log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D and the rising pandemic

GreyLord

Hero


Some of those raise more questions for me than they answer...

Such as, it seems odd when comparing the number of cases in Washington and the deaths there to the number of cases in Utah and the Deaths there...it seems...disportionate.

I had understood Washington was doing better than others (such as Idaho or Florida for example) but comparisons seem to indicate that the percentages of deaths in Washington is pretty high comparably (deaths per 100K). Did one of the maps forget to add a place value (Washington appeared to have something like 340K cases and almost 5K deaths, while Utah had a similar number but only around 1.8K deaths...something seems off to me on that...same with Idaho though they have something closer to Washington numbers, you go right next door and Oregon has a higher percentage of deaths again...I know things can be somewhat random but it seems off. The West Coast supposedly had better testing than many other places.

Something seems to be going on in the Northern Western portion of the US because deaths per 100K seem to be lower (Idaho, Utah, Montana) and that doesn't make much sense to me. Statistically, it just seems to raise my eyebrows and I wonder what exactly is going on to make them so immune (they still have deaths, but the percentages seem to be lower to me at a casual glance than elsewhere). Compared to the South (Georgia, Florida, Alabama and Mississippi) they are absolutely outstanding, like that's where you want to go to avoid dying from this.

Any explanation or ideas of the disparity of death rates. I can't imagine it's due to testing numbers, as testing is NOT THAT bad in most of those states, and is even considered to be better than others in states close to them (California and Washington are supposed to be doing stellar in their testing efforts compared to the rest of the US for example from what I've heard).

It just seems strange to me looking at the numbers on the charts.

Edit: Looking at another one of the charts on your links, it brings other questions...the percentage of deaths is all over the place and the crazy thing is that the areas which seem to have better technology and healthcare are some of the ones with the higher death percentages. Do you think that some of the states are not reporting the deaths correctly or something? I have no idea what is going on but those percentages go from .5% to almost 3%, which is a crazy wide disparity between states.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Zardnaar

Legend
Some of those raise more questions for me than they answer...

Such as, it seems odd when comparing the number of cases in Washington and the deaths there to the number of cases in Utah and the Deaths there...it seems...disportionate.

I had understood Washington was doing better than others (such as Idaho or Florida for example) but comparisons seem to indicate that the percentages of deaths in Washington is pretty high comparably (deaths per 100K). Did one of the maps forget to add a place value (Washington appeared to have something like 340K cases and almost 5K deaths, while Utah had a similar number but only around 1.8K deaths...something seems off to me on that...same with Idaho though they have something closer to Washington numbers, you go right next door and Oregon has a higher percentage of deaths again...I know things can be somewhat random but it seems off. The West Coast supposedly had better testing than many other places.

Something seems to be going on in the Northern Western portion of the US because deaths per 100K seem to be lower (Idaho, Utah, Montana) and that doesn't make much sense to me. Statistically, it just seems to raise my eyebrows and I wonder what exactly is going on to make them so immune (they still have deaths, but the percentages seem to be lower to me at a casual glance than elsewhere). Compared to the South (Georgia, Florida, Alabama and Mississippi) they are absolutely outstanding, like that's where you want to go to avoid dying from this.

Any explanation or ideas of the disparity of death rates. I can't imagine it's due to testing numbers, as testing is NOT THAT bad in most of those states, and is even considered to be better than others in states close to them (California and Washington are supposed to be doing stellar in their testing efforts compared to the rest of the US for example from what I've heard).

It just seems strange to me looking at the numbers on the charts.

Edit: Looking at another one of the charts on your links, it brings other questions...the percentage of deaths is all over the place and the crazy thing is that the areas which seem to have better technology and healthcare are some of the ones with the higher death percentages. Do you think that some of the states are not reporting the deaths correctly or something? I have no idea what is going on but those percentages go from .5% to almost 3%, which is a crazy wide disparity between states.

I'm guessing it's how stats a collected and reported.

There's been quite a few places that are poorer doing better than richer places. Apparently Serbia is doing better than the EU. Vietnam and Thailand have done well.

Something similar in the states perhaps and demographics. Florida for example is older than most states.

Probably a combination of multiple things. International stats are guidelines only something similar between states I'm guessing.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Such as, it seems odd when comparing the number of cases in Washington and the deaths there to the number of cases in Utah and the Deaths there...it seems...disportionate.

There are many ways to look at data, and if you are looking across different sources, you must be careful to note what you are looking at from each source. You get different information depending on whether you look at absolute numbers of cases and deaths, cases and deaths per 100K population, and deaths per case, for example.

I had understood Washington was doing better than others (such as Idaho or Florida for example) but comparisons seem to indicate that the percentages of deaths in Washington is pretty high comparably (deaths per 100K). Did one of the maps forget to add a place value (Washington appeared to have something like 340K cases and almost 5K deaths, while Utah had a similar number but only around 1.8K deaths...something seems off to me on that...

So, you expected some similarity?

These states each have different population densities, different income distributions, different cultures, different government responses, and different healthcare availability, all of which should impact case numbers and mortality in different ways. Now, with that in mind, ask yourself why you expect them to be similar?

I know things can be somewhat random but it seems off.

It is not "random". It is dependent on many variables. Not the same thing at all.


The West Coast supposedly had better testing than many other places.

Something seems to be going on in the Northern Western portion of the US because deaths per 100K seem to be lower (Idaho, Utah, Montana) and that doesn't make much sense to me.

Lower than what? You should always explicitly state what you are comparing to... because often you'll find that what you are really comparing it to is your own expectations - and your expectations aren't worth squat. Sorry. Mine aren't worth much either. Nobody's are.

By the CDC data, you have Washington and Oregon with 64 and 52 deaths per 100K. Then Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming with around 100 to 130 per 100K. Then North and South Dakota with 180-210 per 100K. The numbers sort of rise as you go east from the coast. Why? I dunno. Maybe it is access to healthcare? Maybe the average income drops as you go from the coast towards the interior? Maybe the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally in South Dakota set the Dakotas up for a nasty result? Maybe the government response got worse, or the number of people who chose to wear masks got worse?

We'd need far more information to pinpoint WHY these things are different.

It just seems strange to me looking at the numbers on the charts.

Humans invented statistics because our native ability to guess how numbers should be... sucks. Badly. Do not trust how it "seems" to you. Human feelings about such things are strongly based on whether the numbers match some preconceived notion or preferred narrative. Those notions and narratives probably don't have to have anything to do with the realities of the virus, or varying conditions across a nation of 300 million people.

Do you think that some of the states are not reporting the deaths correctly or something? I have no idea what is going on but those percentages go from .5% to almost 3%, which is a crazy wide disparity between states.

And I return to... Massachusetts is not a whole lot like Utah. So, why should the numbers be similar?
 

Also, note that there's commonly assumed in the medical community to, contrary what some would tell you, under reporting of deaths related to COVID may be common. Its often hard to tell because cause-of-death reporting is often more art than science when multiple co-morbidities are involved.
 

Horwath

Hero
Also, note that there's commonly assumed in the medical community to, contrary what some would tell you, under reporting of deaths related to COVID may be common. Its often hard to tell because cause-of-death reporting is often more art than science when multiple co-morbidities are involved.
Hmm, in Croatia it might be the opposite, if you are positive to COVID and you die, most probably it will be marked as cause of death.

We are even running jokes that it is now perfect time to shoot someone as long as they are COVID positive, "acute lead poisoning" might just be marked as co-morbidity.

Add in the complete cluster-frakk with purchasing orders of vaccines and you got a real show going on.

Can't wait enough for my shot so we can end this "#%$"$#"!! :(
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Also, note that there's commonly assumed in the medical community to, contrary what some would tell you, under reporting of deaths related to COVID may be common. Its often hard to tell because cause-of-death reporting is often more art than science when multiple co-morbidities are involved.
Yeh the easiest right now estimate is to compare expected totals (which are actually pretty predictable) with resultant death totals the difference indicates we are under reporting by about half.... ie if we have reported 500 thousand the actual number is 750 thousand
 

GreyLord

Hero
Yeh the easiest right now estimate is to compare expected totals (which are actually pretty predictable) with resultant death totals the difference indicates we are under reporting by about half.... ie if we have reported 500 thousand the actual number is 750 thousand
Yes, this is where it gets really wierd at some of the Stats of the States.

Utah for example is the extreme on most of the things posted above...

It has a .5% mortality there?????

Yes, that's big, but I have a REALLY hard time thinking that Massachussetts has 500% or 5X the mortality rate that Utah does.

The initial number may see small, but when taking in the factors something seems REALLY wierd...like MASSIVE under-reporting, refusal to cooperate or to accept cause of death, etc.

Looking at the numbers, that's what I'm afraid some of the states in the US may be doing. It's why I pointed out Washington and California because I expect, all things even, that they probably are a little more honest and less influenced by what I will say (for the sake of the forum) erroneous uneducated pressure from some very unscientific voice. Thus, their reporting I think may be a little bit more honest and reliable. Same with many of the North Eastern states.

Of course, if this is true and the numbers are masked, how are we even going to know the actual approximate numbers of those that ACTUALLY died from the disease in the US?
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Of course, if this is true and the numbers are masked, how are we even going to know the actual approximate numbers of those that ACTUALLY died from the disease in the US?
which is why I mentioned total deaths which is not dependent on cause of death determined or on most of the influences you mentioned
 

Zardnaar

Legend
Yes, this is where it gets really wierd at some of the Stats of the States.

Utah for example is the extreme on most of the things posted above...

It has a .5% mortality there?????

Yes, that's big, but I have a REALLY hard time thinking that Massachussetts has 500% or 5X the mortality rate that Utah does.

The initial number may see small, but when taking in the factors something seems REALLY wierd...like MASSIVE under-reporting, refusal to cooperate or to accept cause of death, etc.

Looking at the numbers, that's what I'm afraid some of the states in the US may be doing. It's why I pointed out Washington and California because I expect, all things even, that they probably are a little more honest and less influenced by what I will say (for the sake of the forum) erroneous uneducated pressure from some very unscientific voice. Thus, their reporting I think may be a little bit more honest and reliable. Same with many of the North Eastern states.

Of course, if this is true and the numbers are masked, how are we even going to know the actual approximate numbers of those that ACTUALLY died from the disease in the US?

The stars are guidelines only.
 



Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Yeh the easiest right now estimate is to compare expected totals (which are actually pretty predictable) with resultant death totals the difference indicates we are under reporting by about half.... ie if we have reported 500 thousand the actual number is 750 thousand

So.. no. I mean, you may be able to blame most of that excess on covid, but you cannot rely on much of that excess to be people who actually had the disease.

That overage will include people who were fearful of going to the doctor's office or hospital, didn't get treatment, and died as a result. It includes people who tried to get treatment, but the overtaxed healthcare system couldn't fully support them at a critical moment. And people who lost jobs or health insurance, so they couldn't afford medications or nutrition. It includes people for whom isolation was so bad for them that they turned to drugs and overdosed, or committed suicide. And goodness knows how many other things.

So, while the existence of covid-19 probably contributed or caused the death in some moral sense, this does not feed into the mortality numbers in terms of your "risk of death if you catch covid".
 

Hmm, in Croatia it might be the opposite, if you are positive to COVID and you die, most probably it will be marked as cause of death.

People claim this in a lot of places. Once you dig into it, it turns out most such "overcounts" are people outside the medical community that don't understand how co-morbidity listings work (i.e., someone can have heart disease, die of a heart attack, but the COVID is still clearly the culprit because they had the heart disease managed until COVID came along). This doesn't mean some sloppy bookkeeping isn't sometimes done, but when you see people claiming its a serious factor, take it with a grain of salt).

We are even running jokes that it is now perfect time to shoot someone as long as they are COVID positive, "acute lead poisoning" might just be marked as co-morbidity.

Add in the complete cluster-frakk with purchasing orders of vaccines and you got a real show going on.

Can't wait enough for my shot so we can end this "#%$"$#"!! :(

Well, for nearly everyone's shot. After all, you can have the vaccine and still be a potential spreader, though it'll reduce your viral load.

[As an aside, hey, first time I've seen a Croat gamer anywhere; that's where my mother's family came from, though when she was alive I never paid quite enough attention to know what area thereof).
 


Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
So, while the existence of covid-19 probably contributed or caused the death in some moral sense, this does not feed into the mortality numbers in terms of your "risk of death if you catch covid".
it does not in an an absolute sense because there indeed can be some other causes but we are talking half as many who were identified ... AND with the piss poor testing in the US how many were just not tested and not identified as such... those are likely a significantly larger number.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
it does not in an an absolute sense because there indeed can be some other causes but we are talking half as many who were identified ... AND with the piss poor testing in the US how many were just not tested and not identified as such... those are likely a significantly larger number.

Sure, but... do I need to repeat myself about how human feelings about what the numbers should be are not reliable. At all? That we feel they are likely a larger number, we should not rely on that without evidence.
 



Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Sure, but... do I need to repeat myself about how human feelings about what the numbers should be are not reliable. At all? That we feel they are likely a larger number, we should not rely on that without evidence.
I did not say why it was likely... we do have more than feelings about that. For instance suicide rates where I live went from 14.7 to 14.3... from 2019 to 2020 and we can gather evidence the us overall suicide rate is also down continuing the trend from 2019 being lower than 2018. So while it remains possible that more people did commit suicide than might have without covid it also seems likely its not some huge spike nor responsible for the increase in expected deaths.
 
Last edited:

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Basically I have seen a doctor go and debunk most of the projected alternative causes for the rise in deaths compared to the expected. We had expected rates by those causes too giving a baseline change there. (with overwhelmed hospitals still being mostly covid).

However I have been reading right now our cases are dropping significantly after the first of the year at a rate that was not expected so something else is happening too.
 
Last edited:

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top