it's going to spread easily.

This comes back to the point in the article from The Atlantic I posted earlier - eliminating risk is unrealistic so the best course of action is to understand it and mitigate it to an appropriate level, based on individual circumstance. A child in school who is being raised by grandparents in poor health may need to learn remotely a while longer, while a child raised by healthy parents who never interacts closely with older people doesn't need anywhere near as many precautions.
 

hedrick

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
683
Age
75
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
I don’t think there’s any doubt that the decrease will slow, and some areas will see spikes. It’s less clear that the overall effect will be unacceptable. I think even the slow pace of reopening in NJ is slowing our decrease. That doesn’t mean I’m opposed. I’d like to see more specifics from the projections cited.

the only projections i know that give all states are IHME. I definitely see a price for opening there, but probably one the states are willing to pay.
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,695
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I don’t think there’s any doubt that the decrease will slow, and some areas will see spikes. It’s less clear that the overall effect will be unacceptable. I think even the slow pace of reopening in NJ is slowing our decrease. That doesn’t mean I’m opposed. I’d like to see more specifics from the projections cited.

the only projections i know that give all states are IHME. I definitely see a price for opening there, but probably one the states are willing to pay.

Especially when there is a very high price in staying closed.

If we open too fast we may see a spike in cases, that may result in an unacceptable number of deaths. This is the bit where some people start howling that even one death is one too many, ignoring the deaths that will result from a prolonged shutdown.

If we open too slowly we will definitely see a huge price paid. We've gone over the price of shutdowns before - they include economic costs, the social and human costs of an economic depression (deaths from despair, suicide, substance abuse etc) as well as the social and human costs associated with people being trapped with their abusers (both spousal abuse and child abuse).

Essentially all we have is a guessing game, where on one side some people will suffer and some people will die, and on the other side some people will suffer and some people will die. Increases in deaths from economic depression are reasonably well known, even if they end up being higher than expected if the economic issues are more severe than hoped. Increases in deaths from an increase in COVID cases are largely guesswork, based on models that may or may not be useful.

I say the models may or may not be useful because they predicted much higher death rates and it's difficult to know for sure whether the higher death rates were never seen because of earlier lockdowns or because the models were just wrong.
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,695
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Further to the above, since we apparently have seen spikes in cases following the "hugely irresponsible" protests performed by people not keeping distance and not wearing masks, my guess based on that is that increases in cases following reopening are likely to be relatively low.
 
Top Bottom