Every. Single. Day. We have to keep going through the exact same conversation. Every. Single. Day. And usually with the same people.

Call me when there’s a substantial change in trends of the pandemic, like no new cases in the state for a couple of weeks. Meanwhile, I’ll just be over here in my bunker.

This pandemic has exposed just how widespread innumeracy and an inability to read even basic graphs is amongst the American public

Georgia is still looking good and they had a week head start on everyone. But on the other hand, Texas positives is steadily going up. Not sure how much increase in testing they have had.On April 13 Texas reported about 8000 test results. On May 13 the number was around 50,000 results.

On April 13 Texas reported about 8000 test results. On May 13 the number was around 50,000 results.

Thanks for the info. That was a substantial increase.

This pandemic has exposed just how widespread innumeracy and an inability to read even basic graphs is amongst the American public

Probably more about putting what your seeing into context. You have to know where the data is coming from and if anything has changed on collecting that data.

This pandemic has exposed just how widespread innumeracy and an inability to read even basic graphs is amongst the American public

To be fair I had to get my smart engineer son who's actually done work on pandemic growth calculations and exponential curves and all that kind of stuff to explain some of the charts to his dumb old man.

Every. Single. Day. We have to keep going through the exact same conversation. Every. Single. Day. And usually with the same people.

Yup, at about the same time. I posted some links and all the dataI see shows good news.

To be fair I had to get my smart engineer son who's actually done work on pandemic growth calculations and exponential curves and all that kind of stuff to explain some of the charts to his dumb old man.

Hey good on you for seeking more information though

Call me when there’s a substantial change in trends of the pandemic, like no new cases in the state for a couple of weeks. Meanwhile, I’ll just be over here in my bunker.

I can bet you that, in 10 years, there will still be 100s of new cases EVERY SINGLE DAY. Same with the flu. You are deceiving yourself if you think this is going away for the rest of this planet's lifespan. Just throwing that out there. It is here forever. A vaccine won't end it, either.

I can bet you that, in 10 years, there will still be 100s of new cases EVERY SINGLE DAY. Same with the flu. You are deceiving yourself if you think this is going away for the rest of this planet's lifespan. Just throwing that out there. It is here forever. A vaccine won't end it, either.

My point was, with all the niggling over what's in and what's out, nothing substantial, and verifiably real has changed locally since about early April, and probably won't for some time. Substantial ...no new cases locally, or very few locally, or triple cases locally, would a substantial change. Yes, that may never happen. Meahwhile, unless we go off the chart in increase or decrease, it's just people arguing on the internet about faulty data. Mostly, trying to confirm their biases.

Call me when there’s a substantial change in trends of the pandemic, like no new cases in the state for a couple of weeks. Meanwhile, I’ll just be over here in my bunker.

LOL. I want one.

Urge your state senator to vote NO on SB 1102. This bill proposes wresting authority from local authorities and handing it over to the Governor during health emergencies. In my opinion mayors have a better understanding of local conditions on the ground versus one person applying one size fits all across the state. Additionally Mayors are held to account by the folks they serve and are less susceptible to national pressure or lobbyists.

Urge your state senator to vote NO on SB 1102. This bill proposes wresting authority from local authorities and handing it over to the Governor during health emergencies. In my opinion mayors have a better understanding of local conditions on the ground versus one person applying one size fits all across the state. Additionally Mayors are held to account by the folks they serve and are less susceptible to national pressure or lobbyists.

It appears it already passed (by a large margin in both chambers). My Rep. voted against it, and my Sen. was absent (but probably would've voted against it).

Saw a very interesting story on NBC Nightly News how cities are closing streets to let restaurants have more outdoor seating . Could this work in Bricktown? Just have street car access for free?

As far as “% positives of all tests”, we should be expecting a decrease anyway as more testing is being opened up to anyone who wants testing. In the past you had to have had pretty significant clinical symptoms, often combined with a significant exposure history, to even get a test done. So with that high focus on highly probable clinical cases being tested we would expect a higher percentage of those tests to result in positive tests.

Now we are doing a lot more surveillance testing, which includes wider testing of people who are not suspected of having the disease to begin with to identify asymptomatic carriers. You can call up a number and drive down to the fairgrounds to get tested. It’s easy for contacts to get tested even if there is minimal likelihood of transmission.

So yes, lower percentages of positive cases can be the result of spread being contained. It can also very easily be the result of expanding testing from only testing people who are most likely to have the disease to testing anyone and everyone who wants a test and increased surveillance testing. It’s certainly a combination of both factors.

https://twitter.com/KassieMcClung/status/1261695403059286017?s=20

16082

Updated for Saturday:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/corona051620a.jpg

How many of the 151 were from the Plant this time? I know more testing means numbers will go up but not liking the fact we are over 100 a day now.

How many of the 151 were from the Plant this time? I know more testing means numbers will go up but not liking the fact we are over 100 a day now.

If they are processing more tests, that's to be expected. You focus on one number, that has no real context in this schedule, unfortunately.

If they are processing more tests, that's to be expected. You focus on one number, that has no real context in this schedule, unfortunately.

That is the good question? I think it's somewhere? How many more test are being processed in a day? Still seems like to me this is a limit to how many they can do in a day? If that is the case does the more test me higher numbers really come into play? If you process 3,000 a test a day and 150 come back positive and the next day you process 3,000 test again and 200 are positive how can you say more testing are leading to higher numbers?

That is the good question? I think it's somewhere? How many more test are being processed in a day? Still seems like to me this is a limit to how many they can do in a day? If that is the case does the more test me higher numbers really come into play? If you process 3,000 a test a day and 150 come back positive and the next day you process 3,000 test again and 200 are positive how can you say more testing are leading to higher numbers?Look up the daily Executive Order Reports and do the math yourself.

Looks like it's 5000ish/day the last few days. That better than Colorado, which is testing about the same numbers. Texas had a goal of 25k per day but their numbers vary wildly - though it looks like OK is doing better per capita.

Saw a very interesting story on NBC Nightly News how cities are closing streets to let restaurants have more outdoor seating . Could this work in Bricktown? Just have street car access for free?

I’ve been proposing this idea. It makes so much sense. It creates a lot of space. For example, consider the Plaza and Paseo Districts closed off. Parking spots could be tables. Streets could allow more space for walking. Yes, it’ll be harder to get there, but the trade off is worth it.

I’ve been proposing this idea. It makes so much sense. It creates a lot of space. For example, consider the Plaza and Paseo Districts closed off. Parking spots could be tables. Streets could allow more space for walking. Yes, it’ll be harder to get there, but the trade off is worth it.

I think it's a great idea - even permanently in some cases ...... at least during the nice weather months.

Saw a very interesting story on NBC Nightly News how cities are closing streets to let restaurants have more outdoor seating . Could this work in Bricktown? Just have street car access for free?

It would work now, but would be too hot and miserable by the 4th of July.

Moving dining outside...good as long as weather permits. Taking a streetcar so you can eat outside instead of parking close and eating inside doesn’t make a lot of sense from a distancing stand point. That’s about equivalent exposure, depending.

Public trans and dining inside...out. For my high risk self for the foreseeable future at least. YMMV

If they are processing more tests, that's to be expected. You focus on one number, that has no real context in this schedule, unfortunately.

There are more people being tested, yes, but there's also a backlog of tests being processed. How do you know what this notable daily increase in positive tests means? It may be nothing or it could be that the numbers would be even greater if the processing labs were able to keep up with the new specimens.

Importantly, we do not know, and one of the only things we can look to as a benchmark is daily new positives. The trend over the last five days is not looking good.

Depending on the lab, it also takes a while for samples to be processed. A positive reported today could have been collected 5 days ago. So the numbers are already a look at the past.

Depending on the lab, it also takes a while for samples to be processed. A positive reported today could have been collected 5 days ago. So the numbers are already a look at the past.

And that is why I think this is an important week to see what the numbers are like. We opened the First. Good couple of days of people being out let's say 5 days. Another 5 Days to show symptoms. Up to 10 days now. Couple days to get test 12 days and 5 days to get results 17 days. If we make it though this week without a big jump i'll be feeling much better about all this

Saw this chart and it seems to show states with longer quarantine have higher rates. At the least its interesting data

Saw this chart and it seems to show states with longer quarantine have higher rates. At the least its interesting data

I couldn't get it to enlarge where i could read it easily, but it appeared, in general, the states with a shorter quarantine were also less densely populated - which, if true, I think is a bigger factor than the number of days a quarantine lasted.

I couldn't get it to enlarge where i could read it easily, but it appeared, in general, the states with a shorter quarantine were also less densely populated - which, if true, I think is a bigger factor than the number of days a quarantine lasted.

Those lower rate states have massive cities like in Texas and Georgia. Look at all the big cities in Texas. No data set is perfect and it will take years of study to get best data.

73 new cases
0 new deaths

https://i.imgur.com/tLu1i0q.jpg

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-cases.html#states

73 new cases
0 new deaths

88 new cases
0 new deaths

Lets keep this good news going!

2 days and 0 deaths

Lets hope the Virus is weakening. On a side not how many deaths under 50 in the last few weeks. Seems like the numbers of deaths for the age ranges for under 50 have been the same for a while now.

Lets hope the Virus is weakening. On a side not how many deaths under 50 in the last few weeks. Seems like the numbers of deaths for the age ranges for under 50 have been the same for a while now.

Here’s a report but it updates weekly and this covers thru 14 May so is most recent.

Average age of cases (not deaths) is 50

The average age of individuals who died was 75 years.

https://coronavirus.health.ok.gov/sites/g/files/gmc786/f/2020.05.15_weekly_epi_report.pdf

Where pdf data resides (so this is where to get weekly report)

https://coronavirus.health.ok.gov/weekly-epidemiology-and-surveillance-report

Also, reposting this link it shows cases and deaths by zip code for Oklahoma:

https://looker-dashboards.ok.gov/embed/dashboards/46

I received confirmation today that the reported total only includes lab confirmed positive cases, and that they are not counting positive cases who are diagnosed via the point-of-care rapid testing unless they are are confirmed. I had a lengthy conversation with the epidemiologist today and neither one of us could quite understand why they are doing that. This would mean that our daily total is very much under reported because most places are not gonna to lab confirm positive rapid test results. The sensitivity is pretty good regarding positives, and false positives aren’t really an issue, so there is no point in doing an additional test that runs the risk of a false negative and uses up valuable testing kits (the rapid test uses different supplies than the lab test). Most facilities use the same process that we are using, treat positive rapid tests as positive, and confirm symptomatic negative rapid tests via lab testing.

I received confirmation today that the reported total only includes lab confirmed positive cases, and that they are not counting positive cases who are diagnosed via the point-of-care rapid testing unless they are are confirmed. I had a lengthy conversation with the epidemiologist today and neither one of us could quite understand why they are doing that. This would mean that our daily total is very much under reported because most places are not gonna to lab confirm positive rapid test results. The sensitivity is pretty good regarding positives, and false positives aren’t really an issue, so there is no point in doing an additional test that runs the risk of a false negative and uses up valuable testing kits (the rapid test uses different supplies than the lab test). Most facilities use the same process that we are using, treat positive rapid tests as positive, and confirm symptomatic negative rapid tests via lab testing.

So are you talking about the Abbot test that gets results in 15 minutes? They are not counting those anymore? Anything to keep the numbers lowers is really the end game in all of this. SMH

So are you talking about the Abbot test that gets results in 15 minutes? They are not counting those anymore? Anything to keep the numbers lowers is really the end game in all of this. SMH

Actually that means the death rate is better. Since deaths won’t change based on this it means the positives show lower thus inflates the death rate. More tests with same death rate means lower death rate.

Actually that means the death rate is better. Since deaths won’t change based on this it means the positives show lower thus inflates the death rate. More tests with same death rate means lower death rate.

I don't think that "death rate" has been anyone's focus; the total # is the total # and it's alarmingly high no matter.

So are you talking about the Abbot test that gets results in 15 minutes? They are not counting those anymore? Anything to keep the numbers lowers is really the end game in all of this. SMH

That is the information I was given. We started to use those machines and I was working with my health department contact to determine the process for reporting our positives. I’m hoping that my information is wrong, because that would be a large number uncounted.

I don't think that "death rate" has been anyone's focus; the total # is the total # and it's alarmingly high no matter.

Agree, but my point is how they use tests and deaths to determine how high the death rate is. Thats allI was replying to not downplaying deaths. If thats how it comes across I apologize. I was strictly looking at it from data pov. If more tests and same deaths means the percent of who can die is lower. To me thats good news meaning more people have less chance of death if they do catch it. Any decrease in deaths is good news imo.

Lots of people have been using death rate to equate Covid-19 to the flu, so IMO discussions around that are generally meant to minimize the current situation.

Lots of people have been using death rate to equate Covid-19 to the flu, so IMO discussions around that are generally meant to minimize the current situation.

All I did was respond to another poster and explain what higher tests mean in relation to deaths in a positive way. I never mentioned flu in my post at all. Not sure why my posts are being selected to question so I’ll stay out of this topic to not confuse anyone

Lots of people have been using death rate to equate Covid-19 to the flu, so IMO discussions around that are generally meant to minimize the current situation.

I personally think the death rate IS the most important factor. I don't use it to equate Covid-19 to anything. I use it to gauge how seriously I think the pandemic is in general.

Lots of people have been using death rate to equate Covid-19 to the flu, so IMO discussions around that are generally meant to minimize the current situation.

I never been a fan of comparing this to the flu. However when you look at the total of number of deaths for people under the age 50 is it much worse than the flu? I see 10 deaths in what 2 months now. So over a 6 month period we would be 30 deaths. Probably about the same as the flu?

I never been a fan of comparing this to the flu. However when you look at the total of number of deaths for people under the age 50 is it much worse than the flu? I see 10 deaths in what 2 months now. So over a 6 month period we would be 30 deaths. Probably about the same as the flu?

Are we going to act like people over 50 don't matter. If you're young you're probably going to be OK. As fo Grandma, well she had a good run.

Lets hope the Virus is weakening. On a side not how many deaths under 50 in the last few weeks. Seems like the numbers of deaths for the age ranges for under 50 have been the same for a while now.

Hopefully this is the case, and we don't get a fall spike. Hospitalizations are down and deaths are down. These are currently falling faster than reported positives which really have stayed around the same trend line for over a month now. So either doctors have better treatment protocols,virus is starting to mutate to a less severe form or summer does matter.

I never been a fan of comparing this to the flu. However when you look at the total of number of deaths for people under the age 50 is it much worse than the flu? I see 10 deaths in what 2 months now. So over a 6 month period we would be 30 deaths. Probably about the same as the flu?

Most studies have the IFR (infection fatality rate) as around 0.5% with a decent confidence interval between 0.3% and 0.8%. For comparison, the flu’s IFR is usually 0.05%, so this is at least 10 times worse, possibly up to 20 times worse

https://twitter.com/vprasadmdmph/status/1262427578477842434?s=21

Most studies have the IFR (infection fatality rate) as around 0.5% with a decent confidence interval between 0.3% and 0.8%. For comparison, the flu’s IFR is usually 0.05%, so this is at least 10 times worse, possibly up to 20 times worse

https://twitter.com/vprasadmdmph/status/1262427578477842434?s=21

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/coronavirus/antibody-tests-continue-suggest-covid-19-far-more-widespread-less?utm_source=justthenews.com&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=external-news-aggregators&fbclid=IwAR2bxTzCH_a1BVYNXsWFwfqpUa3fF3X9ctWy4nqBO _AHuOrfUEJ3A34wzII

Bottom line is we really have not clue. Right now the death rate is just based of confirmed cases.

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/coronavirus/antibody-tests-continue-suggest-covid-19-far-more-widespread-less?utm_source=justthenews.com&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=external-news-aggregators&fbclid=IwAR2bxTzCH_a1BVYNXsWFwfqpUa3fF3X9ctWy4nqBO _AHuOrfUEJ3A34wzII

Bottom line is we really have not clue. Right now the death rate is just based of confirmed cases.

No, we have a pretty good idea. Please look at actual peer-reviewed data rather than *squints* justthenews.com

No, we have a pretty good idea. Please look at actual peer-reviewed data rather than *squints* justthenews.com

https://www.biospace.com/article/multiple-studies-suggest-covid-19-mortality-rate-may-be-lower-than-expected-/ I don't think we do. We can agree to disagree. I don't even think the test are accurate either. See stories all the time of people testing negative 3 or 4 times before testing positive. It's really the Age. I was just looking at people under the age 50 and I'm not trying to throw grandma under the bus. This is a horrible virus for older generation. I was just looking at the under 50 age group that is all.

In Italy for example the Death rate under 40 is .01% .04% 40-50 Flu like numbers was all i'm trying to figure out? We need to protect the older generation. Give them the money and bail outs to stay home and stay protected.

https://www.biospace.com/article/multiple-studies-suggest-covid-19-mortality-rate-may-be-lower-than-expected-/ I don't think we do. We can agree to disagree. I don't even think the test are accurate either. See stories all the time of people testing negative 3 or 4 times before testing positive.

Despite how the name may sound, biospace.com is not a peer reviewed website either, nor does it do any original research or anything. The site I posted collects the actual peer reviewed studies to show what the IFR is, and again those are pretty participate robust and indicate that this thing is 10 to 20 times more deadly than the flu. There are no reputable studies out there that say this is anywhere close to the flu’s mortality.

In Italy for example the Death rate under 40 is .01% .04% 40-50 Flu like numbers was all i'm trying to figure out?

So when you don't like the numbers you say we really don't have a clue, but when you find some that fit your narrative you cite them like they're the gospel. Make up your mind.

Despite how the name may sound, biospace.com is not a peer reviewed website either, nor does it do any original research or anything. The site I posted collects the actual peer reviewed studies to show what the IFR is, and again those are pretty participate robust and indicate that this thing is 10 to 20 times more deadly than the flu. There are no reputable studies out there that say this is anywhere close to the flu’s mortality.

I get where your coming from. I was just looking at it by age group. My friend had to go back to work this week. 64 with COPD but SS won't pay him enough to stay home. Those are they type of people we need to look at giving extra money too and protect. Not the healthy 35 year old . JMO

I get where your coming from. I was just looking at it by age group. My friend had to go back to work this week. 64 with COPD but SS won't pay him enough to stay home. Those are they type of people we need to look at giving extra money too and protect. Not the healthy 35 year old . JMO
I ‘m glad to read this. Honestly the way I read the first couple posts regarding over or under 50 it really sounded like you were saying anyone over 50 didn’t matter. And from a couple other posts I wasn’t alone.

I ‘m glad to read this. Honestly the way I read the first couple posts regarding over or under 50 it really sounded like you were saying anyone over 50 didn’t matter. And from a couple other posts I wasn’t alone.

No i'm totally for protecting the older population. I think we kind of are going about this all wrong. The death rate is so low for the under 50 if you will. Let them out but practice social distancing but let them work. Let them keep the economy going. Heck those NBA players still were going to play even with the virus cause they still felt good. Keep the older population home and use bail out money for them. Keep them home and away from the grand-kids. Give them the extra money to stay home.

We totally failed at protecting nursing homes

.... I think we kind of are going about this all wrong. The death rate is so low for the under 50 if you will. Let them out but practice social distancing but let them work. Let them keep the economy going. ...
We totally failed at protecting nursing homes

That pretty much mirrors my opinion - and appears to mirror a significant percentage of the population, if you step outside and have a look around. Spend stimulus keeping those most at risk sheltered (voluntarily) until we hopefully find a vaccine or substantive treatment plan or prevention. But don't lock down the whole country and then start throwing money at it.

I personally don't care if it's equal or 100x worse than the flu. This entire pandemic has been handled miserably in my opinion - both on the part of the government, 'experts' and the population. Hopefully we've learned something, but I doubt it.