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

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

April 24, 2020 - 2834 confirmed cases - 77 deaths

2834 confirmed cases up 71 over yesterday and five new deaths
those 71 new cases represent a 2.6% increase over the last day

Increases (by percent) over the last 29 days:
21.0%, 19.6%, 11.1%, 12.5%, 14.9%, 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%,
and now 2.6%

Increases (by count) over the last 29 days:
+64, +72, +49, +61, +82, +100, +100,
+90, +94, +97, +43, +106, +63, +108,
+105, +107, +79, +65, +89, +109, +80,
+124, +134, +104, +84, +90, +81, +80,
and now +71

As of 11:00 am April 24, 2020, DCHHS is reporting 71 additional positive cases of 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19), bringing the total case count in Dallas County to 2,834, including 77 deaths.

The 5 additional deaths being reported today include:

  • A man in his 70’s who was a resident of the City of Garland and had been critically ill in an area hospital.
  • A woman in her 80’s who was a resident of the City of Dallas had been critically ill in an area hospital.
  • A man in his 80’s who was a resident of the City of Dallas and had been critically ill in an area hospital.
  • A woman in her 90’s who was a resident of the City of Dallas and had been critically ill in an area hospital.
  • A woman in her 90’s who was a resident of the City of Dallas and had been hospitalized in an area hospital.
Of cases requiring hospitalization, most have been either over 60 years of age or have had at least one known high-risk chronic health condition. Diabetes has been an underlying high-risk health condition reported in about a third of all hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Of the 77 total deaths reported to date, about 40% have been associated with long-term care facilities.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Gerry said:
https://arstechnica.com/science/202...ies-suggesting-covid-19-is-no-worse-than-flu/

Other experts suggest his use of statistics is "questionable".
Click to expand...
It says that the "The authors have reported that they are currently redoing their statistical analysis and will release the results soon." and the article is a month old.
So I wonder if they have done it and found similar results again or if they made some clarifications which may have shown that their study was more accurate or if they have done nothing and continue to report the same mistakes. The video I posted is very recent compared to when that initial study was made. Also they are collecting data from other countries as well.
 
Shifty Geezer said:
Yes. I get that, that's why I said you need to use RNA tests for virus presence to enable containment, which is why I don't get MfA's concerns about antibodies confusing containment.

But additional to that, no test method is proving to be that accurate yet, so no matter how you test, you can't completely rule out someone being or having been infected.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by accurate? There are no tests that going to be 100% accurate as there are too many factors involved that can lead to incorrect results. As such a negative diagnosis is never determined by a single data point.
 
BRiT said:
No, COVID19 is far worse than seasonal flu in the US.
Click to expand...

It's also worth mentioning that not just COVID-19 has high asymptomatic rate, some seasonal influenza outbreaks also have significant number of asymptomatic cases. So even if the number of COVID-19 cases are underestimated, so are seasonal flu numbers.
Furthermore, in both Europe and the US, the number of deaths in recent months are way higher than the average numbers in previous years. I think this demonstrated that COVID-19 is likely to be much more deadly than seasonal flu, at least in these area.
 
pcchen said:
It's also worth mentioning that not just COVID-19 has high asymptomatic rate, some seasonal influenza outbreaks also have significant number of asymptomatic cases. So even if the number of COVID-19 cases are underestimated, so are seasonal flu numbers.
Furthermore, in both Europe and the US, the number of deaths in recent months are way higher than the average numbers in previous years. I think this demonstrated that COVID-19 is likely to be much more deadly than seasonal flu, at least in these area.
Click to expand...

We have to check the details because health care systems remove personnel and resources from other departments and focus on preparations for Covid-19 incidences.
So for example some may need a surgery or treatment for whatever unrelated reason but there are no departments available to take them in while others are afraid of catching a Covid-19 so they dont visit hospitals even though they may need treatment. These people may be in danger.
If someone has a heart attack might not be able to receive help from example.
Then you ve got situation where some hospitals entered panic mode and were taking in Covid cases that werent as serious, so they overwhelmed the system which meant proper treatment for any case became almost impossible. The overcrowded health care system also meant creating an environment where it is easier for the virus to spread that under other conditions are not as favorable for it to infect.
 
Nesh said:
We have to check the details because health care systems remove personnel and resources from other departments and focus on preparations for Covid-19 incidences.
So for example some may need a surgery or treatment for whatever unrelated reason but there are no departments available to take them in while others are afraid of catching a Covid-19 so they dont visit hospitals even though they may need treatment.
Then you ve got cases where some hospitals entered panic mode and were taking in cases that werent as serious, so they overwhelmed the system which meant proper treatment for any case became almost impossible. The overcrowded health care system also meant creating an environment where it is easier for the virus to spread that under other conditions are not as favorable for it to infect.
Click to expand...

That's one possibility, yes, but in some locations people with mild symptoms are sent home to avoid over stressing available medical resources, so it shouldn't be that bad for other patients.
Right now in some locations (such as New York City) it's apparent that medical resources are heavily stressed. However, if the reason for the extra deaths is "some people died because they don't want to go to the hospital" then it's obvious that COVID-19 cases must be much more serious than seasonal flu because this wasn't the case in previous years. Therefore, while it's quite possible that we can't say all those extra deaths are caused by COVID-19, it's still very likely that COVID-19 caused much more serious and deadly cases than seasonal flu (thus making health care system overcrowded compared to seasonal flu in previous years).
 
A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y said:
Click this link: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us
and on the page click the Tests / 1M pop column to sort from worst to first
Click to expand...

Interesting that despite not having a stay at home order for North or South Dakota, they are among the better states WRT tests/million and deaths/million despite the outbreak at the meat processing plant. Just because the states believe their residents will self isolate for their own protection doesn't mean they aren't taking the virus seriously.

Of course, it also helps that those two states are sparsely populated so the residents are used to being isolated from each other to some degree anyway. That combined with the fact that most residents there aren't the type to attend mass gatherings as say the populations of New York, SF, LA, or New Orleans, for example just naturally means that most residents are fine with voluntary self isolation.

Regards,
SB
 
dobwal said:
What do you mean by accurate? There are no tests that going to be 100% accurate.
Click to expand...
Of course not, but we're seeing 20+% false negatives/false positives from the available tests. Getting tested negative doesn't prove you're negative; it only shows you're probably not infected. The UK installed some new fast test machines, but didn't bring them online because there were concerns about their accuracy. I don't know if there's any headway in the RNA tests to improve their accuracy - focus has been on speed, it seems.
 

??

Why so many contradictory opinions from experts? These doctors seem to see the data and the patients in person but report that the real situation is much different from what Faluci says.
He also says that they have more pressure to report Covid-19.
Either he is lying or Faluci is lying or one of the two sides have the wrong information.

I support measures especially in cases where the danger is unknown. But if data come in that show a positive outlook and we still have excessive measures and report the wrong doom and gloom picture, that might say a lot about the state of society and science.

But the two opinions are sitting in the extreme sides. One reports a pandemic, potentially millions of deaths, the other reports not that dangerous from the flu.

I am lost
 
Last edited:
Nesh said:
But the two opinions are sitting in the extreme sides. One reports a pandemic, potentially millions of deaths, the other reports not that dangerous from the flu.

I am lost
Click to expand...

We have already seen that it's far more dangerous than the flu. So that side can be discarded entirely?
 
BRiT said:
We have already seen that it's far more dangerous than the flu. So that side can be discarded entirely?
Click to expand...
Is it or what we see is misleading information/reports?
We are not physicians. We see numbers reported to us from various outlets which may be wrong or true. And then there are other reports saying the other picture.

We witness nothing. We just absorb information of variable quality
 
I have reports from my sister who works at Cleveland University Hospitals. It's the real deal. They even had to close down an entire floor of the University Hospital Seidman Cancer Center because of recent patient testing positive for COVID19. They have never done that for the flu. Not once in the past 30 years.
 
Nesh said:
Is it or what we see is misleading information?
Click to expand...
Have all the governments been lying? We have death rates and infections which we assume are true. The only way the disease can't be more deadly than the flu is if the death rate per infected is the same. For that, given the current death rate, we'd need a higher infection rate than we've got. Serological tests suggest at best 2-3% of the world's population has had Covid19. Let's even use Ioannidis number of 4.5%. there are currently 200,000 deaths worldwide. If that's from 4.5%, that'll be 4.5 million people once everyone has been exposed. The average deaths per year from respiratory diseases is 650,000. 4.5 million versus 650,000 (which aren't 100% from flu) shows something far, far worse.
 
Once again...Typical seasonal Flu worldwide death rate is: 280,000 - 650,000/year
Covid-19 is just now reaching 200,000.
Current CDC estimates for 2019-2020 Flu season deaths in the US is 24,000 - 62,000.
 
Nesh said:
Longer version. His narrative is completely different from what we get from the common media and numbers
Click to expand...
I've watched the first few minutes, and the guy clearly has an agenda. He's talking about problems like violence that aren't being presented as happening. We don't here about rioting Spaniards or crazed Italians murdering each other en masse. I think the basic maths I've just posted shows that his basic comparison to flu using his serological results is wrong (4.5 million deaths versus 650,000 deaths).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top