COVID-19

Ponderer

Well-Known Member

Tony Perkis

Well-Known Member

Ponderer

Well-Known Member
On the brighter side, more in-depth reporting on how treatments targeting bradykinin storms may be the key to combating the worst of COVID-19's effects (and may also be key to treating other diseases like influenza).

"Henderson doesn’t discount cytokines’ inflammatory impact altogether but suggests that interventions targeting cytokines may have been “taking out too little of all the processes going on to have much impact.” Imagine how much easier it is to dam a river at its headwater than closer to its mouth—similarly, interventions further “upstream” in biological pathways could have a larger impact."

 

Ponderer

Well-Known Member
Based on the White House gating criteria, 17 states have uncontrolled spread. 18 are trending poorly.

1600719170525.png


(More data, including sources and criteria used for compilation, available at https://www.covidexitstrategy.org )
 

Chi84

Premium Member
Based on the White House gating criteria, 17 states have uncontrolled spread. 18 are trending poorly.

View attachment 499345

(More data, including sources and criteria used for compilation, available at https://www.covidexitstrategy.org )
Illinois is listed as trending poorly, but we have gone from a 4.5% positivity rate a few weeks ago to 3.5% today. It seems we should be in "trending better" rather than "trending poorly." Makes one wonder how accurate this data is.

Edit: If you scroll down in that site, you get some much more encouraging maps.
 
Last edited:

StarWarsGirl

Well-Known Member
Based on the White House gating criteria, 17 states have uncontrolled spread. 18 are trending poorly.

View attachment 499345

(More data, including sources and criteria used for compilation, available at https://www.covidexitstrategy.org )
Why oh why do they think MD and PA are trending poorly? MD has been trending lower; we recently went off of NY's quarantine list. PA's numbers I believe are also improving; their governor recently allowed more indoor dining to open

This was two hours ago from our Governor...
Screenshot_20200921-162923_Facebook.jpg
 

TINKWINGS

Premium Member
👍
Illinois is listed as trending poorly, but we have gone from a 4.5% positivity rate a few weeks ago to 3.5% today. It seems we should be in "trending better" rather than "trending poorly." Makes one wonder how accurate this data is.

Edit: If you scroll down in that site, you get some much more encouraging maps.

Yeah my area of Michigan has had a much better past 8 days or so.....but we were like April numbers for month prior....thus the caution warranted....it could go either way with schools opening up, gyms opening up sports opening up.....:oops:

Edited to say GO GREEN!:cool:
 

Ponderer

Well-Known Member
Certainly fair points and there are about a kazillion graphs on there that might shed light. It does say on their criteria page that some states' ILI data can be lagging. But this is how their scores are calculated:

"For each state, we use a bruised red, red, yellow, green scale to chart the progress towards achieving the gating criteria. This is calculated using a simple rule. The score is as good as the weakest measure. The measures included in the score are: NEW CASES PER MILLION PER DAY, % TEST POSITIVE, % OF TEST TARGET, ICU CAPACITY, and ILI."
 

StarWarsGirl

Well-Known Member
Certainly fair points and there are about a kazillion graphs on there that might shed light. It does say on their criteria page that some states' ILI data can be lagging. But this is how their scores are calculated:

"For each state, we use a bruised red, red, yellow, green scale to chart the progress towards achieving the gating criteria. This is calculated using a simple rule. The score is as good as the weakest measure. The measures included in the score are: NEW CASES PER MILLION PER DAY, % TEST POSITIVE, % OF TEST TARGET, ICU CAPACITY, and ILI."
It's still misleading, though. It's a wonder it didn't come from Fox News.
 

Ponderer

Well-Known Member
It's still misleading, though. It's a wonder it didn't come from Fox News.

I think that’s a bit unfair, with great respect. I agree that it could be clearer what the top map represents (and that failures in things like testing targets are part of it), but they have a page that does nothing but explain their methodology in fairly exhaustive detail, and even what data sources are more reliable, and etc. That’s why the site offers a ridiculous amount of ways to view any particular data and challenge their interpretation.
 

StarWarsGirl

Well-Known Member
I think that’s a bit unfair, with great respect. I agree that it could be clearer what the top map represents (and that failures in things like testing targets are part of it), but they have a page that does nothing but explain their methodology in fairly exhaustive detail, and even what data sources are more reliable, and etc. That’s why the site offers a ridiculous amount of ways to view any particular data and challenge their interpretation.
Isn't it?

Graphs are supposed to quickly show you data so that you can get a sense of the big picture. Charts are the place to drill down. The fact that the map graph says they're using the state's worse metric to categorize how they've placed it is misleading in itself. So a state could be trending overall positively in all of its metrics minus one and still get a negative reaction. And it combines different metrics, which is misleading. So one state might be seeing a steady positivity trend but a decrease in deaths while another might see a dramatic decrease in positivity but holding steady in deaths, so they get the same rating. Also, they've put these metrics into categories that really mean nothing (what's the difference between "trending poorly" and "uncontrolled spread"? They're both red and hard to tell the difference).

Really, they should have several graphs showing the different metrics (like positivity rates per state, hospitalization rates, etc.) instead of this giant map that basically means nothing.
 
Last edited:

StarWarsGirl

Well-Known Member
It's still misleading, though. It's a wonder it didn't come from Fox News.
Kind of off topic, but about Fox News...when I was in high school, you weren't supposed to use it as a citation because it was soooo badly biased. I took journalism and the teacher used to use articles as an example of what not to do. We also used to Google "Fox News Misleading Graphs" in our spare time because we were nerdy like that.

HuffPost was banned for the same reason
 
Top Bottom