U. of Chicago COVID-19 interactive data visualization tool

[Flyguy]

The U. of Chicago has taken my infection rate metric (confirmed cases per million population) to the next level: interactive county-by-county visualization. This shows hot spots that state level data miss. Hot spots are counties with high infection rate that are surrounded by counties with elevated infection rates (this filters outliers, isolated counties with a high infection rate). The U. of Chicago is using the same data source that I am using (1point3acres.com).

https://news.uchicago.edu/story/state-level-data-misses-growing-coronavirus-hot-spots-us-including-south

The tool allows you to drill down to county level data that includes:
1. Confirmed case count.
2. COVID-19 deaths.
3. Licensed hospital beds
4. Daily new data (cases, deaths, infection rate, death rate)

https://geodacenter.github.io/covid/map.html

The country-wide view can select from 10 different metrics:
1. Confirmed count
2. Confirmed count per 10k population
3. Confirmed count per licensed bed (this is well above 1 for the NYC area)
4. Death count
5. Death count per 10k population
6. Death count per Confirmed count
7-10. Daily metrics

All of this data is available by date since the start of the crisis. You can also compare state-only data to country data to see the dramatic difference between the two.

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 2020-04-06 14:07, Flyguy wrote:

The U. of Chicago has taken my infection rate metric (confirmed cases
per million population) to the next level: interactive
county-by-county visualization. This shows hot spots that state level
data miss. Hot spots are counties with high infection rate that are
surrounded by counties with elevated infection rates (this filters
outliers, isolated counties with a high infection rate). The U. of
Chicago is using the same data source that I am using
(1point3acres.com).

https://news.uchicago.edu/story/state-level-data-misses-growing-coronavirus-hot-spots-us-including-south

The tool allows you to drill down to county level data that
includes: 1. Confirmed case count. 2. COVID-19 deaths. 3. Licensed
hospital beds 4. Daily new data (cases, deaths, infection rate, death
rate)

https://geodacenter.github.io/covid/map.html

The country-wide view can select from 10 different metrics: 1.
Confirmed count 2. Confirmed count per 10k population 3. Confirmed
count per licensed bed (this is well above 1 for the NYC area) 4.
Death count 5. Death count per 10k population 6. Death count per
Confirmed count 7-10. Daily metrics

All of this data is available by date since the start of the crisis.
You can also compare state-only data to country data to see the
dramatic difference between the two.

The confirmed infection rate in my county is running 1.5% of the total
population as of today. The true rate will of course be much higher.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

 

[Ricky C]

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 4:20:45 PM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote:

On 2020-04-06 14:07, Flyguy wrote:
The U. of Chicago has taken my infection rate metric (confirmed cases
per million population) to the next level: interactive
county-by-county visualization. This shows hot spots that state level
data miss. Hot spots are counties with high infection rate that are
surrounded by counties with elevated infection rates (this filters
outliers, isolated counties with a high infection rate). The U. of
Chicago is using the same data source that I am using
(1point3acres.com).

https://news.uchicago.edu/story/state-level-data-misses-growing-coronavirus-hot-spots-us-including-south

The tool allows you to drill down to county level data that
includes: 1. Confirmed case count. 2. COVID-19 deaths. 3. Licensed
hospital beds 4. Daily new data (cases, deaths, infection rate, death
rate)

https://geodacenter.github.io/covid/map.html

The country-wide view can select from 10 different metrics: 1.
Confirmed count 2. Confirmed count per 10k population 3. Confirmed
count per licensed bed (this is well above 1 for the NYC area) 4.
Death count 5. Death count per 10k population 6. Death count per
Confirmed count 7-10. Daily metrics

All of this data is available by date since the start of the crisis.
You can also compare state-only data to country data to see the
dramatic difference between the two.


The confirmed infection rate in my county is running 1.5% of the total
population as of today. The true rate will of course be much higher.

I believe that is the second highest in the country. First place is Blaine county Idaho with a population of 22,000 and 16 infections per hospital bed. Their death ratio seems to also be in line with your area. I wonder why they got hit hard. With such a high infection to bed ratio I wonder if they are coping? It can't be good, but maybe the can ship patients to hospitals in other areas.

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Flyguy]

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 1:20:45 PM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:

On 2020-04-06 14:07, Flyguy wrote:
The U. of Chicago has taken my infection rate metric (confirmed cases
per million population) to the next level: interactive
county-by-county visualization. This shows hot spots that state level
data miss. Hot spots are counties with high infection rate that are
surrounded by counties with elevated infection rates (this filters
outliers, isolated counties with a high infection rate). The U. of
Chicago is using the same data source that I am using
(1point3acres.com).

https://news.uchicago.edu/story/state-level-data-misses-growing-coronavirus-hot-spots-us-including-south

The tool allows you to drill down to county level data that
includes: 1. Confirmed case count. 2. COVID-19 deaths. 3. Licensed
hospital beds 4. Daily new data (cases, deaths, infection rate, death
rate)

https://geodacenter.github.io/covid/map.html

The country-wide view can select from 10 different metrics: 1.
Confirmed count 2. Confirmed count per 10k population 3. Confirmed
count per licensed bed (this is well above 1 for the NYC area) 4.
Death count 5. Death count per 10k population 6. Death count per
Confirmed count 7-10. Daily metrics

All of this data is available by date since the start of the crisis.
You can also compare state-only data to country data to see the
dramatic difference between the two.


The confirmed infection rate in my county is running 1.5% of the total
population as of today. The true rate will of course be much higher.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

The actual infection rate could be as much as 20 times the confirmed rate; Dr. Fauci seems to think it is just 2-4 times.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 12:12:39 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 1:20:45 PM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2020-04-06 14:07, Flyguy wrote:
The U. of Chicago has taken my infection rate metric (confirmed cases
per million population) to the next level: interactive
county-by-county visualization. This shows hot spots that state level
data miss. Hot spots are counties with high infection rate that are
surrounded by counties with elevated infection rates (this filters
outliers, isolated counties with a high infection rate). The U. of
Chicago is using the same data source that I am using
(1point3acres.com).

https://news.uchicago.edu/story/state-level-data-misses-growing-coronavirus-hot-spots-us-including-south

The tool allows you to drill down to county level data that
includes: 1. Confirmed case count. 2. COVID-19 deaths. 3. Licensed
hospital beds 4. Daily new data (cases, deaths, infection rate, death
rate)

https://geodacenter.github.io/covid/map.html

The country-wide view can select from 10 different metrics: 1.
Confirmed count 2. Confirmed count per 10k population 3. Confirmed
count per licensed bed (this is well above 1 for the NYC area) 4.
Death count 5. Death count per 10k population 6. Death count per
Confirmed count 7-10. Daily metrics

All of this data is available by date since the start of the crisis.
You can also compare state-only data to country data to see the
dramatic difference between the two.


The confirmed infection rate in my county is running 1.5% of the total
population as of today. The true rate will of course be much higher.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

The actual infection rate could be as much as 20 times the confirmed rate;

Everything is possible, but that's very unlikely to be true.

We will know more when we start testing lots of people for antibodies to Covid-19. This is starting to happen, but it's still relatively small scale.

> Dr. Fauci seems to think it is just 2-4 times.

And that's high too, but at least he's an expert - but one stuck with the job of not showing up Donald Trump.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 1:00:41 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

Everything is possible, but that's very unlikely to be true.

We will know more when we start testing lots of people for antibodies to Covid-19. This is starting to happen, but it's still relatively small scale..

Dr. Fauci seems to think it is just 2-4 times.

And that's high too, but at least he's an expert - but one stuck with the job of not showing up Donald Trump.

Okay, so you're still pretending to be the expert epidemiologist. Your ignorance and oversimplifications are nothing short of astounding.

The antibody rapid tests are looking for the SARS IgM and IgG antibodies. The IgM disappear below detectibility within weeks and the IgG have been observed to be detectable after 3-4 months, but the research is unsure how much longer that persistence will last.
The Chinese developed a lab grade test back in 2004 for the original SARS and found both of these spike protein antibodies to be detectable for over 600 days. But there's no telling if that kind of test is feasible from the perspective of mass production and cost. The rapid test manufacturers of today certainly can't and don't claim anything near that performance.
Another surprising result was the Chinese lab grade test required the victim to be 20-40 days into the infection before the level of antibody detectability reached even 80%. This can be considered an upper limit on the rapid test technology we have presently I'm guessing. The rapid tests are not totally useless, they sell for about $25 per test.

So, to put things simply in a way you can understand. Jack and Jill ran up the hill. Jack says to Jill, the antibody tests are not going give us the historical information we need. To which Jill responds: "meh."

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Ricky C]

On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 11:54:02 AM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 1:00:41 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:


Everything is possible, but that's very unlikely to be true.

We will know more when we start testing lots of people for antibodies to Covid-19. This is starting to happen, but it's still relatively small scale.

Dr. Fauci seems to think it is just 2-4 times.

And that's high too, but at least he's an expert - but one stuck with the job of not showing up Donald Trump.

Okay, so you're still pretending to be the expert epidemiologist. Your ignorance and oversimplifications are nothing short of astounding.

The antibody rapid tests are looking for the SARS IgM and IgG antibodies. The IgM disappear below detectibility within weeks and the IgG have been observed to be detectable after 3-4 months, but the research is unsure how much longer that persistence will last.
The Chinese developed a lab grade test back in 2004 for the original SARS and found both of these spike protein antibodies to be detectable for over 600 days. But there's no telling if that kind of test is feasible from the perspective of mass production and cost. The rapid test manufacturers of today certainly can't and don't claim anything near that performance.
Another surprising result was the Chinese lab grade test required the victim to be 20-40 days into the infection before the level of antibody detectability reached even 80%. This can be considered an upper limit on the rapid test technology we have presently I'm guessing. The rapid tests are not totally useless, they sell for about $25 per test.

So, to put things simply in a way you can understand. Jack and Jill ran up the hill. Jack says to Jill, the antibody tests are not going give us the historical information we need. To which Jill responds: "meh."

The more I think about it, the more I believe I had a "mild" case of COVID-19 at the end of February. I'm more interested in knowing what the actual infection rate was at the time.

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 3:42:47 PM UTC-4, Ricky C wrote:

On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 11:54:02 AM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 1:00:41 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:


Everything is possible, but that's very unlikely to be true.

We will know more when we start testing lots of people for antibodies to Covid-19. This is starting to happen, but it's still relatively small scale.

Dr. Fauci seems to think it is just 2-4 times.

And that's high too, but at least he's an expert - but one stuck with the job of not showing up Donald Trump.

Okay, so you're still pretending to be the expert epidemiologist. Your ignorance and oversimplifications are nothing short of astounding.

The antibody rapid tests are looking for the SARS IgM and IgG antibodies. The IgM disappear below detectibility within weeks and the IgG have been observed to be detectable after 3-4 months, but the research is unsure how much longer that persistence will last.
The Chinese developed a lab grade test back in 2004 for the original SARS and found both of these spike protein antibodies to be detectable for over 600 days. But there's no telling if that kind of test is feasible from the perspective of mass production and cost. The rapid test manufacturers of today certainly can't and don't claim anything near that performance.
Another surprising result was the Chinese lab grade test required the victim to be 20-40 days into the infection before the level of antibody detectability reached even 80%. This can be considered an upper limit on the rapid test technology we have presently I'm guessing. The rapid tests are not totally useless, they sell for about $25 per test.

So, to put things simply in a way you can understand. Jack and Jill ran up the hill. Jack says to Jill, the antibody tests are not going give us the historical information we need. To which Jill responds: "meh."

The more I think about it, the more I believe I had a "mild" case of COVID-19 at the end of February. I'm more interested in knowing what the actual infection rate was at the time.

I'm hearing more people relating the same experience. Some went to their doctor and were diagnosed with "some kind of weird flu." It's not a coincidence that this "weird" flu shows up 4-6 months into the flu season coincident with the China situation getting out of hand. What happens in China doesn't stay in China, with those !@#$%^&* airlines flying tens of thousands of those people in and out of the country every day. They were bringing it here since at least November, maybe sooner.

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 1:54:02 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 1:00:41 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:


Everything is possible, but that's very unlikely to be true.

We will know more when we start testing lots of people for antibodies to Covid-19. This is starting to happen, but it's still relatively small scale.

Dr. Fauci seems to think it is just 2-4 times.

And that's high too, but at least he's an expert - but one stuck with the job of not showing up Donald Trump.

Okay, so you're still pretending to be the expert epidemiologist. Your ignorance and oversimplifications are nothing short of astounding.

The antibody rapid tests are looking for the SARS IgM and IgG antibodies. The IgM disappear below detectibility within weeks and the IgG have been observed to be detectable after 3-4 months, but the research is unsure how much longer that persistence will last.

Since patient zero got sick in the 1st December 2019, juat over four months ago, that's tautologous observation.

The Chinese developed a lab grade test back in 2004 for the original SARS and found both of these spike protein antibodies to be detectable for over 600 days. But there's no telling if that kind of test is feasible from the perspective of mass production and cost. The rapid test manufacturers of today certainly can't and don't claim anything near that performance.

Another surprising result was the Chinese lab grade test required the victim to be 20-40 days into the infection before the level of antibody detectability reached even 80%. This can be considered an upper limit on the rapid test technology we have presently I'm guessing. The rapid tests are not totally useless, they sell for about $25 per test.

So, to put things simply in a way you can understand. Jack and Jill ran up the hill. Jack says to Jill, the antibody tests are not going give us the historical information we need. To which Jill responds: "meh."

Your guesswork is compromised by your demonstrated capacity to get confused about what you think you remember.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 5:55:40 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 3:42:47 PM UTC-4, Ricky C wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 11:54:02 AM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 1:00:41 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:


Everything is possible, but that's very unlikely to be true.

We will know more when we start testing lots of people for antibodies to Covid-19. This is starting to happen, but it's still relatively small scale.

Dr. Fauci seems to think it is just 2-4 times.

And that's high too, but at least he's an expert - but one stuck with the job of not showing up Donald Trump.

Okay, so you're still pretending to be the expert epidemiologist. Your ignorance and oversimplifications are nothing short of astounding.

The antibody rapid tests are looking for the SARS IgM and IgG antibodies. The IgM disappear below detectibility within weeks and the IgG have been observed to be detectable after 3-4 months, but the research is unsure how much longer that persistence will last.
The Chinese developed a lab grade test back in 2004 for the original SARS and found both of these spike protein antibodies to be detectable for over 600 days. But there's no telling if that kind of test is feasible from the perspective of mass production and cost. The rapid test manufacturers of today certainly can't and don't claim anything near that performance.
Another surprising result was the Chinese lab grade test required the victim to be 20-40 days into the infection before the level of antibody detectability reached even 80%. This can be considered an upper limit on the rapid test technology we have presently I'm guessing. The rapid tests are not totally useless, they sell for about $25 per test.

So, to put things simply in a way you can understand. Jack and Jill ran up the hill. Jack says to Jill, the antibody tests are not going give us the historical information we need. To which Jill responds: "meh."

The more I think about it, the more I believe I had a "mild" case of COVID-19 at the end of February. I'm more interested in knowing what the actual infection rate was at the time.

I'm hearing more people relating the same experience. Some went to their doctor and were diagnosed with "some kind of weird flu." It's not a coincidence that this "weird" flu shows up 4-6 months into the flu season coincident with the China situation getting out of hand. What happens in China doesn't stay in China, with those !@#$%^&* airlines flying tens of thousands of those people in and out of the country every day. They were bringing it here since at least November, maybe sooner.

Lots of people think they might have had some fashionable disease.

Medical students are particularly prone to this, so being rather better informed about medicine than the people who are posting here isn't any kind of defense against it.

The fact that we've now got a problem with Covid-19 doesn't mean that you can't have had some form of weird flu - that was just flu - going around as well.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 12:04:00 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 1:54:02 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 1:00:41 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:


Everything is possible, but that's very unlikely to be true.

We will know more when we start testing lots of people for antibodies to Covid-19. This is starting to happen, but it's still relatively small scale.

Dr. Fauci seems to think it is just 2-4 times.

And that's high too, but at least he's an expert - but one stuck with the job of not showing up Donald Trump.

Okay, so you're still pretending to be the expert epidemiologist. Your ignorance and oversimplifications are nothing short of astounding.

The antibody rapid tests are looking for the SARS IgM and IgG antibodies. The IgM disappear below detectibility within weeks and the IgG have been observed to be detectable after 3-4 months, but the research is unsure how much longer that persistence will last.

Since patient zero got sick in the 1st December 2019, juat over four months ago, that's tautologous observation.

That patient zero jazz is a genomic analysis study. There are now 8 distinct strains circulating, all of which are mutations of the so-called patient zero strain which they're thinking first appeared in November. All this descriptive numbering is purely figurative, just like the infection rate being visualized as people infecting a fractional number of other people, which i abotu as real as the average this or average that.

The Chinese developed a lab grade test back in 2004 for the original SARS and found both of these spike protein antibodies to be detectable for over 600 days. But there's no telling if that kind of test is feasible from the perspective of mass production and cost. The rapid test manufacturers of today certainly can't and don't claim anything near that performance.

Another surprising result was the Chinese lab grade test required the victim to be 20-40 days into the infection before the level of antibody detectability reached even 80%. This can be considered an upper limit on the rapid test technology we have presently I'm guessing. The rapid tests are not totally useless, they sell for about $25 per test.

So, to put things simply in a way you can understand. Jack and Jill ran up the hill. Jack says to Jill, the antibody tests are not going give us the historical information we need. To which Jill responds: "meh."

Your guesswork is compromised by your demonstrated capacity to get confused about what you think you remember.

I rarely get "confused." My point was the rapid antibody test will be unusable towards a large scale retrospective study of the spread of the epidemic, but apparently that was lost on you.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Ricky C]

On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 5:46:00 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

Here's a symptoms chart to help distinguish between various illnesses:
https://www.wcia.com/health/spotting-the-difference-between-covid-19-and-allergies/

Anyone with any experience with influenza knows it is not "the" flu.

They didn't list chills. My understanding is pronounced chills are a common symptom.

--

Rick C.

-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 12:10:22 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 5:55:40 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 3:42:47 PM UTC-4, Ricky C wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 11:54:02 AM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 1:00:41 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:


Everything is possible, but that's very unlikely to be true.

We will know more when we start testing lots of people for antibodies to Covid-19. This is starting to happen, but it's still relatively small scale.

Dr. Fauci seems to think it is just 2-4 times.

And that's high too, but at least he's an expert - but one stuck with the job of not showing up Donald Trump.

Okay, so you're still pretending to be the expert epidemiologist. Your ignorance and oversimplifications are nothing short of astounding.

The antibody rapid tests are looking for the SARS IgM and IgG antibodies. The IgM disappear below detectibility within weeks and the IgG have been observed to be detectable after 3-4 months, but the research is unsure how much longer that persistence will last.
The Chinese developed a lab grade test back in 2004 for the original SARS and found both of these spike protein antibodies to be detectable for over 600 days. But there's no telling if that kind of test is feasible from the perspective of mass production and cost. The rapid test manufacturers of today certainly can't and don't claim anything near that performance.
Another surprising result was the Chinese lab grade test required the victim to be 20-40 days into the infection before the level of antibody detectability reached even 80%. This can be considered an upper limit on the rapid test technology we have presently I'm guessing. The rapid tests are not totally useless, they sell for about $25 per test.

So, to put things simply in a way you can understand. Jack and Jill ran up the hill. Jack says to Jill, the antibody tests are not going give us the historical information we need. To which Jill responds: "meh."

The more I think about it, the more I believe I had a "mild" case of COVID-19 at the end of February. I'm more interested in knowing what the actual infection rate was at the time.

I'm hearing more people relating the same experience. Some went to their doctor and were diagnosed with "some kind of weird flu." It's not a coincidence that this "weird" flu shows up 4-6 months into the flu season coincident with the China situation getting out of hand. What happens in China doesn't stay in China, with those !@#$%^&* airlines flying tens of thousands of those people in and out of the country every day. They were bringing it here since at least November, maybe sooner.

Lots of people think they might have had some fashionable disease.

Medical students are particularly prone to this, so being rather better informed about medicine than the people who are posting here isn't any kind of defense against it.

The fact that we've now got a problem with Covid-19 doesn't mean that you can't have had some form of weird flu - that was just flu - going around as well.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Here's a symptoms chart to help distinguish between various illnesses:
https://www.wcia.com/health/spotting-the-difference-between-covid-19-and-allergies/

Anyone with any experience with influenza knows it is not "the" flu.

 

[Flyguy]

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 10:00:41 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 12:12:39 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 1:20:45 PM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2020-04-06 14:07, Flyguy wrote:
The U. of Chicago has taken my infection rate metric (confirmed cases
per million population) to the next level: interactive
county-by-county visualization. This shows hot spots that state level
data miss. Hot spots are counties with high infection rate that are
surrounded by counties with elevated infection rates (this filters
outliers, isolated counties with a high infection rate). The U. of
Chicago is using the same data source that I am using
(1point3acres.com).

https://news.uchicago.edu/story/state-level-data-misses-growing-coronavirus-hot-spots-us-including-south

The tool allows you to drill down to county level data that
includes: 1. Confirmed case count. 2. COVID-19 deaths. 3. Licensed
hospital beds 4. Daily new data (cases, deaths, infection rate, death
rate)

https://geodacenter.github.io/covid/map.html

The country-wide view can select from 10 different metrics: 1.
Confirmed count 2. Confirmed count per 10k population 3. Confirmed
count per licensed bed (this is well above 1 for the NYC area) 4.
Death count 5. Death count per 10k population 6. Death count per
Confirmed count 7-10. Daily metrics

All of this data is available by date since the start of the crisis.
You can also compare state-only data to country data to see the
dramatic difference between the two.


The confirmed infection rate in my county is running 1.5% of the total
population as of today. The true rate will of course be much higher.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

The actual infection rate could be as much as 20 times the confirmed rate;

Everything is possible, but that's very unlikely to be true.

We will know more when we start testing lots of people for antibodies to Covid-19. This is starting to happen, but it's still relatively small scale.

Dr. Fauci seems to think it is just 2-4 times.

And that's high too, but at least he's an expert - but one stuck with the job of not showing up Donald Trump.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

My bad! Those numbers were coming from actual doctors treating actual COVID patients - little did I know that you have far more global data to work with!!

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 7:52:53 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 12:04:00 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 1:54:02 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 1:00:41 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:


Everything is possible, but that's very unlikely to be true.

We will know more when we start testing lots of people for antibodies to Covid-19. This is starting to happen, but it's still relatively small scale.

Dr. Fauci seems to think it is just 2-4 times.

And that's high too, but at least he's an expert - but one stuck with the job of not showing up Donald Trump.

Okay, so you're still pretending to be the expert epidemiologist. Your ignorance and oversimplifications are nothing short of astounding.

The antibody rapid tests are looking for the SARS IgM and IgG antibodies. The IgM disappear below detectibility within weeks and the IgG have been observed to be detectable after 3-4 months, but the research is unsure how much longer that persistence will last.

Since patient zero got sick in the 1st December 2019, juat over four months ago, that's tautologous observation.

That patient zero jazz is a genomic analysis study. There are now 8 distinct strains circulating, all of which are mutations of the so-called patient zero strain which they're thinking first appeared in November. All this descriptive numbering is purely figurative, just like the infection rate being visualized as people infecting a fractional number of other people, which i abotu as real as the average this or average that.

The Chinese developed a lab grade test back in 2004 for the original SARS and found both of these spike protein antibodies to be detectable for over 600 days. But there's no telling if that kind of test is feasible from the perspective of mass production and cost. The rapid test manufacturers of today certainly can't and don't claim anything near that performance.

Another surprising result was the Chinese lab grade test required the victim to be 20-40 days into the infection before the level of antibody detectability reached even 80%. This can be considered an upper limit on the rapid test technology we have presently I'm guessing. The rapid tests are not totally useless, they sell for about $25 per test.

So, to put things simply in a way you can understand. Jack and Jill ran up the hill. Jack says to Jill, the antibody tests are not going give us the historical information we need. To which Jill responds: "meh."

Your guesswork is compromised by your demonstrated capacity to get confused about what you think you remember.

I rarely get "confused."

You rarely notice when it is demonstrated that you did get confused. This isn't quite same thing.

> My point was the rapid antibody test will be unusable towards a large scale retrospective study of the spread of the epidemic, but apparently that was lost on you.

Still is. The conclusion seemed to be based on the idea that antibodies go away with time, when the real problem is that RNA viruses mutate fast enough the antibody to the ancestral virus doesn't react to it's remote descendant,

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 1:10:05 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 7:52:53 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 12:04:00 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 1:54:02 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail..com wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 1:00:41 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:


Everything is possible, but that's very unlikely to be true.

We will know more when we start testing lots of people for antibodies to Covid-19. This is starting to happen, but it's still relatively small scale.

Dr. Fauci seems to think it is just 2-4 times.

And that's high too, but at least he's an expert - but one stuck with the job of not showing up Donald Trump.

Okay, so you're still pretending to be the expert epidemiologist. Your ignorance and oversimplifications are nothing short of astounding.

The antibody rapid tests are looking for the SARS IgM and IgG antibodies. The IgM disappear below detectibility within weeks and the IgG have been observed to be detectable after 3-4 months, but the research is unsure how much longer that persistence will last.

Since patient zero got sick in the 1st December 2019, juat over four months ago, that's tautologous observation.

That patient zero jazz is a genomic analysis study. There are now 8 distinct strains circulating, all of which are mutations of the so-called patient zero strain which they're thinking first appeared in November. All this descriptive numbering is purely figurative, just like the infection rate being visualized as people infecting a fractional number of other people, which i abotu as real as the average this or average that.

The Chinese developed a lab grade test back in 2004 for the original SARS and found both of these spike protein antibodies to be detectable for over 600 days. But there's no telling if that kind of test is feasible from the perspective of mass production and cost. The rapid test manufacturers of today certainly can't and don't claim anything near that performance.

Another surprising result was the Chinese lab grade test required the victim to be 20-40 days into the infection before the level of antibody detectability reached even 80%. This can be considered an upper limit on the rapid test technology we have presently I'm guessing. The rapid tests are not totally useless, they sell for about $25 per test.

So, to put things simply in a way you can understand. Jack and Jill ran up the hill. Jack says to Jill, the antibody tests are not going give us the historical information we need. To which Jill responds: "meh."

Your guesswork is compromised by your demonstrated capacity to get confused about what you think you remember.

I rarely get "confused."

You rarely notice when it is demonstrated that you did get confused. This isn't quite same thing.

You keep making outrageous claims like this when in fact you're hopelessly confused to think you came anywhere close to "demonstrating" anything. You're too old now to evolve to the point where you could eventually realize how addle brained you sound. Your situation is hopeless.

My point was the rapid antibody test will be unusable towards a large scale retrospective study of the spread of the epidemic, but apparently that was lost on you.

Still is. The conclusion seemed to be based on the idea that antibodies go away with time, when the real problem is that RNA viruses mutate fast enough the antibody to the ancestral virus doesn't react to it's remote descendant,

There have been no such mutations noted, and the various mutations and/or strains that have been identified, using a much larger population than just a single individual, all have the same immutable S-(spike) protein used for cell fusion/infection. All the rapid antibody tests are looking for the IgX's targeting that S-protein.

You still seem confused about the two distinct types of antibody tests: 1) the one type looking for antibodies in the blood that react to a specific antigen, and 2) the type looking for antigens in the blood that react to a specific antibody. Nothing by way of the second test are even in the process of being introduced, mainly because they're a lot more trouble with raising transgenic animal stock, infecting them and extracting and tagging antibodies. Even you should be able to understand how much more work that is.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 6:38:20 PM UTC-4, Ricky C wrote:

On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 5:46:00 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

Here's a symptoms chart to help distinguish between various illnesses:
https://www.wcia.com/health/spotting-the-difference-between-covid-19-and-allergies/

Anyone with any experience with influenza knows it is not "the" flu.

They didn't list chills. My understanding is pronounced chills are a common symptom.

--

Rick C.

-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

News breaking today is the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency had been tracking the corona outbreak in Chine since November. The people I'm talking about, who came down with the "some kind of weird flu," all caught this thing in the early December time frame, long before corona was a word on the news. So this stuff about it being a suggestion driven by some kind of hypochondria is bull. That dammed virus was here and circulating in the U.S. in November time frame, and the government will deny it because it's a major failure of public health surveillance.

 

On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 11:20:31 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 10:00:41 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 12:12:39 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 1:20:45 PM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2020-04-06 14:07, Flyguy wrote:
The U. of Chicago has taken my infection rate metric (confirmed cases
per million population) to the next level: interactive
county-by-county visualization. This shows hot spots that state level
data miss. Hot spots are counties with high infection rate that are
surrounded by counties with elevated infection rates (this filters
outliers, isolated counties with a high infection rate). The U. of
Chicago is using the same data source that I am using
(1point3acres.com).

https://news.uchicago.edu/story/state-level-data-misses-growing-coronavirus-hot-spots-us-including-south

The tool allows you to drill down to county level data that
includes: 1. Confirmed case count. 2. COVID-19 deaths. 3. Licensed
hospital beds 4. Daily new data (cases, deaths, infection rate, death
rate)

https://geodacenter.github.io/covid/map.html

The country-wide view can select from 10 different metrics: 1.
Confirmed count 2. Confirmed count per 10k population 3. Confirmed
count per licensed bed (this is well above 1 for the NYC area) 4.
Death count 5. Death count per 10k population 6. Death count per
Confirmed count 7-10. Daily metrics

All of this data is available by date since the start of the crisis.
You can also compare state-only data to country data to see the
dramatic difference between the two.


The confirmed infection rate in my county is running 1.5% of the total
population as of today. The true rate will of course be much higher.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

The actual infection rate could be as much as 20 times the confirmed rate;

Everything is possible, but that's very unlikely to be true.

We will know more when we start testing lots of people for antibodies to Covid-19. This is starting to happen, but it's still relatively small scale.

Dr. Fauci seems to think it is just 2-4 times.

And that's high too, but at least he's an expert - but one stuck with the job of not showing up Donald Trump.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

My bad! Those numbers were coming from actual doctors treating actual COVID patients - little did I know that you have far more global data to work with!!

Too amazing how morons always know and agree with one another. Must be a wavelength thing.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 12:57:05 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 1:10:05 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 7:52:53 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 12:04:00 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 1:54:02 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 1:00:41 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

<snip>

My point was the rapid antibody test will be unusable towards a large scale retrospective study of the spread of the epidemic, but apparently that was lost on you.

Still is. The conclusion seemed to be based on the idea that antibodies go away with time, when the real problem is that RNA viruses mutate fast enough the antibody to the ancestral virus doesn't react to it's remote descendant,

There have been no such mutations noted, and the various mutations and/or strains that have been identified, using a much larger population than just a single individual, all have the same immutable S-(spike) protein used for cell fusion/infection. All the rapid antibody tests are looking for the IgX's targeting that S-protein.

All the rapid antibody tests may be looking for the spike protein, but natural antibodies aren't that specific, otherwise the 25% of colds caused by corona viruses would be blocked by our own antibodies, and SARs, MERS and Covid-19 wouldn't have infected us.

Some weeks ago a I posted a link to some work on a synthetic vaccine which was supposed to create lots of synthetic spike protein in the blood of the people being vaccinated, so that they'd antibodies that reacted just to the spike protein on the surface of any of the corona viruses - SARS, MERs, Civd-19 and the one that cause 25% of common colds - natural antibodies seem to go for larger targets, and the viruses do mutate enough to change the spacing between the spike proteins, so that natural antibodies don't pick up on different corona viruses.

> You still seem confused about the two distinct types of antibody tests: 1) the one type looking for antibodies in the blood that react to a specific antigen, and 2) the type looking for antigens in the blood that react to a specific antibody.

I can't imagine why you think that. I worked on a machine that used monoclonal antibodies to latch onto specific infective agents - the one that got sold to Porton Down got sold with a bunch of disposable sensing blocks that had been loaded with an antibody that latched onto Yersinia pestis (the Black Plague bacterium).

The natural antibodies in the blood latch onto specific bacteria and viruses, and there are well know tests to checked whether you've been infected - that's how the Dutch doctors worked out that my wife's weird symptoms were caused by secondary European Lyme disease (borrelia). My Dutch GP checked me out years later, and I had antibodies to borrelia too, but my immune system seemed to have got rid of the bugs at the primary stage of the infection..

> Nothing by way of the second test are even in the process of being introduced, mainly because they're a lot more trouble with raising transgenic animal stock, infecting them and extracting and tagging antibodies. Even you should be able to understand how much more work that is.

Your "second test" looking for antigens in the blood (or saliva or nasal mucus) is an example of what is used to check for the Covid-19 virus.

Monoclonal antibodies are great at locking onto specific antigens - as used in the machine I worked on.

The confusion is clearly all yours.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 1:15:33 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 11:20:31 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 10:00:41 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 12:12:39 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 1:20:45 PM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2020-04-06 14:07, Flyguy wrote:
The U. of Chicago has taken my infection rate metric (confirmed cases
per million population) to the next level: interactive
county-by-county visualization. This shows hot spots that state level
data miss. Hot spots are counties with high infection rate that are
surrounded by counties with elevated infection rates (this filters
outliers, isolated counties with a high infection rate). The U. of
Chicago is using the same data source that I am using
(1point3acres.com).

https://news.uchicago.edu/story/state-level-data-misses-growing-coronavirus-hot-spots-us-including-south

The tool allows you to drill down to county level data that
includes: 1. Confirmed case count. 2. COVID-19 deaths. 3. Licensed
hospital beds 4. Daily new data (cases, deaths, infection rate, death
rate)

https://geodacenter.github.io/covid/map.html

The country-wide view can select from 10 different metrics: 1.
Confirmed count 2. Confirmed count per 10k population 3. Confirmed
count per licensed bed (this is well above 1 for the NYC area) 4.
Death count 5. Death count per 10k population 6. Death count per
Confirmed count 7-10. Daily metrics

All of this data is available by date since the start of the crisis.
You can also compare state-only data to country data to see the
dramatic difference between the two.


The confirmed infection rate in my county is running 1.5% of the total
population as of today. The true rate will of course be much higher.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

The actual infection rate could be as much as 20 times the confirmed rate;

Everything is possible, but that's very unlikely to be true.

We will know more when we start testing lots of people for antibodies to Covid-19. This is starting to happen, but it's still relatively small scale.

Dr. Fauci seems to think it is just 2-4 times.

And that's high too, but at least he's an expert - but one stuck with the job of not showing up Donald Trump.

My bad! Those numbers were coming from actual doctors treating actual COVID patients - little did I know that you have far more global data to work with!!

Flyguy is a moron. How are actual doctors testing actual Covid-19 patients supposed to know how many people get Covid-19 without showing overt symptoms?

The only way of reliably inferring a symptomless infection is by testing the blood of the imagined infectees for antibodies, and that isn't a high priority task at the moment.

> Too amazing how morons always know and agree with one another. Must be a wavelength thing.

It isn't exactly clear which morons Fred is complaining about, and what they are supposed to be agreeing about. The claim that Covid-19 has been circulating in the US since November is pretty moronic.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney