Covid-19 in OKC (coronavirus)

[RustytheBailiff]

Not sure where this data comes from, but is this supposed to state that Oklahoma has 257 deaths per 1,000,000 people?

OSHD reports 1031 Covid deaths. With a population of roughly 4 Million, yes that equates to 257 deaths per million.

[Rover]

To compare Oklahoma’s experience with NY/NYC is not a fair comparison. The dense urban breeding ground and extensive international visitors and domestic visitors, not to mention commuters, made a toxic situation when little to nothing was known about the virus. Here and now in Oklahoma is way, way different, but it seems like we still have tons of deniers here and petulant citizens who would rather not be inconvenienced to try to protect their fellow citizens.

[BoulderSooner]

Oklahoma by the way is 1,379 deaths BELOW the excess deaths threshold for the 2020 year ....

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/c...ess_deaths.htm

[jedicurt]

Oklahoma by the way is 1,379 deaths BELOW the excess deaths threshold for the 2020 year ....

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/c...ess_deaths.htm

as of right now. yes. but deaths can be reported months later. the largest increase in death reporting each year occurs when filling taxes for that year. so assuming April 15th 2021 is the 2020 tax deadline, that is when there is the last major reporting of deaths for the 2020 year.

[Bill Robertson]

as of right now. yes. but deaths can be reported months later. the largest increase in death reporting each year occurs when filling taxes for that year. so assuming April 15th 2021 is the 2020 tax deadline, that is when there is the last major reporting of deaths for the 2020 year.

Can you cite where you get this? That's interesting.

[jedicurt]

Can you cite where you get this? That's interesting.

i'm not finding the specific mention of that on the page anymore. but it was a large reason for the starting of this project by the CDC and Department of Health back in 2018

https://www.cdc.gov/surveillance/pro...se-deaths.html

it does still state that even one of the project goals is to get the information about drug overdose deaths within 90 days. so if that is the goal, it helps to still make it clear that the current process is still way longer than 90 days for most reporting.

https://www.cdc.gov/surveillance/pro...eath-data.html

here provides some more information about the difference between provisional and final data. and i might have been wrong on the tax deadline being a major one. but i do know that the final numbers from states don't come out until well into the end of Q1 or early Q2 of the following year. i might have just assumed it was because of the tax deadline and filing of that persons taxes with death certificate.

[dankrutka]

Your posts are making less and less sense.

And why on earth are you posting links to tiny, obscure sites using data from one Sunday?

Media illiteracy among adults is really astounding and is central to so many of our failures as a country, including COVID. Young people too, but I'm astounded by adults who just pass around uncited emails and believe the nonsense. It's pretty unbelievable.

Anyway, I teach media literacy and one of the biggest challenges is that much of the news we see interacts with our preexisting ideas and prevents us from evaluating the source. But three questions for civic online reasoning (https://cor.stanford.edu/) I teach are:

1. Who's behind the information?
2. What's the evidence?
3. What do other sources say?

For many people, their socioemotional motivations and news illiteracy are so high that these questions don't work, but it's worth a try.

[Pete]

1.170 new caes today. 7-day rolling average is now 1,018.

Hospitalizations are 610, -18 compared to yesterday.

4 more reported deaths.

236 new cases in OK County.

[Bill Robertson]

i'm not finding the specific mention of that on the page anymore. but it was a large reason for the starting of this project by the CDC and Department of Health back in 2018

https://www.cdc.gov/surveillance/pro...se-deaths.html

it does still state that even one of the project goals is to get the information about drug overdose deaths within 90 days. so if that is the goal, it helps to still make it clear that the current process is still way longer than 90 days for most reporting.

https://www.cdc.gov/surveillance/pro...eath-data.html

here provides some more information about the difference between provisional and final data. and i might have been wrong on the tax deadline being a major one. but i do know that the final numbers from states don't come out until well into the end of Q1 or early Q2 of the following year. i might have just assumed it was because of the tax deadline and filing of that persons taxes with death certificate.

Thanks. I'll read these. I'm somewhat amazed but probably shouldn't be that in this day things can take so long to record.

[Pete]

BTW, our 7-day rolling average has been above 1,000 new cases for the last 13 straight days.

Previously, we had only been over that mark for 2 days total.

[DowntownMan]

BTW, our 7-day rolling average has been above 1,000 new cases for the last 13 straight days.

Previously, we had only been over that mark for 2 days total.

Do we know how many of these are rapid tests? We could have been over 1000 for a long time possibly.

[Bill Robertson]

Do we know how many of these are rapid tests? We could have been over 1000 for a long time possibly.

I don't know if there's anywhere you can find type-of-test break downs. I don't think you can. But, at the risk of getting in trouble, the high positives do follow a similar increase in total test results reported.

[Pete]

As has been stated repeatedly, the reason they now include rapid tests is they are currently reliable.

Before, people that were rapid-tested pretty much all had to turn around and take a traditional test and double-testing has never been counted.


Positives cases are positive cases.

As per the White House report and my own tracking, Oklahoma is 5th in the nation over the last 2 weeks when it comes to new positive cases per capita.

That is horrible no matter how you want to slice the data.

[Bill Robertson]

But we get so stuck on the daily number. If we processed 100,000 tests per day it's likely that we'd have 10,000 positives a day. We have run, within a small range, the same positivity rate for some time. So the number of positives track right with the number of tests processed. The ranking of Oklahoma's new positive cases is during a period of new records of tests processed. Math is math.


Numbers taken directly from the weekly Epidemiology Reports. Positives averaged line and total tests average line look alike. The high numbers of positives the last two weeks follow a large increase in tests processed. They just do.

[Pete]

^

What on earth difference does it make?

If we were testing way more and positivity went down, you might have a point.


As a reminder, deaths and hospitalizations have been trending up as well.

[Bill Robertson]

I'm very concerned about deaths and hospitalizations. But just sticking to daily/weekly positive test results and where Oklahoma ranks nationally. And it's not just here this happens it's a number of sites. If it's going to be noted how many days we're above 1000 or the average is above 1000 or we're 5th in new cases per capita then it must also be kept in context that it is because of increased testing volume. And those things are because of increased testing volume. This thing is bad, sad and depressing enough without making it sound worse than it is. Constant negative, negative, negative is eventually going to cause some people who are trying now to give up. It's that way with any situation.

[Pete]

I'm very concerned about deaths and hospitalizations. But just sticking to daily/weekly positive test results and where Oklahoma ranks nationally. And it's not just here this happens it's a number of sites. If it's going to be noted how many days we're above 1000 or the average is above 1000 or we're 5th in new cases per capita then it must also be kept in context that it is because of increased testing volume. And those things are because of increased testing volume.

This is the "we'd have fewer cases if we did less testing" logic.

[foodiefan]

Media illiteracy among adults is really astounding and is central to so many of our failures as a country, including COVID. Young people too, but I'm astounded by adults who just pass around uncited emails and believe the nonsense. It's pretty unbelievable.

Anyway, I teach media literacy and one of the biggest challenges is that much of the news we see interacts with our preexisting ideas and prevents us from evaluating the source. But three questions for civic online reasoning (https://cor.stanford.edu/) I teach are:

1. Who's behind the information?
2. What's the evidence?
3. What do other sources say?

For many people, their socioemotional motivations and news illiteracy are so high that these questions don't work, but it's worth a try.

Hear, Hear!!

[Bill Robertson]

This is the "we'd have fewer cases if we did less testing" logic.

No it's not. Less testing would only mean lots more positives we don't know about. The actual cases are there either way. We have WAY more cases than we even know. Which is why I haven't gone anywhere since March without hand sanitizer and an N95 mask. I'm NOT trying to minimize the real problem. I'm just trying to point out that using out of context data to show Oklahoma is doing a worse job than maybe we really are isn't fair to Oklahoma. BTW, our RT, which I put a lot of faith in has been right around 1. We're in the 20 lowest RTs in the country because that formula has testing volume in the equation because it does matter.

[Pete]

No it's not. We have WAY more cases than we even know. Which is why I haven't gone anywhere since March without hand sanitizer and an N95 mask. I'm NOT trying to minimize the real problem. I'm just trying to point out that using out of context data to show Oklahoma is doing a poor job isn't fair to Oklahoma.

No matter what you argue, it doesn't explain away the fact we are #5 in new cases per capita nationwide.

That's terrible. Period.

[Bill Robertson]

No matter what you argue, it doesn't explain away the fact we are #5 in new cases per capita nationwide.

That's terrible. Period.

I was done. But. We've only raised to 5th because of the increased number of tests processed. That is not disputable. Period. I won't ever argue that the virus is HORRIBLE. Just that the data is being misused.

[Pete]

I was done. But. We've only raised to 5th because of the increased number of tests processed. That is not disputable. Period. I won't ever argue that the virus is HORRIBLE. Just that the data is being misused.

The data is not being misused.

And of course there are more cases because of more tests. Again, what difference does this make when compared comparatively to other states we are near the very bottom?

And are more tests leading to more hospitalizations and more deaths?

Your logic is highly flawed.

[Bill Robertson]

The data is not being misused.

And of course there are more cases because of more tests. Again, what difference does this make when compared comparatively to other states we are near the very bottom?

And are more tests leading to more hospitalizations and more deaths?

Your logic is highly flawed.

You're refusing to look at data and only data. Using data out of context to make the situation look worse than it is misuses data. The situation is bad enough without noting where we rank in new cases based on numbers that are only higher because testing volume has increased. We have only raised to 5th because we are testing more. Would you feel better if we were 25th but still only testing an average of 5000 per day. Then our positives would be around 500 per day and we would be somewhere in the bottom 20. And. Again, I'm just talking new case data and using it to compare to other states or even just to discuss how well or badly we're doing. And please stop bringing up deaths and hospitalizations. I've already conceded that they are very concerning.

[C_M_25]

You're refusing to look at data and only data. Using data out of context to make the situation look worse than it is misuses data. The situation is bad enough without noting where we rank in new cases based on numbers that are only higher because testing volume has increased. We have only raised to 5th because we are testing more. Would you feel better if we were 25th but still only testing an average of 5000 per day. Then our positives would be around 500 per day and we would be somewhere in the bottom 20. And. Again, I'm just talking new case data and using it to compare to other states or even just to discuss how well or badly we're doing. And please stop bringing up deaths and hospitalizations. I've already conceded that they are very concerning.

My suggestion is to not bother with this argument. I tried this logic months ago, and you will just go round and round with no end in sight. I think you will find that a lot of people agree with you, but it doesn’t fit the narrative that a majority of the people here want to push.

[Rover]

My suggestion is to not bother with this argument. I tried this logic months ago, and you will just go round and round with no end in sight. I think you will find that a lot of people agree with you, but it doesn’t fit the narrative that a majority of the people here want to push.

The narrative is that you don’t control a pandemic by ignoring it exists. This idea that if you stick your head in the sand and if you don’t know how bad it really is, then it isn’t bad at all, is a fast leap off a tall cliff. Maybe we could make it go away by just not testing at all and reclassifying the deaths and hospital stays.

Since when is reality and truth a “narrative”?