COVID-19 (artist formerly known as Wuhan strain novel Corona virus)

https://tallahasseereports.com/2020...ickbait-the-media-dreams-of-but-its-all-fake/

 

average age of infected is literally half of what it was 3 months ago, do we really expect to see a drastic increase in deaths? I mean I could see it rising some but not what we saw in April/May.

 

Wow, doesn't really look too much like a competent level headed person to me.

 

My only point was everywhere you look is a clickbait headline. I'd love to see a neutral/balanced news source that is only interested in facts and not trying to create a spin.
I tend to be an optomistic person by nature so I'm trying to see silver linings in a sea of dark clouds. Not the Oh My God cases are up but not giving underlying facts such as the ages, Hospitalizations, and death rates.

 

There is a responsibility to the public from both angles of this though.

It is a disservice to say no problem, no problem - everything is fine while hospitals fill up and then say "woah, hey....we're full....you should change behavior." At the same time, if you created a surge capacity that doubled your ICU beds and you aren't using those, and only 25% of your original capacity is occupied by COVID patients - it also isn't in public service to promote headlines that read "TMC ICU beds full in COVID pandemic."

It is better to not even talk about the original capacity - that's irrelevant. You now have capacity to handle about 1,400 more COVID ICU patients. The rate that ICU patients are being added is what? That rate is flat, increasing, decreasing? Based on this, we recommend what?

 

I think that it is communication by TMC without thought of how it will be consumed - and headlines to generate reaction. Failure of communication by TMC and media doing what media does.

It doesn't mean there isn't a concern here - but saying "ICU is full" is kind of like yelling "Fire"

 

Articles says they indicated surge capacity would be full by next week. Then the governor instituted some new rules. I'm not sure this is being reported irresponsibly, but I'm not following it that closely.

 

If that's true, then you would expect hospitalizations/deaths to be very different.

The only thing I would caution is that we were not measuring the initial onset well at all. It is entirely possible that it began as a surge of cases through young populations (going to schools, bars, etc.) and went undetected due to their low illness/hospitalization/death rates. However, as the fraction of the population with the virus goes up, the probability that less mobile older populations get infected go up. And, then you see that infection wave in hospitals/morgues.

I'm not calling that per se (though it does seem pretty logical that if MORE young people are getting it, the risk of older people getting it goes up), but there is that risk of a "head fake" in the data.

 

It is only like yelling fire if in fact there is not fire. Is the ICU full? If so... would be full otherwise?

If not, then clearly and logically, COVID causes ICU full.

Doesn't matter if it is the majority or not. Is it factual?

 

UT students will be required to get flu shot along with potential COVID vaccine.

I was always a little hopeful that the reaction to COVID would cause a drop in flu cases. This is a good start.

 

I did see the surge filled in two weeks piece (was put out last week) - which, if that is what the current trend indicates, then report it.

However, here is my concern. If you use the rate that your original ICU capacity filled (with COVID and non-COVID patients) to project how fast your surge fills, then that is bad math. If they used just the COVID portion, then I could get more in line with that. However, I'm not sure the COVID fill rate supports the idea that an additional 1400 COVID patients will need an ICU in the Houston area over the next week.

But headlines of capacity is full don't seem to be helpful.

 

If you still have 1,400 ICU beds ready to go, then your ICU beds aren't full.

 

Are these 1,400 ICU beds overflow? As in, not normal hospital operation ICU beds?

 

#1 Lol, they are criticizing her for using ArcGIS... They have no idea what they are talking about, man. This is like criticizing a builder for using AutoCAD.

#2 Her specialty is in presenting and representing data. Their argument about the use of "scientist" is ridiculous. THEY have a preconceived notion about what constitutes a "scientist" that scientists and the scientific community does not share. She is absolutely a scientist, and one relevant to showing mapped data. They say calling her a scientists is for "political gain," but really what they are saying is it is a "political loss." I.e., they are implicitly confirming that they see this as political, and that their political position is to downplay COVID-19. They're telling on themselves. Find me any serious institution that would call someone with a PhD in a scientific discipline working in the realm of data analysis and interpretation something other than a scientist.

#3 This is a portion of the larger claim. Analyzing a small portion of the claim that is readily verifiable and then calling it nothing is not honest. It is adding substance to the claim. It is some Orwellian logic to try and hold up corroboration as evidence of the claim not being a big deal.

#4 Yes, that is the claim against her that was used to fire her. One would make this sort of claim against any whistleblower when firing them. The claim should be investigated to see if it is accurate. Bringing up a past legal issue in 2016 that has nothing to do with anything material to this matter, other than demonstrating the obvious: she isn't someone who bends to authority.

None of these even remotely points to incompetency. The four points read like a standard slander and dismissal of a whistle blower.

 

The articles that explain

Pre-COVID ICU capacity
Expanded ICU capacity to ready for COVID
Portion of original ICU capacity occupied by COVID/non-COVID
COVID fill rate and when full current ICU capacity could become threatened

are not irresponsible at all. That is informative. And alerting the public to rising cases and the possibility of full ICU beds down the road is responsible. But running headlines that say "ICU Capacity Full" is not responsible. It makes people fear that if they were to get COVID today, that they would not be able to get a bed. And while that might get the reaction you want (people social distance more), it is for the wrong reasons which will only bite you in the rear down the road.

 

They were created for the pandemic. So, they did not have them before COVID. They do now.

We don't need to get overly technical about this, IMO. Why discuss beds at all? It matters no more how many ICU beds we had in January than it does how many we had in 1990. The question is, can those that get sick and need an ICU bed get it?

 

Every time I've gotten a flu shot, I end up with the flu later on

 

I would think putting nursing home patients back into nursing homes wouldn't be the smart play

 

It matters, because you are questioning its accuracy. Hospitals are private entities. If one hospital is full and another is empty, there is 50% capacity, but one hospital is still full.

If government owned "beds" shared across the entirety of the medical community is open, the HOSPITALS are still full.

 

Does it matter? You have 1,400 ICU beds