US could reach 1,000,000 coronavirus cases today, definitely tomorrow.

[aggiesal]

That's more than the next 7 highest countries cases all together!
We are not even flattening the curve.

All this winning, we should open the country and get back to work.

[VMA131Marine]

1. We will hit 60,000 deaths tomorrow or Wednesday at latest

70,000 deaths probably by next Monday, one week from today. And states are opening back up without testing and contact tracing in place.

[Johnny2X2X]

2. IS it still trending to zero?

You just know that if it gets to zero this Fall, Trump will say, "See, I told you so, trending to zero! Bigly."

[Ms. Toad]

10. The rate of increase in new cases has stopped -

but it is still treanding away from zero . . . but you knew that

[aggiesal]

11. When did the rate stop increasing? ...

Here are the last 10 days totals from Johns Hopkins:

Date, Total, Daily Increase
4/17, 699,700 31,900
4/18, 732,200 32,500
4/19, 758,800 26,600
4/20, 784,300 25,500
4/21, 811,900 27,600
4/22, 840,200 28,300
4/23, 869,200 29,000
4/24, 905,400 36,200 <---- Highest Daily increase in U.S.
4/25, 938,200 32,800
4/26, 965,800 27,600

[Ms. Toad]

14. You're not looking at rate of increase, you're looking at absolute numbers of new cases.

Last edited Mon Apr 27, 2020, 03:25 PM - Edit history (1)

(And you're also picking out a single day (which is dependent on a lot of things, and subject to change for a couple of weeks as they sort out where the new cases really belong due to the changed definitions).

The rate of increase began slowing down around 3/22.

Here is the daily multiplier (divide the total number of cases by the total number the day before). Note the downward trend from teh first day (March 22) to the last (April 26). The increase in cases has been in a downward trend for more than a month, from the number of cases growing at a rate of 36% (or higher) to now growing at a rate of 2%. I've bolded the interruptions in the downward trend.

1.360962567
1.353634578
1.388969521
1.31661442
1.280952381
1.307311029
1.30521327
1.180464779
1.250692095
1.266847024
1.241312367
1.184860807
1.166710665
1.174793529
1.135689522
1.127618079
1.167543992
1.139443514
1.119326211
1.112917887
1.091841365
1.07177292
1.06692776
1.093258223
1.087463848
1.067039618
1.072854892
1.050283059
1.039917622
1.047724994
1.062609386
1.051783204
1.048857895
1.058864514
1.020022184
1.02132483

Looking strictly at the increase in new cases (as opposed to the total number of cases) shows the same thing - but it's a bit more erratic because the numbers are smaller (so more statistical noise). But you can still see a trend. I've bolded the days the number of new cases actually went down, since I think it makes the trend easier to see.

1.935894802
1.098386754
1.083099816
1.205013828
1.293699563
1.07805883
1.038910712
1.031730622
1.148821315
1.085312756
1.070146171
1.128832306
1.077466873
1.053343099
0.746096127
1.22708034
1.072023037
0.954748059
1.049530052
1.004212573
0.889964505
0.915221834
0.971872074
1.010190847
1.119625825
0.9822745
1.081654436
0.8948748
0.899858713
1.077279516
0.927233301
1.156111026
1.057467834
1.221675186
0.909158581
0.748440103

So despite single day highs (like 3 days ago), you can see that the growth of new cases decreasing is decreasing - and even when it is increasing (a numer greater than 1), the rate of increase (numbers to the right of the decimal) is going down.

Further - the number are in flux as states are still adjusting to the new definition. The cases from 3 days ago are likely to be spread backwards at least to some extent. The process is that they all come in on the day reported - BUT - then they are adjusted backward to the diagnosis (most likely the death that was reclassified). The number of new cases for close to a month back were recently adjusted up by about 2000 a day (with a corresponding decrease in the most recent reports).

My numbers include the adjustments - which is why people who have seen the first list of numbers before may be surprised becasue there are more interruptions in the downward trend, reflecting the additionof later-added cases.

Keep in mind, you need to look at trends - not absolute numbers on any day. There are far too many variables for a single day's data to be statistically significant. Look at at least 3 days befor eyou decide the trend is changing.

For example the increase in new cases on March 22 (1.95) looks extremely scary - it nearly doubled in a single day. but if you look at the days surrounding, it puts it in context: 1.234010041, 0.860958783, 1.935894802, 1.098386754. Bouncing around, for sure - but when you compare the March 22 growth to the surrounding days it becomes clear it is a statistical oddity, not a trend.

[aggiesal]

15. Just to get a better understanding of your explanation ...

what numbers did you use to come up with each of these percentage groups?

Can you give an example of each?
Thanks!

[Igel]

18. I'll assume Aggie means some A&M.

Let's say 3/25 is your starting point. Call it day x.

3/26 is day x+1.

The increase for 3/26 is (x+1)/x.

For 3/27 it's (x+2)/(x+1).

Piece of tiramisu to spreadsheet.

Even then Ms. Toad's numbers are just close to what you'd expect--the jumps are sometimes artefacts and in a perfect data universe wouldn't be there. Take the weekend: The number of tests administered jumped significantly in the last few days. Even without any new infections, you suddenly increase testing you're going to get new cases, and a lot of them. It's like counting the number of Latino students in school: Today you check out classroom 101 and get 8 Latino students, tomorrow room 102 and count 9, next day room 103 and get count 8, and the day after that you count the students in classrooms 104-108 and get 35. It matters that each day it was 8 or 9 out of 35 and on day 4, when you counted 35 Latino students, it's out of 150.

Her method assumes that the testing rate doesn't change. When it does, there's a jump, and when it's fairly consistent it gives pretty good results. It's quick, easy, and not far off. It's not even clear (at least to li'l ol' me) how to adjust the testing numbers to make them spot-on perfect, because the increase in testing recently has shifted the rate of positives downward.

[aggiesal]

20. That's how I figured the bottom set of numbers, ...

And Ms. Toad's data shows what my data showed for the bottom set of numbers.

Here is some additional data from the last 10 days.

Date, Total 7 days, 30 Day Average
4/17, 203,165, 23,027
4/18, 205,800, 23,937
4/19, 203,500, 24,647
4/20, 203,627, 25,287
4/21, 204,200, 25,943
4/22, 204,800, 26,550
4/23, 201,400, 27,183
4/24, 205,700, 27,987
4/25, 206,000, 28,480
4/26, 207,000, 28,803

When the rate stops, I would expect the numbers for both Total 7 Days and 30 Day Average to start coming down, and they are not. Both are increasing except the Total 7 Days for 4/18 to 4/19 actually went down.
When graphing the 30 day average, the curve is starting to flatten but it is currently still increasing.

Total 7 Days, is the sum of all new cases for the previous 6 days plus current day.
30 Day Average is just that average of the previous 29 days plus current day.

Except that the daily numbers keep bouncing gives me hope that the 7 day and 30 day average will eventually start to come down.

But the disappointing part is seeing days like last Friday setting a US record for most cases in 1 day, comes 5-8 days after the Capital protests occurred.

BTW, Aggie means New Mexico State! Go, Go, Goooo Aggies!
Only University fight song, in the US, that mentions alcohol.

[Ms. Toad]

21. It's just a simple daily multiplier

(I've got another, more complex formula), but this is simple enough to observe trends (whether we're stepping hard on the accelerator (1.BIG#) - or taking our foot off it enough to be gaining speed at a slower rate (1.SMALLER#), or have taken our foot off enough so that we're actually slowing down (<1.0).

So for the first number in each series, the March 22 number (33840 total cases) and divide it by the March 21 total cases (24419 total cases). Or, for new cases: I take the March 22 total (9422 new cases) and divide it by the march 21 total (4867 new cases). Mostly I use the first series - the larger weight (bigger numbers) makes it less prone to zig-zagging when there is a single odd jump.

[asiliveandbreathe]

3. The madman of 1600 will spin to say 100,000 recovering..and

pivot to the economy... all that rosy stuff he is fed by his aides, just so they don't get caught in his ranting and raving..

I still wonder who fed him the disinfectant and UV light info..

Good Morning America..

[Backseat Driver]

6. Ummm...yeah, about the bleach thing:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2020/04/report-trump-suggested-injecting-disinfectant-after-hearing-from-church-of-bleach-founder/

If you want to go there: GenesisII church in a browser to give you more insight.

Not sure about the UV light info...maybe this? https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/quality/efficacy-of-uv-c-disinfection-robots-confirmed-by-va-study.html

but the FDA said that Dr. Robert Rowen's internal ozone therapy was quackery, (process involves removing blood, infusing it, and returning it to the patient) - Some private clinics have gone rogue from FDA-approved medical care and provide this therapy. which as explained, seems very convincing. The Doc's claims there's been FB page censorship, so he cross-posts on another platform.

Then there's those ozone air disinfectant processes. Remember when commericial dryers used an ozone generation during the coin drying cycles to remove germs/odors. These were then removed as unhealthy for laundromat users and the environment because the ozone escaped and polluted our air...Ozone air purification is still offered as a method to sanitize/remove odors in rental units between tenants along with HVAC duct-cleaning. Discussion here on how and when to use: https://www.airpurifiers.com/pages/ozone

https://www.ozonetech.com/sites/default/files2/pdf/Ozone_disinfection_of_SARS_Contaminated_Areas.pdf

Initially, there was also resistance to IV Vitamin C with or without other supplements like zinc for reducing viral loads of SARS-CoV2 tht tax the immune-system fighting off the disease. Andrew Saul had been successful in approval of use and/or clinical trials in China of the IV therapy. Where IV isn't possible, he advocates for oral administration and explains the dosages and discusses the bioavailabilty of several versions of this vitamin here: He's the Vitamin Man in youtube videos/documentaries

There's just no way Dimwit Donnie has knowledge of these things, and it's taken me a long time to do some research to unearth non-tech information, but if there's bunk to be had, Donnie sure collects it in his "artificially intelligent" brain cells.

[asiliveandbreathe]

7. Ozone Therapy..OMG..there are several facilities in AZ..

Is that what you are referring to..I shudder to think about my daughter, she had her own Massage business in Mass..she would attend seminars in AZ, visit with mom of course..this time she went to an Ozone facility in Scottsdale to learn about Ozone therapy..and treatments for illnesses..

OMG.. as she tells the story she watched Ozone therapy be administered, then, she took an Ozone treatment..she was sitting in her car in Scottsdale, calling me, hubby and I raced to her..brought her home, nausea, and diarrhea..she never did that again..as a healer by nature she had hoped to bring natural healing to her clients who suffered from different ailments..

[Quixote1818]

4. It will be today for sure. Nt

[Leith]

5. Less than 7,000 away

at the time of this post.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

[Newest Reality]

8. USA! #1

[Ms. Toad]

9. No "could" about it.

We will reach a million today. We haven't seen fewer than 15,000+ new cases in more than a month, and as of last night we were less than 15,000 from a million.

[not_the_one]

12. If we had the proper testing, it would probably 2,000,000+

His whole point of dragging his feet with testing is he didn't want ACTUAL accurate data to be released. It would make him look like the incompetent EPIC LOSER he is.

The # of dead will also be much higher, after taking into account the earlier arrival of the virus and an accurate reflection of assisted living deaths.

But PARTY ON, red states. You have only just begun... Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch. Tots and pears.

[aggiesal]

13. ++++++, then there is this ...

[Igel]

17. I don't know what teh graph's telling me.

Or maybe I do and I don't want to say they're trying to manipulate me.

A while back the CDC issued revised guidelines for reporting deaths.

Some large jurisdictions went back and reclassified deaths: confirmed COVID, probably COVID. Is this reporting on just confirmed or the probables, as well? Not all have done this--or, if they did, it's not clear that they have. The death numbers jumped and everybody went "ooh" and "aah".


If it's just reporting confirmed numbers, the numbers are nothing new but seem new because they've had a different color of paint put on their box. And it means that the dead that aren't reported (according to how people read that graph) are largely already being reported in the official numbers--and adding them back in counts them twice.

Can't tell what's included just from what's posted.

It's also worth noting that the CDC numbers report not just COVID-positive deaths, but also pneumonia deaths (separate column), with the "COVID-positive + pneumonia" numbers also broken out separately.

[aggiesal]

19. It says that the number of deaths exceeds ...

the average number of seasonal deaths.
That's to be expected with Covid-19.

But, this shows more deaths that are NOT included in the Covid-19 deaths (A lot more)!
Maybe these deaths should be determined if they are Covid-19 or not.

[brooklynite]

16. We're Numbest One!!!