Would be interesting if we knew China's real numbers.
USA #1 on official coronavirus numbers
6,722 Views |
40 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by Mattowander
Would be interesting if we knew China's real numbers.
It would be interesting if we knew our real numbers.
I think our real total is over 300,000 when you count all the people that were asymptomatic or had mild symptoms and were never tested.
I think our real total is over 300,000 when you count all the people that were asymptomatic or had mild symptoms and were never tested.
Merica
I don’t say this in a braggedocious way. But it’s true. I’ve been right about everything.
-Donald J Trump
-9/22/2025
-Donald J Trump
-9/22/2025
And not ok the top 5 for deaths.
If this holds (or gets more extreme) it's going to be a very bad day for all those proponents of socialized healthcare.
If this holds (or gets more extreme) it's going to be a very bad day for all those proponents of socialized healthcare.
300,000 would be incredibly light. I'm thinking 3 million since January if we're being realistic.aggie-beta said:
It would be interesting if we knew our real numbers.
I think our real total is over 300,000 when you count all the people that were asymptomatic or had mild symptoms and were never tested.
Obvious thought would be that we were going to be number 1 regardless giving the thorough healthcare system the USA has. We will likely have incredibly high numbers and low ratios in the end. My sister works for a healthcare company and they provide free testing to EVERYONE at the company regardless of symptoms or not. Our total 'cases' are going to be huge and the ratio of them that are mild/severe/critical will differ greatly from others.
Other countries do not operate like USA. I would like to know the real numbers in China or Iran.
Other countries do not operate like USA. I would like to know the real numbers in China or Iran.
Hey if there's no Olympics at least the we're beating the world at something!
Surprised to see New Jersey with 2,400 new cases, up to 6,400. That's like a 50% daily increase and counting.
TexAgs1992 said:300,000 would be incredibly light. I'm thinking 3 million since January if we're being realistic.aggie-beta said:
It would be interesting if we knew our real numbers.
I think our real total is over 300,000 when you count all the people that were asymptomatic or had mild symptoms and were never tested.
I hope you are right. If it is 3 million then this virus is super contagious but less harmful than the flu.
You're suggesting a mortality rate of .04%. I surely hope you're right.TexAgs1992 said:300,000 would be incredibly light. I'm thinking 3 million since January if we're being realistic.aggie-beta said:
It would be interesting if we knew our real numbers.
I think our real total is over 300,000 when you count all the people that were asymptomatic or had mild symptoms and were never tested.
Probably not that many cases. But I've had numerous co-workers of mine who live in Portland, the Bay Area, and NYC that travel frequently and swear they had the Rona in January or early February. But if we're talking 1.5-2 million cases, it would not shock me. My girlfriend's colleague at the University of Arkansas had a three week case of pneumonia back in January, tested negative twice for the flu and is now convinced she had it as well.CapCityAg89 said:You're suggesting a mortality rate of .04%. I surely hope you're right.TexAgs1992 said:300,000 would be incredibly light. I'm thinking 3 million since January if we're being realistic.aggie-beta said:
It would be interesting if we knew our real numbers.
I think our real total is over 300,000 when you count all the people that were asymptomatic or had mild symptoms and were never tested.
Draft paper from the guy whose model earlier predicted 500K in Great Britain and 2 million in the us. This paper models an assumption of much higher population spread probably already between 35 and 40% and deaths therefore mediate to closer to 20K. From the also linked piece in the WSJ.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/oxmu2rwsnhi9j9c/Draft-COVID-19-Model%20(13).pdf
https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-do-we-want-from-our-experts-anyway-11585237896
https://www.dropbox.com/s/oxmu2rwsnhi9j9c/Draft-COVID-19-Model%20(13).pdf
https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-do-we-want-from-our-experts-anyway-11585237896
Models say 100k by tomorrow, but as someone else sated our CFR will end up being low and our case count will be high.
We'll see on the CFR. Deaths lag new cases by around a week, so CFR tends to come up a bit as you start bending the curve (and we've only seen modest bending thus far). In addition, we might start seeing some extra deaths in places like NYC and NO (above the normal base rate) as the hospitals become more strained. Hopefully, the hot spots will come under control before we see anything like what happened in Italy, but I think there will be a bump in the CFR from that.
A much earlier / higher population spread just doesn't jive with the current hospitalization numbers.
Unless there's some other factor driving hospitalization, we can't really explain the sudden surge in New York, New Orleans, or other hot spots. Those numbers seem to indicate the virus is new to the area, not old.
If there was massive subacute spread over time there would not be a sudden spike in hospitalization like we are seeing. Of course, there's always the chance, however unlikely, that the virus got into a community a month or so ago and spread like absolute wildfire to a huge percentage of the population with only very few needing hospitalization, but that is unlikely.
Unless there's some other factor driving hospitalization, we can't really explain the sudden surge in New York, New Orleans, or other hot spots. Those numbers seem to indicate the virus is new to the area, not old.
If there was massive subacute spread over time there would not be a sudden spike in hospitalization like we are seeing. Of course, there's always the chance, however unlikely, that the virus got into a community a month or so ago and spread like absolute wildfire to a huge percentage of the population with only very few needing hospitalization, but that is unlikely.
HotardAg07 said:
Surprised to see New Jersey with 2,400 new cases, up to 6,400. That's like a 50% daily increase and counting.
Newark is basically New York City. Surprised they don't have more
Anyone have any doubt that China is full of *****
I mean, consider that in Texas, around 90% of tests that doctors gave to people who a) qualified for a test and b) got a test, were still negative.TexAgs1992 said:Probably not that many cases. But I've had numerous co-workers of mine who live in Portland, the Bay Area, and NYC that travel frequently and swear they had the Rona in January or early February. But if we're talking 1.5-2 million cases, it would not shock me. My girlfriend's colleague at the University of Arkansas had a three week case of pneumonia back in January, tested negative twice for the flu and is now convinced she had it as well.CapCityAg89 said:You're suggesting a mortality rate of .04%. I surely hope you're right.TexAgs1992 said:300,000 would be incredibly light. I'm thinking 3 million since January if we're being realistic.aggie-beta said:
It would be interesting if we knew our real numbers.
I think our real total is over 300,000 when you count all the people that were asymptomatic or had mild symptoms and were never tested.
So, there are a lot of people with respiratory illnesses getting tested and are negative.
Of course, I do agree that we are way under testing and thus our confirmed cases are much lower than reality.
Texas has done an outstanding job of limiting spread! We have fewer cases per 100k than states with virtually no density like Montana and the Dakotas. That's just exceptional. I mean, that would be virtually impossible but we've found a way. Credit to our state and local governments for finding a way to pull off the highly unlikely.
Rossticus said:
Texas has done an outstanding job of limiting spread! We have fewer cases per 100k than states with virtually no density like Montana and the Dakotas. That's just exceptional. I mean, that would be virtually impossible but we've found a way. Credit to our state and local governments for finding a way to pull off the highly unlikely.
We have been doing such a poor job of testing that I have very little confidence in our numbers.
Well, people are either dying of Covid or they're not. No guesswork there.
More likely because we don't smoke so much. When the unhealthier states get hit it will be interesting.FrioAg 00 said:
And not ok the top 5 for deaths.
If this holds (or gets more extreme) it's going to be a very bad day for all those proponents of socialized healthcare.
Aust Ag said:
Well, people are either dying of Covid or they're not. No guesswork there.
Not exactly. Cross posting what I posted on another board:
Of course I can't provide hard numbers but a physician I'm friends with advised me that the numbers are being fudged for deaths and hospitalization. If an individual is identified to have any preexisting condition, even if the exacerbation of which by coronavirus results in death or hospitalization, those instances are not attributed to COVID-19 by CDC or DSHS. Even if they test positive.
That's why every positive test goes through a phase where it's "under investigation". Identify any comorbidity that they could attribute it to and that is recorded as primary cause with COVID-19 as a complicating factor. End result? Cases that are occurring appear to be less severe. They're not exactly lying but they're not painting an accurate picture either. Food for thought.
I'd bet a coke that there's been deaths in Jan and Feb that went down as pneumonia, etc, and actually were untested Coronavirus.Aust Ag said:
Well, people are either dying of Covid or they're not. No guesswork there.
aggie-beta said:
It would be interesting if we knew our real numbers.
I think our real total is over 300,000 when you count all the people that were asymptomatic or had mild symptoms and were never tested.
I think you underestimate especially with asymptomatic
I suspect anyone who had the flu anywhere this year thinks/wonders if they had it. My son was VERY sick after traveling over MLK day to Arizona however though he couldn't get off the couch for four days neither I nor his GF got it. Pretty sure we both would have had it been Covid 19. Now regarding the pneumonia case you mentioned, that might be.....TexAgs1992 said:Probably not that many cases. But I've had numerous co-workers of mine who live in Portland, the Bay Area, and NYC that travel frequently and swear they had the Rona in January or early February. But if we're talking 1.5-2 million cases, it would not shock me. My girlfriend's colleague at the University of Arkansas had a three week case of pneumonia back in January, tested negative twice for the flu and is now convinced she had it as well.CapCityAg89 said:You're suggesting a mortality rate of .04%. I surely hope you're right.TexAgs1992 said:300,000 would be incredibly light. I'm thinking 3 million since January if we're being realistic.aggie-beta said:
It would be interesting if we knew our real numbers.
I think our real total is over 300,000 when you count all the people that were asymptomatic or had mild symptoms and were never tested.
My understanding is New Jersey is way behind New York on testing.wangus12 said:Newark is basically New York City. Surprised they don't have moreHotardAg07 said:
Surprised to see New Jersey with 2,400 new cases, up to 6,400. That's like a 50% daily increase and counting.
https://www.nj.com/coronavirus/2020/03/nj-says-its-leading-the-way-in-coronavirus-testing-the-data-tells-a-different-story.html
Quote:New Jersey is No. 2 in the U.S. for confirmed cases, both in the raw number and per capita. Yet it ranks 19th in testing per capita, according to data collected by The COVID Tracking Project. As of Wednesday afternoon, state and private labs had run about 167 tests per 100,000 residents. Neighboring New York state, which has the most cases in the nation and twice the population of New Jersey, has conducted 532 tests per 100,000 residents.
Another interesting bit I've picked up that I didn't even consider mentioning is that if the virus isn't picked up in YOUR community, they label the cause as "travel related". So if I live in New Braunfels and run over to The Forum for some quick shopping and snag the Coronavirus? Travel related, not community spread.
Even with the unreported (and in China's case made up) numbers this is some crazy exponential math
67 days till first 100000 cases
11 days till next 100000 cases (total 200,000)
4 days till next 100000 cases (total 300,000)
Haven't seen how long it took to get to 500K but you get the idea.
67 days till first 100000 cases
11 days till next 100000 cases (total 200,000)
4 days till next 100000 cases (total 300,000)
Haven't seen how long it took to get to 500K but you get the idea.
Welcome mat at one of the Emory hospitals
https://i.imgur.com/AVkIfSF.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/AVkIfSF.jpg
Do you believe China' numbers? I don't
One of the other problems with the Texas numbers, at least anecdotally in my area, is that I'm convinced we are getting a ton of false negatives. There are still many areas having to send off labs to a state lab in another county to be tested. Those swabs have to be prepared in a very specific way.
I'm concerned some people in ER are either not swabbing appropriately or the process of cooling / transport is degrading the sample.
We've had two classic cases: Symptoms for 6-7 days before seeking treatment, hypoxia, cough, ground glass opacities on CT, bilateral pneumonia on x-ray, reported 102 deg fevers at home for several days. Negative flu swabs, negative mycoplasma. Both tested negative for coronavirus after waiting 3 days for results.
It doesn't make sense. One of them went into rapid decline a few days ago and had to be intubated (again, right in line with what we would expect to see). The other one recovered and went home.
The other issue with false negatives is that due to the strain on PPE resources the PUIs who are testing negative are often being taken off of isolation precautions. I'm worried that the false negative rate is high enough that we may take somebody off of isolation and infect a ton of healthcare workers.
I'm concerned some people in ER are either not swabbing appropriately or the process of cooling / transport is degrading the sample.
We've had two classic cases: Symptoms for 6-7 days before seeking treatment, hypoxia, cough, ground glass opacities on CT, bilateral pneumonia on x-ray, reported 102 deg fevers at home for several days. Negative flu swabs, negative mycoplasma. Both tested negative for coronavirus after waiting 3 days for results.
It doesn't make sense. One of them went into rapid decline a few days ago and had to be intubated (again, right in line with what we would expect to see). The other one recovered and went home.
The other issue with false negatives is that due to the strain on PPE resources the PUIs who are testing negative are often being taken off of isolation precautions. I'm worried that the false negative rate is high enough that we may take somebody off of isolation and infect a ton of healthcare workers.
Moxley said:
One of the other problems with the Texas numbers, at least anecdotally in my area, is that I'm convinced we are getting a ton of false negatives. There are still many areas having to send off labs to a state lab in another county to be tested. Those swabs have to be prepared in a very specific way.
I'm concerned some people in ER are either not swabbing appropriately or the process of cooling / transport is degrading the sample.
We've had two classic cases: Symptoms for 6-7 days before seeking treatment, hypoxia, cough, ground glass opacities on CT, bilateral pneumonia on x-ray, reported 102 deg fevers at home for several days. Negative flu swabs, negative mycoplasma. Both tested negative for coronavirus after waiting 3 days for results.
It doesn't make sense. One of them went into rapid decline a few days ago and had to be intubated (again, right in line with what we would expect to see). The other one recovered and went home.
The other issue with false negatives is that due to the strain on PPE resources the PUIs who are testing negative are often being taken off of isolation precautions. I'm worried that the false negative rate is high enough that we may take somebody off of isolation and infect a ton of healthcare workers.
You're absolutely right about poor swabbing technique giving false negatives. The nasopharynx is NOT easy to swab. Most clinicians go up, not straight back. And it's unpleasant when properly done, so patients are going to sneeze and cough and pull away. I had to walk a pediatrician through the technique over the phone the other day. He does Strep tests all day long, but never nasopharyngeal swabs. And I have a cousin's child who was at Harvard and got sent home with all the classic symptoms. I asked her about how the test was done, she just told me the nurse barely swabbed her nose. She's been spiking fevers, coughing, and has had no energy for about 10 days now. She's finally getting better, but no results after more than a week.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Moxley said:
A much earlier / higher population spread just doesn't jive with the current hospitalization numbers.
Unless there's some other factor driving hospitalization, we can't really explain the sudden surge in New York, New Orleans, or other hot spots. Those numbers seem to indicate the virus is new to the area, not old.
If there was massive subacute spread over time there would not be a sudden spike in hospitalization like we are seeing. Of course, there's always the chance, however unlikely, that the virus got into a community a month or so ago and spread like absolute wildfire to a huge percentage of the population with only very few needing hospitalization, but that is unlikely.
I actually somewhat agree about his number, but also agree with you regarding the faults in his reasoning. My complete off the cuff guess is 4 million total in the US have been infected, but guesses are worthless. What we know is that most people are seeing 4-7 day delays in results of tests. We also know that at least in the ER, people are not getting tested frequently (my test rate for suspected cases is probably around 10%). We also believe sensitivity for the test is possibly as low as 70% (don't have a source for this, just a number quoted to me by a colleague who puts out a lot of medical education material), meaning many are likely falsely testing negative. We also know that many people are appropriately staying home and self-quarantining while they battle the infection without ever getting tested. And we also know that many people, for whatever reason, are asymptomatic. This is not to say we should be using the completely arbitrary 4 million number as the denominator for CFR, as most of that number would likely be in the early stages of infection. True CFR can really only be reliably calculated retrospectively.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Featured Stories
See All
Aggies aspire to embody McMillan's competitiveness vs. Saint Mary's
by Olin Buchanan
7:34
3h ago
501
NCAA Tournament Notebook: Takeaways from media day in OKC
by Olin Buchanan
69:17
4h ago
1.6k
8:07
2h ago
494