Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19) (SARS-CoV-2) [2020]

[A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y]

Cases in Texas are exploding.

Total cases through May 31st was only 64,287, Total cases for the month of June was: 94,223
The month of June alone was 146.6% more than all the cases before June 1st.

Last seven day's case increases are 9,782, 9,979, 10,028, 5,318, 3,449, 8,258, 7,555

First day that cases exceeded 2000 was June 10th.
First day that cases exceeded 3000 was June 17th.
First day that cases exceeded 4000 was June 20th.
First day that cases exceeded 5000 was June 23th.
First day that cases exceeded 6000 was June 30th.
First day that cases exceeded 7000 was July 1st.
First day that cases exceeded 8000 was July 1st.
First day that cases exceeded 9000 was July 7th.
First day that cases exceeded 10000 was July 7th.

The numbers of cases in Texas for each week since June 1, 2020 are :

June 1-7 : Total Cases 10,691 - Average of 1,527 per day
June 8-14 : Total Cases 12,876 - Average of 1,839 per day - 20% higher than the previous week
June 15-21 : Total Cases 22,271 - Average of 3,182 per day - 73% higher than the previous week
June 22-28 : Total Cases 37,127 - Average of 5,304 per day - 67% higher than the previous week
June 29-July 5 : Total Cases 46,511 - Average of 6,644 per day - 25% higher than the previous week
July 6-9: Total Cases 35,107 - Average of 8,777 per day - 32% higher than the previous week - Only four days for the week so far

 

[BRiT]

Still no Ohio numbers on tests or county breakdown, but they did update their general public health assessment and overall numbers.

https://coronavirus.ohio.gov/wps/po...vel-higher-education-guidance-funding-schools

CURRENT COVID-19 DATA:

There are 61,331 confirmed and probable cases of COVID-19 in Ohio and 3,006 confirmed and probable COVID-19 deaths. A total of 8,570 people have been hospitalized, including 2,146 admissions to intensive care units.

...

UPDATED COUNTY RISK LEVELS

Governor DeWine announced today that new public health data has led the Ohio Department of Health to designate 12 counties as being in a Red Alert Level 3 Public Emergency as defined by the Ohio Public Health Advisory System.

Upgraded to Level 3:

• Clermont
• Fairfield
• Lorain
• Pickaway
• Summit
• Wood

Continuing at Level 3:

• Butler*
• Cuyahoga*
• Franklin
• Hamilton*
• Montgomery
• Trumbull

Downgraded to Level 2:

• Huron

Three Red Alert Level 3 counties marked with a star (*) are on Ohio's Watch List as they are approaching Purple Alert Level 4. Franklin County was removed from the Watch List due to a decrease in hospital admissions.

Mask mandates for the new counties upgraded to Red Alert Level 3 will be mandated to begin wearing masks in public beginning at 6 p.m. on July 10, 2020. Residents in Huron County are no longer required to wear a mask in public, however, they are strongly encouraged to do so.

 

[BRiT]

Ohio's testing is at 19.9K for the day.
Ohio is at +1150 new cases, with Cuyahoga County at +241 new cases.
Test Positivity rate is around 5.77% for those new tests.

These are near the highest numbers of new cases for the state, and more counties are moved to level 3 on the Ohio Public Health Advisory, hitting mandatory mask levels. It still seems so silly to risk it by not wearing a mask and having to mandate people remain cautious.

I hope that people will be sensible and follow the mandated mask order in public places, but I think more will be general ignorant assholes and refuse to wear a mask or maintain safety distance.

Here is the trends which is using reported date and not arbitrary and incorrectly identified user reported onset date. This graphic is resized by ~ 75% and taken from the State's Current Trends page: https://coronavirus.ohio.gov/wps/portal/gov/covid-19/dashboards/current-trends



Here is the raw data for the last few days, filling in the limited data that is available:

Spoiler: Raw Data

Date; Total Tests; New Tests; Tests per 1M Population; Total Cases; Cuyahoga County Cases; Hospitalizations; Total Deaths; New Cases; New Hospitalizations; New Deaths
2020-06-14;    543,260;    7,317;    46,476;    41,148;    5,175;    6,895;    2,557;    300;    31;    3
2020-06-15;    554,128;    10,868;    47,406;    41,576;    5,220;    6,948;    2,573;    428;    53;    16
2020-06-16;    565,034;    10,906;    48,339;    42,010;    5,271;    7,007;    2,597;    434;    59;    24
2020-06-17;    581,444;    16,410;    49,743;    42,422;    5,336;    7,051;    2,611;    412;    44;    14
2020-06-18;    596,875;    15,431;    51,063;    43,122;    5,404;    7,104;    2,633;    700;    53;    22
2020-06-19;    612,854;    15,979;    52,430;    43,731;    5,481;    7,167;    2,667;    609;    63;    34
2020-06-20;    626,765;    13,911;    53,620;    44,262;    5,555;    7,201;    2,697;    531;    34;    30
2020-06-21;    639,991;    13,226;    54,752;    44,808;    5,633;    7,242;    2,700;    546;    41;    3
2020-06-22;    656,318;    16,327;    56,148;    45,537;    5,734;    7,292;    2,704;    729;    50;    4
2020-06-23;    667,077;    10,759;    57,069;    46,127;    5,820;    7,379;    2,735;    590;    87;    31
2020-06-24;    680,687;    13,610;    58,233;    46,759;    5,964;    7,447;    2,755;    632;    68;    20
2020-06-25;    696,200;    15,513;    59,560;    47,651;    6,111;    7,502;    2,772;    892;    55;    17
2020-06-26;    718,086;    21,886;    61,433;    48,638;    6,287;    7,570;    2,788;    987;    68;    16
2020-06-27;    741,353;    23,267;    63,423;    49,455;    6,429;    7,624;    2,804;    817;    54;    16
2020-06-28;    753,246;    11,893;    64,441;    50,309;    6,571;    7,681;    2,807;    854;    57;    3
2020-06-29;    770,860;    17,614;    65,947;    51,046;    6,694;    7,746;    2,818;    737;    65;    11
2020-06-30;    784,362;    13,502;    67,103;    51,789;    6,831;    7,839;    2,863;    743;    93;    45
2020-07-01;    788,403;    4,041;    67,448;    52,865;    7,013;    7,911;    2,876;    1,076;    72;    13
2020-07-02*;    789,704;    1,301;    67,560;    54,166;    7,013;    8,038;    2,886;    1,301;    127;    10
2020-07-03*;    824,481;    34,777;    70,535; 55,257;    7,392;    8,084;    2,903;    1,091;    46;    17
2020-07-04;    844,675;    20,194;    72,262;    56,183;    7,571;    8,111;    2,907;    926;    27;    4
2020-07-05;    865,069;    20,394;    74,007;    57,151;    7,724;    8,172;    2,911;    968;    61;    4
2020-07-06;    877,688;    12,619;    75,087;    57,956;    7,883;    8,249;    2,927;    805;    77;    16
2020-07-07;    892,731;    15,043;    76,374;    58,904;    8,048;    8,383;    2,970;    948;    134;    43
2020-07-08;    911,905;    19,174;    78,014;    60,181;    8,277;    8,489;    2,991;    1,277;    106;    21
2020-07-09;    931,834;    19,929;    79,719;    61,331;    8,518;    8,570;    3,006;    1,150;    81;    15

 

[A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y]

Texas border county had 'model' Covid-19 response – then the governor stepped in

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/t...onse-then-the-governor-stepped-in/ar-BB16zmNm
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/t...onse-then-the-governor-stepped-in/ar-BB16zmNm
Five residents from Starr county on Texas’s southern border died on a single day last week after contracting Covid-19. New infections in the rural border community of around 65,000 people have soared in recent weeks, and two intubated patients had to be airlifted to Dallas and San Antonio when overwhelmed local hospitals couldn’t care for them.

Starr county’s public officials knew months ago that is was especially vulnerable to the coronavirus pandemic: roughly one in three residents lives in poverty, a sizable slice of the population doesn’t have health insurance, and risk factors such as diabetes and obesity prevail. To protect their constituents, who are more than 99% Latino, they acted fast to curtail the contagion.

They developed what officials said was at the time the only drive-through testing site south of San Antonio. They closed schools. They implemented a stay-at-home order, curfew and mandatory face coverings. Only when necessary, they flexed their authority to fine and even jail anyone who flouted the law.

Their strategy worked. The first few coronavirus cases trickled into Starr county in late March, but for three weeks in April, there were no new infections. Before the end of May, weekly tallies of new confirmed positives never once reached double digits. Even seasonal influenza, coughs, colds and fevers that would normally travel through the community suddenly vanished.

“What we did here was a model for the rest of the nation to follow, but it was lost,” said Joel Villarreal, the mayor of Rio Grande City, one of four small cities in the county. “In fact, I think we had it right.”

The inflection point came when Texas governor Greg Abbott unilaterally decided to reopen the state, and stripped local governments of their power in the process. By early May, malls, restaurants, movie theaters, gyms and salons threw open their doors, albeit at limited capacity. Texans lost their fear of the virus as politicians told them it was safe to re-emerge from lockdown, and once masks became politicized, localities could no longer require their use.

“We had local input to close down. But to reopen, we didn’t have any, at all,” said Villarreal.

When local officials contacted the attorney general’s office for clarity about what orders they could continue to enforce, they were informed that the governor’s policies superseded their own. Any attempt to give feedback fell on deaf ears.

What we did here was a model for the rest of the nation to follow, but it was lost. I think we had it right

 

[A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y]

America Is Being Way Too Calm About Covid-19

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/america-is-being-way-too-calm-about-covid-19/ar-BB16zGS9

(Bloomberg Opinion) -- The accelerating resurgence of Covid-19 in the U.S. is filling me with dread. But what’s even scarier is the propensity of Americans to ignore or downplay a malaise that is generating tens of thousands of entirely preventable deaths.

The horrible data suggest that we have learned nothing from the tragic experience of the past several months, that things are spinning out of control and that wishing for the best is folly. When I, as a data scientist, see numbers like this –- and recognize that even they are vastly understating the reality -- I automatically extrapolate to the worst case scenario, in which millions of people die. I start to actually smell death.

Apparently, though, other humans are capable of avoiding such dreadful feelings. Somehow, they manage to look at the data differently, or to not look at the facts at all.

Some people, for example, put a positive spin on the death rates, which haven’t increased in tandem with the cases. They say that we’re recording more cases because testing has improved, that we’re treating patients better, that the afflicted are younger and hence more likely to survive.

I’m not seeing it.

Yes, testing has roughly tripled in Arizona, but so has the percentage of people testing positive (from about 7.5% to about 25%). This suggests that more of the people coming in to get tested have a major reason to think they’re sick, and that the tests are missing even more of the people with mild or no symptoms. In short, positive rates tripling means testing should have increased by 9-fold at least.

The numbers in Florida (positive rate 19%, up from 4%) and Texas (positive rate 14%, up from 6%) suggest the situation in those states is similar. As testing capacity fails to meet demand and the process gets increasingly arduous, more and more people will stay home rather than wait in line for hours to confirm what they already know.

We’re losing data coverage by the day, along with our grasp on reality.

True, treatments are better, but I haven’t heard any medical professional say that they can turn a fatal case around. They mainly help get non-terminal patients out of the hospital sooner. Medications such as Remdesivir don’t actually claim to have improved mortality rates.

The story with the death statistics is a time lag: The young people who are getting sick first tend to survive, and older people can take a while to die. This obvious fact is making my dread worse, not better. As society gets increasingly crowded with sick people, they’ll be more likely to infect the elderly and people with underling conditions. It’s just a matter of time before the disease again seeps into nursing homes, rehabs and prisons.

At the far end of optimism comes outright denial. Some people claim that contract tracers automatically count all contacts as positive cases (not true), or use methodological issues as an excuse to assume overcounting. This is disingenuous skepticism of statistics, intentionally courting confusion to avoid bad news, to foment fear and passivity rather than action.

 

[A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y]

The US is in the middle of another coronavirus testing crisis — on a far larger scale than before

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-us-is-in-the-middle-of-another-coronavirus-testing-crisis-on-a-far-larger-scale-than-before/ar-BB16zIVt

• Coronavirus testing in the US is failing again as the country faces an unprecedented surge of new cases.
• As demand outpaces laboratories' capacities, the hardest-hit states are seeing weeks-long delays in test results.
• The bottlenecks obscure how large the new outbreaks are and prevent officials from tracking down infected people before they spread the virus.
• Testing must grow rapidly to prevent this from happening yet again in the fall.

As temperatures breached 100 degrees in Phoenix, Arizona, last week, hundreds of cars sat lined up on a four-lane street leading to a free coronavirus testing site. It was the facility's first day.

Locals told the Arizona Republic that they waited for more than eight hours to get tested. People fretted about running out of gas and drinking water. Testing technology overheated in the sun, making wait times even longer.

Mary Jane Muniz told the Republic that she arrived at 7:30 a.m., but was one of the last people to get a test before the facility closed at 4:30 p.m. While she waited, her daughter brought her a gallon of water. By the time Muniz was wrapping up, the facility had run out of supplies and volunteers were turning people away.

Similar scenes have unfolded in Indiana, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Kentucky, Tennessee, California, Colorado, and Florida.

The long lines aren't the only wait: Afterwards, some test results are taking up to a week, since laboratories across the country are getting sent more swabs than they can handle.

The US has significantly ramped up testing since its failure in the spring. On average, more than 640,000 tests were done in the country per day in the last week, according to the COVID Tracking Project. But a pandemic roadmap from Harvard experts suggested the US should be scaling up to 20 million tests per day by the end of July.

Anthony Fauci, the US's top infectious-disease expert, told CNBC that ideally, the country would be "flooding the system with testing, so you really get a good handle about what is going on in the community."

That, of course, is not happening. Instead, America's testing infrastructure is once again losing its grip as the larger-than-ever surge of new cases strains the system past its limits.

Without robust testing, states have no way of knowing the true scale of their outbreaks. And weeks-long wait times for results mean even quarantines and contact tracing happen too late.

"This is very bad," Harvard epidemiologist Michael Mina told The Atlantic. "Our modeling efforts more or less show that if you don't get results back in a day or so, outbreaks really can't be stopped without isolating and quarantining all contacts preemptively."

Two weeks ago, the American Clinical Laboratory Association issued a warning: Its member laboratories were seeing a "steady increase" in the volume of coronavirus test orders and would soon be overwhelmed.

"While our members are collectively performing hundreds of thousands of tests each day, the anticipated demand for COVID-19 testing over the coming weeks will likely exceed members' testing capacities," the association's president, Julie Khani, said in a statement. "This significant increase in demand could extend turnaround times for test results."

That's exactly what happened.

This week, Quest Diagnostics announced that results for non-priority tests — those that don't come from hospitalized patients or healthcare workers — could take four to six days to come back. LabCorp, too, said its test processing will take one or two days longer than usual.

BioReference Laboratories, meanwhile, "hit the wall three weeks ago," its executive chairman, Jon Cohen, told The Atlantic at the end of June.

"At that point, most laboratories were already running at capacity, as far as I can tell," he added.

"If the labs were coming back five to six to seven days after the sample was taken — it doesn't matter how good the contact tracing capacity is, it doesn't matter how good and efficient they are at following up — the infections would have already spread to their coworkers and family members and roommates by then," Will Humble, executive director of the Arizona Public Health Association, told the Republic. "Because very few people isolate between the time their sample is taken and they get their test results back."

Texas was seeing testing delays even before its case counts began to rise again. In early June, the Texas Tribune reported weeks-long waits across the state. Rebecca Fischer an epidemiologist at Texas A&M, called the situation "disastrous," since positive results often arrive too late for health authorities to effectively intervene.

"Why have you been tested at all if it just goes into a number? That's not the goal of this," she told the Tribune.

 

[BRiT]

Ohio's testing is at 23.8K for the day.
Ohio is at +1525 new cases, with Cuyahoga County at +268 new cases. The 21 day average is nearing 1K, where a 7 day average likely far exceeds that.
Test Positivity rate is around 6.39% for these new tests.

This is the highest number of new cases for the state as well as highest number of tests though they were close with tests a handful of times before.

Here is the trends which is using reported date and not arbitrary and incorrectly identified user reported onset date. This graphic is resized by ~ 75% and taken from the State's Current Trends page: https://coronavirus.ohio.gov/wps/portal/gov/covid-19/dashboards/current-trends



Here is the raw data for the last few days, filling in the limited data that is available:

Spoiler: Raw Data

Date; Total Tests; New Tests; Tests per 1M Population; Total Cases; Cuyahoga County Cases; Hospitalizations; Total Deaths; New Cases; New Hospitalizations; New Deaths
2020-06-14;    543,260;    7,317;    46,476;    41,148;    5,175;    6,895;    2,557;    300;    31;    3
2020-06-15;    554,128;    10,868;    47,406;    41,576;    5,220;    6,948;    2,573;    428;    53;    16
2020-06-16;    565,034;    10,906;    48,339;    42,010;    5,271;    7,007;    2,597;    434;    59;    24
2020-06-17;    581,444;    16,410;    49,743;    42,422;    5,336;    7,051;    2,611;    412;    44;    14
2020-06-18;    596,875;    15,431;    51,063;    43,122;    5,404;    7,104;    2,633;    700;    53;    22
2020-06-19;    612,854;    15,979;    52,430;    43,731;    5,481;    7,167;    2,667;    609;    63;    34
2020-06-20;    626,765;    13,911;    53,620;    44,262;    5,555;    7,201;    2,697;    531;    34;    30
2020-06-21;    639,991;    13,226;    54,752;    44,808;    5,633;    7,242;    2,700;    546;    41;    3
2020-06-22;    656,318;    16,327;    56,148;    45,537;    5,734;    7,292;    2,704;    729;    50;    4
2020-06-23;    667,077;    10,759;    57,069;    46,127;    5,820;    7,379;    2,735;    590;    87;    31
2020-06-24;    680,687;    13,610;    58,233;    46,759;    5,964;    7,447;    2,755;    632;    68;    20
2020-06-25;    696,200;    15,513;    59,560;    47,651;    6,111;    7,502;    2,772;    892;    55;    17
2020-06-26;    718,086;    21,886;    61,433;    48,638;    6,287;    7,570;    2,788;    987;    68;    16
2020-06-27;    741,353;    23,267;    63,423;    49,455;    6,429;    7,624;    2,804;    817;    54;    16
2020-06-28;    753,246;    11,893;    64,441;    50,309;    6,571;    7,681;    2,807;    854;    57;    3
2020-06-29;    770,860;    17,614;    65,947;    51,046;    6,694;    7,746;    2,818;    737;    65;    11
2020-06-30;    784,362;    13,502;    67,103;    51,789;    6,831;    7,839;    2,863;    743;    93;    45
2020-07-01;    788,403;    4,041;    67,448;    52,865;    7,013;    7,911;    2,876;    1,076;    72;    13
2020-07-02*;    789,704;    1,301;    67,560;    54,166;    7,013;    8,038;    2,886;    1,301;    127;    10
2020-07-03*;    824,481;    34,777;    70,535; 55,257;    7,392;    8,084;    2,903;    1,091;    46;    17
2020-07-04;    844,675;    20,194;    72,262;    56,183;    7,571;    8,111;    2,907;    926;    27;    4
2020-07-05;    865,069;    20,394;    74,007;    57,151;    7,724;    8,172;    2,911;    968;    61;    4
2020-07-06;    877,688;    12,619;    75,087;    57,956;    7,883;    8,249;    2,927;    805;    77;    16
2020-07-07;    892,731;    15,043;    76,374;    58,904;    8,048;    8,383;    2,970;    948;    134;    43
2020-07-08;    911,905;    19,174;    78,014;    60,181;    8,277;    8,489;    2,991;    1,277;    106;    21
2020-07-09;    931,834;    19,929;    79,719;    61,331;    8,518;    8,570;    3,006;    1,150;    81;    15
2020-07-10;    955,697;    23,863;    81,760;    62,856;    8,786;    8,701;    3,032;    1,525;    131;    26

Ohio uses a 7 day rolling average to calculate their test positivity rate displayed on this graph. I'm not sure it's feasible considering you're never seeing what the current rate is and will be dragged down by better times, making the current situation not look as bad as it is.

 

[BRiT]

Florida is at 244,151 with +11,433 new cases. They started this 38 day surge with only 57,447 cases.
Arizona is at 116,892 with +4,221 new cases.
Georgia is at 111,211 with +4,484 new cases.

Texas and Florida are the 3rd and 4th worst states.
Arizona and Georgia are the 7th and 8th worst states.

The 3rd and 4th positions may flip depending on numbers and 8th assumes Massachusetts doesn't report more than 314 new cases today.

 

[iroboto]

What are the 1-2 worst states then?

 

[BRiT]

@iroboto

New York and California.

New York seems to have things mostly controlled now (yesterday's numbers were +809 new cases and 425,072 total) but months ago during the beginning it was crazy cause of how packed the Big Apple City is.

New Jersey is at number 5, but only having +334 new cases yesterday with 177,795 total cases. They may have been impacted by the initial high outbreak in New York.

California is having high numbers now, like +7,248 new cases for 303,323 total yesterday. I'm not sure where their outbreak is hitting now, might be the elderly care centers and the main cities of LA, San Fran, and San Diego.

Here's a recent story on California : https://www.latimes.com/projects/california-coronavirus-cases-tracking-outbreak/

Deteriorating conditions have prompted the governor to put 27 counties on his watchlist. Together they are home to 80% of the state population.

The reopening is rolling back. Some areas have have returned to stricter lockdown, and masks are required across the state.

The highest toll is among seniors. Roughly 77% of the dead were 65 or older. At least 3,213 were living at a nursing home.​

 

[A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y]

State of Texas complete COVID-19 data breakdown

https://txdshs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/ed483ecd702b4298ab01e8b9cafc8b83
https://txdshs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/0d8bdf9be927459d9cb11b9eaef6101

Data as of 7/10/2020 @3:50 PM:

Total Tests: 2,644,496 (Up +40,593)

Total Viral Tests: 2,389,789 (Up +76,577)

Only 90.4% of Total Tests are Viral Tests the other 9.6% of tests are the useless Antibody Tests

Cases Reported: 240,111 (Up +9,765)

Fatalities: 3,013 (Up +95)

Texas tests per 1M population are 91,202 (Up +1,399) which places Texas as the 12th worst State.

Click this link: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us and on the page click the Tests / 1M pop column twice to sort from worst to first

They are using roughly 28.996 million as the population of Texas.

Texas is mixing Viral and Antibody Tests in the total test numbers which is very bad as Antibody Tests are useless in determining if someone has the Coronavirus.

As of today the real number of Total Viral Tests for Texas is 2,389,789 which works out to be 82,418 per 1M population so Texas is really the 10th worst state in testing

 

[A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y]

Cases in Texas are exploding.

Total cases through May 31st was only 64,287, Total cases for the month of June was: 94,223
The month of June alone was 146.6% more than all the cases before June 1st.

Last seven day's case increases are 9,765, 9,782, 9,979, 10,028, 5,318, 3,449, 8,258

First day that cases exceeded 2000 was June 10th.
First day that cases exceeded 3000 was June 17th.
First day that cases exceeded 4000 was June 20th.
First day that cases exceeded 5000 was June 23th.
First day that cases exceeded 6000 was June 30th.
First day that cases exceeded 7000 was July 1st.
First day that cases exceeded 8000 was July 1st.
First day that cases exceeded 9000 was July 7th.
First day that cases exceeded 10000 was July 7th.

The numbers of cases in Texas for each week since June 1, 2020 are :

June 1-7 : Total Cases 10,691 - Average of 1,527 per day
June 8-14 : Total Cases 12,876 - Average of 1,839 per day - 20% higher than the previous week
June 15-21 : Total Cases 22,271 - Average of 3,182 per day - 73% higher than the previous week
June 22-28 : Total Cases 37,127 - Average of 5,304 per day - 67% higher than the previous week
June 29-July 5 : Total Cases 46,511 - Average of 6,644 per day - 25% higher than the previous week
July 6-10: Total Cases 44,872 - Average of 8,974 per day - 35% higher than the previous week - Only five days for the week so far

 

[A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y]

2019 Novel Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19) for Dallas County Texas
https://www.dallascounty.org/departments/dchhs/2019-novel-coronavirus.php

July 10, 2020 - 31,525 confirmed cases - 445 deaths

31,525 confirmed cases up 1,164 and nine new deaths
those 1,164 new cases represent a 3.8% increase over the last day

Increases (by percent) since March 27, 2020 :
21.0%, 19.6%, 11.1%, 12.5%, 14.9%
-- Month of April 2020 --
15.8%, 13.7%, 10.8%, 10.2%, 9.6%, 3.9%, 9.2%, 5.0%, 8.2%, 7.3%, 7.0%, 4.8%, 3.8%, 5.0%, 5.8%,
4.0%, 6.0%, 6.1%, 4.5%, 3.5%, 3.6%, 3.1%, 3.0%, 2.6%, 2.6%, 3.6%, 3.0%, 4.3%, 3.5%, 5.3%
-- Month of May 2020 --
5.3%, 4.9%, 6.0%, 5.7%, 5.9%, 5.3%, 5.2%, 4.9%, 4.7%, 4.5%, 4.3%, 3.9%, 3.8%, 3.6%, 2.9%, 3.0%,
2.8%, 3.0%, 2.9%, 2.4%, 2.3%, 2.5%, 2.0%, 2.1%, 1.9%, 2.1%, 2.1%, 2.2%, 2.1%, 2.2%, 2.3%
-- Month of June 2020 --
2.2%, 2.5%, 2.2%, 2.6%, 2.7%, 2.5%, 2.2%, 2.1%, 2.4%, 2.4%, 2.4%, 2.5%, 2.5%, 2.2%, 2.1%,
2.1%, 2.8%, 2.6%, 2.4%, 2.5%, 2.5%, 2.7%, 2.6%, 2.2%, 2.2%, 2.7%, 2.9%, 2.9%, 2.8%, 2.9%
-- Month of July 2020 --
2.5%, 3.2%, 4.8%, 4.7%, 4.3%, 4.7%, 4.0%, 3.7%, 4.1% and now 3.8%

Increases (by count) since March 27, 2020 :
+64, +72, +49, +61, +82
-- Month of April 2020 --
+100, +100, +90, +94, +97. +43, +106, +63, +108, +105, +107, +79, +65, +89, +109,
+80, +124, +134, +104, +84, +90, +81, +80, +71, +75, +105, +91, +135, +112, +179
-- Month of May 2020 --
+187, +181, +234, +237, +253, +246, +251, +249, +250, +251, +253, +236, +243, +235, +199, +214,
+205, +224, +225, +186, +183, +204, +172, +178, +171, +190, +197, +202, +200, +219, +228
-- Month of June 2020 --
+228, +257, +239, +285, +298, +289, +263, +254, +298, +300, +312, +328, +345, +302, +305,
+306, +413, +392, +394, +395, +408, +454, +445, +391, +403, +496, +561, +570, +572, +601
-- Month of July 2020 --
+544, +708, +1,085, +1,103, +1,062, +1,214, +1,077, +1,029, +1,201 and now +1,164

As of 11:00 am July 10, 2020, Dallas County Health and Human Services is reporting 1,164 additional positive cases of 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19), bringing the total case count in Dallas County to 31,525, including 445 deaths.

The additional 9 deaths being reported today include:

• A man in his 40’s who was a resident of the City of Dallas. He had been critically ill in an area hospital, and had underlying high risk health conditions.
• A man in his 50’s who was a resident of the City of Garland. He had been critically ill in an area hospital, and had underlying high risk health conditions.
• A man in his 50’s who was a resident of the City of Dallas. He had been critically ill in an area hospital, and had underlying high risk health conditions.
• A woman in her 60’s who was a resident of the City of Garland. She expired in an area hospital ED, and did not have underlying high risk health conditions.
• A man in his 70’s who was a resident of the City of Dallas. He expired in an area hospital ED, and did not have underlying high risk health conditions.
• A woman in her 70’s who was a resident of the City of Dallas. She had been critically ill in an area hospital, and had underlying high risk health conditions.
• A man in his 70’s who was a resident of a long-term care facility in the City of Irving. He had been critically ill in an area hospital, and had underlying high risk health conditions.
• A woman in her 90’s who was a resident of the City of Garland. She had been critically ill in an area hospital.
• A woman in her 90’s who was a resident of a long-term care facility in the City of Dallas. She had been hospitalized, and had underlying high risk health conditions.

An increasing proportion of COVID-19 cases in Dallas County are being diagnosed in young adults between 18 to 39 years of age, such that of all cases reported after June 1st, half have been in this age group. Increasing reports of cases are continuing to be associated with multiple large recreational and social gatherings since the beginning of June, including house parties. Of the cases requiring hospitalization to date, more than two-thirds have been under 65 years of age. Diabetes has been an underlying high-risk health condition reported in about a third of all hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

The percentage of respiratory specimens testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 was 30% among symptomatic patients presenting to area hospitals in week 27. The age-adjusted rates of confirmed COVID-19 cases in non-hospitalized patients have been highest among Hispanics (667.4 per 100,000), Asians (187.4 per 100,000) and Blacks (136.4 per 100,000). These rates have been higher than Whites (43.8 per 100,000). Over 60% of overall COVID-19 cases to date have been Hispanic. Of cases requiring hospitalization who reported employment, over 80% have been critical infrastructure workers, with a broad range of affected occupational sectors, including: healthcare, transportation, food and agriculture, public works, finance, communications, clergy, first responders and other essential functions.

Of the 445 total deaths reported to date, about a third have been associated with long-term care facilities.

 

[pascal]

Wasn't the president of Brazil as stupid as Trump about covid? Is it a shock he's got it?

The brazilian President is fine.
He is taking Hydroxycloroquine (HCQ) with Azitromicin (AZ) since the test result.
He defended that physicians could use HCQ-AZ with pacient consent.
He instructed the production of HCQ in high volumes.
Looks like he was right.
https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study

See the FDA aproved research, peer reviewed and published online in the IJID.
https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/fulltext

I have seen many doctors depoiments about how it works if HCQ-AZ is used in the beginning.

Also Brazil is a poor country and poor people cant stop working or will die of starvation and correlated problems.

The local state (state governors and mayors) politicians got what they wanted. 100 Bilion dolars of federal emergency funding to spend without bidding!
Sorry for the off topic.

 

[iroboto]

The brazilian President is fine.
He is taking Hydroxycloroquine (HCQ) with Azitromicin (AZ) since the test result.
He defended that physicians could use HCQ-AZ with pacient consent.
He instructed the production of HCQ in high volumes.
Looks like he was right.
https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study

See the FDA aproved research, peer reviewed and published online in the IJID.
https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/fulltext

I have seen many doctors depoiments about how it works if HCQ-AZ is used in the beginning.

Also Brazil is a poor country and poor people cant stop working or will die of starvation and correlated problems.

The local state (state governors and mayors) politicians got what they wanted. 100 Bilion dolars of federal emergency funding to spend without bidding!
Sorry for the off topic.

...

The study also found those treated with azithromycin alone or a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin also fared slightly better than those not treated with the drugs, according to the Henry Ford data. The analysis found 22.4% of those treated only with azithromycin died, and 20.1% treated with a combination of azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine died, compared to 26.4% of patients dying who were not treated with either medication.

6% improvement can be a result of anything that the drug is doing, it could be removing blood clots for all we know as a side effect. Statically sure, 6.4% is just enough to say there's something there but hardly a cure.

 

[pascal]

The Cox regression result for the two propensity matched groups (Table 4) indicates that treatment with hydroxychloroquine resulted in a mortality hazard ratio decrease of 51% (p = 0.009)

The HCQ alone has a 51% decrease of mortality hazard.
The combined HCQ-AZ has a 71% reduction.

 

[pascal]

...


6% improvement can be a result of anything that the drug is doing, it could be removing blood clots for all we know as a side effect. Statically sure, 6.4% is just enough to say there's something there but hardly a cure.

Better something and at low cost than nothing.

 

[iroboto]

Better something and at low cost than nothing.

Yea I agree with this. If you're on your death bed, you'll take w/e experimental drug you need to survive.

Interesting paper, I went through it, I didn't see anything wrong. It's good that they got results, normally I would be like 'great', but there are also so many peer reviewed papers through random testing that showed no results. If this was like standard shit talking on a random topic, I can just roll with whatever, once peoples lives are involved, I'm conservative is prescribing anything because I'm not a doctor by any means. So to me, I guess I would take away is to go for it if you're going to die. But far from a solidified cure.

They did curate the patients who received it, they will need to see if they can replicate the results at Henry Ford here. A simple test is to curate the same as this hospital but don't administer HCQ medicine.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Looks like he was right.

See the FDA aproved research, peer reviewed and published online in the IJID.
https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/fulltext

Curious, as that's the very opposite of what other reports have found. The UK Recovery investigation found this:

"A total of 1542 patients were randomised to hydroxychloroquine and compared with 3132 patients randomised to usual care alone. There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of 28-day mortality (25.7% hydroxychloroquine vs. 23.5% usual care; hazard ratio 1.11 [95% confidence interval 0.98-1.26]; p=0.10). There was also no evidence of beneficial effects on hospital stay duration or other outcomes."

There's no peer-reviewed paper on the HCQ trial AFAICS, but there is on the results of Dexamethasone. In the event that the DMS is considered a good evaluation, one would have to assume the rest of the other 4 treatments, at which point why such different outcomes?

Okay, having a read a bit, it seems there may be benefit of HCQ in intubated patients same as Dex, but that data wasn't made apparent in the Recovery release. However, the Recovery investigation definitely found no improvement in normal patients.

Also checking the IJID article, I see this:

The benefits of hydroxychloroquine in our cohort as compared to previous studies maybe related to its use early in the disease course with standardized, and safe dosing, inclusion criteria, comorbidities, or larger cohort. The postulated pathophysiology of COVID-19 of the initial viral infection phase followed by the hyperimmune response suggest potential benefit of early administration of hydroxychloroquine for its antiviral and antithrombotic properties. Later therapy in patients that have already experienced hyperimmune response or critical illness is less likely to be of benefit. Others have shown that COVID-19 hospitalized patients are not diagnosed in the community and often rapidly deteriorate when hospitalized with fulminant illness. (
Mc McCullough and Arunthamakun, 2020
)
Limitations to our analysis include the retrospective, non-randomized, non-blinded study design. Also, information on duration of symptoms prior to hospitalization was not available for analysis. However, our study is notable for use of a cohort of consecutive patients from a multi-hospital institution, regularly updated and standardized institutional clinical treatment guidelines and a QTc interval-based algorithm specifically designed to ensure the safe use of hydroxychloroquine. To mitigate potential limitations associated with missing or inaccurate documentation in electronic medical records, we manually reviewed all deaths to confirm the primary mortality outcome and ascertain the cause of death. A review of our COVID-19 mortality data demonstrated no major cardiac arrhythmias; specifically, no torsades de pointes that has been observed with hydroxychloroquine treatment. This finding may be explained in two ways. First, our patient population received aggressive early medical intervention, and were less prone to development of myocarditis, and cardiac inflammation commonly seen in later stages of COVID-19 disease. Second, and importantly, inpatient telemetry with established electrolyte protocols were stringently applied to our population and monitoring for cardiac dysrhythmias was effective in controlling for adverse events. Additional strengths were the inclusion of a multi-racial patient composition, confirmation of all patients for infection with PCR, and control for various confounding factors including patient characteristics such as severity of illness by propensity matching.

I wonder if the negatives found in earlier studies were offset by careful medical management, but as such, HCQ can't be freely given and needs management, which won't help in situations where the medical services are swamped. That's obviously not a problem for the Brazilian President.

 

[pharma]

Henry Ford Study - A flawed Covid-19 study gets the White House’s attention — and the FDA may pay the price

Studies in thousands of people on multiple continents now show the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine does not help patients hospitalized with Covid-19 live longer. But on Tuesday the White House, based on a new study that outsiders greeted with deep skepticism, disagreed.

Now the Food and Drug Administration again risks being pulled into an ugly political fracas over whether to permit more patients to be treated with the drug. It is a debate that threatens to undermine the agency’s credibility when it needs it perhaps more than ever.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/07/08...uses-attention-and-the-fda-may-pay-the-price/