D
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Surprise! Red Tier Now Begins Sunday; Downtown Disney Restaurants???
- Thread starter TP2000
- Start date
Disney Irish
Premium Member
Yep, the 7-day average for all of California has gone down.
Mac Tonight
Well-Known Member
"less than one other person"...
What would that be? A child?
I'll show myself out.
truecoat
Well-Known Member
1 out of 8 recovering from hospital stays dies with in 5 months.
https://news.yahoo.com/1-8-recovered-coronavirus-patients-163924460.html
D
Deleted member 107043
Yes. I'm curious what the current transmission rates are for LA and Orange counties. I know they're tending down, but I can't find comparative county information anywhere on the internet.
Emmanuel
Well-Known Member
D
Deleted member 107043
Thanks. What I'm looking for are the R numbers for LA and OC. I'd like to compare them to the SF transmission rate (0.99) Mayor Breed referenced today.
I'm not sure what an R number is, but have you looked at the County information on the main California website? They have a nifty map that you can click on each county for stats.
COVID-19 Home
covid19.ca.gov
MoonRakerSCM
Well-Known Member
1 in 8 people who were hospitalized die?
Hm... per the article itself-
"Out of 47,780 discharged hospital patients, 29.4 percent were readmitted within 140 days. Of those, 12.3 percent died."
By those numbers... 29.4% of 47,780= 14,047.3 people get readmitted... then, per the article's OWN text- "Of THOSE, 12.3 percent died."... so, 12.3% of 14,047.3= 1,727.8 people die.
So, of the people originally discharged from hospitals (47,780), 1,727.8 died.... so 1,727.8/47,780= 0.036 aka 3.6%... so that's 1 in 27 people...
NOT 1 in 8.
Fake news. Of interest, obviously no comments on yahoo news, but on the source of the article (thegrio????) there are comments pointing this out. Nothing will come of it, but hey, as long as that false "1 in 8 people" headline spreads fear right?
Hm... per the article itself-
"Out of 47,780 discharged hospital patients, 29.4 percent were readmitted within 140 days. Of those, 12.3 percent died."
By those numbers... 29.4% of 47,780= 14,047.3 people get readmitted... then, per the article's OWN text- "Of THOSE, 12.3 percent died."... so, 12.3% of 14,047.3= 1,727.8 people die.
So, of the people originally discharged from hospitals (47,780), 1,727.8 died.... so 1,727.8/47,780= 0.036 aka 3.6%... so that's 1 in 27 people...
NOT 1 in 8.
Fake news. Of interest, obviously no comments on yahoo news, but on the source of the article (thegrio????) there are comments pointing this out. Nothing will come of it, but hey, as long as that false "1 in 8 people" headline spreads fear right?
MoonRakerSCM
Well-Known Member
Meanwhile today, Newsom and his masters of SCIENCE AND DATA declared that we, the public, are too stupid to be allowed to see covid data they use for their policies-
apnews.com
California keeps key virus data out of public sight
Experts in infectious disease and public access are criticizing California’s secrecy in how it calculates when to lift stay-at-home orders.
apnews.com
Meanwhile today, Newsom and his masters of SCIENCE AND DATA declared that we, the public, are too stupid to be allowed to see covid data they use for their policies-
California keeps key virus data out of public sight
Experts in infectious disease and public access are criticizing California’s secrecy in how it calculates when to lift stay-at-home orders.
Imagine thinking it's ok to destroy people's businesses and prevent them from making a living based on data that you keep secret.
Absolutely terrifying living in California.
el_super
Well-Known Member
Considering what has been passed off on this board as science and data, they're probably right.
Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
That’s the thing, some people are too stupid.Meanwhile today, Newsom and his masters of SCIENCE AND DATA declared that we, the public, are too stupid to be allowed to see covid data they use for their policies-
California keeps key virus data out of public sight
Experts in infectious disease and public access are criticizing California’s secrecy in how it calculates when to lift stay-at-home orders.
Emmanuel
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure what an R number is, but have you looked at the County information on the main California website? They have a nifty map that you can click on each county for stats.
COVID-19 Home
The R number is what was touted in some of the meetings Mayor Garcetti had early on. The R number references to the infection rate, basically how many people are getting infected by one person that has it.
What Is R0? Gauging Contagious Infections
R0 indicates how contagious a disease is. Learn how it works and the R0 values for various diseases.
www.healthline.com
The objective locally is to get that R0 down below 1.0 as that means less people getting infected. Any rate above 1.0 means more infected by one person. LA County throughout last summer did decent in keeping it below 1.0 but then the surges happened afterwards and the rest is history.
By bringing it down, you'll see a reduction of cases which in turn reduces hospitalization
I checked the state website and unfortunately it appears that County R0s aren't viewable when you go over to a county
Bob Harlem
Well-Known Member
el_super
Well-Known Member
I found some data from UCI, that estimates what the R number is for Orange County from the beginning of January:
Orange County, CA COVID Situation Report Apr 21, 2021 - May 26, 2021
www.stat.uci.edu
- Basic reproductive number (R0), defined as the average number of secondary infections one infectious individual produces in a completely susceptible population, is estimated to be between 0.6 and 2.9.
- Effective reproductive number (Re), defined as its basic counterpart above, but allowing for some fraction of the population to be removed (recovered or deceased), is estimated to be between 0.4 and 1.1 on January 15, 2021. We want to keep Re<1Re<1 in order to control virus transmission.
To touch a little bit on the concept that the science needs to be kept from those that don't understand it, when you are estimating such a wide margin for something like R number (between 0.6 and 2.9), you have to play toward the worst case scenario and hope for a better outcome, than just assume that 0.6 means the virus isn't an issue and this is all a hoax.
But I'm sure someone will see this and completely misinterpret these numbers within hours.
If I owned a business he was keeping closed, I would be angry beyond belief.Meanwhile today, Newsom and his masters of SCIENCE AND DATA declared that we, the public, are too stupid to be allowed to see covid data they use for their policies-
California keeps key virus data out of public sight
Experts in infectious disease and public access are criticizing California’s secrecy in how it calculates when to lift stay-at-home orders.
Hmmm... an "effective" R0 number is figured out by the increase and decrease of cases. Thus, I regard it as no more helpful than just a chart of daily caseload.I found some data from UCI, that estimates what the R number is for Orange County from the beginning of January:
Orange County, CA COVID Situation Report Apr 21, 2021 - May 26, 2021
View attachment 526202
- Basic reproductive number (R0), defined as the average number of secondary infections one infectious individual produces in a completely susceptible population, is estimated to be between 0.6 and 2.9.
- Effective reproductive number (Re), defined as its basic counterpart above, but allowing for some fraction of the population to be removed (recovered or deceased), is estimated to be between 0.4 and 1.1 on January 15, 2021. We want to keep Re<1Re<1 in order to control virus transmission.
To touch a little bit on the concept that the science needs to be kept from those that don't understand it, when you are estimating such a wide margin for something like R number (between 0.6 and 2.9), you have to play toward the worst case scenario and hope for a better outcome, than just assume that 0.6 means the virus isn't an issue and this is all a hoax.
But I'm sure someone will see this and completely misinterpret these numbers within hours.
A real R0 needs to come from randomized sampling of the population for who has it, who doesn't, and who had it.
It's like how the positivity number isn't too helpful if you're not randomizing those being tested but rely on self-selecting subjects.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Good governance does demand transparency. While something like a dashboard would not be an appropriate venue for such information, there are other more appropriate means of publishing research and modeling such as journals. The information should be shared and subjected to review like all good data. Those who are going to misinterpret it, either accidentally or more likely intentionally, will do so regardless and the absence of the information only provides support for such misinformation. Secrecy breeds misinformation.I found some data from UCI, that estimates what the R number is for Orange County from the beginning of January:
Orange County, CA COVID Situation Report Apr 21, 2021 - May 26, 2021
View attachment 526202
- Basic reproductive number (R0), defined as the average number of secondary infections one infectious individual produces in a completely susceptible population, is estimated to be between 0.6 and 2.9.
- Effective reproductive number (Re), defined as its basic counterpart above, but allowing for some fraction of the population to be removed (recovered or deceased), is estimated to be between 0.4 and 1.1 on January 15, 2021. We want to keep Re<1Re<1 in order to control virus transmission.
To touch a little bit on the concept that the science needs to be kept from those that don't understand it, when you are estimating such a wide margin for something like R number (between 0.6 and 2.9), you have to play toward the worst case scenario and hope for a better outcome, than just assume that 0.6 means the virus isn't an issue and this is all a hoax.
But I'm sure someone will see this and completely misinterpret these numbers within hours.
DisneyDrum
Well-Known Member
I guess no one read the article that this is about covid restrictions that have been loosened earlier than folks were expecting. It’s also about ICU modeling, which is dependent on things like how many doctors and nurses are available.Meanwhile today, Newsom and his masters of SCIENCE AND DATA declared that we, the public, are too stupid to be allowed to see covid data they use for their policies-
California keeps key virus data out of public sight
Experts in infectious disease and public access are criticizing California’s secrecy in how it calculates when to lift stay-at-home orders.