How Bad Was US Response By The Numbers.....It May Surprise Some

[Hoosier_Hack]

The CDC tracks the number of deaths reported and they differ slightly from media numbers. They provide the criteria for reporting at the bottom of the page.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm

What I gleaned from the numbers from the CDC and an interpretation of the bubble map on same page is we have had 67,008 deaths attributed to COVID-19 in America. Of the 67,008, 32,998 come from New York and New Jersey (49%).

I was looking for Nursing Home statistics and was surprised to find that Nursing Homes are not required to report according to AARP. The numbers I found were provided by AARP and they claim More than 16,000 deaths in Nursing Homes across the nation. Let’s assume New York and New Jersey numbers hold to their percentage of overall deaths and account for 49% of Nursing Home Deaths. That would mean 8,160 deaths in Nursing Homes occurred outside of New Jersey and NY.
https://www.aarp.org/caregiving/health/info-2020/coronavirus-nursing-home-cases-deaths.html

What does this mean? Well if you add together NY, NJ, and NH deaths you get 41,158 deaths associated with these three out of 67,008 total deaths. That is a whopping 61.42% of all Corona Virus associated Deaths.

Outside of these three areas, we did really well in limiting the impact of COVID 19. Are you surprised by this? I was. How close does the media drum beat reflect these breakdowns? I don’t think it reflects it at all.

 

[Sir_Saucy]

Indiana shows the deaths in LTC facilities on their COVID tracking website, which I found interesting. I don't recall the #s off the top of my head but I think it looked like 40-45% of all deaths were in LTC facilities.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Indiana shows the deaths in LTC facilities on their COVID tracking website, which I found interesting. I don't recall the #s off the top of my head but I think it looked like 40-45% of all deaths were in LTC facilities.

As of a week or two ago 51 percent of the deaths in LA county were in nursing homes.

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

Indiana shows the deaths in LTC facilities on their COVID tracking website, which I found interesting. I don't recall the #s off the top of my head but I think it looked like 40-45% of all deaths were in LTC facilities.

That is actually baring out across the nation. The LTC facilities (Long term care?) have been an issue. Mowing these things should help lessen the surge effects later

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

As of a week or two ago 51 percent of the deaths in LA county were in nursing homes.

As you see, no one wants to discuss or defend this..... the orange man is once again correct...

 

[mcmurtry66]

As you see, no one wants to discuss or defend this..... the orange man is once again correct...

Canada 80 percent of the deaths are ltc. Minnesota 80 percent of the deaths are nursing homes. completely absurd to have lockdowns and tank the economy and peoples' livelihoods when you read statistics like these. this is simply something that ought to be able to be managed. we have failed miserably on many fronts.

if you back out the deaths from nursing homes the mortality rate for this virus in the US is negligible. far too low to justify the economic hell that has ensued. had we managed nursing homes alone we could have significantly mitigated the damage incurred.

 

[Sir_Saucy]

That is actually baring out across the nation. The LTC facilities (Long term care?) have been an issue. Mowing these things should help lessen the surge effects later

I assume it is Long-term Care, but didn't find anything to confirm it.

 

[HillzHoozier]

As of a week or two ago 51 percent of the deaths in LA county were in nursing homes.

I am amazed by the lack of spread through the massive homeless communities. It doesnt add up.

 

[HillzHoozier]

The CDC tracks the number of deaths reported and they differ slightly from media numbers. They provide the criteria for reporting at the bottom of the page.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm

What I gleaned from the numbers from the CDC and an interpretation of the bubble map on same page is we have had 67,008 deaths attributed to COVID-19 in America. Of the 67,008, 32,998 come from New York and New Jersey (49%).

I was looking for Nursing Home statistics and was surprised to find that Nursing Homes are not required to report according to AARP. The numbers I found were provided by AARP and they claim More than 16,000 deaths in Nursing Homes across the nation. Let’s assume New York and New Jersey numbers hold to their percentage of overall deaths and account for 49% of Nursing Home Deaths. That would mean 8,160 deaths in Nursing Homes occurred outside of New Jersey and NY.
https://www.aarp.org/caregiving/health/info-2020/coronavirus-nursing-home-cases-deaths.html

What does this mean? Well if you add together NY, NJ, and NH deaths you get 41,158 deaths associated with these three out of 67,008 total deaths. That is a whopping 61.42% of all Corona Virus associated Deaths.

Outside of these three areas, we did really well in limiting the impact of COVID 19. Are you surprised by this? I was. How close does the media drum beat reflect these breakdowns? I don’t think it reflects it at all.

At peak, deaths from all causes were occurring at 131% of the normal rate, which is sad for those families, but NOT 6 times the normal rate, as has been reported.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I am amazed by the lack of spread through the massive homeless communities. It doesnt add up.

Maybe they aren’t tested? Aren’t tracked? I don’t know.

 

[flcn3336]

Maybe they aren’t tested? Aren’t tracked? I don’t know.

If the homeless are outside, it is very difficult to contract it outdoors. That could be a reason.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

I am amazed by the lack of spread through the massive homeless communities. It doesnt add up.

Sure it does. Homeless tend to live in “communities” but they still keep their space from one another.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Sure it does. Homeless tend to live in “communities” but they still keep their space from one another.

Here they fill shelters at night. I’m surprised it hasn’t been worse. Maybe limiting indoor activity and being outside most of the time (space like you said) mitigates things.

 

[HillzHoozier]

Here they fill shelters at night. I’m surprised it hasn’t been worse. Maybe limiting indoor activity and being outside most of the time (space like you said) mitigates things.

They ain't eskeered

Only about half of the 15,000 hotel and motel rooms that California has leased for mostly homeless people to slow the spread of the coronavirus are now occupied, a review of state records by The Times shows.

More than a month into Gov. Gavin Newsom’s program to get homeless people off the streets, the occupied rooms account for — at most — less than 5% of the 151,000 people who sleep on street corners, under bridges and in emergency shelters across California.

As of Monday, 7,919 hotel rooms had guests and another 7,700 were vacant, according to figures released by Newsom’s office.​

 

[mcmurtry66]

Check out this article: yet another article with a scientist saying something completely different. It’s possible that Britain could have fared better by doing nothing at all. The more I read the more I believe our decision to lockdown the entire country was predicated more on paranoia than anything else. Follow the science. There was no clear science, just msm going wild and the task force predicting doomsday scenarios. We could have isolated vulnerable people and places in March and left 80 percent of the country working with precautions. We trashed the economy following “the science”.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/coronavirus-scientist-quicker-exit-lockdown-072039855.html

 

[bawlmer]

Check out this article: yet another article with a scientist saying something completely different. It’s possible that Britain could have fared better by doing nothing at all. The more I read the more I believe our decision to lockdown the entire country was predicated more on paranoia than anything else. Follow the science. There was no clear science, just msm going wild and the task force predicting doomsday scenarios. We could have isolated vulnerable people and places in March and left 80 percent of the country working with precautions. We trashed the economy following “the science”.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/coronavirus-scientist-quicker-exit-lockdown-072039855.html

And there was this published article concluding that implementing lockdowns a week or 2 earlier would have saved tens of thousands. Presumably that means the lockdowns saved tens of thousands more, but that's not the question they studied.

There were no clear answers to the trade-offs between lives saved and jobs loss. Many states did overreact with statewide lockdowns, and some may later regret lifting restrictions too soon. But the uncertainty about the potential impact of the virus in March and April caused decision-makers to error on the side of caution. I think it's hard to fault them for that.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Check out this article: yet another article with a scientist saying something completely different. It’s possible that Britain could have fared better by doing nothing at all. The more I read the more I believe our decision to lockdown the entire country was predicated more on paranoia than anything else. Follow the science. There was no clear science, just msm going wild and the task force predicting doomsday scenarios. We could have isolated vulnerable people and places in March and left 80 percent of the country working with precautions. We trashed the economy following “the science”.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/coronavirus-scientist-quicker-exit-lockdown-072039855.html

According to Kaiser, 37.6% of American adults are at risk. Some additional people are not at risk, but live with people who are. So at least 40% of the populace may need separated out. I am not sure how we do that, those people still need groceries, maybe laundry, clothes, go to doctor, need police/fire protection.

 

[mcmurtry66]

According to Kaiser, 37.6% of American adults are at risk. Some additional people are not at risk, but live with people who are. So at least 40% of the populace may need separated out. I am not sure how we do that, those people still need groceries, maybe laundry, clothes, go to doctor, need police/fire protection.

Marvin did you read the article. I don’t think we have any idea how many people have already had it. Perhaps more of them have had it than we think.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Marvin did you read the article. I don’t think we have any idea how many people have already had it. Perhaps more of them have had it than we think.

I meant to link the Kaiser article, https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-cov...serious-illness-if-infected-with-coronavirus/. I do not know the percentage that have had them. Indiana's study was 2.8%. We could say that being a backwater fairly sparse state that the amount is low, so maybe 6% nationally?

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

Indiana shows the deaths in LTC facilities on their COVID tracking website, which I found interesting. I don't recall the #s off the top of my head but I think it looked like 40-45% of all deaths were in LTC facilities.

That's about average. Minnesota is at 81% of all patients come from nursing homes.

https://m.startribune.com/minn-nurs...-still-taking-in-infected-patients/570601282/

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

According to Kaiser, 37.6% of American adults are at risk. Some additional people are not at risk, but live with people who are. So at least 40% of the populace may need separated out. I am not sure how we do that, those people still need groceries, maybe laundry, clothes, go to doctor, need police/fire protection.

So let's separate them out. Keep them home. Figure out how to help them with grocery delivery, telehealth, etc.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

If the homeless are outside, it is very difficult to contract it outdoors. That could be a reason.

Not only this, they aren't interacting that often closely with regular individuals. Surface spread is very low, per CDC.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

So let's separate them out. Keep them home. Figure out how to help them with grocery delivery, telehealth, etc.

I have suggested since this began that our enthusiasm to help people will wain once we all get our jobs back. Someone posted that Texas is letting people with these conditions stay on unemployment, kudos to Texas. Indiana is not. Bad for Indiana. If we want to open up completely, we need to make sure people have access to food and medical care (we know people are putting off visits to the doctor) and we need to make sure they have a basic income. If we can get over our "only lazy people collect from the government" mentality, we probably could make this work.

I saw yesterday that Montgomery, AL, briefly had 1 ICU bed available. It was quickly solved, they put someone in it and it was back to 100%. That is what we are trying to avoid. I don't care how open we are, we could go back to 100% so long as we have ICU space. It isn't just about COVID, if you were involved in a bad car wreck in Montgomery today and they had to send you to a nearby city, you might well die. It would be because of COVID even though it was internal bleeding.

Opening should be based on ICU availability. As a result, we almost need a county-by-county solution. Even that isn't perfect, if Indy has available hospital and Hamilton does not, all those Hamilton County people working in Indy are at a huge risk.

So I haven't seen the perfect response, and it probably doesn't exist. What is the least bad seems the best possible bet. It isn't a total shutdown, it isn't a total opening. We are trying to balance, sometimes leaning too far one way and sometimes too far the other. That's how balance happens.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

I have suggested since this began that our enthusiasm to help people will wain once we all get our jobs back. Someone posted that Texas is letting people with these conditions stay on unemployment, kudos to Texas. Indiana is not. Bad for Indiana. If we want to open up completely, we need to make sure people have access to food and medical care (we know people are putting off visits to the doctor) and we need to make sure they have a basic income. If we can get over our "only lazy people collect from the government" mentality, we probably could make this work.

I saw yesterday that Montgomery, AL, briefly had 1 ICU bed available. It was quickly solved, they put someone in it and it was back to 100%. That is what we are trying to avoid. I don't care how open we are, we could go back to 100% so long as we have ICU space. It isn't just about COVID, if you were involved in a bad car wreck in Montgomery today and they had to send you to a nearby city, you might well die. It would be because of COVID even though it was internal bleeding.

Opening should be based on ICU availability. As a result, we almost need a county-by-county solution. Even that isn't perfect, if Indy has available hospital and Hamilton does not, all those Hamilton County people working in Indy are at a huge risk.

So I haven't seen the perfect response, and it probably doesn't exist. What is the least bad seems the best possible bet. It isn't a total shutdown, it isn't a total opening. We are trying to balance, sometimes leaning too far one way and sometimes too far the other. That's how balance happens.

My point was, let's continue opening things up and it would be much cheaper to ensure access for food, HC, etc. to the "at-risk" than to keep things locked down and try and subsidize those that can work and move about in society.

 

[bawlmer]

My point was, let's continue opening things up and it would be much cheaper to ensure access for food, HC, etc. to the "at-risk" than to keep things locked down and try and subsidize those that can work and move about in society.

Ultimately how much we open up is not going to be a political decision. It's going to depend on how big is the threat. Right now, in my opinion, it's too big for me to return to normal.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

Ultimately how much we open up is not going to be a political decision. It's going to depend on how big is the threat. Right now, in my opinion, it's too big for me to return to normal.

That's your choice. If you are "at risk", you should be entitled to help. If you aren't, mask up and only venture out for essentials.

 

[mcmurtry66]

That's your choice. If you are "at risk", you should be entitled to help. If you aren't, mask up and only venture out for essentials.

For the people who have severe underlying conditions etc there ought to be something to protect them so they can stay home longer. i don't know if it's amending the FMLA, or short- term disability or what.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

For the people who have severe underlying conditions etc there ought to be something to protect them so they can stay home longer. i don't know if it's amending the FMLA, or short- term disability or what.

I don't disagree, but a large percentage of those would be elderly and probably less likely to be working

 

[outside shooter]

...We could have isolated vulnerable people and places in March and left 80 percent of the country working with precautions...

Several issues:

1) Americans seem inclined not to take the necessary precautions, such as 95% wearing masks in public places and in the workplace, and regularly social distancing. So success is limited by inherent stubbornness. So, yes, it is a strategy that a place like Japan can pull off.
2) Widespread testing and contact tracing is needed to identify asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic super-spreaders. Our leadership had no desire to do that, because more testing "makes us look bad".
3) Way more than 20% of the US population is vulnerable, as described by being over 60, being morbidly obese, being diabetic, or being immune-compromised.

So your idea is good but it relies on first having an educated, scientifically literate, and cohesive populace with good access to health care, with equally capable leadership. We don't have any of that.

 

[twenty02]

Marvin did you read the article. I don’t think we have any idea how many people have already had it. Perhaps more of them have had it than we think.

The best random sample analysis done in the country was the Indiana study, showing 2.8% of the population had been infected. I've seen no legit evidence that exposure has been significantly high.

 

[mcmurtry66]

The best random sample analysis done in the country was the Indiana study, showing 2.8% of the population had been infected. I've seen no legit evidence that exposure has been significantly high.

Yeah and I haven’t followed up on the study out of usc. I think their claim of 400,000 plus was projections.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

The best random sample analysis done in the country was the Indiana study, showing 2.8% of the population had been infected. I've seen no legit evidence that exposure has been significantly high.

It's going to vary wildly by geography b/c of population density, among other factors.

 

[twenty02]

It's going to vary wildly by geography b/c of population density, among other factors.

For sure..... but it gives a reliable baseline, if we assume mortality rates are the same across regions, you can easily back into a reasonable estimate of the % infected anywhere.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

For sure..... but it gives a reliable baseline, if we assume mortality rates are the same across regions, you can easily back into a reasonable estimate of the % infected anywhere.

But you can't really assume mortality rates as similar? Looking at the JH data, it seems like it is quite sporadic.

 

[twenty02]

But you can't really assume mortality rates as similar? Looking at the JH data, it seems like it is quite sporadic.

Not following. You saying it matters if a 60 year old gets it in New York vs Alabama? Or that underlying health conditions vary too much by region?

Obviously all of these would be estimates..... but seems enough data crunching could get you in the ballpark of infected % of population

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

Not following. You saying it matters if a 60 year old gets it in New York vs Alabama? Or that underlying health conditions vary too much by region?

Obviously all of these would be estimates..... but seems enough data crunching could get you in the ballpark of infected % of population

I cannot definitively say what causes the mortality differences, but it is obviously some combination of population health (e.g. higher obesity, propensity to smoke), environment (e.g. subway and public trans usage), age, etc.

I think it's unlikely that the % infected is above 2-3% based on most ranges.

 

[mashnut]

Yeah and I haven’t followed up on the study out of usc. I think their claim of 400,000 plus was projections.

I'd look at the denominator on that USC study too. That sounds like a big number but when you're looking at a city with 10MM+ people it's not that big a percentage. There are many different per capitas you know.

 

[UncleMark]

That's your choice. If you are "at risk", you should be entitled to help. If you aren't, mask up and only venture out for essentials.

Even the fatties? The smokers? Who are you and what have you done with JDB?