Do you think that Disney world will reclose its gates due to the rising number of COVID cases in Florida and around the country?

[Miss Bella]

These two states are not improving much. Keep in mind standards for being admitted have changed, and the capacity to admit people has decreased.

What are the new standards to be admitted?

 

[oceanbreeze77]

What are the new standards to be admitted?

many hospitals prioritizing admitting the most dire cases. Remember that triage conversation we had?

Also Texas has just brought in the Navy to help.

 

[Miss Bella]

many hospitals prioritizing admitting the most dire cases. Remember that triage conversation we had?

Also Texas has just brought in the Navy to help.

Do you actually have proof that this is occurring at any hospital in Arizona.

 

[October82]

Yes the exchange does speak for itself. Now you are going back to opinions and theories. There is not a single day were actual deaths that happened that day (not when reported) have gone over 100 at this time. That is an absolute fact. There is currently no data that shows day of death is at 100 or over.

Except in the data that I posted which shows exactly that. Since I am not interested in needless internet arguments, I was curious about differences in the data collection methodologies and looked at the underlying data sources used to generate these figures. Although the New York Times Covid tracker number is discrepant with the numbers you posted, this is because the number you posted is a subset of the NY Times data that also includes deaths reported to local governments. Again, this is factual and not a matter of opinion.

There is a factual difference in methodology which has led to slightly different absolute numbers representing similar trends. The whole point of responding to the 100 number was to simply point out that the original person you responded to and tried to correct had, in fact, shared a number that is credible and available from a source with good data practices. What ultimately matters here is the overall trends, which as we should all agree by now, are not good.

The really important point here is that, when you're interested in understanding an unfamiliar dataset, the steps you take are to understand how it was collected and how reliable it is. This is very different to what you do if you already know the point you want to make before you do the research - where if you've concluded in advance that the number must be low, you find a source you agree with and post only that link.

The under reporting is a theory and a concern, but so is overcounting, with Covids etc. but that is not point. The rest is just your opinion and creating some agenda about whatever.

There is a very large body of evidence that undercounting occurs, especially in the day to day data. is because of time lags and (when it comes to cases) failures in the adequacy of testing. There is a wide variety of scientific literature (not news media articles) which measure the degree of undercounting, so that the public health response can be better managed. We know undercounting is a problem, while over counting is not.

Like I said, the factual statement is the average "reported" daily number of deaths due to Covid is above 100 in Florida. The actual people that die that day is less than that and has never gone above or near 100.

Are you saying that is not true?

That is incorrect, yes.

"Reported" in this case means reported to government agencies/listed as cause of death/etc. not "reported" as in, "news reporter".

 

[carolina_yankee]

I agree with legwand77 that Florida is probably not experiencing 100 or more reported deaths per day, but I would have to add a *yet.* I’m not on Team Legwand77 overall, but I see the point being argued.

If Florida reports 156 deaths due to Covid on a particular day, of which 80+ are from the specific previous day and the remains 70ish are from multiple previous days, that’s true. That happens in NJ all the time. Governor reported 32 deaths a few days ago, but said the majority were backfilling all the way to April with only 14 of that daily total reported deaths having occurred in July.

To me, where the argument fails is that “reported deaths” are increasing, and we have no reason to supposed that yesterday’s deaths won’t be backfilled to be an actual higher number.

I still have to say, compared to NJ and NY when we were at our peaks, even the increasing numbers of daily reported deaths in FL is lower than our daily reported deaths at our peaks. I pray that continues, but I don’t think it means anything is “safer.” Reported deaths are increasing and we don’t know where they will stop, and we don’t know what kind of long-term health affects are going to haunt those dramatically increasing numbers of infected. Those daily new cases are more than twice as many as we experienced in NJ at our peak for a population that is about twice as high as NJ. And we were hit hard.

I’m still not on Team Shut-it-all-down, though, but I am on Team-Stop-Being-an-Idiot when it comes to certain behaviors that are keeping Florida’s numbers high. One only hopes that the increased emphasis on behavior and the shutting down of certian things a couple of weeks ago will start to show in declining cases in the next week or two.

In teams of WDW itself, I would like be there if there weren’t quarantines in either direction, but it’s probably a good thing that there are. We simply can’t let things slip up here and go back to where we were.

 

[easyrowrdw]

How is any of this relevant to the thread topic?

Indeed. I gave up on the actual Coronavirus thread because it was just this ad nauseum.

 

[legwand77]

Except in the data that I posted which shows exactly that. Since I am not interested in needless internet arguments, I was curious about differences in the data collection methodologies and looked at the underlying data sources used to generate these figures. Although the New York Times Covid tracker number is discrepant with the numbers you posted, this is because the number you posted is a subset of the NY Times data that also includes deaths reported to local governments. Again, this is factual and not a matter of opinion.

There is a factual difference in methodology which has led to slightly different absolute numbers representing similar trends. The whole point of responding to the 100 number was to simply point out that the original person you responded to and tried to correct had, in fact, shared a number that is credible and available from a source with good data practices. What ultimately matters here is the overall trends, which as we should all agree by now, are not good.

The really important point here is that, when you're interested in understanding an unfamiliar dataset, the steps you take are to understand how it was collected and how reliable it is. This is very different to what you do if you already know the point you want to make before you do the research - where if you've concluded in advance that the number must be low, you find a source you agree with and post only that link.



There is a very large body of evidence that undercounting occurs, especially in the day to day data. is because of time lags and (when it comes to cases) failures in the adequacy of testing. There is a wide variety of scientific literature (not news media articles) which measure the degree of undercounting, so that the public health response can be better managed. We know undercounting is a problem, while over counting is not.



That is incorrect, yes.

"Reported" in this case means reported to government agencies/listed as cause of death/etc. not "reported" as in, "news reporter".

My link and dataset is from the CDC and state government report. For someone so concerned about datasets I thought you would realize that

 

[October82]

My link and dataset is from the CDC and state government report. For someone so concerned about datasets I thought you would realize that

Yes, and I do care about data and understanding what it means. I understood that your link was to a Florida government dataset for Covid 19 related deaths. As before, I think this exchange speaks for itself and doesn't need to be elaborated on further.

If you want to use the numbers from the Florida website as a way to inform your thinking, just make sure and take into account the limits of that data compared to more comprehensive sources that others might be using.

 

[hopemax]

To clarify even more you are stating the current deaths reported by day is 7 day rolling at 100.

The actual death by day rolling 7 day is has never gone above 80 and is been flat for a week, at least up till when the data is current, reliable death counts

for the "Source?" people -

https://fdoh.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=230270972343459a812a1ae8c28574a6&sublayer=0&view=list&sortOrder=true&sortField=defaultFSOrder#data

So the question is are there 4 more deaths for 7/7 still to be recorded? 9 more deaths for 7/6? 20 more deaths for 7/11 or 7/12?

 

[Chef Mickey]

What in the world could possibly be your point?

Um, that cases are continuously hammered by the media and they aren't super important if other metrics are trending downward and you consider the testing environment is different today than 3 months ago?

"Record cases" has a good media ring, but requires deeper analysis.

No one is "minimizing" the effect of the virus. We are trying not to be irrational and maintain some objectivity and perspective. This is not even close to the #1 risk to public health. This really sucks. I'm not one to say it doesn't, but life will go on and has to. Wear a mask, take precautions and live your life.

The problem now is people refusing to wear masks correctly or at all. If they did, this virus probably wouldn't even be a major story anymore. That is unfortunate.

 

[legwand77]

So the question is are there 4 more deaths for 7/7 still to be recorded? 9 more deaths for 7/6? 20 more deaths for 7/11 or 7/12?

Yes that could be the case, but the trends shows that most deaths are only backfilled and spread out to not affect the numbers on any given day that much. It also appears that the excess deaths that were unaccounted for are diminishing so there are not as many to back date any more. The past two weeks there was a jump in backfilled deaths because of the loosing of the death with Covid classification that happened in mid June. Once CDC loosened that classification they were able to work through the excess deaths and code them correctly, hence the jump in backfilled deaths the past few weeks. Now the number of unclassified deaths are lower the amount of backfills death will decrease.

 

[legwand77]

Except in the data that I posted which shows exactly that. Since I am not interested in needless internet arguments, I was curious about differences in the data collection methodologies and looked at the underlying data sources used to generate these figures. Although the New York Times Covid tracker number is discrepant with the numbers you posted, this is because the number you posted is a subset of the NY Times data that also includes deaths reported to local governments. Again, this is factual and not a matter of opinion.

There is a factual difference in methodology which has led to slightly different absolute numbers representing similar trends. The whole point of responding to the 100 number was to simply point out that the original person you responded to and tried to correct had, in fact, shared a number that is credible and available from a source with good data practices. What ultimately matters here is the overall trends, which as we should all agree by now, are not good.

The really important point here is that, when you're interested in understanding an unfamiliar dataset, the steps you take are to understand how it was collected and how reliable it is. This is very different to what you do if you already know the point you want to make before you do the research - where if you've concluded in advance that the number must be low, you find a source you agree with and post only that link.



There is a very large body of evidence that undercounting occurs, especially in the day to day data. is because of time lags and (when it comes to cases) failures in the adequacy of testing. There is a wide variety of scientific literature (not news media articles) which measure the degree of undercounting, so that the public health response can be better managed. We know undercounting is a problem, while over counting is not.



That is incorrect, yes.

"Reported" in this case means reported to government agencies/listed as cause of death/etc. not "reported" as in, "news reporter".

Dished up a big plate of word salad there, that pretty much doesn’t say anything. That is impressive.

Although the New York Times Covid tracker number is discrepant with the numbers you posted, this is because the number you posted is a subset of the NY Times data that also includes deaths reported to local governments.

So you are saying The NY Times and/or COVID tracker number is more definitive and a better data set than state and CDC direct info. That the cdc number is a subset of The NY Times? the CDC does include local numbers. But if it makes you feel better to use non government sources and media companies go for it. Doesn’t change the facts. There is zero data that 100 or more people have ever died so far in 24 hours in Florida due to Covid. Zero nada, none, and you have shown me and data showing that , even using Nytimes data etc.

It might happen

Reported versus the actual number that died that day. Not reported like whatever definition you came up with.

Not quite going to get it I see. But alas. Moving on.

 

[Polkadotdress]

Yes that could be the case, but the trends shows that most deaths are only backfilled and spread out to not affect the numbers on any given day that much. It also appears that the excess deaths that were unaccounted for are diminishing so there are not as many to back date any more. The past two weeks there was a jump in backfilled deaths because of the loosing of the death with Covid classification that happened in mid June. Once CDC loosened that classification they were able to work through the excess deaths and code them correctly, hence the jump in backfilled deaths the past few weeks. Now the number of unclassified deaths are lower the amount of backfills death will decrease.

Wait, so you’re saying the numbers are back filled, but moving forward they won’t be back filled, so 7 days from now when we hit 150+ consistently the reason will be...???

 

[October82]

Dished up a big plate of word salad there, that pretty much doesn’t say anything. That is impressive.

I'm not interested in winning arguments on the internet, so if you don't think I've said anything worthwhile, that's cool. I hope others find them meaningful since that's why I'm posting.

So you are saying The NY Times and/or COVID tracker number is more definitive and a better data set than state and CDC direct info.

I'm saying what I said there, that the Florida DOH dataset is a subset of the data on the New York Times page. Which to the best of my understanding from looking at both datasets and the available documentation is correct.

But if it makes you feel better to use non government sources and media companies go for it. Doesn’t change the facts.

No, nothing we argue about will change the facts. What the facts are is that the New York Times pulls the data directly from the reports to a variety of government agencies, while the page you linked to is more limited in its intent. Again, the first thing you should do if you're actually interested in understanding a dataset is to understand the methods that produced it and how different datasets have taken different approaches. That's what I've tried to do, and it has given me new insights I wouldn't have otherwise had.

There is zero data that 100 or more people have ever died so far in 24 hours in Florida due to Covid. Zero nada, none, and you have shown me and data showing that , even using Nytimes data etc.

I'll let this speak for itself.

It might happen

Reported versus the actual number that died that day. Not reported like whatever definition you came up with.

The definition of "reported" isn't something I came up with. My description of the methodology that produced this dataset is in the documentation for the data.

Not quite going to get it I see. But alas. Moving on.

There's nothing to get here aside from the fact that some datasets are subsets of others, subject to reporting inaccuracies and time delays, etc. And that's the same point you're making as well - you just prefer the Florida government link you shared to the combined Federal, state, local dataset the New York Times compiles and publishes. Neither is better or worse than the other, they're just different and can probably answer different questions if you take the time to dig deeper into them.

This should be an obvious point to make, but it seems like it needs to be said. If you feel like you these threads are more about defending your views than learning about things and discussing, then it probably is time to take a break from posting. This whole discussion came back to the simple point that according to reliable datasets, the number of deaths has been over 100 per day. This is just a fact about the number of deaths given the reporting and collection methodology. There's not much more to say about it.

 

[Basil of Baker Street]

I'm not interested in winning arguments on the internet, so if you don't think I've said anything worthwhile, that's cool. I hope others find them meaningful since that's why I'm posting.



I'm saying what I said there, that the Florida DOH dataset is a subset of the data on the New York Times page. Which to the best of my understanding from looking at both datasets and the available documentation is correct.



No, nothing we argue about will change the facts. What the facts are is that the New York Times pulls the data directly from the reports to a variety of government agencies, while the page you linked to is more limited in its intent. Again, the first thing you should do if you're actually interested in understanding a dataset is to understand the methods that produced it and how different datasets have taken different approaches. That's what I've tried to do, and it has given me new insights I wouldn't have otherwise had.



I'll let this speak for itself.



The definition of "reported" isn't something I came up with. My description of the methodology that produced this dataset is in the documentation for the data.



There's nothing to get here aside from the fact that some datasets are subsets of others, subject to reporting inaccuracies and time delays, etc. And that's the same point you're making as well - you just prefer the Florida government link you shared to the combined Federal, state, local dataset the New York Times compiles and publishes. Neither is better or worse than the other, they're just different and can probably answer different questions if you take the time to dig deeper into them.

This should be an obvious point to make, but it seems like it needs to be said. If you feel like you these threads are more about defending your views than learning about things and discussing, then it probably is time to take a break from posting. This whole discussion came back to the simple point that according to reliable datasets, the number of deaths has been over 100 per day. This is just a fact about the number of deaths given the reporting and collection methodology. There's not much more to say about it.

Looks like you're trying to win an argument. Just sayin'

 

[legwand77]

Wait, so you’re saying the numbers are back filled, but moving forward they won’t be back filled, so 7 days from now when we hit 150+ consistently the reason will be...???

Yes, not back filled as much. This is because the pool of excess deaths to code Covid under the new rules have diminished, less of a backlog of unclassified deaths. If it hits 150, yes less numbers will be backfilled for the 2-3 months range, ithere still will be some due to data lags will be much more heavily in the < 2 week range.

I do thinks deaths sadly will go up a bit more, like I have been saying, for a week or so and then start falling if trends stay the same.

 

[carolina_yankee]

Dished up a big plate of word salad there, that pretty much doesn’t say anything. That is impressive.

Although the New York Times Covid tracker number is discrepant with the numbers you posted, this is because the number you posted is a subset of the NY Times data that also includes deaths reported to local governments.

So you are saying The NY Times and/or COVID tracker number is more definitive and a better data set than state and CDC direct info. That the cdc number is a subset of The NY Times? the CDC does include local numbers. But if it makes you feel better to use non government sources and media companies go for it. Doesn’t change the facts. There is zero data that 100 or more people have ever died so far in 24 hours in Florida due to Covid. Zero nada, none, and you have shown me and data showing that , even using Nytimes data etc.

It might happen

Reported versus the actual number that died that day. Not reported like whatever definition you came up with.

Not quite going to get it I see. But alas. Moving on.

“So far” is not very confidence building. Theoretically, everything could level off and never top the 100 threshold but I can’t imagine a real world argument where that’s likely. Florida‘s in for a rough 3-4 more weeks at least as hospitalizations reflect infections, and deaths reflect hospitalizations. I hope the percentages aren’t what they were in the NE, and if they keep it out of LTC’s, they may not be. But disruption due to illness and isolation in a state that isn’t fully prepared to manage this is going to continue.

 

[Parker in NYC]

“So far” is not very confidence building. Theoretically, everything could level off and never top the 100 threshold but I can’t imagine a real world argument where that’s likely. Florida‘s in for a rough 3-4 more weeks at least as hospitalizations reflect infections, and deaths reflect hospitalizations. I hope the percentages aren’t what they were in the NE, and if they keep it out of LTC’s, they may not be. But disruption due to illness and isolation in a state that isn’t fully prepared to manage this is going to continue.

I put a lot of faith in my dad’s take on everything Covid. He’s been right up to this point, and he said Florida numbers will continue rising and sustaining through October (at the earliest) unless lockdowns happen. He predicted October for indoor dining in NYC back in April, and he’s still on track for that thus far.

 

[carolina_yankee]

Sadly, one projection set suggests that would be optimistic.

IHME | COVID-19 Projections

Explore forecasts of COVID-19 cases, deaths, and hospital resource use.

covid19.healthdata.org

Unless Mask usage becomes nearly universal.

 

[legwand77]

The Orlando Sentinel had to explain the difference today between reported deaths and when it actually occurred. Lots of people are confused about it, even some here , maybe they explained it better.

The day a death is reported and the day the death actually occurred are not the same.