Covid19 - what they're not telling you

I appreciated the fact that he shared his credentials, otherwise he’s just a Vietnamese guy with a weird name on youtube with a stupid haircut.

same. I’m far from the degree or trade elitism type, but it’s just as much a disclaimer as it is a credential of support in these situations.

when I hear “I’m a physician” my mind knows to be especially critical of his/her opinion, as it only holds weight with regard to treatment/medical practice.

So if he starts making epidemiology claims I know this has gone from professional to personal opinion. Likewise if statistician/mathematician in epidemiology starts talking about using Aquarian cleaner pills.

if the guy is a freight shipping logistics manager and not talking about the impacts in his field...again skepticism.

I find it important to know who is providing me with info.

if it’s a journalist, I know the information is more worthless than a steaming pile of poop covered I. Flies....
 
That link had been posted above. Today's data was outdated by 11 am. That link has a built-in lag from pending test results. NC is ahead of the curve compared to some states; behind some others. The numbers of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths will continue to rise for a couple more weeks, at least.
This will be good data to view LATER. That qualifier of "specimens collected during this time may not yet be reported" is huge.

You both make excellent points about the quality of that data set and trying to infer any trending from it.

Another point for everyone to recall is that Wake Co, STOPPED testing every symptomatic person for COVID-19 (The actual virus name is SARS-CoV-2 BTW) around 24Mar2020 due to test kit shortages.

quoted from: http://www.wakegov.com/news/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=1198

As a result, starting today, the county will reserve its tests and protective gear for two main groups of people if they become symptomatic:

  • Seniors ages 65 and older and people with underlying health conditions. They will be among the first to be tested, because they are most at risk of experiencing serious illness if they contract the virus.
  • First responders and healthcare workers. They are on the frontlines of this situation, and if they are infected, the county doesn’t want them spreading COVID-19 to anyone else. Conversely, if they test negative for the virus, they can return sooner to their important jobs caring for and protecting our residents.

The Benefits of our New Strategy
By shifting to a new strategy, the county is able to preserve limited protective equipment and test kits for groups at highest risk of contracting the virus and experiencing significant health impacts such as hospitalization, organ failure or death.

The new approach also enables the county to help protect our community’s healthcare system from becoming overwhelmed, so local hospitals can continue to treat only those who need critical care.



Cliff Note version...it's a skewed graph and not a true indicator of the actual number of cases in NC. They even list several disclaimers at the top of the page:

https://www.ncdhhs.gov/covid-19-case-count-nc#cases-over-time


Not all cases of COVID-19 are tested, so this does not represent the total number of people in North Carolina who have or had COVID-19.

Deaths reflect deaths in persons with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 reported by local health departments to the NC Department of Health and Human Services.

Completed tests reflect testing completed by the NC State Laboratory of Public Health and reporting hospital and commercial labs.

Currently hospitalized reflect the number of patients with COVID-19 that are currently hospitalized in reporting hospitals.


 
Last edited:
You both make excellent points about the quality of that data set and trying to infer any trending from it.

Another point for everyone to recall is that Wake Co, STOPPED testing every symptomatic person for COVID-19 (The actual virus name is SARS-CoV-2 BTW) around 24Mar2020 due to test kit shortages.

quoted from: http://www.wakegov.com/news/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=1198

As a result, starting today, the county will reserve its tests and protective gear for two main groups of people if they become symptomatic:

  • Seniors ages 65 and older and people with underlying health conditions. They will be among the first to be tested, because they are most at risk of experiencing serious illness if they contract the virus.
  • First responders and healthcare workers. They are on the frontlines of this situation, and if they are infected, the county doesn’t want them spreading COVID-19 to anyone else. Conversely, if they test negative for the virus, they can return sooner to their important jobs caring for and protecting our residents.

The Benefits of our New Strategy
By shifting to a new strategy, the county is able to preserve limited protective equipment and test kits for groups at highest risk of contracting the virus and experiencing significant health impacts such as hospitalization, organ failure or death.

The new approach also enables the county to help protect our community’s healthcare system from becoming overwhelmed, so local hospitals can continue to treat only those who need critical care.



Cliff Note version...it's a skewed graph and not a true indicator of the actual number of cases in NC. They even list several disclaimers at the top of the page:

https://www.ncdhhs.gov/covid-19-case-count-nc#cases-over-time


Not all cases of COVID-19 are tested, so this does not represent the total number of people in North Carolina who have or had COVID-19.

Deaths reflect deaths in persons with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 reported by local health departments to the NC Department of Health and Human Services.

Completed tests reflect testing completed by the NC State Laboratory of Public Health and reporting hospital and commercial labs.

Currently hospitalized reflect the number of patients with COVID-19 that are currently hospitalized in reporting hospitals.

Your analysis (i.e. graph) is only as good as the data you put in. In this case, it looks like the data is quickly becoming garbage.

This is why I have some apprehension about this whole thing. Why would the medical/scientific community be ok with data being skewed...heck, destroyed, by inconsistencies like this? We've got nothing to analyze...nothing to be smart about and develop a reasonable solution. All that's left to do is listen to the talking heads about how badly to freak out. I guess I'd expect better from such an enlightened and high tech society...with a bunch of credentials and degrees that we can point to, nonetheless.
 
Last edited:
Your analysis (i.e. graph) is only as good as the data you put in. In this case, it looks like the data is quickly becoming garbage.

This is why I have some apprehension about this whole thing. Why would the medical/scientific community be ok with data being skewed...heck, destroyed, by inconsistencies like this? We've got nothing to analyze...nothing to be smart about and develop a reasonable solution. All that's left to do is listen to the talking heads about how badly to freak out. I guess I'd expect better from such an enlightened and high tech society...with a bunch of credentials and degrees that we can point to, nonetheless.

So there are a couple things. The last time we had issues with data like this was a flu outbreak in the late 60s. In a pandemic or epidemic, this is normal. While it's unsettling to not have 100% of the data, because you simply can't, it is the way that it is. The data is a double-edged sword, we try to use past data to predict future performance, but we also know that in a pandemic standard rules cease to apply at some point, like we stop testing everybody, and only test high risk, health care, etc. It will still give us good data in the end, and the next phase of this which will be in 6 months or a year are when the epidemiologists look at it and interpret the historical veracity of the data.

It sounds like what your expectations are is a mismatch with reality. To be fair, no one I know in the medical community are prophesying gloom and doom. We don't do that, all our data goes to endpoint and preparedness and response and treatment. So when you hear medical professionals saying we have an expectation of 'n' deaths, it is cold and objective, how people choose to interpret it is on them.

I use this data daily in my job because it helps me help my health care system in my hospital adjust accordingly.
 
When the alternative is a W.A.G. you use what you have
 
So there are a couple things. The last time we had issues with data like this was a flu outbreak in the late 60s. In a pandemic or epidemic, this is normal. While it's unsettling to not have 100% of the data, because you simply can't, it is the way that it is. The data is a double-edged sword, we try to use past data to predict future performance, but we also know that in a pandemic standard rules cease to apply at some point, like we stop testing everybody, and only test high risk, health care, etc. It will still give us good data in the end, and the next phase of this which will be in 6 months or a year are when the epidemiologists look at it and interpret the historical veracity of the data.

It sounds like what your expectations are is a mismatch with reality. To be fair, no one I know in the medical community are prophesying gloom and doom. We don't do that, all our data goes to endpoint and preparedness and response and treatment. So when you hear medical professionals saying we have an expectation of 'n' deaths, it is cold and objective, how people choose to interpret it is on them.

I use this data daily in my job because it helps me help my health care system in my hospital adjust accordingly.
I get that, especially in a "get the job done because it's here at your doorstep" scenario like we're in.

But flat out "no" data (as in, you don't have it now and you'll never get because people aren't even being tested) is not good data at all. It's a false zero...a blank where there should have been a number. That will have a significant impact on the equation of that exponential line that's making the graph. Maybe we've leveled off...maybe we're in a steep climb...we won't know.

When drastic measures are being called for and those making the calls are presumably using the graph/curve to make their decisions, that's when it all stops being statistical theory and starts screwing things up (like the economy, schooling, people's livelihoods, etc.).
 
What they are not telling you......

We have 350,755,000 not cases of corona
 
Last edited:
I get that, especially in a "get the job done because it's here at your doorstep" scenario like we're in.

But flat out "no" data (as in, you don't have it now and you'll never get because people aren't even being tested) is not good data at all. It's a false zero...a blank where there should have been a number. That will have a significant impact on the equation of that exponential line that's making the graph. Maybe we've leveled off...maybe we're in a steep climb...we won't know.

When drastic measures are being called for and those making the calls are presumably using the graph/curve to make their decisions, that's when it all stops being statistical theory and starts screwing things up (like the economy, schooling, people's livelihoods, etc.).

I understand what you're saying regarding the testing and graphing the data. The problem is, we have to triage the testing because we Don't have the capacity to just test everyone in the country, and if we did, how would that look? We can't even get people to stay the hell at home and socially distance, you know people aren't going to come in for testing if we told them to. So that data will always be a little biased.

But regard to using the data to enforce social distancing, stay at home, business closures, school closures, that data is bearing out. Those things work, and when you're not doing them, the rate of illness and the case fatality rate goes up. That's the easy part to figure out.

But you don't need to have the totality of the numbers to make statistically significant inferences, this is where sound statistics are helpful in determining the snapshot and making a plan.

Believe me, because I need to use these numbers and doing my job effectively, I wish we had more data, but it's like intelligence in wartime, no matter how much you want and get, it will never be enough.
 
I believe I’ve already had it, along with my wife and daughter back in February.

Daughter had a flu negative cold and a lingering cough, I felt like crap over the weekend, and wife had a cough for awhile.

Maybe just a really mild case of it.

Seems like the more you’re exposed, the worse it gets? Not sure. China can’t be trusted with their numbers. I seen videos of them welding doors shut to force people to stay home.

Italy is the oldest per capita of all European countries, so that probably contributes to their increased mortality rates.

My thoughts are, wash your hands, don’t hang around large crowds, and do your shopping online.
 
I don't do videos, but I'll read studies and articles - does he have any?

If not, maybe someone who watched can answer: what is the evidence backing his claims?
 
I read a report on NIH that showed, at least during the initial stages, it was as high as 86%.

If half are asymptomatic, then the death rate is half what it's being recorded as. Probably a lot less anyways, since death rate is basically dead / # confirmed, and a lot of even symptomatic people aren't confirmed.

That's why I'm wondering about this guy's evidence.
 
Help me out here, if half dont have any symptoms, then why were they even tested to see if they have corona? If they werent tested, then how is that conclusion decided?
They are in other countries/locations where they are testing everyone.

To your second question, I believe everyone was tested.
 
I wonder if the Maya civilization were eating bats?
 
Back
Top Bottom